For me its more " I am not willing to pay for someone elses condoms and I am not willing to pay for someone elses abortions". I dont personally agree with abortion, but I dont believe we should legislate morality either, its too subjective. BUT if someone is using it for their birth control, they should pay for it themselves.
I would rather pay for someone else's abortions/condoms/whatever than pay for someone's children. Even 18 years of condoms is stupid cheaper than 18 years of paying for a human being to exist.
daedalus wrote: I would rather pay for someone else's abortions/condoms/whatever than pay for someone's children. Even 18 years of condoms is stupid cheaper than 18 years of paying for a human being to exist.
I have no intention of paying for that either, thats for the parents. The argument about responsibility should be that birth control is the individuals responsibility. and just because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_V-5syG_YA
daedalus wrote: I would rather pay for someone else's abortions/condoms/whatever than pay for someone's children. Even 18 years of condoms is stupid cheaper than 18 years of paying for a human being to exist.
I have no intention of paying for that either, thats for the parents. The argument about responsibility should be that birth control is the individuals responsibility. and just because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_V-5syG_YA
Unfortunately, as a society, we sometimes have to do things we don't like, such as paying for roads we don't use (or birth control for others I guess). It's how society works. Everyone chips in to lessen the cost. The "I got mine so feth everyone else" mindset is harmful to everyone.
Peregrine wrote: Why the are we talking about sex as if it's some kind of crime that people need to accept the punishment for? Why is "responsibility" so important that not having a kid is unacceptable? Who cares if people are using abortion as birth control, we're talking about a blob of cells with no functioning brain and less moral value than the cockroach all of us would not hesitate a moment to kill for our convenience.
For me its more " I am not willing to pay for someone elses condoms and I am not willing to pay for someone elses abortions". I dont personally agree with abortion, but I dont believe we should legislate morality either, its too subjective. BUT if someone is using it for their birth control, they should pay for it themselves.
Why do you get to draw the line at this particular thing? Can I declare that I don't want to pay for your broken arm to be fixed properly? After all, you have two and it will probably heal mostly right on its own. I shouldn't have to pay for your luxuries, especially when you probably broke it doing something stupid. Personal responsibility and accepting consequences and all...
daedalus wrote: I would rather pay for someone else's abortions/condoms/whatever than pay for someone's children. Even 18 years of condoms is stupid cheaper than 18 years of paying for a human being to exist.
I have no intention of paying for that either, thats for the parents. The argument about responsibility should be that birth control is the individuals responsibility. and just because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_V-5syG_YA
Unfortunately, as a society, we sometimes have to do things we don't like, such as paying for roads we don't use (or birth control for others I guess). It's how society works. Everyone chips in to lessen the cost. The "I got mine so feth everyone else" mindset is harmful to everyone.
Roads we all use, utilities we all use, someones personal sex life is their business not mine.
Peregrine wrote: Why the are we talking about sex as if it's some kind of crime that people need to accept the punishment for? Why is "responsibility" so important that not having a kid is unacceptable? Who cares if people are using abortion as birth control, we're talking about a blob of cells with no functioning brain and less moral value than the cockroach all of us would not hesitate a moment to kill for our convenience.
For me its more " I am not willing to pay for someone elses condoms and I am not willing to pay for someone elses abortions". I dont personally agree with abortion, but I dont believe we should legislate morality either, its too subjective. BUT if someone is using it for their birth control, they should pay for it themselves.
Why do you get to draw the line at this particular thing? Can I declare that I don't want to pay for your broken arm to be fixed properly? After all, you have two and it will probably heal mostly right on its own. I shouldn't have to pay for your luxuries, especially when you probably broke it doing something stupid. Personal responsibility and accepting consequences and all...
You dont, I pay for insurance, if you want me to stay out of your bedroom, stay out of my pocket. Medical insurance is not the same thing. You choose to have sex, so be responsible about it.
Hmmm, so by that argument all of the people without children should be exempt from paying taxes that fund education, child healthcare, etc. You chose to have children, so it’s your responsibility.
Or you recognise that educated and healthy children are essential to society. In the same way that NOT having unwanted (and potentially neglected) children is.
daedalus wrote: I would rather pay for someone else's abortions/condoms/whatever than pay for someone's children. Even 18 years of condoms is stupid cheaper than 18 years of paying for a human being to exist.
I have no intention of paying for that either, thats for the parents. The argument about responsibility should be that birth control is the individuals responsibility. and just because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_V-5syG_YA
Unfortunately, as a society, we sometimes have to do things we don't like, such as paying for roads we don't use (or birth control for others I guess). It's how society works. Everyone chips in to lessen the cost. The "I got mine so feth everyone else" mindset is harmful to everyone.
Roads we all use, utilities we all use, someones personal sex life is their business not mine.
Ah, keyword WE. WE as a society pay for the roads, WE as a society pay for fire fighters, or police, or public schools.
You cannot tell me you get daily use out of every road in the entire state (even in a single year), or the police, or fire fighters, or public schools, or national park, or every single thing paid for by taxes, and yet, you're still required to pay for them (even if you have no kids) and thus should be subject to the "I don't need it so I shouldn't have to pay for it," right?
And actually you DO pay for others broken arms based on how insurance works. People buy it, not everyone ends up having to use it meaning that large portion of your bill that gets paid is paid by others also buying the same insurance. I mean, surely you don't think that ~$100 per month (based on what I'm currently paying through a plan at work, I dunno what you're paying) will cover that $100,000 medical visit by itself right? (Again, based on what it cost to remove some kidney stones for a couple night stay + the actual operation). That's just how insurance works. Everyone pays into it, a few get actual use from it. The mind set of "I got mine so feth everyone else" is what is holding the US back from the rest of the world when it comes to basic things like healthcare, or education beyond high school.
(I'll also ignore "You choose to have sex, so be responsible about it" even though that's not always true.)
Actually earth is already overpopulated so we would need LESS humans.
The planet is not overpopulated, it's just that the rich parts plunder the rest of the planet of resources at rates that are lethal.
I like having a high standard of living so to me few humans, lots of resources to go around is better than lots of people everyone under the poverty line, keep in mind if everyone was given equal wealth we would all be making $9000 a year. Just because we can have more people doesn't
mean we should, I mean how many more cars do you want to see on the road?
Jadenim wrote: Hmmm, so by that argument all of the people without children should be exempt from paying taxes that fund education, child healthcare, etc. You chose to have children, so it’s your responsibility.
Or you recognise that educated and healthy children are essential to society. In the same way that NOT having unwanted (and potentially neglected) children is.
Look up some of the Libertarians - that is, in point of fact, one of their arguments.
Kilkrazy wrote: The purpose of the law is to embody codes of social morality into a format that can be administered fairly and with justice.
Totally wrong. Law exists to preserve the status quo. If you're looking for Justice, you're looking in the wrong place. Under US law you can kill thousands and only be forced to pay a fine. If you don't believe me, I direct you to the Environmental Protection Agency.
It also works for the wealthy. After all, rich companies can sue under the law to prevent copyright holders from suing companies for violating their copyrights. But if the average citizen downloads an MP3, they can expect RIAA calling.
So, no, law is not justice and has nothing to do with morality. And fairly and justly went the way of Fair and Balanced a long time ago.
Since there are a lot of California haters on the board, I just wanted to point out that we are now the world's 5th largest economy, with a third consecutive year of phenomenal job growth.
You dont, I pay for insurance, if you want me to stay out of your bedroom, stay out of my pocket. Medical insurance is not the same thing. You choose to have sex, so be responsible about it.
This is quite moronic, really. . . . Fething insurance is quite literally other people paying. . . it's a risk POOL with many people in it. What if you and Peregrine have the same insurance company?? You're paying for someone else's gonorrhea while that person is paying for your broken arm. It's how risk pools work.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Since there are a lot of California haters on the board, I just wanted to point out that we are now the world's 5th largest economy, with a third consecutive year of phenomenal job growth.
And still the highest poverty rate of the nation with one in five being being poor and a quarter of the nations homeless.
I wonder who in particular is getting the economic growth in particular given it seems it's not trickling down well enough to those in need.
But I am glad to see a state doing quite well for itself otherwise, seeing as it managed to surpass the UK on the list.
skyth wrote: I seriously doubt that 25% of California's population is homeless.
This. . . On the whole, homelessness has been going down the past 5 years consecutively. Strangely, while the overall numbers are "improving" the homelessness numbers among the populace who are also veterans is increasing. In this case, the 1 in 4 number is correct, and getting worse seemingly every day. . . As in, 25% of the homeless population are veterans of the military.
Well, the mods have declared this thread over, now, as apparently 'Gun Control' must be discussed in 'US Politics'. This is both insulting to those countries that also have this debate, as well as clearly engineered to close this thread, because it's been too civilized for too long.
A Town Called Malus wrote: California has 25% of the total US homeless population, according to politifact.
I'm guessing that caised the confusion.
Apparently the other 'facts' were pants on fire as well though. I'm not giving this one the benefit of the doubt.
Well you can call me a liar if you want, but I confused the general wording with things for that one, but if I am wrong on the other could you show me if I made a mistake? I'd love to be able to get my facts straight.
Well, I think it’s more like 22%, but close enough to be in the general area.
But then the question that needs to be asked is “are they homeless because they are in California” or “are they in California because they are homeless”, or a combination of both?
BaronIveagh wrote: Well, the mods have declared this thread over, now, as apparently 'Gun Control' must be discussed in 'US Politics'. This is both insulting to those countries that also have this debate, as well as clearly engineered to close this thread, because it's been too civilized for too long.
Your pessimism is turning you into an alarmist. We stopped discussing gun control several pages ago when abortion became the new issue du jour (which generated a mod warning) and now we’re discussing the pros and cons of living in California. Chill out and enjoy the ride.
Your pessimism is turning you into an alarmist. We stopped discussing gun control several pages ago when abortion became the new issue du jour (which generated a mod warning) and now we’re discussing the pros and cons of living in California. Chill out and enjoy the ride.
d-usa wrote:Well, I think it’s more like 22%, but close enough to be in the general area.
But then the question that needs to be asked is “are they homeless because they are in California” or “are they in California because they are homeless”, or a combination of both?
Weren't there some articles about cities (or states?) renting busses to dump their homeless people into California? I think I read about something like that.
d-usa wrote:Well, I think it’s more like 22%, but close enough to be in the general area.
But then the question that needs to be asked is “are they homeless because they are in California” or “are they in California because they are homeless”, or a combination of both?
Weren't there some articles about cities (or states?) renting busses to dump their homeless people into California? I think I read about something like that.
Cities at times buy the homeless one way bus tickets, plausible deniability and they can't get back unless they get another bus ticket.
d-usa wrote: Well, I think it’s more like 22%, but close enough to be in the general area.
But then the question that needs to be asked is “are they homeless because they are in California” or “are they in California because they are homeless”, or a combination of both?
I was born and lived in NYC for 25 years, and let me tell you, I have to believe being homeless in California would be a huge upgrade over New York winters.
daedalus wrote: I would rather pay for someone else's abortions/condoms/whatever than pay for someone's children. Even 18 years of condoms is stupid cheaper than 18 years of paying for a human being to exist.
I have no intention of paying for that either, thats for the parents. The argument about responsibility should be that birth control is the individuals responsibility. and just because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_V-5syG_YA
So your position is "I don't want to pay for anything, so if a woman has a child they literally cannot afford to feed then it should die"?
I just want to be sure about this, because I'm pretty sure that even though that's what you said, that's probably not what you meant to say.
The reason to pay for birth control and comprehensive sex education is because they are proven to DRAMATICALLY reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancy, and with it the abortion rate and the poverty rate. If you don't pay for birth control, EITHER society lets children born to parents who can't afford to feed them die, OR society picks up the bill.
And if you think 'taking personal responsibility' is an option, I'll ask you to point at the period in history where that was true and there were no abortions and there were no unwanted kids sold off or tossed out on the street or left out on a hillside to die as infants.
daedalus wrote: I would rather pay for someone else's abortions/condoms/whatever than pay for someone's children. Even 18 years of condoms is stupid cheaper than 18 years of paying for a human being to exist.
I have no intention of paying for that either, thats for the parents. The argument about responsibility should be that birth control is the individuals responsibility. and just because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_V-5syG_YA
So your position is "I don't want to pay for anything, so if a woman has a child they literally cannot afford to feed then it should die"?
I just want to be sure about this, because I'm pretty sure that even though that's what you said, that's probably not what you meant to say.
The reason to pay for birth control and comprehensive sex education is because they are proven to DRAMATICALLY reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancy, and with it the abortion rate and the poverty rate. If you don't pay for birth control, EITHER society lets children born to parents who can't afford to feed them die, OR society picks up the bill.
And if you think 'taking personal responsibility' is an option, I'll ask you to point at the period in history where that was true and there were no abortions and there were no unwanted kids sold off or tossed out on the street or left out on a hillside to die as infants.
How about "if you cant afford a child, dont have sex" that is what sex is for, having children. If you want to do it "for fun" go in the back. This really is a matter of personal responsibility and all these "What about x" is just coming up with excuses for why human beings should be allowed to behave like animals. ITs not like pregnancy just happens, it takes deliberate effort. I find the arguments comparing it to accidents to be either dishonest or just an attempt to keep the talk going but I have a hard time believing good intentions from strangers on the internet.
thekingofkings wrote: You dont, I pay for insurance, if you want me to stay out of your bedroom, stay out of my pocket. Medical insurance is not the same thing. You choose to have sex, so be responsible about it.
Thus demonstrating that you're not all that clear on how insurance WORKS. Let me educate you.
The insurance company does not take the money you spend on premiums and set it aside to pay for any later expenses you might incur on your account. It spends that money paying expenses on other people's accounts. And when you break your arm - doing something stupid or not - your insurance company uses money from other people's premiums that month to pay for your treatment.
Furthermore, if you are stupid and break your arm on a regular basis, your health insurance company has to charge everyone MORE to cover YOUR broken arms.
So look at it this way. Paying for other people's birth control is a premium you pay to avoid paying for their welfare costs.
thekingofkings wrote: You dont, I pay for insurance, if you want me to stay out of your bedroom, stay out of my pocket. Medical insurance is not the same thing. You choose to have sex, so be responsible about it.
Thus demonstrating that you're not all that clear on how insurance WORKS. Let me educate you.
The insurance company does not take the money you spend on premiums and set it aside to pay for any later expenses you might incur on your account. It spends that money paying expenses on other people's accounts. And when you break your arm - doing something stupid or not - your insurance company uses money from other people's premiums that month to pay for your treatment.
Furthermore, if you are stupid and break your arm on a regular basis, your health insurance company has to charge everyone MORE to cover YOUR broken arms.
So look at it this way. Paying for other people's birth control is a premium you pay to avoid paying for their welfare costs.
I find your argument amazingly dishonest. It takes the efforts of two people for pregnancy or do I have to caveat every other possible way for you? its deliberate and can be easily avoided by simply not having sex, not at all the same thing.
daedalus wrote: I would rather pay for someone else's abortions/condoms/whatever than pay for someone's children. Even 18 years of condoms is stupid cheaper than 18 years of paying for a human being to exist.
I have no intention of paying for that either, thats for the parents. The argument about responsibility should be that birth control is the individuals responsibility. and just because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_V-5syG_YA
So your position is "I don't want to pay for anything, so if a woman has a child they literally cannot afford to feed then it should die"?
I just want to be sure about this, because I'm pretty sure that even though that's what you said, that's probably not what you meant to say.
The reason to pay for birth control and comprehensive sex education is because they are proven to DRAMATICALLY reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancy, and with it the abortion rate and the poverty rate. If you don't pay for birth control, EITHER society lets children born to parents who can't afford to feed them die, OR society picks up the bill.
And if you think 'taking personal responsibility' is an option, I'll ask you to point at the period in history where that was true and there were no abortions and there were no unwanted kids sold off or tossed out on the street or left out on a hillside to die as infants.
How about "if you cant afford a child, dont have sex" that is what sex is for, having children. If you want to do it "for fun" go in the back. This really is a matter of personal responsibility and all these "What about x" is just coming up with excuses for why human beings should be allowed to behave like animals. ITs not like pregnancy just happens, it takes deliberate effort. I find the arguments comparing it to accidents to be either dishonest or just an attempt to keep the talk going but I have a hard time believing good intentions from strangers on the internet.
Again, point to the period in history where humanity achieved this level of restraint and wisdom.
d-usa wrote: Well, I think it’s more like 22%, but close enough to be in the general area.
But then the question that needs to be asked is “are they homeless because they are in California” or “are they in California because they are homeless”, or a combination of both?
I was born and lived in NYC for 25 years, and let me tell you, I have to believe being homeless in California would be a huge upgrade over New York winters.
From my experience with the homeless in OKC, it seems like a fair number are transient. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a population that migrated to a place where the climate may be more friendly to the homeless.
thekingofkings wrote: You dont, I pay for insurance, if you want me to stay out of your bedroom, stay out of my pocket. Medical insurance is not the same thing. You choose to have sex, so be responsible about it.
Thus demonstrating that you're not all that clear on how insurance WORKS. Let me educate you.
The insurance company does not take the money you spend on premiums and set it aside to pay for any later expenses you might incur on your account. It spends that money paying expenses on other people's accounts. And when you break your arm - doing something stupid or not - your insurance company uses money from other people's premiums that month to pay for your treatment.
Furthermore, if you are stupid and break your arm on a regular basis, your health insurance company has to charge everyone MORE to cover YOUR broken arms.
So look at it this way. Paying for other people's birth control is a premium you pay to avoid paying for their welfare costs.
I find your argument amazingly dishonest. It takes the efforts of two people for pregnancy or do I have to caveat every other possible way for you? its deliberate and can be easily avoided by simply not having sex, not at all the same thing.
It takes the efforts of more than 2 people to make insurance work. And again welcome to being part of a society where you have to pay for things you don't want or use (i.e. roads you don't use, fire fighters/police/utility workers that aren't in your county, national parks, etc).
And I assume your ignoring cases of rape because they don't fit in your magical bubble of "pregnancy is easy to avoid.:
thekingofkings wrote: You dont, I pay for insurance, if you want me to stay out of your bedroom, stay out of my pocket. Medical insurance is not the same thing. You choose to have sex, so be responsible about it.
Thus demonstrating that you're not all that clear on how insurance WORKS. Let me educate you.
The insurance company does not take the money you spend on premiums and set it aside to pay for any later expenses you might incur on your account. It spends that money paying expenses on other people's accounts. And when you break your arm - doing something stupid or not - your insurance company uses money from other people's premiums that month to pay for your treatment.
Furthermore, if you are stupid and break your arm on a regular basis, your health insurance company has to charge everyone MORE to cover YOUR broken arms.
So look at it this way. Paying for other people's birth control is a premium you pay to avoid paying for their welfare costs.
I find your argument amazingly dishonest. It takes the efforts of two people for pregnancy or do I have to caveat every other possible way for you? its deliberate and can be easily avoided by simply not having sex, not at all the same thing.
It takes the efforts of more than 2 people to make insurance work. And again welcome to being part of a society where you have to pay for things you don't want or use (i.e. roads you don't use, fire fighters/police/utility workers that aren't in your county, national parks, etc).
And I assume your ignoring cases of rape because they don't fit in your magical bubble of "pregnancy is easy to avoid.:
Your deliberately misconstrueing and obfuscating and thats whay debating is almost meaningless, you know full well the point I am making, if the best you can do is the standard "well what about" ignoring that there are always special circumstances to everything then you are wasting my time and effort.
Bitching about “I don’t want to pay for stuff I don’t agree with and I don’t use ” when our entire society is build around that concept is pretty silly though.
d-usa wrote: Bitching about “I don’t want to pay for stuff I don’t agree with and I don’t use ” when our entire society is build around that concept is pretty silly though.
to a point you are right, but there are differences in what society should and shouldn't have to pay for. There has to be a line drawn and I am pretty much not in favor of that kind of personal business being made into public business. IF we had a single payer health care system, that would change my argument, I am ok with funding planned parenthood provided they help the "plannnig" part as well.
d-usa wrote: Bitching about “I don’t want to pay for stuff I don’t agree with and I don’t use ” when our entire society is build around that concept is pretty silly though.
Yeah, when the argument is based on that idea it doesn't really matter what kind of spin gets put on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thekingofkings wrote: How about "if you cant afford a child, dont have sex" that is what sex is for, having children. If you want to do it "for fun" go in the back. This really is a matter of personal responsibility and all these "What about x" is just coming up with excuses for why human beings should be allowed to behave like animals. ITs not like pregnancy just happens, it takes deliberate effort. I find the arguments comparing it to accidents to be either dishonest or just an attempt to keep the talk going but I have a hard time believing good intentions from strangers on the internet.
And if you don't want to get in a car accident, don't drive. Have to get to work? Start walking. So we shouldn't pay for people's injuries in car accidents either.
Besides, if you really want to get into that it would be better to start with drug use or alcoholism on the 'I shouldn't pay for it' front.
BaronIveagh wrote: Well, the mods have declared this thread over, now, as apparently 'Gun Control' must be discussed in 'US Politics'. This is both insulting to those countries that also have this debate, as well as clearly engineered to close this thread, because it's been too civilized for too long.
thekingofkings wrote: You dont, I pay for insurance, if you want me to stay out of your bedroom, stay out of my pocket. Medical insurance is not the same thing. You choose to have sex, so be responsible about it.
Thus demonstrating that you're not all that clear on how insurance WORKS. Let me educate you.
The insurance company does not take the money you spend on premiums and set it aside to pay for any later expenses you might incur on your account. It spends that money paying expenses on other people's accounts. And when you break your arm - doing something stupid or not - your insurance company uses money from other people's premiums that month to pay for your treatment.
Furthermore, if you are stupid and break your arm on a regular basis, your health insurance company has to charge everyone MORE to cover YOUR broken arms.
So look at it this way. Paying for other people's birth control is a premium you pay to avoid paying for their welfare costs.
I find your argument amazingly dishonest. It takes the efforts of two people for pregnancy or do I have to caveat every other possible way for you? its deliberate and can be easily avoided by simply not having sex, not at all the same thing.
It takes the efforts of more than 2 people to make insurance work. And again welcome to being part of a society where you have to pay for things you don't want or use (i.e. roads you don't use, fire fighters/police/utility workers that aren't in your county, national parks, etc).
And I assume your ignoring cases of rape because they don't fit in your magical bubble of "pregnancy is easy to avoid.:
Your deliberately misconstrueing and obfuscating and thats whay debating is almost meaningless, you know full well the point I am making, if the best you can do is the standard "well what about" ignoring that there are always special circumstances to everything then you are wasting my time and effort.
You're deliberately avoiding any attempt at debate in order to maintain your position. Please give me an example of things I have misconstrued or been obfuscating. Your only defense against the insurance comparison so far is not understanding how it actually works, other than that you've just either ignored
To reiterate, other people pay for your insurance, and you already pay for things you don't use, but only have a problem when it comes to birth control or abortion.
BaronIveagh wrote: Well, the mods have declared this thread over, now, as apparently 'Gun Control' must be discussed in 'US Politics'. This is both insulting to those countries that also have this debate, as well as clearly engineered to close this thread, because it's been too civilized for too long.
Frazzled wrote: I had heard something like that. Do you have more color?
I went looking for the original piece when I wrote that post, to make sure I had my details right and to include the name of the project management company that was burned. The problem is there's now been so many articles written on Trump burning other businesses I couldn't find that exact one again.
Another way Trump is weirdly kind of protected by the sheer scale of his crappiness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
The point for Republicans is they're going in to election in a few months with an underwater president and a list of legislative achievements that consists of;
1. A tax cut for that is mostly for the rich that is broadly hated. 2. That is all.
So instead they're looking to refocus the debate on every wedge issue they can. Abortion is being added alongside guns & immigration as the Republicans way of doing everything they can to get their base motivated. And it will work up to a point, and close the gap from what we've seen in the disastrous special elections. It probably won't work well enough to prevent a really strong Democratic result, but it will help Republicans reduce the enthusiasm gap.
But yeah, this is legislation purely engineered for a political end. And if you look at this thread, it's clearly worked. Look at the list of posters who just quietly stopped turning up while conversation was focused on Trump's never ending list of scams and screw ups. The only conservatives still posting here are anti-Trump. But when abortion is raised and suddenly they return in full force. It's how Republicans will bring them back to the ballot box, same as so many times before (including 2016). And then when nothing is done on abortion, they don't even notice. It's an amazing scam.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Cities at times buy the homeless one way bus tickets, plausible deniability and they can't get back unless they get another bus ticket.
IIRC a former police chief of New York was speaking at some police seminar here in Finland a lot of years ago, and he did speak about the homeless problem. The city bought them tickets for the ferry to New Jersey, there was no more homeless problem in New York and everyone who counts (ie not New Jersey) was happy for ever after. When asked what became of the homeless after they were dumped in New Jersey he basically shrugged and said, well, they're not our problem anymore are they. Problem solved!
Besides, hasn't Hawaii done this too? Once there's too many homeless (but non-violent and not criminal) people on the tourist beaches the authorities pay them air fare to go the hell away from Hawaii so there's more room for tourists who don't want to see homeless people on the beach.
whembly wrote: It's good politics to give informed, reasonable explanations. I'm not disputing that. But, in this case, all she had to say was the POTUS wanted to go a different direction with someone else.
Sure, hypothetically Trump could have given a different answer which would have been sufficient. But he didn't, he has given the answer he did. And we deal with reality, and so we talk about the reason Trump did give, which is an obvious lie, and we don't bother to talk about the 10,000 hypothetical reasons Trump might have given which wouldn't have been such obvious lies.
No, because all the Executive power is vested in the POTUS. ALL.OF.IT.
That is miles apart from my point, please read the argument I'm actually given. I am not for one second debating the extent of presidential powers.
I am pointing out that when someone gives a weak reason, then refuses to give the most basic details expanding on that reason, it is obvious that person is lying about their reason. That's it. That's the point. That it is obvious Trump is lying about his reason for firing Comey, and it is so obvious that Trump's real motive is one he is concealing from the public.
As such a POTUS simply exercising the office's Article II power in hiring or firing political positions in Executive Branch by definition can't be obstruction of justice.
That's purebred nonsense. Just because something doesn't have to have a good reason doesn't mean that it can't be illegal when it's done for a bad reason. A private employer in an at will state can fire employees for no good reason, but if it's proven that a person was fired because they're black then that's an offense that will get the employer in a lot of trouble.
A much stronger case for obstruction, is for Trump to asking people in his orbit to lie for him under oath of an ongoing investigation... and, let's be honest, there's a high likelihood of that happening, as I'm willing to be that he did that with Mike Flynn... and why Flynn is cooperating and only got ding'ed on process crime.
They're not mutually exclusive, in fact they're complimentary. Proving each helps makes the case for the other even stronger.
Think of it this way, if Trump was accused of telling Flynn etc to lie for him, but at the same time Trump fired Comey while inquiring as to how to make sure the Russia investigation continued in full force under a new director, the accusations of the lies would look much weaker. Similarly, if Trump fired Comey but was also telling all his staff to co-operate fully with the investigation, then Trump's motivation for firing Comey wouldn't be as clear.
But as Trump fired Comey and is reported to have told staff to lie to investigators, well then we see a pattern of behaviour consistent with an intent to obstruct justice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: And... CNN is reporting Trump just threw Guiliani under the bus... That he didn't have all the facts on the case. Guiliani should quickly use this as an excuse to bail.
Definitely, the smart move for Giuliani now would be use Trump's statements as a way to get out. However, we're not looking at a smart Giuliani anymore, because a smart Giuliani wouldn't have taken the job, nor launched a media blitz with only a hazy understanding of Trump's defense and the legal ramifications for changing that defense on the fly.
This is not the Giuliani of 20 years ago. This Giuliani thinks he's doing great.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Guiliani just loves crawling back under that bus over and over. Why else did he decided to join now of all moments.
Just as a point of detail, Giuliani joining now is only switching in to an official, paid position. He's been part of the Trump set up since part way through the primaries. Giuliani gave one of the craziest speeches at the convention, and man did he beat out some competition to claim that honour. And Giuliani himself was actually under investigation for his own part in the campaign, in the day's before Trump's Clinton/Weiner announcement, Giuliani was putting out statements indicating he knew the NY FBI office had more of Clinton's emails, leading to a leaking investigation. That's a big deal as its believed Giuliani was working with others to pressure Comey in to announcing a re-opening on the investigation just days before the election.
Some time after Comey was fired that investigation appears to have been quietly killed. Funny that.
So yeah, Giuliani has just taken an official role with Trump, but he's been in this deep for a long time now.
Nunes has done the most amazingly unsubtle job of abusing his power to protect Trump. And thing is, he's got Trey Gowdy right there, to show him how to be a partisan hack who abuses committee powers to serve his political team without making it too obvious. So Gowdy will actually read the documents they made such a big show of demanding (but still act with no regard to their content), and he will give his blather statements saying Mueller's investigation is important (while doing nothing to protect that investigation, and while signing off on the pure junk of the House committee finding).
But Nunes is too lazy to even put a figleaf over his intent to corrupt the committee.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Guiliani just loves crawling back under that bus over and over. Why else did he decided to join now of all moments.
Just as a point of detail, Giuliani joining now is only switching in to an official, paid position. He's been part of the Trump set up since part way through the primaries. Giuliani gave one of the craziest speeches at the convention, and man did he beat out some competition to claim that honour. And Giuliani himself was actually under investigation for his own part in the campaign, in the day's before Trump's Clinton/Weiner announcement, Giuliani was putting out statements indicating he knew the NY FBI office had more of Clinton's emails, leading to a leaking investigation. That's a big deal as its believed Giuliani was working with others to pressure Comey in to announcing a re-opening on the investigation just days before the election.
Some time after Comey was fired that investigation appears to have been quietly killed. Funny that.
So yeah, Giuliani has just taken an official role with Trump, but he's been in this deep for a long time now.
Speaking of Rudy: "So did Michael Cohen make payments to other women for the President?" Stephanopoulos asked. "I have no knowledge of that, but I would think if it was necessary, yes," Giuliani replied. "He made payments for the President or he's conducted business for the President, which means he had legal fees, monies laid out and expenditures." Yeah, that statement's not gonna go over too well. Sure, he's not really admitting anything, but, damn, did he leave a hole big enough to drive a mining truck through.
Have we spent any time at all talking about how the Republican party that a couple of years ago tried to label Obama as an elitist because he ordered fancy mustard, but is now trying to argue that paying $130k to a mistress is just the kind of thing that happens? I mean, can anyone think of a single thing the Republicans said or did from 2008-16 that hasn't been shown as complete hypocrisy by their actions during the Trump era? Just one thing where the claims of the GOP when out of power under Obama match their actions in power under Trump. A single thing... I can't think of one.
whembly wrote: So, are we really going with that Press Secretary shouldn't lie/spin for the President? Really?
No, we are saying there is a difference between manipulations of the truth, and bald-faced lies. It is accepted that people will present the best possible truth they can, and will even make some stuff up where nothing to the alternative can be proven. That isn't just true of press secretaries or politicians, it's true of everyone. But it's also very different to someone who will just make up total bs that's in complete opposition to reality. The former has limits, there's only so far that facts can be stretched, and if caught a person will back down on the claim. The latter has no such limit, especially when a person is so shameless they don't even back down when they're caught in the lie.
Sanders is the second kind of liar, as is her boss, they don't twist the truth, but instead make up complete and total fantasy bs, and when it's shown this is total fantasy, they don't back down, because they have no shame. Doing this is wildly different to the normal operation of manipulation.
And you know this difference. If you went to buy a car you'd know the difference between being told the car has an amazing mileage, and being told the car is so efficient the petrol in it now is all you will ever need for the 10,000 year life of the car. You know, because you're a grown adult capable of functioning in the world. And yet, because this is just politics and there's no direct harm to you for believing preposterous nonsense, you pretend that just for this one instance you don't know the distinction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Well, they succeeded in having so much gak out there that nobody is really talking about Scott Pruitt probably illegally skimming from his Oklahoma campaign funds, Pence's White House doctor resigning over issues with the former Trump physician, the VA running out of money, etc etc etc.
Katy Tur was in Australia last week doing the media circuit here. On one panel show I saw she gave the example of Trump's countless scandals as being like a stain on a shirt. Just one stain on an otherwise clean and that stain is all anyone sees. But Trump is like a shirt that's got so many stains, with more added everyday that you don't notice any single stain, and maybe you don't even notice how bad a stain is because all you have to compare it to is all the other stains surrounding it.
I mean, last week we learned that the doctor's bill of health we got from Trump's doctor during the campaign wasn't written by the doctor, but was actually dictated to him by Trump. And afterwards Trump's goons came and took all of Trump's medical records from the doctor's office. And it was barely a story at all.
Can anyone imagine how big a story that would be if any other president did it? Even if Nixon had done it, it would have been such a brazen, dishonest act that it would have shocked. But for Trump it barely makes a dent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: The US is, and has always been, exceptionally great and mind-bendingly stupid at the same time (more so than the average huamn society, I mean). Isn't it kind of funny that we can be so much of both at the same time? At least I find that a man with one leg of an Olympic athelete and one leg of a polio victim manages to not only compete, but excel, hilarious on a certain philosophical level.
An interesting stat I heard on the radio this morning - the five biggest companies in the US are Apple, Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon. They're all new tech, future focused companies. Take the same list for any other country on earth and you will see old, established manufacturing, resource extraction, conglomerates etc. At the same timeyour president just sold people on his candidacy because he's a super businessman when all he does is used inherited, borrowed and maybe laundered money to buy a series of minimally profitable golf courses.
The US is all at once the biggest success story on the planet and geared for so much more success, and it's also completely dysfunctional.
Oh boy I wonder where the whataboutism machine will take us with this one,
Aides to Donald Trump, the US president, hired an Israeli private intelligence agency to orchestrate a “dirty ops” campaign against key individuals from the Obama administration who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal, the Observer can reveal.
There's no defense possible here, so Trump and his team will just go quiet on this one, FOX News and the rest of the state propaganda will go black on it, and a week from now we'll have had three more scandals and this will be completely forgotten about.
And about 40% of American adults will carry on supporting Trump and his collection of goons, because one side of US politics is utterly broken.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Since there are a lot of California haters on the board, I just wanted to point out that we are now the world's 5th largest economy, with a third consecutive year of phenomenal job growth.
Remember during the Obama years, when conservatives couldn't stop talking about how each of the 50 states was like a lab, where experiments could be run and the success stories could be enacted in other states or federally? It was often brought up by conservatives who were so bullish about Kansas' tax cuts, and were so eagerly awaiting California's high regs and high taxes to make the whole place fall over.
Funny how all of a sudden not one of those conservatives talks about paying attention to the effectiveness of state policies any more. The lessons of Kansas dismal failure and California's continued success are just ignored, and instead conservatives just pushed ahead with their own 'cut taxes and get around to cutting spending later' strategy.
And now a handful of conservatives are expressing surprise that despite the tax cut investment hasn't changed, while the rest just aren't mentioning it at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZebioLizard2 wrote: And still the highest poverty rate of the nation with one in five being being poor and a quarter of the nations homeless.
Trash argument. First up that figure needs to differentiate between actual destitution, and people who are employed but can't afford their own place, California has a lot of both kinds. The former due in large part to California's weather drawing homeless people there from harsher climates, while the latter is due mostly to California's economic success, high paying, desirable jobs are drawing people to California, to such an extent that housing construction can't keep up (and also there's some pretty chronic NIMBY planning issues).
If you look at less cherry picked measures of economic prosperity, like median income, California is 9th in the US, ahead of it are states dominated by wealthy cities, like NY & Virginia, and also Alaska.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Speaking of Rudy: "So did Michael Cohen make payments to other women for the President?" Stephanopoulos asked.
"I have no knowledge of that, but I would think if it was necessary, yes," Giuliani replied. "He made payments for the President or he's conducted business for the President, which means he had legal fees, monies laid out and expenditures."
Yeah, that statement's not gonna go over too well. Sure, he's not really admitting anything, but, damn, did he leave a hole big enough to drive a mining truck through.
It's pure speculation, but there's talk that comment is part of new cover these guys are being forced to invent. Thing is, Mueller now almost certainly has records of the money that went from Trump to Cohen, and there's a figure floating around being something north of $700k. Explaining that transfer from Trump to Cohen as being payoffs for mistresses is maybe the least harmful explanation people will believe, while the truth is something very different.
Because, remember the Steele document, Michael Cohen played a huge role in that. He was accused of being integral to the mechanics of the plan, particularly his meeting with Russian officials in Prague (Cohen gave which he gave a strong but evidence free denial of the meeting, and reporting in McClatchy has since reported Mueller has evidence the meeting did happen). And here's a very interesting timeline for you;
July 7-8: Carter Page goes to Moscow, and despite his denials it is revealed he met with high ranking Russian officials.
July 9-17: Michael Cohen goes on 'vacation' to Italy, which is part of the Eurozone and would allow travel to Prague without a passport stamp.
July 18-21: The 2016 Republican National Convention, where Trump's team make their big push to get the GOP to change their stance on Russian action in the Ukraine.
Thing is, the Steele dossier also stated that Trump's team, not Russia, was responsible for paying most of the Romanian hackers. So is that what all that money was for? And was Cohen's role and his meeting in Prague not just about confirming co-ordination ops, but actually getting the money to that one hacking group?
We don't know and what we have is speculation, but it's entirely believable. And even just being believable says something very damning.
How about "if you cant afford a child, dont have sex" that is what sex is for, having children.
Two things here are a wrong headed in my opinon. First, people don't have sex exclusively to have children. People have sex for many reason from strengthening their love bonds and expressing them, pass time when there is nothing else better to do, passing by simple fun. Indeed, sex can result in pregnancy that's why there is contraception measures from condoms to birth control pills passing by the calendar trick. None of them are perfect, some are better than others, and most can be used in conjunction. Saying that "sex is for children" is reductive as it's part of a healthy lifestyle. Humans need a way to express and live their sexualty safely to be at peak efficency and happiness. Abortions are a way to avoid undesired, if sometime inevitable, effect. Second, I think having a child without even questionning if you have the proper skills and financial resources to take properly care of him or her to be an enormous breach of personnal responsability. A child should never be seen as some sort of "punishment" on his or her parents. I think that putting people, but mostly women, between two bad choices: sexual repression or poor family planning while easy solution exist is akin to asking people to either practice contact sports without equipment and medical care or staying home doing nothing. Both are terrible choices with potential bad consequences.
Indeed, it's a women responsability to determine if she has the skills and the financial resources necessary to take care of a child. Abortion or contraceptions are informed choices. Carrying all pregnancy to term for no reason other than you are pregnant is a denial of this responsability that society then has to pay. Pre and neo-natal care for a child far exceed that of any abortion measures. Abortions are much less taxing and dangerous on a woman's body than an abortion.Since we live in society, our personnal responsability, our choices, have an impact on others. Forcing women to carry their pregnancy to term has tremendously bad consequences.
thekingofkings wrote: and all these "What about x" is just coming up with excuses for why human beings should be allowed to behave like animals. ITs not like pregnancy just happens, it takes deliberate effort. I find the arguments comparing it to accidents to be either dishonest or just an attempt to keep the talk going but I have a hard time believing good intentions from strangers on the internet.
Forcing a women to be a slave to her biology while we have developped medical and technical knowledge to extirpate them away from it is the exact opposite of "behaving like animals". That's what so characteristic of humans. We elliminate our weaknesses, for example that our women unlike that of many other mammal species can't stop their pregnancy at will, by developping tools and methods. The excuse of "personnal responsability" is the creation of a false dilemna by people more interested by controlling a woman's reproductive capacity and by extansion a woman's freedom by deying her agency and personnal responsability. At least that's how I see it.
Abortion is an important topic that needs to be debated, but before any of you decide to wade in, just first be conscious of these points;
1) Nothing major is going to change on abortion any time soon. Republicans have held a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court for decades and haven't overturned Roe v Wade.
2) There are actual, real disgraces being committed by the Trump presidency every single day.
3) Republicans have a long history of using wedge issues to move debate away from areas of actual policy where the Republican position is horribly unpopular. Common wedge issues include guns, same sex marriage, transgender bathrooms... but abortion has always been the #1 go to for a wedge issue.
4) Right now Republicans have a president who's quite unpopular, but nowhere near as unpopular as you would think given his corruption and complete failure to deliver on his promises, and the only other thing Republicans could campaign on is their one legislative achievement, the tax cut, but that's comically unpopular. So instead they're shifting to wedge issues. Wait for transgender bathrooms to suddenly come up again as an important issue in the next couple of months, and then watch as that debate gets rehashed all over again.
With those points in mind, if you want then by all means debate abortion if you want.
How about "if you cant afford a child, dont have sex" that is what sex is for, having children. If you want to do it "for fun" go in the back.
And here we have a prime example of needing better sex ed. Going in 'the back' is in no way foolproof due to the proximity of the vagina, it being in the splash zone. You wouldn't be the first to get knocked up 'just' from that.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Guiliani just loves crawling back under that bus over and over. Why else did he decided to join now of all moments.
Just as a point of detail, Giuliani joining now is only switching in to an official, paid position. He's been part of the Trump set up since part way through the primaries. Giuliani gave one of the craziest speeches at the convention, and man did he beat out some competition to claim that honour. And Giuliani himself was actually under investigation for his own part in the campaign, in the day's before Trump's Clinton/Weiner announcement, Giuliani was putting out statements indicating he knew the NY FBI office had more of Clinton's emails, leading to a leaking investigation. That's a big deal as its believed Giuliani was working with others to pressure Comey in to announcing a re-opening on the investigation just days before the election.
Some time after Comey was fired that investigation appears to have been quietly killed. Funny that.
So yeah, Giuliani has just taken an official role with Trump, but he's been in this deep for a long time now.
AAAMMEERRRICCCAAAA! You mean that speech It was an amazing crazy uncle speech, the horrifying part was the platform offered. I know he's been involved as a way to stay relevant. But he actually took a job at this point in time with Trump, that really says something, and it isn't positive.
Part of me wonders why Trump hasn't fired him after last week, maybe Trump knows it would make it look even worse? But then I'm probably giving far too much credit to Trump.
2) There are actual, real disgraces being committed by the Trump presidency every single day...
With those points in mind, if you want then by all means debate abortion if you want.
I don't think Dakka has the manpower to sufficiently keep up with everything the Trump admin does on a single day, let alone cover any other topic in that case
Disciple of Fate wrote: AAAMMEERRRICCCAAAA! You mean that speech It was an amazing crazy uncle speech, the horrifying part was the platform offered. I know he's been involved as a way to stay relevant. But he actually took a job at this point in time with Trump, that really says something, and it isn't positive.
True. It's been quite something to see how many people have elected to double down on Trump time and again, rather than back off. You're right that Giuliani could have quietly backed off, but instead chose to get further connected.
Part of me wonders why Trump hasn't fired him after last week, maybe Trump knows it would make it look even worse? But then I'm probably giving far too much credit to Trump.
Yeah, I don't know why either. In terms of terrible starts, Giuliani has been worse than the Mooch and there was no hesitation in that guy getting booted. But I guess the Mooch was part of the White House and had Kelly gunning for him, so that made him accountable for his screw ups in a way that Giuliani as a Trump personal lawyer is not.
But I also suspect that Trump's reaction indicates that last week wasn't Giuliani acting on his own. No way Giuliani got put in front of cameras to just guess what their legal strategy was. He was brought in to change the strategy, and the strategy he ran with last week would have been what he'd agreed with Trump. That doesn't mean Trump is happy with how the strategy played out, this week's backtracking from Giuliani shows it did not work as expected, and probably wasn't vetted by the lawyers on Trump's team that actually know what the law is and what liabilities last week's claims opened them up for. But there was likely some intent to it, I'm left to wonder if Trump and Giuliani are scrabbling for a way to get ahead of FBI captured records of payments from Trump to Cohen.
I don't think Dakka has the manpower to sufficiently keep up with everything the Trump admin does on a single day, let alone cover any other topic in that case
The whole of print and broadcast media doesn't have time to cover all the scams and failures of the Trump admin. Last week there was a story about an aide to Scott Pruitt, Michael Abboud, shopping around scandals about Ryan Zinke, who's Secretary of the Interior. That story showed that Trump staff know with so little time for so many scandals, they can actually reduce pressure on their own scandals by focusing on a different one. And of course, that story only got a tiny bit of coverage... because there's so many scandals.
Apparently the religious evangelists [edited by Kilkrazy] in the US are pouring money into the campaign to retain the article of Irelands constitution that makes it illegal (punishable by 20 years in prison) for women to get an abortion in Ireland. We've a referendum on it in 3 weeks.
They did this the last 2 times we had a vote on this too - poured piles and piles of money into it. They've also been putting up really horrific posters of dismembered fetus on lamp posts, which even our "retain" campaign is annoyed about.
I wish they'd butt out and deal with the trash fire that is their own countries politics.
If Trump scoops up Chris Christie, he will have the Dream Team! Whatever happened to ol' Christie? He can't be busy with anything right now, can he?
Da Boss wrote: Apparently the religious crazies in the US are pouring money into the campaign to retain the article of Irelands constitution that makes it illegal (punishable by 20 years in prison) for women to get an abortion in Ireland. We've a referendum on it in 3 weeks.
They did this the last 2 times we had a vote on this too - poured piles and piles of money into it. They've also been putting up really horrific posters of dismembered fetus on lamp posts, which even our "retain" campaign is annoyed about.
I wish they'd butt out and deal with the trash fire that is their own countries politics.
Can you just keep them for a couple days longer? Please? We need time over here.
I know that is a joke, but honestly, if we lose this referendum Irish women are going to be condemned to a completely crazy regime of legal persecution for at least another decade so I'd really appreciate it if these eejits would go home.
Evangelicals on here, your money is going to fund this sort of electoral interference in other countries FYI. Our stupid laws are even more strict than the position Trump had to back away from.
Another one that's been pushed in to the background by Trump nonsense is George Mason university, which took millions from the Charles Koch foundation, and all the foundation asked for in response was a direct say in who the university hired and fired to one of its free market think tanks. George Mason had been denying this for years, claiming that no donation would ever be accepted if it didn't come with complete academic freedom, but after court review the university decided to finally publish the agreement with the foundation, which showed the Charles Koch Foundation was allowed to pick two of the five chairs involved in hiring and firing decisions in the think tank.
The last few years have seen a lot of writing from conservatives who have been worried about free speech on universities, after left wing students protested various conservative and reactionary speakers, sometimes leading to the cancellation of speaking events. Given their proclaimed commitment to free speech, I have eagerly looked forward to the scathing op eds that are to be written about giving a conservative body direct say on who a university hires at one of its research and policy outfits. Haven't seen anything written yet, though. Can't think why.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: If Trump scoops up Chris Christie, he will have the Dream Team! Whatever happened to ol' Christie? He can't be busy with anything right now, can he?
He was last seen really, really enjoying that desert at the White House Correspondents Dinner.
Dreadwinter wrote: If Trump scoops up Chris Christie, he will have the Dream Team! Whatever happened to ol' Christie? He can't be busy with anything right now, can he?
He was last seen really, really enjoying that desert at the White House Correspondents Dinner.
That moment when Christie's level if incompetence and scandals would actually be an improvement to the administration.
Christie is incompetent and corrupt, but normal person incompetent and corrupt. I think he would be a huge upgrade to the current admin. Plus, you like people who "look the part"? Say no more.
The change from Billy to Franklin decline of the Grahams is a pretty good summary of the change in conservative politics. I didn't share much of Billy Graham's politics or his worldview, but there's no doubting Billy Graham's character or convictions. I think Billy Graham made some mistakes in finding a balance between affecting change and becoming part of the system, but I think he was always looking for a balance as best he could.
In contrast... well Franklin Graham is just a really gak person. Every statement made is considered only in terms of immediate political, there is no conviction, philosophy or belief behind any of it. Like so many attached to modern conservatism, he simply works to repeat the conservative talking points of the moment, grifting large piles of cash for doing so.
If conservatives are ever going to dig themselves out of this hole, one of the most important and most difficult steps will be separating the party from hucksters like Franklin Graham.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Christie is incompetent and corrupt, but normal person incompetent and corrupt. I think he would be a huge upgrade to the current admin.
To paraphrase PJ O'Rourke, "I mean, Christie is incompetent and crooked, but he's incompetent and crooked within normal parameters."
Plus, you like people who "look the part"? Say no more.
That was a close one. Someone really needs to reign in your state ethics commissions. They sound like they're trying to actually do their job instead of just appearing to do their job.
NinthMusketeer wrote: So Republicans are willing to kill dogs to spite legalized weed. Somehow it's a mere blip on the radar for party scummery.
Did I miss something... the IL government is dominated by democrats...
It isn't government reps saying the dogs will need to be euthanized. TBF I jumped the gun in stating the anti-weed police officials are Republican, I don't have evidence for that assumption beyond circumstantial and should have been clear I was assuming.
NinthMusketeer wrote: So Republicans are willing to kill dogs to spite legalized weed. Somehow it's a mere blip on the radar for party scummery.
Did I miss something... the IL government is dominated by democrats...
But is the anti-pot faction dominated by Dems or by Republicans?
Not that I think that this incident comes down to Reps vs. Democrats - This is not so much a Right vs. Left as an 'OMG! They's wanna legalize drugzzzz! What can we do ta stop 'em?! Ahhhh!' bit of stupidity and fear mongering. 'Think of the kittens!'
Not particularly coherent, and... pretty far out from the main stream. (I kinda doubt all the states that have already legalized pot are euthanizing their K9 units.)
NinthMusketeer wrote: So Republicans are willing to kill dogs to spite legalized weed. Somehow it's a mere blip on the radar for party scummery.
Did I miss something... the IL government is dominated by democrats...
But is the anti-pot faction dominated by Dems or by Republicans?
Not that I think that this incident comes down to Reps vs. Democrats - This is not so much a Right vs. Left as an 'OMG! They's wanna legalize drugzzzz! What can we do ta stop 'em?! Ahhhh!' bit of stupidity and fear mongering. 'Think of the kittens!'
Not particularly coherent, and... pretty far out from the main stream. (I kinda doubt all the states that have already legalized pot are euthanizing their K9 units.)
The Auld Grump
The Macon County Sheriff, Howard Buffet who has this quote in the article:
“The biggest thing for law enforcement is, you're going to have to replace all of your dogs,” said Macon County Sheriff Howard Buffett, whose private foundation paid $2.2 million in 2016 to support K-9 units in 33 counties across Illinois. “So to me, it’s a giant step forward for drug dealers, and it’s a giant step backwards for law enforcements and the residents of the community."
is billionaire Warren Buffet's son. He did not run for office but was named as the successor to the previous county sheriff, a Democrat, who retired before his term was up. Apparently Howard Buffet is not intending to run for election to the office this year, although there are two candidates who are currently officers in the department who are running as Democrats in the primary.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well we can thank Guiliani for another great episode of Last Week Tonight.
Jesus. I don't even like Guiliani and I thought that was maybe a little more brutal than necessary XD
Yeah, I mean you could at least mix in a mention of his role in cleaning up Times Square. Giuliani has always been weird, creepy, reactionary and authoritative but at least NYC made some noticeable progress on his watch. Sure it probably would have turned out the same if somebody else had been mayor but at least Rudy didn't screw it up.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well we can thank Guiliani for another great episode of Last Week Tonight.
Jesus. I don't even like Guiliani and I thought that was maybe a little more brutal than necessary XD
To be fair, it could also have been a lot more brutal, like including his horrible speech at the convention or that time he tried to slide 9/11 attack, under a Republican President, under the radar when frothing at the mouth about Obama. Or when he said he couldn't be racist against Obama because Obama had a white mother?
I think the whole "we will have to kill all of them" because they are trained to be anti-social spiel is pretty stupid. At least I haven't heard of any cases of police dogs turning on their partners, their families, and running down their neighbors. I'm pretty certain there are retired police dogs everywhere that are either staying with their old K9 partners or else are able to be successfully adopted. I'm guessing we would be well aware of the dirty secret that retired police dogs get a nice ceremony and then are shipped to the vet to be put down because they can't interact with humans outside of police work.
Depending, of course, on the whole "you cannot retrain police dogs" being true. You can probably retrain them, other departments have managed. Or if you are worried about their drug detecting ability becoming unreliable, you can likely build on their previous training and have them become search and rescue dogs.
NinthMusketeer wrote: So Republicans are willing to kill dogs to spite legalized weed. Somehow it's a mere blip on the radar for party scummery.
Did I miss something... the IL government is dominated by democrats...
But is the anti-pot faction dominated by Dems or by Republicans?
Not that I think that this incident comes down to Reps vs. Democrats - This is not so much a Right vs. Left as an 'OMG! They's wanna legalize drugzzzz! What can we do ta stop 'em?! Ahhhh!' bit of stupidity and fear mongering. 'Think of the kittens!'
Not particularly coherent, and... pretty far out from the main stream. (I kinda doubt all the states that have already legalized pot are euthanizing their K9 units.)
The Auld Grump
The Macon County Sheriff, Howard Buffet who has this quote in the article:
“The biggest thing for law enforcement is, you're going to have to replace all of your dogs,” said Macon County Sheriff Howard Buffett, whose private foundation paid $2.2 million in 2016 to support K-9 units in 33 counties across Illinois. “So to me, it’s a giant step forward for drug dealers, and it’s a giant step backwards for law enforcements and the residents of the community."
is billionaire Warren Buffet's son. He did not run for office but was named as the successor to the previous county sheriff, a Democrat, who retired before his term was up. Apparently Howard Buffet is not intending to run for election to the office this year, although there are two candidates who are currently officers in the department who are running as Democrats in the primary.
Yeah and city cops who actually have to deal with pot more often than a downstate central Illinois county of 100k more often than not want weed legalized and some would rather alcohol be banned. I have talked to a decent amount of them on that subject
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well we can thank Guiliani for another great episode of Last Week Tonight.
Spoiler:
Jesus. I don't even like Guiliani and I thought that was maybe a little more brutal than necessary XD
Yeah, I mean you could at least mix in a mention of his role in cleaning up Times Square. Giuliani has always been weird, creepy, reactionary and authoritative but at least NYC made some noticeable progress on his watch. Sure it probably would have turned out the same if somebody else had been mayor but at least Rudy didn't screw it up.
Perhaps, but that's kind of like polishing a turd, sure its technically possible, but its still crap underneath the shine. Guiliani destroyed his own reputation, even if Trump does one thing right forexample, its going to get buried by all the stuff done wrong. It is what it is.
How anyone at all takes Guliani seriously any more is beyond me. He said, "Before Obama there were no Islamic terror attacks on US soil'. He was freaking MAYOR of NYC during that whole 9/11 thing. Sweet baby jeebus.
feeder wrote: How anyone at all takes Guliani seriously any more is beyond me. He said, "Before Obama there were no Islamic terror attacks on US soil'. He was freaking MAYOR of NYC during that whole 9/11 thing. Sweet baby jeebus.
He actually did mention 9/11 in the same speech. But the rest of the speech was construed in such a manner as to obfuscate the fact that by far the worst attack happened under a Republican President, hence the 8 years comment, technically it was 8 years between 9/11 and Obama. But of course it was meant to be received in a different manner.
feeder wrote: How anyone at all takes Guliani seriously any more is beyond me. He said, "Before Obama there were no Islamic terror attacks on US soil'. He was freaking MAYOR of NYC during that whole 9/11 thing. Sweet baby jeebus.
He actually did mention 9/11 in the same speech. But the rest of the speech was construed in such a manner as to obfuscate the fact that by far the worst attack happened under a Republican President, hence the 8 years comment, technically it was 8 years between 9/11 and Obama. But of course it was meant to be received in a different manner.
d-usa wrote: I think the whole "we will have to kill all of them" because they are trained to be anti-social spiel is pretty stupid. At least I haven't heard of any cases of police dogs turning on their partners, their families, and running down their neighbors. I'm pretty certain there are retired police dogs everywhere that are either staying with their old K9 partners or else are able to be successfully adopted. I'm guessing we would be well aware of the dirty secret that retired police dogs get a nice ceremony and then are shipped to the vet to be put down because they can't interact with humans outside of police work.
Depending, of course, on the whole "you cannot retrain police dogs" being true. You can probably retrain them, other departments have managed. Or if you are worried about their drug detecting ability becoming unreliable, you can likely build on their previous training and have them become search and rescue dogs.
Working dogs are smart. They're good dogs Brent.
Yeah, police dogs usually are pretty social. They have to be, as K-9 units are often exposed to the general public, and are used for public events because, you know, "look at the cute widdle doggie!" is an easy crowd pleaser.
Da Boss wrote: I know that is a joke, but honestly, if we lose this referendum Irish women are going to be condemned to a completely crazy regime of legal persecution for at least another decade so I'd really appreciate it if these eejits would go home.
Evangelicals on here, your money is going to fund this sort of electoral interference in other countries FYI. Our stupid laws are even more strict than the position Trump had to back away from.
Well. . . to suggest that WE interfere in other people's elections is pure witchhuntery (just ask Trump), we'd NEVER do such a thing. . .
Fething hell, that's as far as I can go with even that line of sarcasm. All I can really offer here is the best of luck to you and your country.
I am a bit hesitant on this one, especially after republican groups started trying to plant fake sexual harassment/assault stories against democrats last year. But, we will see
Disciple of Fate wrote: He actually did mention 9/11 in the same speech. But the rest of the speech was construed in such a manner as to obfuscate the fact that by far the worst attack happened under a Republican President, hence the 8 years comment, technically it was 8 years between 9/11 and Obama. But of course it was meant to be received in a different manner.
Yeah, Giuliani phrases things in just a way to give an impression of a damning attack, while giving himself lots of wiggle room when he's called on the lie. Another example was his attack on Hillary Clinton; "But I heard her say one day she was there that day. I was there that day. I don’t remember seeing Hillary Clinton there.” The problem being...
When called on his claim and shown the images of him with Clinton, Giuliani apologised, and fell back on 'I don't remember'. Bleh.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Of course investigate and he'll have his day in court... but... yikes!
This is a really hard one to know what to think of it. On the one hand, we've just learned Trump employed Black Cube, the same dirty tricks op Weinstein used, to target political enemies. And now suddenly we have he said/she said accusations against Schneiderman, who was engaged in prosecutions against both Trump associates and Weinstein? That's more than coincidence.
On the other hand, the chatter from the NY social set is saying this sounds about right, based on Schneiderman's general behaviour. And four women with similar stories... that's pretty damning. If it turns out they were telling their stories without knowledge of each other, that's as good as settled, I think.
So hilariously the incredibly ironic anti-cyberbullying campaign of Melania has come under fire of plagiarism of the campaign under the Obama admin. The BBC has some comparison shots: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44038656
For all the frothing at the Obamas, they sure like to profit from their work.
All of them over here in the UK are trained to sniff out all sorts of drugs, and one that could only search for weed would not pass the initial test to be 'employed'
so even if weed was legalised they should be able to work on looking for the more harmful drugs like heroin, crack, cocaine, methamphetamines etc which are not easy for normal people to smell (unlike weed)
All of them over here in the UK are trained to sniff out all sorts of drugs, and one that could only search for weed would not pass the initial test to be 'employed'
so even if weed was legalised they should be able to work on looking for the more harmful drugs like heroin, crack, cocaine, methamphetamines etc which are not easy for normal people to smell (unlike weed)
An appeals court in Colorado threw out a conviction based on a police search of a car found meth after a K9 alerted to drugs because the police couldn’t know of the dog alerted to legal marijuana or an illegal drug. Drug sniffing dogs are usually trained to alert to a half dozen drugs so now Colorado needs to retrain or retire dogs that trained to alert to marijuana.
In a Moffat County case stemming from 2015, the appeals court ruled that police did not have probable cause to search a vehicle based only on the alert of a drug dog that was trained to alert to marijuana as well as other drugs. Since marijuana is generally legal in Colorado and the dog could not signal whether it smelled marijuana or another substance, the appeals court ruled that police did not have probable cause for the search.
I’d be surprised if they ever get 270EC votes worth of states to sign on to that pact. Going by popular vote requires the Electora selected by the people in that state to put more value on the votes of people from other states.
Even with all the media hype about Trump losing the popular vote but still winning in 2016 more Electora tries to defect from voting for Hillary than Trump. So in the most recent election Democrat Electora selected by Democrats in states Hillary won tried to not vote for Hillary even after Democrats complained that the popular vote should be the determining factor. Why would this state law keep faithless Electora to be faithful when previous laws did not?
https://www.npr.org/2016/12/19/506188169/donald-trump-poised-to-secure-electoral-college-win-with-few-surprises
An appeals court in Colorado threw out a conviction based on a police search of a car found meth after a K9 alerted to drugs because the police couldn’t know of the dog alerted to legal marijuana or an illegal drug. Drug sniffing dogs are usually trained to alert to a half dozen drugs so now Colorado needs to retrain or retire dogs that trained to alert to marijuana.
In a Moffat County case stemming from 2015, the appeals court ruled that police did not have probable cause to search a vehicle based only on the alert of a drug dog that was trained to alert to marijuana as well as other drugs. Since marijuana is generally legal in Colorado and the dog could not signal whether it smelled marijuana or another substance, the appeals court ruled that police did not have probable cause for the search.
That's nuts. Surely 'my dog has smelled drugs in your car' should count as probable cause. If you then search and just find legal marijuana, you just say 'sorry for bothering you sir/madam, have a nice day'...
It makes sense though. If the police officer says the dog smells drugs and you show the marijuana, there is no longer a reason to search your car. You can remove probable cause entirely by doing so. If your a smart drug dealer just always carry it, as those types of dogs can no longer provide probable cause
A drug dog allerting to legal drugs, is not probable cause to search for illegal drugs. It’s the same as an officer conducting a search of your car claiming that the closed carton of cigarettes or sealed 6-pack of beer is probable cause. If a dog alerts and you find both legal and illegal drugs, any attorney will try to get the entire search thrown out in court by arguing that you don’t know if the dog only alerted to the legal drug.
So Dutch media are reporting that Trump told Macron today he is quitting the Iran deal. If this is true, we can all marvel at how Trump and co are going to somehow spin Iran getting nuclear weapons as Obama's fault 2 years after he stopped being President.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So Dutch media are reporting that Trump told Macron today he is quitting the Iran deal. If this is true, we can all marvel at how Trump and co are going to somehow spin Iran getting nuclear weapons as Obama's fault 2 years after he stopped being President.
The big thing I see is a dramatic undermining of US credibility abroad. Our diplomatic deals will not be seen with nearly the same legitimacy. It also pretty much kills Trump's chances of reaching diplomatic solutions to major issues during his Presidency. I'd bet this will affect the Korea talks.
Korea would be nuts to make a deal if Trump trashes the Iran deal. In fact, any of us would be well served to be highly sceptical of any deal put forward by the USA.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So Dutch media are reporting that Trump told Macron today he is quitting the Iran deal. If this is true, we can all marvel at how Trump and co are going to somehow spin Iran getting nuclear weapons as Obama's fault 2 years after he stopped being President.
Too true.
More to the point however, aside from pandering to a base that wont leave him anyway, Im not sure what this is intended to accomplish.
There appears to be little evidence Iran is doing what Trump claims. In fact, we're hearing a lot about how Trump is likely to withdraw but almost nothing on actually why.
Scrapping the Iran deal would certainly not help the upcoming Korean issues (in fact, after Iraq, Libya and now seemingly Iran, if I were NK I'd be redoubling my nuke efforts at this point). Other partners that had to be carefully corralled into the Iran deal will now be exasperated and annoyed and will be unlikely to reimpose sanctions, which will both undercut future US deals and remove much if not most of the bite of reimposed IS sanctions.
So US diplomacy, credibility, and standing will suffer, for no discernible advantage other than..."stignnnit".
Thats apparently how you Make America Great Again.
All of them over here in the UK are trained to sniff out all sorts of drugs, and one that could only search for weed would not pass the initial test to be 'employed'
so even if weed was legalised they should be able to work on looking for the more harmful drugs like heroin, crack, cocaine, methamphetamines etc which are not easy for normal people to smell (unlike weed)
An appeals court in Colorado threw out a conviction based on a police search of a car found meth after a K9 alerted to drugs because the police couldn’t know of the dog alerted to legal marijuana or an illegal drug. Drug sniffing dogs are usually trained to alert to a half dozen drugs so now Colorado needs to retrain or retire dogs that trained to alert to marijuana.
In a Moffat County case stemming from 2015, the appeals court ruled that police did not have probable cause to search a vehicle based only on the alert of a drug dog that was trained to alert to marijuana as well as other drugs. Since marijuana is generally legal in Colorado and the dog could not signal whether it smelled marijuana or another substance, the appeals court ruled that police did not have probable cause for the search.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So Dutch media are reporting that Trump told Macron today he is quitting the Iran deal. If this is true, we can all marvel at how Trump and co are going to somehow spin Iran getting nuclear weapons as Obama's fault 2 years after he stopped being President.
The big thing I see is a dramatic undermining of US credibility abroad. Our diplomatic deals will not be seen with nearly the same legitimacy. It also pretty much kills Trump's chances of reaching diplomatic solutions to major issues during his Presidency. I'd bet this will affect the Korea talks.
Trump's way of making deals makes any deal worthless.
Earlier this year he announced an agreement with South Korea to revise a trade deal between our two countries. Minutes after announcing it he declared that maybe he won't actually follow it and use it instead as leverage against South Korea to do something about North Korea. Basically it was "we negotiated a deal, but feth that deal unless we get more". So why would anyone in their right mind negotiate anything with us right now?
It won't help Trump at all. As has been said before in the thread this is great for his NK talks. Who cares if you uphold your end of the bargain, he might just go nuh uh and invade you anyway over made up stuff. Truely Trump is the greatest advocate of nuclear proliferation of our time.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So Dutch media are reporting that Trump told Macron today he is quitting the Iran deal. If this is true, we can all marvel at how Trump and co are going to somehow spin Iran getting nuclear weapons as Obama's fault 2 years after he stopped being President.
Too true.
More to the point however, aside from pandering to a base that wont leave him anyway, Im not sure what this is intended to accomplish.
There appears to be little evidence Iran is doing what Trump claims. In fact, we're hearing a lot about how Trump is likely to withdraw but almost nothing on actually why.
Scrapping the Iran deal would certainly not help the upcoming Korean issues (in fact, after Iraq, Libya and now seemingly Iran, if I were NK I'd be redoubling my nuke efforts at this point). Other partners that had to be carefully corralled into the Iran deal will now be exasperated and annoyed and will be unlikely to reimpose sanctions, which will both undercut future US deals and remove much if not most of the bite of reimposed IS sanctions.
So US diplomacy, credibility, and standing will suffer, for no discernible advantage other than..."stignnnit".
Thats apparently how you Make America Great Again.
:/
I don't think Trump has a why. He is just doing what gets him the most applause at one of his own rallies. As if a man who need flashcards could actually grasp such a complicated issue enough to make an informed decision. He is being fed a steady diet of lies by his closest people.
Other parties such as the EU have already said they will uphold the deal.
The U.S. Will Withdraw From Iran Nuclear Deal, Trump Tells Macron
WASHINGTON — President Trump told President Emmanuel Macron of France on Tuesday morning that he plans to announce the withdrawal of the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, according to a person briefed on the conversation.
Mr. Trump’s decision unravels the signature foreign policy achievement of his predecessor, Barack Obama, isolating the United States among its allies and leaving it at even greater odds with its adversaries in dealing with the Iranians.
The United States is preparing to reinstate all sanctions it had waived as part of the nuclear accord — and impose additional economic penalties as well, the person said.
A second person familiar with negotiations to keep the 2015 accord in place said the talks collapsed over Mr. Trump’s insistence that sharp limits be kept on Iran’s nuclear fuel production after 2030. The deal currently lifts those limits.
Mr. Trump is planning to formally announce his decision at 2 p.m. on Tuesday at the White House.
Mr. Trump’s decision, while long anticipated and widely telegraphed, plunges America’s relations with European allies into deep uncertainty. They have committed to staying in the deal, raising the prospect of a diplomatic and economic clash as the United States reimposes stringent sanctions on Iran.
It also raises the prospect of increased tensions with Russia and China, which also are parties to the agreement........
This is deeply stupid, but I can't get that mad. Idiots do stupid stuff. Getting mad would be like getting mad at a dog for barking. That's what it does. President trump did something stupid cheered on by a bunch of stupids.... that is what they do.
However, I can be mad that people who are not idiots voted for an idiot or did not vote at all!
The U.S. Will Withdraw From Iran Nuclear Deal, Trump Tells Macron
WASHINGTON — President Trump told President Emmanuel Macron of France on Tuesday morning that he plans to announce the withdrawal of the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, according to a person briefed on the conversation.
Mr. Trump’s decision unravels the signature foreign policy achievement of his predecessor, Barack Obama, isolating the United States among its allies and leaving it at even greater odds with its adversaries in dealing with the Iranians.
The United States is preparing to reinstate all sanctions it had waived as part of the nuclear accord — and impose additional economic penalties as well, the person said.
A second person familiar with negotiations to keep the 2015 accord in place said the talks collapsed over Mr. Trump’s insistence that sharp limits be kept on Iran’s nuclear fuel production after 2030. The deal currently lifts those limits.
Mr. Trump is planning to formally announce his decision at 2 p.m. on Tuesday at the White House.
Mr. Trump’s decision, while long anticipated and widely telegraphed, plunges America’s relations with European allies into deep uncertainty. They have committed to staying in the deal, raising the prospect of a diplomatic and economic clash as the United States reimposes stringent sanctions on Iran.
It also raises the prospect of increased tensions with Russia and China, which also are parties to the agreement........
This is *why* the treaty route should've been used.
Disciple of Fate wrote: This is why idiots with no grasp of international issues or knowledge of the consequences of their actions shouldn't be elected
In before certain posters try to assign blame to the democrats instead
Disciple of Fate wrote: This is why idiots with no grasp of international issues or knowledge of the consequences of their actions shouldn't be elected
In before certain posters try to assign blame to the democrats instead
2020, Iran has developed nuclear weapons... "but her emailssss!!!!!!!!!"
The U.S. Will Withdraw From Iran Nuclear Deal, Trump Tells Macron
WASHINGTON — President Trump told President Emmanuel Macron of France on Tuesday morning that he plans to announce the withdrawal of the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, according to a person briefed on the conversation.
Mr. Trump’s decision unravels the signature foreign policy achievement of his predecessor, Barack Obama, isolating the United States among its allies and leaving it at even greater odds with its adversaries in dealing with the Iranians.
The United States is preparing to reinstate all sanctions it had waived as part of the nuclear accord — and impose additional economic penalties as well, the person said.
A second person familiar with negotiations to keep the 2015 accord in place said the talks collapsed over Mr. Trump’s insistence that sharp limits be kept on Iran’s nuclear fuel production after 2030. The deal currently lifts those limits.
Mr. Trump is planning to formally announce his decision at 2 p.m. on Tuesday at the White House.
Mr. Trump’s decision, while long anticipated and widely telegraphed, plunges America’s relations with European allies into deep uncertainty. They have committed to staying in the deal, raising the prospect of a diplomatic and economic clash as the United States reimposes stringent sanctions on Iran.
It also raises the prospect of increased tensions with Russia and China, which also are parties to the agreement........
This is *why* the treaty route should've been used.
True. If the Iran deal had become a treaty that was ratified by an act of Congress then the US couldn't walk away from it without a subsequent act of congress opting out of the deal. Instead we were left with the US as an at will participant in a gentleman's agreement so PotUS or Congress could have ended our participation in it at anytime.
The U.S. Will Withdraw From Iran Nuclear Deal, Trump Tells Macron
WASHINGTON — President Trump told President Emmanuel Macron of France on Tuesday morning that he plans to announce the withdrawal of the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, according to a person briefed on the conversation.
Mr. Trump’s decision unravels the signature foreign policy achievement of his predecessor, Barack Obama, isolating the United States among its allies and leaving it at even greater odds with its adversaries in dealing with the Iranians.
The United States is preparing to reinstate all sanctions it had waived as part of the nuclear accord — and impose additional economic penalties as well, the person said.
A second person familiar with negotiations to keep the 2015 accord in place said the talks collapsed over Mr. Trump’s insistence that sharp limits be kept on Iran’s nuclear fuel production after 2030. The deal currently lifts those limits.
Mr. Trump is planning to formally announce his decision at 2 p.m. on Tuesday at the White House.
Mr. Trump’s decision, while long anticipated and widely telegraphed, plunges America’s relations with European allies into deep uncertainty. They have committed to staying in the deal, raising the prospect of a diplomatic and economic clash as the United States reimposes stringent sanctions on Iran.
It also raises the prospect of increased tensions with Russia and China, which also are parties to the agreement........
This is *why* the treaty route should've been used.
True. If the Iran deal had become a treaty that was ratified by an act of Congress then the US couldn't walk away from it without a subsequent act of congress opting out of the deal. Instead we were left with the US as an at will participant in a gentleman's agreement so PotUS or Congress could have ended our participation in it at anytime.
Ratified in Republican Congress under Obama? It wasn't instead, it was the only viable political option.
It's cute and all to be like "shoulda done a treaty", but lets also be real, that was a practical impossibility, the GOP was never going to allow that to happen and two thirds majorities were never going to materialize for anything on this subject (or damn near any other) in the political environment that existed then and still exists today, and I'm not sure why people are forgetting that.
Vaktathi wrote: It's cute and all to be like "shoulda done a treaty", but lets also be real, that was a practical impossibility, the GOP was never going to allow that to happen and two thirds majorities were never going to materialize for anything on this subject (or damn near any other) in the political environment that existed then and still exists today, and I'm not sure why people are forgetting that.
If the GOP was never going to do it... maybe the US shouldn't be in this situation in the first place?
That would depend on whether lack of congressional support is based on anything factual or if it is based on simple partisan opposition.
That's like saying the Trump administration shouldn't negotiate with anything about anything since his party doesn't have the numbers to ratify treaties.
Vaktathi wrote: It's cute and all to be like "shoulda done a treaty", but lets also be real, that was a practical impossibility, the GOP was never going to allow that to happen and two thirds majorities were never going to materialize for anything on this subject (or damn near any other) in the political environment that existed then and still exists today, and I'm not sure why people are forgetting that.
If the GOP was never going to do it... maybe the US shouldn't be in this situation in the first place?
What situation? The situation of encouraging Iran not to build the bomb and start a regional arms race?
Da Boss wrote: Well, he pulled out of the deal. I guess we all know what America's word is worth now, eh?
Nothing. Then again it never was. Nk probably doubles nuke program seeing it's the only way to be safe. Otherwise whatever they do they will get invaded
Disciple of Fate wrote: So Dutch media are reporting that Trump told Macron today he is quitting the Iran deal. If this is true, we can all marvel at how Trump and co are going to somehow spin Iran getting nuclear weapons as Obama's fault 2 years after he stopped being President.
While simultaneously doing a mega sanctions lifting deal with Lil Kim to get NK to rescind their nuclear programme.
Trumpism requires such epic levels of cognitive dissonance that one has to admire the ability of Trumpists to maintain doublethink.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So Dutch media are reporting that Trump told Macron today he is quitting the Iran deal. If this is true, we can all marvel at how Trump and co are going to somehow spin Iran getting nuclear weapons as Obama's fault 2 years after he stopped being President.
While simultaneously doing a mega sanctions lifting deal with Lil Kim to get NK to rescind their nuclear programme.
Trumpism requires such epic levels of cognitive dissonance that one has to admire the ability of Trumpists to maintain doublethink.
But people are so stoked for the little guy that he is going to make peace in the Korean peninsula, can't you see how happy that thought makes him? No peace or glory to be gained with the Iran deal, how is somebody supposed to work with such an awful situation?
Da Boss wrote: Well, he pulled out of the deal. I guess we all know what America's word is worth now, eh?
Sure... go with that.
If you wanted it enshrined, it needed to be ratified as a treaty.
I think the countries would know that...
So, do you believe there is no diplomatic solution? Since you seem to be okay with GOP obstructionism that would prevent a binding treaty, and also okay with pulling out of the deal that was negotiated (at great time and expense to your allies too).
Salehi warned Trump against taking that course. “Iran is not bluffing. ... Technically, we are fully prepared to enrich uranium higher than we used to produce before the deal was reached. ... I hope Trump comes to his senses and stays in the deal.”
Under the deal, which led to the lifting of most international sanctions in 2016, Iran’s level of enrichment must remain around 3.6 percent.
Iran stopped producing 20 percent enriched uranium and gave up the majority of its stockpile as part of the agreement with the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia.
Uranium refined to 20 percent fissile purity is well beyond the 5 percent normally required to fuel civilian nuclear power plants, although still well short of highly enriched, or 80 to 90 percent, purity needed for a nuclear bomb.
Da Boss wrote: Well, he pulled out of the deal. I guess we all know what America's word is worth now, eh?
Sure... go with that.
If you wanted it enshrined, it needed to be ratified as a treaty.
I think the countries would know that...
Because treaties are ironclad and no country ever broke those?
Yea, because POTUS would need Congress to pass a law to be able to walk away from it.
So Trump is cancelling the Iran deal because he thinks Iran is cheating, but an Iran treaty ratified in the US, there is no cheating that! Lets stop treating this world like an alternate reality where a treaty was actually possible while we're at it.
Da Boss wrote: Well, he pulled out of the deal. I guess we all know what America's word is worth now, eh?
Sure... go with that.
If you wanted it enshrined, it needed to be ratified as a treaty.
I think the countries would know that...
So, do you believe there is no diplomatic solution?
Sure... sanctions.
Since you seem to be okay with GOP obstructionism that would prevent a binding treaty, and also okay with pulling out of the deal that was negotiated (at great time and expense to your allies too).
Vaktathi wrote: It's cute and all to be like "shoulda done a treaty", but lets also be real, that was a practical impossibility, the GOP was never going to allow that to happen and two thirds majorities were never going to materialize for anything on this subject (or damn near any other) in the political environment that existed then and still exists today, and I'm not sure why people are forgetting that.
If the GOP was never going to do it... maybe the US shouldn't be in this situation in the first place?
Thats one way to look at it, but then, if we follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion, methinks we wont like the results of everything that ends up getting tossed...
That said, given that anything short of total, public, and humiliating Iranian capitulation on every point and the eternal barring of Iran from exploring a fundamental energy source for eternity, I'm not sure what would have been able to pass, and at that point, nobody is going to call that a reasonable and balanced outcome, and not one anyone could possibly expect any sovereign nation to agree to. The GOP was looking for a pound of flesh, not simply nuclear non proliferation.
Lets be real, this wasnt sunk because of genuine concerns about Iran's nuclear potentials slipping through, its being driven by domestic and personal political narratives and a lot of Saudi & Israeli lobbying as they play regional power politics.
Iran at this point has no reason to come back to the table. They can bypass US sanctions with access to markets through other powers not withdrawing, not ideal but doable and way better than their pre-deal status, and the US will have no leverage save direct violence.
Da Boss wrote: Well, he pulled out of the deal. I guess we all know what America's word is worth now, eh?
Sure... go with that.
If you wanted it enshrined, it needed to be ratified as a treaty.
I think the countries would know that...
Because treaties are ironclad and no country ever broke those?
Yea, because POTUS would need Congress to pass a law to be able to walk away from it.
So Trump is cancelling the Iran deal because he thinks Iran is cheating, but an Iran treaty ratified in the US, there is no cheating that! Lets stop treating this world like an alternate reality where a treaty was actually possible while we're at it.
It's NOT an enforcible treaty.
Please understand... that is my point.
Just because the previous administration said... Cool bro, let's do this, without formalizing a treaty ratification. NOTHING prevents the following administration from pulling out.
Da Boss wrote: Well, he pulled out of the deal. I guess we all know what America's word is worth now, eh?
Sure... go with that.
If you wanted it enshrined, it needed to be ratified as a treaty.
I think the countries would know that...
Because treaties are ironclad and no country ever broke those?
Yea, because POTUS would need Congress to pass a law to be able to walk away from it.
So Trump is cancelling the Iran deal because he thinks Iran is cheating, but an Iran treaty ratified in the US, there is no cheating that! Lets stop treating this world like an alternate reality where a treaty was actually possible while we're at it.
It's NOT an enforcible treaty.
Please understand... that is my point.
Just because the previous administration said... Cool bro, let's do this, without formalizing a treaty ratification. NOTHING prevents the following administration from pulling out.
No, but at least it gave the IAEA the ability to monitor Iran with the ability to pull out the second Iran violated the deal. Now you have nothing for no reason, its mental trying to justify that.
Da Boss wrote: Well, he pulled out of the deal. I guess we all know what America's word is worth now, eh?
Sure... go with that.
If you wanted it enshrined, it needed to be ratified as a treaty.
I think the countries would know that...
So, do you believe there is no diplomatic solution?
Sure... sanctions.
I agree, sanctions work great, just ask non nuclear North Korea errrr....
Um... NK is coming to the table.
Soooo... seems to be working so far.
After they developed nuclear weapons, yeah that turned out great! In case you missed it, the Iran deal was Iran coming to the table before that happened.
After they developed nuclear weapons, yeah that turned out great! In case you missed it, the Iran deal was Iran coming to the table before that happened.
was just about to point this out, Iran *already* came to the table and NK already has the bomb
Also much of NK's recent turn may have as much to do with their nuclear testing facility collapsing as anything else, sanctions certainly didnt faze them for many years.
Exiting a deal for something that has nothing to do with the deal is pretty stupid.
But Trump has made a policy of undoing anything Obama did, so it’s not a great surprise. It will take many years for the US to recover political goodwill across the world and regain bargaining power for future deals.
After they developed nuclear weapons, yeah that turned out great! In case you missed it, the Iran deal was Iran coming to the table before that happened.
was just about to point this out, Iran *already* came to the table and NK already has the bomb
Also much of NK's recent turn may have as much to do with their nuclear testing facility collapsing as anything else, sanctions certainly didnt faze them for many years.
I mean even if NK is serious about talks, how is Trump of all people going to talk Kim out of owning nuclear weapons, is he going to get Guiliani to cut Kim a check for a 130K?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Exiting a deal for something that has nothing to do with the deal is pretty stupid.
But Trump has made a policy of undoing anything Obama did, so it’s not a great surprise. It will take many years for the US to recover political goodwill across the world and regain bargaining power for future deals.
Yeah thank god that Obama moved troops back into Iraq because of ISIS, or Trump might just have invaded to reverse that one
Da Boss wrote: whembly, minus this deal, what is preventing Iran from restarting their nuclear weapons program and developing a bomb?
With the deal... nothing.
When facts don't matter, solutions become worthless.
Intercontinential missiles were not included...
They could still refine uranium that could be used for atomic weapons...
The deal has very little teeth and didn't little, if at all, to restrain their pursuits.
This is so incredibly false it hurts to read.
Also, no country on earth should expect us to keep our word. We made a deal in goodwill with a country that hates us. To maybe change their outlook on us. So we wouldn't have to hit them with sanctions and hurt innocent civilians. We were gaining traction. Lots of people in Iran love the US and want to be friendly. I seriously doubt that now. Years of building trust and good will with the people of Iran has just been thrown out and the best thing people can say is "should have been a treaty!" No, it shouldn't have to be a treaty. We should have the foresight to move from administration to administration without nuking the work of the previous one just because OBAMA!
As has been said, this now changes things with NK. They don't trust us at all and now they see us reneging on a nuclear deal with another country? I bet that will make the calm and logical NK really happy.
But you are right. It should have been a treaty. At least now we can blame the real villain here. Thanks Obama!
Obama you came and you gave without taking But they sent you away, Obama And you trusted me and stopped me from proliferating And I needed you today, Obama
Automatically Appended Next Post: So, Trump's speech basically boiled down to "when Iran is ready to bend over we can talk." Incredibly productive negotiating position.
Da Boss wrote: whembly, minus this deal, what is preventing Iran from restarting their nuclear weapons program and developing a bomb?
With the deal... nothing.
When facts don't matter, solutions become worthless.
Intercontinential missiles were not included...
They could still refine uranium that could be used for atomic weapons...
The deal has very little teeth and didn't little, if at all, to restrain their pursuits.
This is so incredibly false it hurts to read.
Also, no country on earth should expect us to keep our word. We made a deal in goodwill with a country that hates us. To maybe change their outlook on us. So we wouldn't have to hit them with sanctions and hurt innocent civilians. We were gaining traction. Lots of people in Iran love the US and want to be friendly. I seriously doubt that now. Years of building trust and good will with the people of Iran has just been thrown out and the best thing people can say is "should have been a treaty!" No, it shouldn't have to be a treaty. We should have the foresight to move from administration to administration without nuking the work of the previous one just because OBAMA!
As has been said, this now changes things with NK. They don't trust us at all and now they see us reneging on a nuclear deal with another country? I bet that will make the calm and logical NK really happy.
But you are right. It should have been a treaty. At least now we can blame the real villain here. Thanks Obama!
Goodwill?
The answer, really, is to get itratified by the Senate.
If President Obama and Iran/Allies wanted this arrangement to be more permanent, then Obama should have gone to the Senate. And if he didn’t go precisely because he knew the Senate would say no, then he and everyone (including Iran and our Allies) knew all along he was building on sand. Furthermore, our system was designed to give the Senate ratification power as a check on the President... and if he knew the Senate would say "no", then maybe it isn't worth ratification in the first place.
Obama, P+5 allies and Iran knowsthis... they ain't dumb here...
Now whose fault is that, really? If you immediate sprout TRUMP! or the GOP! then, you're ignoring that this agreement was an executive discretionary agreement that only holds on the whims of the current President.
Let this be a lesson.
If future POTUS want something of this magnitude to have staying power, then work with the Senate to get it ratified.
Hilarious, you think the same people who invited Netanyahu to Congress we're going to ratify a treaty with Iran?
Just because one party has an incredible hard-on for punishing Iran no matter the costs this is on Obama? Well I was right about marvelling at how this would be blamed on Obama.
You appear, however, to be arguing that laying the framework for a deal that Trump can withdraw from carries more of the fault than actually making the decision to withdraw.
In this thread, simultaneously arguing that the deal was bad because it wasn't ratified by the Senate while also conceding the reality that Obama couldn't have gotten anything whatsoever ratified by the senate because they were operating on a platform of bulk obstruction.
d-usa wrote: You appear, however, to be arguing that laying the framework for a deal that Trump can withdraw from carries more of the fault than actually making the decision to withdraw.
I would say "more"... more like both Trump and previous administration are culpable for different reasons.
It's really a carbon copy of the Paris Accord too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: In this thread, simultaneously arguing that the deal was bad because it wasn't ratified by the Senate while also conceding the reality that Obama couldn't have gotten anything whatsoever ratified by the senate because they were operating on a platform of bulk obstruction.
Ta-da!
Not really.
If Obama truly came up with an awesome deal (it wasn't), then the Senate would certainly entertain it. The problem here, seems that this "deal" was architected with the mindset of "building up Obama's legacy" rather that, an objective view of this whole ordeal.
Ouze wrote: In this thread, simultaneously arguing that the deal was bad because it wasn't ratified by the Senate while also conceding the reality that Obama couldn't have gotten anything whatsoever ratified by the senate because they were operating on a platform of bulk obstruction.
Ta-da!
Not really.
If Obama truly came up with an awesome deal (it wasn't), then the Senate would certainly entertain it. The problem here, seems that this "deal" was architected with the mindset of "building up Obama's legacy" rather that, an objective view of this whole ordeal.
No, the objective view was that this was the best you were going to get. Why do you think people like Netanyahu, Pompeo and the Saudis hated it so much? Because it wasn't punishing Iran, it was actually cooperating to achieve something.
You do realize that Iran also needed a stake in any potential deal right?
If Obama truly came up with an awesome deal (it wasn't), then the Senate would certainly entertain it. The problem here, seems that this "deal" was architected with the mindset of "building up Obama's legacy" rather that, an objective view of this whole ordeal.
The important thing to remember is that Pompeno and Bolton want a war with Iran. That is why we pulled out of this deal.
Iran came to the table, negotiated in good faith, made compromises that opened them up to criticism from hardliners at home. The moderate government in charge made huge political sacrifices for this deal.
Now Trump tosses all that in the garbage, undermines the moderates and gives red meat to the hardliners. The reward to Iran for coming to the table is increased sanctions.
Utterly bonkers. Toddler diplomacy. The US has burned a lot of political capital, and you guys are not as invulnerable in that regard as you think you are.
Ouze wrote: In this thread, simultaneously arguing that the deal was bad because it wasn't ratified by the Senate while also conceding the reality that Obama couldn't have gotten anything whatsoever ratified by the senate because they were operating on a platform of bulk obstruction.
Ta-da!
Not really.
If Obama truly came up with an awesome deal (it wasn't), then the Senate would certainly entertain it. The problem here, seems that this "deal" was architected with the mindset of "building up Obama's legacy" rather that, an objective view of this whole ordeal.
No, the objective view was that this was the best you were going to get. Why do you think people like Netanyahu, Pompeo and the Saudis hated it so much? Because it wasn't punishing Iran, it was actually cooperating to achieve something.
You do realize that Iran also needed a stake in any potential deal right?
You do realize that "no deal" can be better than "any" deal... right?
Iran was *not* fully cooperating and was found to break the agreement numerous times that Obama and the other nations let pass.
After they developed nuclear weapons, yeah that turned out great! In case you missed it, the Iran deal was Iran coming to the table before that happened.
Plus dubious had sanctions anything to do there or was it case of China getting angry when the test site collapsed threatening China with radioactive fallout.
China is the one that can hurt NK most short of invasion. China barks, NK listens at least somewhat.
NK has been ignoring sanctions for decades. Why assume they NOW automatically work when there's alternative reason which is something that has NOT happened before that could very well explain it. Yeah that makes sense. "That thing that never has worked before NOW magically worked. Not at all anything to do with only ally getting seriously angry when they get threatened by radioactive fall. Nope. That's nothing to do with it!"
Ouze wrote: In this thread, simultaneously arguing that the deal was bad because it wasn't ratified by the Senate while also conceding the reality that Obama couldn't have gotten anything whatsoever ratified by the senate because they were operating on a platform of bulk obstruction.
Ta-da!
Not really.
If Obama truly came up with an awesome deal (it wasn't), then the Senate would certainly entertain it. The problem here, seems that this "deal" was architected with the mindset of "building up Obama's legacy" rather that, an objective view of this whole ordeal.
No, the objective view was that this was the best you were going to get. Why do you think people like Netanyahu, Pompeo and the Saudis hated it so much? Because it wasn't punishing Iran, it was actually cooperating to achieve something.
You do realize that Iran also needed a stake in any potential deal right?
You do realize that "no deal" can be better than "any" deal... right?
Iran was *not* fully cooperating and was found to break the agreement numerous times that Obama and the other nations let pass.
Ok so no deal on Iran developing nuclear weapons is better than a deal with international oversight in which they promise not to do so?
I see the utterly awesome side of no deal when put like that.
5 March 2018. Iran is Implementing Nuclear-related JCPOA Commitments, Director General Amano Tells IAEA Board. Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano told the Agency's 35-member Board of Governors.
Ouze wrote: In this thread, simultaneously arguing that the deal was bad because it wasn't ratified by the Senate while also conceding the reality that Obama couldn't have gotten anything whatsoever ratified by the senate because they were operating on a platform of bulk obstruction.
Ta-da!
Not really.
If Obama truly came up with an awesome deal (it wasn't), then the Senate would certainly entertain it. The problem here, seems that this "deal" was architected with the mindset of "building up Obama's legacy" rather that, an objective view of this whole ordeal.
No, the objective view was that this was the best you were going to get. Why do you think people like Netanyahu, Pompeo and the Saudis hated it so much? Because it wasn't punishing Iran, it was actually cooperating to achieve something.
You do realize that Iran also needed a stake in any potential deal right?
You do realize that "no deal" can be better than "any" deal... right?
Iran was *not* fully cooperating and was found to break the agreement numerous times that Obama and the other nations let pass.
So prove it. You keep spouting off like you have some crystal ball that gives you all the answers and you know without a doubt this is a win. When reality has been kicked into your face over and over again and instead you bite down and insist you're not wrong. I get it, it makes you mad, but you're looking pretty dumb here, to the point you're pretty much just trolling.
This is bad. Ontop of the fact NK is getting pissy about Trump claiming their coming to the table was all him, this is just a gak show. "Yeah totally make a deal with us, we'll just break it later but hey that's cool right?"
After they developed nuclear weapons, yeah that turned out great! In case you missed it, the Iran deal was Iran coming to the table before that happened.
Plus dubious had sanctions anything to do there or was it case of China getting angry when the test site collapsed threatening China with radioactive fallout.
China is the one that can hurt NK most short of invasion. China barks, NK listens at least somewhat.
NK has been ignoring sanctions for decades. Why assume they NOW automatically work when there's alternative reason which is something that has NOT happened before that could very well explain it. Yeah that makes sense. "That thing that never has worked before NOW magically worked. Not at all anything to do with only ally getting seriously angry when they get threatened by radioactive fall. Nope. That's nothing to do with it!"
I would be even firmer, sanctions had absolutely nothing to do with North Korea wanting talks. NK just follows the time honored tradition of coming in for talks to reduce sanctions so that whole song and dance can cover up for the continuing development of their nuclear capability. Talks are just a distraction technique employed by North Korea when tensions rise. They have done this multiple times before. But for some reason some people seem convinced that this time Trump did it guys, no really guys.
Ouze wrote: In this thread, simultaneously arguing that the deal was bad because it wasn't ratified by the Senate while also conceding the reality that Obama couldn't have gotten anything whatsoever ratified by the senate because they were operating on a platform of bulk obstruction.
Ta-da!
Not really.
If Obama truly came up with an awesome deal (it wasn't), then the Senate would certainly entertain it. The problem here, seems that this "deal" was architected with the mindset of "building up Obama's legacy" rather that, an objective view of this whole ordeal.
No, the objective view was that this was the best you were going to get. Why do you think people like Netanyahu, Pompeo and the Saudis hated it so much? Because it wasn't punishing Iran, it was actually cooperating to achieve something.
You do realize that Iran also needed a stake in any potential deal right?
You do realize that "no deal" can be better than "any" deal... right?
Iran was *not* fully cooperating and was found to break the agreement numerous times that Obama and the other nations let pass.
Ok so no deal on Iran developing nuclear weapons is better than a deal with international oversight in which they promise not to do so?
I see the utterly awesome side of no deal when put like that.
5 March 2018. Iran is Implementing Nuclear-related JCPOA Commitments, Director General Amano Tells IAEA Board. Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano told the Agency's 35-member Board of Governors.
Last October:
“The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week admitted an inconvenient truth. The U.N. watchdog, said Yukiya Amano, has proven unable to verify Iran’s compliance with Section T of the 2015 nuclear deal, which prohibits activities that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”
You do realize that "no deal" can be better than "any" deal... right?
Iran was *not* fully cooperating and was found to break the agreement numerous times that Obama and the other nations let pass.
Ok so no deal on Iran developing nuclear weapons is better than a deal with international oversight in which they promise not to do so? I see the utterly awesome side of no deal when put like that.
5 March 2018. Iran is Implementing Nuclear-related JCPOA Commitments, Director General Amano Tells IAEA Board. Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano told the Agency's 35-member Board of Governors.
Last October:
“The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week admitted an inconvenient truth. The U.N. watchdog, said Yukiya Amano, has proven unable to verify Iran’s compliance with Section T of the 2015 nuclear deal, which prohibits activities that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”
Seriously, you have gone from claiming Iran is breaking the agreement to shifting goalposts to the IAEA not having complete insight into section T?
There is nothing, not a shred of evidence to back up that Iran is breaking any agreement. Section T is a footnote when Iran can't even enrich uranium to build a bomb with. Great, they might have made a computer simulation in suuper duper secret underground labs, now what?
You think Iran is the only state that sponsors terrorism? Saudi Arabia does it too, Israel engages in frequent state sponsored terrorism. Are you going to slap them with sanctions too because I'm pretty sure Israel has nukes. Dear god, the Iran deal even allows Iran to build tanks! Quick, they might think they are a sovereign nation and not a conquered state on which the US can impose its fickle will!
Listen to the IAEA director man. Access to all locations they need to, 1:03 mark of the video. This is getting ridiculous.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Ok, don't look surprised once Iran actually develops that bomb, cause they basically promised they would now that Trump reneged on the deal.
Wait... I missed the part where they weren't developing it anyways.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Ok, don't look surprised once Iran actually develops that bomb, cause they basically promised they would now that Trump reneged on the deal.
Wait... I missed the part where they weren't developing it anyways.
IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei received with great interest the new U.S. National Intelligence Estimate about Iran´s nuclear program which concludes that there has been no on-going nuclear weapons program in Iran since the fall of 2003. He notes in particular that the Estimate tallies with the Agency´s consistent statements over the last few years that, although Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and present nuclear activities, the Agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran.
The report was a condition of this year's landmark deal between Iran and six world powers.
The July agreement involves the lifting of sanctions in return for Iran curbing sensitive nuclear activities.
In its report, the IAEA said most of the "co-ordinated" work by Iran took place before 2003, with some activities continuing up to 2009.
But it added "these activities did not advance beyond feasibility and scientific studies, and the acquisition of certain relevant technical competences and capabilities".
Well, the best way to stop countries from supporting terrorists or building rockets is to walk away from any agreements about not building nuclear weapons.
Well at least the oil price going up will help the Saudis finance some more terrorism, so it all balances out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So, we're now again in the second year of a Republican Presidency, agitating against a country that has a single letter changed from Iraq and Pompeo doing his best Rumsfeldian "known unknowns" impressions. It sure feels like 2003 all over again.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well at least the oil price going up will help the Saudis finance some more terrorism, so it all balances out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So, we're now again in the second year of a Republican Presidency, agitating against a country that has a single letter changed from Iraq and Pompeo doing his best Rumsfeldian "known unknowns" impressions. It sure feels like 2003 all over again.
Yes, and a lot of talk about WMD.... again.
Can they use the same playbook again and will the US public fall for it...again?
Without a shadow of a doubt, this has to be one of the most wretched foreign policy blunders in American history.
It's weapons grade bullgak perpetrated by a man child who bases foreign policy on doing the polar opposite of his predecessor.
Feth me, they must be having a right old laugh in Israel and Saudi Arabia, because once again the American dog is getting wagged by the Israeli and Saudi tail.
What I wouldn't give for a George Marshall or a Cordell Hull, a statesman who knew what they were doing. Hell, I'd settle for Nixon right now. At least he knew what he wanted and had the skill to get it...
Once again I'll remind American dakka members that I sat through the Senate and Congress hearings on the Iran deal, and the GOP had FETHING nothing. No alternative. All they did was jump up and down, throw the toys from the pram and make themseves look like fething idiots.
The Moderates in Iran were gaining some traction, but the hardliners will push them aside. North Korea will look at this and wonder why bother dealing with a nation that breaks its word, and the European allies will not appreciate the USA laying down the law to them on economic sanctions...
And the idea that the USA will negotiate a new deal is pie in the sky nonsense that should be laughed out of town by anybody with more than two brain cells too rub together...
If the American people had any sense, pride, or dignity left in them, then these buffoons should be chased out of Washington with a horsewhip...
How the hell can the nation that gave the world James Madison, John Adams, FDR et al, be reduced to this?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well at least the oil price going up will help the Saudis finance some more terrorism, so it all balances out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So, we're now again in the second year of a Republican Presidency, agitating against a country that has a single letter changed from Iraq and Pompeo doing his best Rumsfeldian "known unknowns" impressions. It sure feels like 2003 all over again.
Yes, and a lot of talk about WMD.... again.
Can they use the same playbook again and will the US public fall for it...again?
Well with the amount of plagiarism going on I expect that the playbook doesn't even have the Q's crossed out
As for falling for it, a good 30-40% already convinced themselves years ago. If Trump went to war tomorrow those people would be cheering him on. Man, if we thought Bush's Iraq was bad, I can't imagine what the most incompetent administration ever is going to turn Iran into if it actually escalated. I hope not.
So...the big question now is...what does this actually do and mean?
As far as Iran is concerned, theyre going to take another big financial hit, but as long as the agreement remains in place with the other partners, they can bypass US sanctions and carry on as they were, and there is no compelling reason for them to reenengage. The deal worked because many powers were acting in unison and a lot of work went into that.
As far as the US is concerned...I don't see a game plan, a follow up, a step 2, a plan B, short of violence.
Well reasonably with US sanctions in place Iran willl focus economic development on its relations with Europe and China. US sanctions might hurt, but only US sanctions are far better. So the US is pissing against the wind, losing out on the Iranian economy for zero gain and losing international influence.
The US just sunk its own position and has nothing to show for it. No country is going to negotiate with the US when you basically have to act like a subservient dog. The wider implications for North Korea are there of course. Trump just sunk the peace treaty most likely, maybe he shouldn't have played his role in that up so much
I would expect to see Russia drawing even closer to Iran, even more proxy action in Syria, and China not giving two hoots for the USA's sanctions.
The two armed camps in the Middle East will be even more firmly entrenched, and the EU will be even more determined to have an independent foreign policy free of Washington...
What does the USA get out of this? Feth me if I know.
Russia and Iran we're already quite close. I don't think this needs to improve it further. As for proxy action in Syria, I have my doubts, Syria is almost over as Assad has been steadily crushing the last rebel areas and is firmly winning. The reason Israel and Iran clash now is because one of the two rebel areas left is right next to Israel. So of course Iranians are going to be close to Israel, its where the fighting is. I don't think Iran is all too interested in a proxy war with Israel or the others in the Syria region, as it only hurts Iranian allies. Yemen is the place to be, but that won't change much I think.
The EU is certainly keen on exploiting the natural wealth of Iran and China has always been on the side of Iran.
What does the USA get out of this? Feth me if I know.
The USA? Who cares? The GOP certainly doesn't care, this was done for them and them alone. More lobbyists' money, more street cred with their base to keep them in office, etc., etc.
How the hell can the nation that gave the world James Madison, John Adams, FDR et al, be reduced to this?
Read the posts of the person defending this and you'll understand precisely how these things happen.
"That'll teach Obummer for telling jokes about Trump at the Correspondent's Dinner", probably.
The irony here is that it was a GOP POTUS, GW Bush, who originally proposed the Iran nuclear deal. What the GOP gets out of effectively saying that their own policy is horsegak, is beyond me.
What does the USA get out of this? Feth me if I know.
The USA? Who cares? The GOP certainly doesn't care, this was done for them and them alone. More lobbyists' money, more street cred with their base to keep them in office, etc., etc.
How the hell can the nation that gave the world James Madison, John Adams, FDR et al, be reduced to this?
Read the posts of the person defending this and you'll understand precisely how these things happen.
Iran can never be a threat to the USA because a) the US nuclear arsenal would wipe out Iran 10 times over and b) even in a conventional war, Iran will lose badly. So the USA can't plead self-defence.
Israel's nuclear arsenal and the strength of its military + allied support, is also enough to deter any possible aggression from almost anybody. Israel can't even plead self-defence here.
Was the Iran deal perfect? No, but it gave the moderates something to hang their hat on, but the hardliners will push them aside and gleefully say we told you so. Your average Iranian Joe wpn't blame their government for this, even if they hate the regime...
Were the inspectors getting to see everything? No, but again, having inspectors there gives you a opportunity to be on the ground, get a feel for things, hear things, and possibly even sneak in other stuff so you could have a proper look at what was really going on - embassies do it all the time. That opportunity is now up in smoke...
This is honestly one of those 'dark days' of politics, of world events, that you have to think will be looked back on as a pivotal moment in history.
What are the bets now then on a military action against Iran at some point within the next 5 years? Or should we be talking about a 'when' rather than an 'if' ?
"That'll teach Obummer for telling jokes about Trump at the Correspondent's Dinner", probably.
The irony here is that it was a GOP POTUS, GW Bush, who originally proposed the Iran nuclear deal. What the GOP gets out of effectively saying that their own policy is horsegak, is beyond me.
No disrespect to American dakka members, but going over the Trump speech again and following the Fox news coverage on this, and God knows why I'm doing this, I do wonder about the quality of American media coverage, because
I've just seen
a) Trump thinking that Shia Iran supports Sunni Al Qaeda
b) Fox news saying that the Iranian President gave his response speech in Arabic
Honest to God, there must be somebody in Washington who knows something about the Middle east? Right?
Seriously. You don't need to take anything of it seriously because FOX ISN'T NEWS. It's a network that is best described as opinion masquerading as fact.
"That'll teach Obummer for telling jokes about Trump at the Correspondent's Dinner", probably.
The irony here is that it was a GOP POTUS, GW Bush, who originally proposed the Iran nuclear deal. What the GOP gets out of effectively saying that their own policy is horsegak, is beyond me.
Worked for healthcare, right?
It's beyond satire. It's like the fall of the Roman Empire.
As I've said before, ordinary Americans are some of the best and most friendliest people I have ever met, but for reasons unknown to me, something goes horribly wrong at election time...
Seriously. You don't need to take anything of it seriously because FOX ISN'T NEWS. It's a network that is best described as opinion masquerading as fact.
Well, I hope somebody in Washington knows what language the Persians speak, because it sure as hell ain't Arabic....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I think I heard Angela Merkel talk German. What a nazi!
Her Russian is also very good by all accounts, and her English is first class as well.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Honest to God, there must be somebody in Washington who knows something about the Middle east? Right?
You'd be surprised.
I know guys who are paid to offer their opinions on Middle Eastern Geopolitics and not one of them actually knows how Iran is politically structured, and trying to explain that there's more than one Ayatollah is like trying to explain quantum physics to a four year old. I'm fairly convinced at this point that US foreign policy in the ME is a walking disaster because the US government actively chooses to seek out yes men when consulting on the subject.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Without a shadow of a doubt, this has to be one of the most wretched foreign policy blunders in American history.
It's weapons grade bullgak perpetrated by a man child who bases foreign policy on doing the polar opposite of his predecessor.
He's not doing it to spite Obama... he has ALWAYS been against it.
...and the freaking majority of the GOP and handful of Democrats opposed it! (Schumer!!).
Feth me, they must be having a right old laugh in Israel and Saudi Arabia, because once again the American dog is getting wagged by the Israeli and Saudi tail.
?? Israel is our closest allies in this region so I'm surprised that you're surprised about this.
For SA, yeah that's interesting and it seems the US and SA are getting "closer". King Salmon is slowly moderating his kingdom... but, okay you don't like them. Don't lose sight that SA and Israel are honest-to-god adversaries towards Iran.
What I wouldn't give for a George Marshall or a Cordell Hull, a statesman who knew what they were doing. Hell, I'd settle for Nixon right now. At least he knew what he wanted and had the skill to get it...
Domestically, Trump is a mess.
Foreign policy wise? Let's see...
-withdrew from Paris Accord...
-withdrew from TPP...
-decimated ISIS...
-Syrian response...
-detente with North Korea (so far)
-and now withdrawing from Iran Nuke Accord
Once again I'll remind American dakka members that I sat through the Senate and Congress hearings on the Iran deal, and the GOP had FETHING nothing. No alternative. All they did was jump up and down, throw the toys from the pram and make themseves look like fething idiots.
Sure they did.
Maintain sanctions.
But, hey... European and Russian companies want access to Iranian markets.
The Moderates in Iran were gaining some traction, but the hardliners will push them aside.
Citation please? Because from where I stood... Obama chose not to take advantage of the Green Revolution... Iran still exported terror resources.
North Korea will look at this and wonder why bother dealing with a nation that breaks its word, and the European allies will not appreciate the USA laying down the law to them on economic sanctions...
NO.
The USA did *NOT* break its word.
This is not a ratified treaty.
And the idea that the USA will negotiate a new deal is pie in the sky nonsense that should be laughed out of town by anybody with more than two brain cells too rub together...
We'll see bruv.
If the American people had any sense, pride, or dignity left in them, then these buffoons should be chased out of Washington with a horsewhip...
It's beyond satire. It's like the fall of the Roman Empire.
As a barbarian at the gates, I can only hope.
Heh... nice touch!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: So...the big question now is...what does this actually do and mean?
As far as Iran is concerned, theyre going to take another big financial hit, but as long as the agreement remains in place with the other partners, they can bypass US sanctions and carry on as they were, and there is no compelling reason for them to reenengage. The deal worked because many powers were acting in unison and a lot of work went into that.
As far as the US is concerned...I don't see a game plan, a follow up, a step 2, a plan B, short of violence.
Sanctions snap back as pre-Obama agreement.
These sanctions also pushes other countries for doing busy with Iran (unless the US waives it).
So nothing Trump says or does actually means that the US is doing anything?
Pretending that the elected leader of the US does not speak for the US is pretty silly. It’s right up there with “he’s not my president” level nonsense.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Without a shadow of a doubt, this has to be one of the most wretched foreign policy blunders in American history.
It's weapons grade bullgak perpetrated by a man child who bases foreign policy on doing the polar opposite of his predecessor.
He's not doing it to spite Obama... he has ALWAYS been against it.
...and the freaking majority of the GOP and handful of Democrats opposed it! (Schumer!!).
Feth me, they must be having a right old laugh in Israel and Saudi Arabia, because once again the American dog is getting wagged by the Israeli and Saudi tail.
?? Israel is our closest allies in this region so I'm surprised that you're surprised about this.
For SA, yeah that's interesting and it seems the US and SA are getting "closer". King Salmon is slowly moderating his kingdom... but, okay you don't like them. Don't lose sight that SA and Israel are honest-to-god adversaries towards Iran.
What I wouldn't give for a George Marshall or a Cordell Hull, a statesman who knew what they were doing. Hell, I'd settle for Nixon right now. At least he knew what he wanted and had the skill to get it...
Domestically, Trump is a mess.
Foreign policy wise? Let's see...
-withdrew from Paris Accord...
-withdrew from TPP...
-decimated ISIS...
-Syrian response...
-detente with North Korea (so far)
-and now withdrawing from Iran Nuke Accord
1) I know you hate the earth and plug your ears and push false narratives on climate change but you are really just punishing your children and grandchildren (potential) with this obtuse stance
2) Not knowledgeable enough to comment on the TPP
3) Using plans from Obama who did a majority of the leg work in destroying ISIS, the only thing Trump did was start to kill more civilians and not put out the numbers
4) what response? basically blowing up some empty airfields and "chemical weapon sites" which most likely had been emptied since he gave an advanced warning
5) That was more of China's doing and you seem to forget that past two or three times something like this has happened
6) More nuclear weapons in an already destabilized region, oh boy
d-usa wrote: So nothing Trump says or does actually means that the US is doing anything?
Pretending that the elected leader of the US does not speak for the US is pretty silly. It’s right up there with “he’s not my president” level nonsense.
Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
d-usa wrote: So nothing Trump says or does actually means that the US is doing anything?
Pretending that the elected leader of the US does not speak for the US is pretty silly. It’s right up there with “he’s not my president” level nonsense.
Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
1) I know you hate the earth and plug your ears and push false narratives on climate change but you are really just punishing your children and grandchildren (potential) with this obtuse stance
So you say.
2) Not knowledgeable enough to comment on the TPP
IT was "okayish"... but, definitely needed refinement. It's on Trump team to make it better, so... withhold your verdict.
3) Using plans from Obama who did a majority of the leg work in destroying ISIS, the only thing Trump did was start to kill more civilians and not put out the numbers
Okay... and Trump's only enjoying the current economic success because of Obama's policies.
4) what response? basically blowing up some empty airfields and "chemical weapon sites" which most likely had been emptied since he gave an advanced warning
Destroyed aircrafts (hard to replace) and runways (merely delays them shortterm).
5) That was more of China's doing and you seem to forget that past two or three times something like this has happened
The South Korean PM would disagree with you there.
6) More nuclear weapons in an already destabilized region, oh boy
...which this Iran Accord really didn't do much to "stabilize" the region.
d-usa wrote: So nothing Trump says or does actually means that the US is doing anything?
Pretending that the elected leader of the US does not speak for the US is pretty silly. It’s right up there with “he’s not my president” level nonsense.
Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
Lol
Why is it imperative for a current POTUS to abide by the previous administration's "hand shake" agreement?
1) I know you hate the earth and plug your ears and push false narratives on climate change but you are really just punishing your children and grandchildren (potential) with this obtuse stance
So you say.
2) Not knowledgeable enough to comment on the TPP
IT was "okayish"... but, definitely needed refinement. It's on Trump team to make it better, so... withhold your verdict.
3) Using plans from Obama who did a majority of the leg work in destroying ISIS, the only thing Trump did was start to kill more civilians and not put out the numbers
Okay... and Trump's only enjoying the current economic success because of Obama's policies.
4) what response? basically blowing up some empty airfields and "chemical weapon sites" which most likely had been emptied since he gave an advanced warning
Destroyed aircrafts (hard to replace) and runways (merely delays them shortterm).
5) That was more of China's doing and you seem to forget that past two or three times something like this has happened
6) More nuclear weapons in an already destabilized region, oh boy
Maybe I will try it this way, you are obviously a pious man. Do you think God would really people who are trashing the gift that he has given humanity? Do you think he would not judge them the same as other people who have squandered his gifts?
We have also noticed a downturn in the economy or did you forget the DOW Jones dropped almost 2 thousand points since trump has taken office and is in general on a downward trend compared to the past 5 years?
Because the President of the United States represents the United States and is the word of the United States.
It's kind of like parenting. You can let your kid do whatever the hell they want and play the "I didn't tell him that he couldn't do that, you told him he couldn't do that" game of parent against parent. Or you can realize that when either mom or dad speak, they both speak as "the parent" and shooting your credibility with your kids in the foot.
President Obama spoke as the US. President Trump speaks as the US.
Maybe I will try it this way, you are obviously a pious man. Do you think God would really people who are trashing the gift that he has given humanity? Do you think he would not judge them the same as other people who have squandered his gifts?
Pious man? Moi? o.O
No one is advocating to trash the environment.
We have also noticed a downturn in the economy or did you forget the DOW Jones dropped almost 2 thousand points since trump has taken office and is in general on a downward trend compared to the past 5 years?
By most metrics, the economy is doing better now than the last 5 years. Unless you believe there's a reckoning due to GOP/Trump's policy... which, hasn't manifested yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Because the President of the United States represents the United States and is the word of the United States.
It's kind of like parenting. You can let your kid do whatever the hell they want and play the "I didn't tell him that he couldn't do that, you told him he couldn't do that" game of parent against parent. Or you can realize that when either mom or dad speak, they both speak as "the parent" and shooting your credibility with your kids in the foot.
President Obama spoke as the US. President Trump speaks as the US.
But, not in a vacuum d...
o.O
Presidents are still beholden by the Treaty functionary if the desire to enshrine an agreement as the "law of the land". Otherwise, the agreement might as well be written in no.2 pencil that can be erased by the following administration.
Trump campaigned against this about as much as "da wall". So... in a way, American has spoken.
Yes, America has spoken and has shown that there is no reason to negotiate with a POTUS.
Nobody disagrees that any POTUS can simply choose to ignore whatever agreement another POTUS has made. Hell, that's been common knowledge in internal US affairs since the beginning of time.
But, until this last decade, the different US branches and different US Presidents have put up a unified front to the outside world. We have done a 180 now, and there is no reason for anyone to negotiate with our current or future POTUS.
It's like a divorced couple that refused to co-parent. and just does everything to spite the other parent. Neither has to agree with the other parent, one can have a 9pm bedtime and the other can have a 10pm bedtime just to spite the other one. One can say the kid can play Xbox, and the other one can forbit it just to spite the other one. Both are perfectly within their rights, but as an end result both parents render themselves ineffective by playing stupid games.
Obama spoke for the US, now Trump speaks for the US. And yes, the US just contradicted itself and lost credibility and bargaining power.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfblade wrote: The high point of the Dow Jones was roughly Jan 25th 2017. Since then it's been on a downward trend generally.
And by withdrawing from the Paris accords you kinda are advocating for trashing the environment.
January 25th, 2018.
It's been a pretty gakky year by DOW Jones standard though, down ~10% over the past 3.5 months.
d-usa wrote: Yes, America has spoken and has shown that there is no reason to negotiate with a POTUS.
Nobody disagrees that any POTUS can simply choose to ignore whatever agreement another POTUS has made. Hell, that's been common knowledge in internal US affairs since the beginning of time.
But, until this last decade, the different US branches and different US Presidents have put up a unified front to the outside world. We have done a 180 now, and there is no reason for anyone to negotiate with our current or future POTUS.
It's like a divorced couple that refused to co-parent. and just does everything to spite the other parent. Neither has to agree with the other parent, one can have a 9pm bedtime and the other can have a 10pm bedtime just to spite the other one. One can say the kid can play Xbox, and the other one can forbit it just to spite the other one. Both are perfectly within their rights, but as an end result both parents render themselves ineffective by playing stupid games.
Obama spoke for the US, now Trump speaks for the US. And yes, the US just contradicted itself and lost credibility and bargaining power.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfblade wrote: The high point of the Dow Jones was roughly Jan 25th 2017. Since then it's been on a downward trend generally.
And by withdrawing from the Paris accords you kinda are advocating for trashing the environment.
January 25th, 2018.
It's been a pretty gakky year by DOW Jones standard though, down ~10% over the past 3.5 months.
Overall my accounts have a performance of -4 percent compared to 2016 of 9 percent growth and 2017 20 percent growth (the two growth years being Obama's and the loss Trumps) and my stocks and bonds are spread out over a diverse area.
Maybe I will try it this way, you are obviously a pious man. Do you think God would really people who are trashing the gift that he has given humanity? Do you think he would not judge them the same as other people who have squandered his gifts?
NinthMusketeer wrote: The big thing I see is a dramatic undermining of US credibility abroad. Our diplomatic deals will not be seen with nearly the same legitimacy. It also pretty much kills Trump's chances of reaching diplomatic solutions to major issues during his Presidency. I'd bet this will affect the Korea talks.
Yep. Trump is cheering himself on as he walks in to talks with NK, while at the same time showing the US will walk away from another deal based on nothing but a political whim.
NK isn't stupid. There is now no chance NK will commit to anything up front, in exchange for ongoing benefits. Which means an idea built around dismantling nuke and ICBM capabilities now, in exchange for on-going access to Chinese fuel is a non-starter. And I can't think of NK deal that isn't built around that basic structure.
The stupidity of Trump's decision on Iran is really quite hard to fully appreciate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: This is *why* the treaty route should've been used.
And of course you were arguing so strongly for Republicans to get on board with ratifying such a treaty.
The Iran deal took the form it did not because Obama just couldn't be bothered writing it all out in a formal treaty for ratification by congress. It took that form it did because there was no way a Republican congress was ever going to sign off anything Obama put up.
Maybe I will try it this way, you are obviously a pious man. Do you think God would really people who are trashing the gift that he has given humanity? Do you think he would not judge them the same as other people who have squandered his gifts?
Pious man? Moi? o.O
No one is advocating to trash the environment.
Except for Scott Pruitt...
Oh... by all means please demonstrate that Pruitt is trashing the environment...
Maybe I will try it this way, you are obviously a pious man. Do you think God would really people who are trashing the gift that he has given humanity? Do you think he would not judge them the same as other people who have squandered his gifts?
Pious man? Moi? o.O
No one is advocating to trash the environment.
Except for Scott Pruitt...
Oh... by all means please demonstrate that Pruitt is trashing the environment...
whembly wrote: This is *why* the treaty route should've been used.
And of course you were arguing so strongly for Republicans to get on board with ratifying such a treaty.
Nope. Me, and the majority of congressional critters opposed it.
The Iran deal took the form it did not because Obama just couldn't be bothered writing it all out in a formal treaty for ratification by congress. It took that form it did because there was no way a Republican congress was ever going to sign off anything Obama put up.
Like I said with previous posters... if there were no way a Republican congress was ever going to sign off anything Obama puts up... then, maybe the agreement isn't all that.
Under the Iran deal, the IAEA has the right put in Iran as many inspectors as it deems necessary, with freedom to investigate all nuclear facilities, and any possible supply chain point that might be importing or moving any equipment that could be used to develop prohibited weapons. If Iran prevents any IAEA agent, or Iran is found to be in breach of its agreement, then the full sanction regime can be restored immediately.
So your claim is not only false, it utter delusion.
d-usa wrote: So nothing Trump says or does actually means that the US is doing anything?
Pretending that the elected leader of the US does not speak for the US is pretty silly. It’s right up there with “he’s not my president” level nonsense.
Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
I know you are a red stooge here to defend your team. But this doesn't even make sense. Leaving an AGREEMENT the country made is not going back on its word? Did you actually read what you wrote?
Whembly, Mitch McConnell blocked every attempt to appoint or hold hearings for new judges. Are they "not all that"? That's blatant partisanship of one side trying to screw the other.
Under the Iran deal, the IAEA has the right put in Iran as many inspectors as it deems necessary, with freedom to investigate all nuclear facilities, and any possible supply chain point that might be importing or moving any equipment that could be used to develop prohibited weapons. If Iran prevents any IAEA agent, or Iran is found to be in breach of its agreement, then the full sanction regime can be restored immediately.
So your claim is not only false, it utter delusion.
The agreement allowed Iran to dictate the terms of IAEA access, which included asking permission for inspections, the ability to deny access to military sites and the ability to take nearly a month’s time to clean up at sites.
whembly wrote: Intercontinential missiles were not included...
They could still refine uranium that could be used for atomic weapons...
The deal has very little teeth and didn't little, if at all, to restrain their pursuits.
That's the kind of half-truth crap you keep reading, and keep believing no matter how times people explain to you it's pure bunk.
It is true that Iran could still have a stockpile of uranium. But that stockpile was now limited to 300kg, less than 1/50 of its total before the deal was struck. It was enough to allow Iran to continue to keep a toe in the nuclear industry, it was a fraction of what was needed to maintain a weapons capability. At the same time Iran's centrifuges were cut by 80%, making a quick return to weapons capability impossible.
But you got spoon fed 'can still refine uranium' and bought in to that while remaining completely ignorant of the greater context. Once again you just play along, dancing to the tune of people who tell you lies.
d-usa wrote: So nothing Trump says or does actually means that the US is doing anything?
Pretending that the elected leader of the US does not speak for the US is pretty silly. It’s right up there with “he’s not my president” level nonsense.
Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
I know you are a red stooge here to defend your team. But this doesn't even make sense. Leaving an AGREEMENT the country made is not going back on its word? Did you actually read what you wrote?
I did.
The Iran deal did not represent America’s word, it represented Obama’s word. Our Constitution and our laws are no secret.
EVERYONE...our allies and Iran would know that a president has no power unilaterally bind the US to an international agreement. We give our word when we enact a treaty or pass some legislative laws to lock in those commitments.
You need to understand your point is absolute junk. Pure fiction. Trash.
The Iran deal states that on a finding by the IAEA that Iran was found with a prohibited program or capability, or was failing to provide the IAEA with the required access, the previous sanctions regime could be immediately re-instated. That is enforcement, it is a sword hanging over Iran, that if they ever breach the treaty they would find themselves back in economic strangulation they suffered from roughly 2005 to 2015.
d-usa wrote: So nothing Trump says or does actually means that the US is doing anything?
Pretending that the elected leader of the US does not speak for the US is pretty silly. It’s right up there with “he’s not my president” level nonsense.
Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
I know you are a red stooge here to defend your team. But this doesn't even make sense. Leaving an AGREEMENT the country made is not going back on its word? Did you actually read what you wrote?
I did.
The Iran deal did not represent America’s word, it represented Obama’s word. Our Constitution and our laws are no secret.
EVERYONE...our allies and Iran would know that a president has no power unilaterally bind the US to an international agreement. We give our word when we enact a treaty or pass some legislative laws to lock in those commitments.
...like the Paris Accord...
and so forth.
He is the American President. His word is out word. Much like Trump's word is out word, as depressing as that sounds. He is our representative on the international scene. What the President says to other countries is in fact, our word. Just because you do not like Obama, does not take away from the fact that he is our representative.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Ok, don't look surprised once Iran actually develops that bomb, cause they basically promised they would now that Trump reneged on the deal.
Which as much as I hate nuclear weapons is still the smart thing to do. US broke their part of bargain. Why reward that by still holding up on their part? Especially as they now have to face real possibility of US invasion in the future. Better to try to get nuclear arsenal as strong that is about only thing that can really protect them from invasion. Only way to be sure of that is have ability to hurt US directly enough they don't feel like invasion is worth it.
d-usa wrote: So nothing Trump says or does actually means that the US is doing anything?
Pretending that the elected leader of the US does not speak for the US is pretty silly. It’s right up there with “he’s not my president” level nonsense.
Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
I know you are a red stooge here to defend your team. But this doesn't even make sense. Leaving an AGREEMENT the country made is not going back on its word? Did you actually read what you wrote?
I did.
The Iran deal did not represent America’s word, it represented Obama’s word. Our Constitution and our laws are no secret.
EVERYONE...our allies and Iran would know that a president has no power unilaterally bind the US to an international agreement. We give our word when we enact a treaty or pass some legislative laws to lock in those commitments.
...like the Paris Accord...
and so forth.
He is the American President. His word is out word. Much like Trump's word is out word, as depressing as that sounds. He is our representative on the international scene. What the President says to other countries is in fact, our word. Just because you do not like Obama, does not take away from the fact that he is our representative.
I'm not saying President Obama didn't represent the US on the international scene.
Read.What.I'm.Typing: If any international agreement doesn't get it's backing from Congressional statute or treaty functionary, then in INTERNATIONAL scene would know full well, that such agreement is vulnerable.
You need to understand your point is absolute junk. Pure fiction. Trash.
The Iran deal states that on a finding by the IAEA that Iran was found with a prohibited program or capability, or was failing to provide the IAEA with the required access, the previous sanctions regime could be immediately re-instated. That is enforcement, it is a sword hanging over Iran, that if they ever breach the treaty they would find themselves back in economic strangulation they suffered from roughly 2005 to 2015.
So stop posting utter nonsense.
he is citing the Constitution. You are the one posting nonsense. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Washington, but load heavy because no one tangles with ghost Washington.
d-usa wrote: So nothing Trump says or does actually means that the US is doing anything?
Pretending that the elected leader of the US does not speak for the US is pretty silly. It’s right up there with “he’s not my president” level nonsense.
Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
I know you are a red stooge here to defend your team. But this doesn't even make sense. Leaving an AGREEMENT the country made is not going back on its word? Did you actually read what you wrote?
I did.
The Iran deal did not represent America’s word, it represented Obama’s word. Our Constitution and our laws are no secret.
EVERYONE...our allies and Iran would know that a president has no power unilaterally bind the US to an international agreement. We give our word when we enact a treaty or pass some legislative laws to lock in those commitments.
...like the Paris Accord...
and so forth.
He is the American President. His word is out word. Much like Trump's word is out word, as depressing as that sounds. He is our representative on the international scene. What the President says to other countries is in fact, our word. Just because you do not like Obama, does not take away from the fact that he is our representative.
I'm not saying President Obama didn't represent the US on the international scene.
Read.What.I'm.Typing: If any international agreement doesn't get it's backing from Congressional statute or treaty functionary, then in INTERNATIONAL scene would know full well, that such agreement is vulnerable.
We're not dealing with stupid people here...
You are not, but I am. Just because it is vulnerable does not mean we are not breaking our word when we back out of an AGREEMENT.
You need to understand your point is absolute junk. Pure fiction. Trash.
The Iran deal states that on a finding by the IAEA that Iran was found with a prohibited program or capability, or was failing to provide the IAEA with the required access, the previous sanctions regime could be immediately re-instated. That is enforcement, it is a sword hanging over Iran, that if they ever breach the treaty they would find themselves back in economic strangulation they suffered from roughly 2005 to 2015.
So stop posting utter nonsense.
Stop reflectively posting anything Trump does is... bad. I
It was an agreement that contained loopholes galore... predicated on the idea that Iran would choose to become a responsible player internationally, abandons terrorism (Hezbella and Hamas), publically 'fess up it's nuclear ambitions (it did not), and ceases its threats to the region and our allies.
d-usa wrote: So nothing Trump says or does actually means that the US is doing anything?
Pretending that the elected leader of the US does not speak for the US is pretty silly. It’s right up there with “he’s not my president” level nonsense.
Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
I know you are a red stooge here to defend your team. But this doesn't even make sense. Leaving an AGREEMENT the country made is not going back on its word? Did you actually read what you wrote?
I did.
The Iran deal did not represent America’s word, it represented Obama’s word. Our Constitution and our laws are no secret.
EVERYONE...our allies and Iran would know that a president has no power unilaterally bind the US to an international agreement. We give our word when we enact a treaty or pass some legislative laws to lock in those commitments.
...like the Paris Accord...
and so forth.
He is the American President. His word is out word. Much like Trump's word is out word, as depressing as that sounds. He is our representative on the international scene. What the President says to other countries is in fact, our word. Just because you do not like Obama, does not take away from the fact that he is our representative.
I'm not saying President Obama didn't represent the US on the international scene.
Read.What.I'm.Typing: If any international agreement doesn't get it's backing from Congressional statute or treaty functionary, then in INTERNATIONAL scene would know full well, that such agreement is vulnerable.
We're not dealing with stupid people here...
You are not, but I am. Just because it is vulnerable does not mean we are not breaking our word when we back out of an AGREEMENT.
Read.What.You.Typed.
Why should a current potus hold a previous administration's "gentleman's agreement" as sacrosanct?
Should President Booker not be able to rescind any international agreement Trump has made via "the pen and w/o congressional blessing" at his discretion?
Disciple of Fate wrote: So, we're now again in the second year of a Republican Presidency, agitating against a country that has a single letter changed from Iraq and Pompeo doing his best Rumsfeldian "known unknowns" impressions. It sure feels like 2003 all over again.
Trump is like adding together all the past Republican presidents, but making each part just that little bit more stupid. Russia collusion is like stupid Watergate. The tax cut is like Reagan's tax cut, but stupider. And now we have Bush's adventurism in the middle east, but somehow even stupider.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
Pedantic gibberish. When another country deals with the US it wants to know that any deal it commits to will be upheld by the US. What we've seen now is that any deal made with the US is only good for the duration of that president, with his replacement free to completely change policy without even articulating a coherent reason for the change.
It shouldn't be hard for anyone to understand why this means the US is surrendering its place driving international agreements. If you want to get hung up on the exact meaning of 'breaking your word', well of course that's what you're going to do, because it lets you ignore the responsibility you have for supporting the collection of idiots and con artists known as the Republican party, who are directly responsible for America ceding its place in world leadership.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Oh... by all means please demonstrate that Pruitt is trashing the environment...
Until this point I at least thought you were above seahorsing, whembly. Poor form.
whembly wrote: Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
Pedantic gibberish. When another country deals with the US it wants to know that any deal it commits to will be upheld by the US. What we've seen now is that any deal made with the US is only good for the duration of that president, with his replacement free to completely change policy without even articulating a coherent reason for the change.
It shouldn't be hard for anyone to understand why this means the US is surrendering its place driving international agreements. If you want to get hung up on the exact meaning of 'breaking your word', well of course that's what you're going to do, because it lets you ignore the responsibility you have for supporting the collection of idiots and con artists known as the Republican party, who are directly responsible for America ceding its place in world leadership.
Ceding it's place in world leadership?
Okay... go with that seb.
Didn't we tango on this subject similarly with the Paris Accord? Did any fallout out from that manifest?
Let me put it another way. Anytime POTUS make any international agreements backed only by his personal say-so, the agreements has no force on future administrations. No more so than any promises I make to my neighbors about what I will do with my property. I give my word, I have an obligation as long as I’m the owner. Future owners can freely disregard any promises I made, though they may find it advantageous to stick to the arrangement, depending on what benefits flow their way.
I suspect everyone who he was making those promises to were well aware of that. This isn't hard seb... Like that thing with Australia, where Obama agreed that we would take those 1200 refugees (or however many it was). Trump didn’t like the deal, and he could have walked away from it. But, that has costs too. He kept the deal, likely because he thought the benefits of future cooperation with Australia outweighed the fact that he thought we really were getting screwed on the deal.
Frazzled wrote: Again, CNN is reporting a Russian related fund gave Cohen $500k, some of which was used to pay off Daniels.
And AT&T paid $200,000 in to the same shell company, at the time the AT&T merger was meeting resistance from Washington. It was for 'consulting', Mr Cohen was meant to be giving AT&T lots of insight into Trump's administration or something.
I don't think anybody gets to pretend they're surprised at the corruption of Trump and lackeys. But I am surprised at the laziness involved. This guy is Trump's handpicked bagman, and the guy was using a single shell company to bring in bribes and pay out for NDAs. And he didn't even bother to hide his position controlling the company, he was listed right there as the sole director. They're just such lazy crooks.
So would that mean Russian money may have been used to pay off Daniels? That's. ...huh.
I knew there was something more to this when Giuliani just volunteered out of nowhere that Trump knew about the payments. Trump and Giuliani knew the details of payments in to Cohen's shell company were coming, they wanted to get ahead of the story, figured it was best that people believed Trump paid Cohen back, even if it meant Trump would then be culpable of a breach of financing laws, it was better than a story that Cohen was repaid by money coming from a Russian oligarch.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: he is citing the Constitution. You are the one posting nonsense. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Washington, but load heavy because no one tangles with ghost Washington.
He's arguing irrelevant trash. The specific legalistic operations of the constitution are irrelevant in a world in which US politicians act with responsibility to ensure a broadly consistent foreign policy. That was the world in which the Iran deal was made.
Think of it this way, in terms of the law and constitution there is literally nothing stopping the US president from declaring a 'police action' and beginning a shock and awe campaign of immense devestation against any other country on earth. Given that legal, constitutional reality, then every country in the world should invest massively in missile screens and nuclear retaliation to stop the US president deciding to do that against their country on a whim. But that doesn't happen, way beyond US legal and constitutional concerns, what other countries respond to is how the US actually behaves. Because the US doesn't, with one remarkable exception, go about devestating military attacks for no good reason, the rest of the world responds to that.
With the Iran deal, the US had a lawful sanctions regime it built with P5+1, and it agreed to drop that sanctions regime in exchange for inspections. The ability to return to that sanctions regime was a real, enforceable threat on Iran. That's what matters, that is a real thing.
The stuff about what is defined as enforceable this or that under this part of that of the constitution is pointless side blather, and it is only attempted by people trying to avoid addressing the actual matters of substance that should be debated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Stop reflectively posting anything Trump does is... bad. I
It was an agreement that contained loopholes galore... predicated on the idea that Iran would choose to become a responsible player internationally, abandons terrorism (Hezbella and Hamas), publically 'fess up it's nuclear ambitions (it did not), and ceases its threats to the region and our allies.
It failed, miserably.
There is nothing in the Iran deal that hopes would suddenly play nice. That's ridiculous nonsense you've just made up, or possibly something some clown you like to read made up, which you ate up without applying any critical thought at all. It's the Middle East. Saudia Arabia and Israel don't play nice. There is a constant struggle for regional dominance between the major players, and they all use proxies to further their own aims.
The Iran nuclear deal is completely unrelated to that. You might as well complain that your local persian place still won't open for lunch, so what good is the Iran nuclear deal?
Frazzled wrote: he is citing the Constitution. You are the one posting nonsense. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Washington, but load heavy because no one tangles with ghost Washington.
He's arguing irrelevant trash. The specific legalistic operations of the constitution are irrelevant in a world in which US politicians act with responsibility to ensure a broadly consistent foreign policy. That was the world in which the Iran deal was made.
Think of it this way, in terms of the law and constitution there is literally nothing stopping the US president from declaring a 'police action' and beginning a shock and awe campaign of immense devestation against any other country on earth. Given that legal, constitutional reality, then every country in the world should invest massively in missile screens and nuclear retaliation to stop the US president deciding to do that against their country on a whim. But that doesn't happen, way beyond US legal and constitutional concerns, what other countries respond to is how the US actually behaves. Because the US doesn't, with one remarkable exception, go about devestating military attacks for no good reason, the rest of the world responds to that.
No. The US Constitution isn't irrelevant to the world.
Any diplomatic negotiations that ignores how our laws works domestically and what authority the constitutions grants our President... will be sorely disappointed.
With the Iran deal, the US had a lawful sanctions regime it built with P5+1, and it agreed to drop that sanctions regime in exchange for inspections. The ability to return to that sanctions regime was a real, enforceable threat on Iran. That's what matters, that is a real thing.
The stuff about what is defined as enforceable this or that under this part of that of the constitution is pointless side blather, and it is only attempted by people trying to avoid addressing the actual matters of substance that should be debated.
It's not pointless... its ENTIRELY THE FETHING POINT!
Frankly, if Trump really wanted to shiv the Iran deal supporters and elected Democrats, he should've formally submitted the agreement as a Treaty for the Senate. That way Trump would show the world that the Senate indeed wouldn’t pass it...and in particular, that many of the Dem senators now criticizing Trump for unilaterally pulling out of the deal wouldn’t vote for its ratification if put the the test, and tying the damn thing around the necks of every Democratic senator who does vote to ratify it. This deal is deeply unpopular here.
So please... stop acting like a handshake from the previous administration is sacrosanct. It doesn't work like that.... and the whole international community knowsthat.
EDIT: btw, SCOTUS recently ruled in Medell v Texas that unless an international agreement is ratified or passed via congressional statute the potus lacks authority to enter a binding international agreement.
I'm trying to imagine the gakstorm that would erupt at a verifiable Russian-Cohen-Trump connection. That would certainly be an...interesting time. I'll just be glad if the storm stays in DC.
whembly wrote: Didn't we tango on this subject similarly with the Paris Accord? Did any fallout out from that manifest?
Stop thinking of what we do here as debate. Debate requires certain basic standards be met, such as some form of penalty for false or dishonest statements, so that the contest is productive in its sum total. This is not debate.
And yeah, leaving the Paris Accord meant the US left its position of leadership in addressing climate change. This wasn't fallout though, it was Trump's express purpose in leaving the deal.
Let me put it another way. Anytime POTUS make any international agreements backed only by his personal say-so, the agreements has no force on future administrations.
As I explained to fraz, constitutionally there is no constraint on the US invading any country for 30 days as a 'police action'. In that time the destructive might of the US could level whole cities. But the world doesn't act as if that might really happen, because the limitations of the US constitutional are not the only constraint. Far more important is the political judgement of the president. The world responds to the expectation of what a president's political judgement will be.
And because of historical precedent, the world has believed the US presented a fairly consistent foreign policy, despite changing presidents.
I suspect everyone who he was making those promises to were well aware of that. This isn't hard seb... Like that thing with Australia, where Obama agreed that we would take those 1200 refugees (or however many it was). Trump didn’t like the deal, and he could have walked away from it. But, that has costs too. He kept the deal, likely because he thought the benefits of future cooperation with Australia outweighed the fact that he thought we really were getting screwed on the deal.
And here you're starting to get it. US presidents have historically weighted the importance of consistent US operations in the world, and its led them to maintain deals from past presidents, even when they personally didn't like those decisions. Now we're seeing a president who doesn't respect that.
It's worth noting that TPP, the Paris Accord and now the Iran deal have all continued after the US has withdrawn. I think in each case there's been a judgement that Trump will go, and things will return to a kind of normal. I actually don't share that judgement, because I think Trump is far less of anomaly in Republican politics than people have yet realised. The fact you're here trying to defend his string of mistakes shows there is a decent base of Republican support that is perfectly okay with Trump's 'I do what I want for reasons I don't understand' brand of foreign policy.
Then repeat back to me what my words were, and then explain why your reply made no sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: No. The US Constitution isn't irrelevant to the world.
Two situations.
1) The world as it currently is, where there is no limit on a president declaring a police action and inflicting a 30 shock and awe campaign of enormous devastation against countries picked pretty much at random, but a long history of US presidents not doing that, and never expressing any desire to ever do that.
2) A world where the US president has undertaken 'police actions' against a dozen countries across the planet, using airpower and missiles to kill hundreds of thousands. A constitutional amendment was passed that no military force could be authorised for any kind of offense without congressional approval, but there's also a new presidential candidate running on a platform of 'that stuff was awesome let's do more of that'.
According to your grand theory, the former is the world in which every country would be making allowance for the US president who might attack at random, because there's no constitutional hard limit on doing do. While in the latter countries would be far less worried, because even though it had actually happened and there's a candidate who says he wants to do it again, at least now there's a constitutional hard limit which could do something.
Obviously your grand theory is ridiculous. Countries don't deal with each other purely on the basis of how formal treaties get protected in law in those countries. I bet you couldn't even describe the treaty process in a single other country on Earth. Countries deal with each other based on precedent, and the level of commitment countries show to maintaining a consistent set of negotiated points with other countries.
sebster wrote: It's worth noting that TPP, the Paris Accord and now the Iran deal have all continued after the US has withdrawn. I think in each case there's been a judgement that Trump will go, and things will return to a kind of normal. I actually don't share that judgement, because I think Trump is far less of anomaly in Republican politics than people have yet realised. The fact you're here trying to defend his string of mistakes shows there is a decent base of Republican support that is perfectly okay with Trump's 'I do what I want for reasons I don't understand' brand of foreign policy.
To be fair people on both sides (though obviously weighted towards one) often use the sentiments of 'anomaly' and 'unprecedented' interchangeably. The reality is that Trump is unprecedented but not an anomaly; he is unusual in how bad he is but it isn't some random occurrence but rather the inevitable destination that a decent chunk of people have seen coming for some time. Almost anyone who is educated, follows politics, and isn't Republican has known this was coming. Whether they acknowledged that or tried to convince themselves otherwise is a different matter; I know a number of individuals who more or less knew this was coming deep down but really didn't want to believe that it would happen (can't really blame them).
Where I semi-disagree with you is the timeline of the slide. I feel like GOP politics was not this bad under Obama's second term, which in turn was not as bad as under his first, and so on. Or in other words they weren't THIS crazy/dumb until Trump showed up.
Mitch McConnell was asked "Are the ads Don Blankenship is running at the conclusion of the West Virginia race racist? Are his ads racist?" McConnell replied "Well we're gonna find out what happens in West Virgnia tonight, and I may have more to say about that tomorrow."
So McConnell is willing to speak out against racism, once McConnell is confident the the racist won't be representing the Republicans in a senate campaign. He has a clear opposition to racism as long as it won't involve any personal risk or impact his control of the senate.
In the race in West Virginia, Blankenship ended up with 21% of the vote, which was in line with the limited public polling we saw. The story about Blankenship's late surge, which driven entirely by stories about internal polls from other candidates, looks like it was basically junk. There's a lesson here - stories about internal polls are selective at best, and more likely manipulated or maybe even totally made up by the campaign for its own benefit. In this case the story looked to be mostly from the other Republican candidates, trying to create a fear of Blankenship winning to drive voters to them.
(though obviously weighted towards one) often use the sentiments of 'anomaly' and 'unprecedented' interchangeably. The reality is that Trump is unprecedented but not an anomaly; he is unusual in how bad he is but it isn't some random occurrence but rather the inevitable destination that a decent chunk of people have seen coming for some time. Almost anyone who is educated, follows politics, and isn't Republican has known this was coming. Whether they acknowledged that or tried to convince themselves otherwise is a different matter; I know a number of individuals who more or less knew this was coming deep down but really didn't want to believe that it would happen (can't really blame them).
Where I semi-disagree with you is the timeline of the slide. I feel like GOP politics was not this bad under Obama's second term, which in turn was not as bad as under his first, and so on. Or in other words they weren't THIS crazy/dumb until Trump showed up.
Oh I agree they weren't this bad before they started trying to defend Trump. But that wasn't a change in direction, it was an acceleration of a process that had been decades in the making, as you note. We've been watching Republicans always find a new way to reach bottom, only to show time and again they can keep going so much lower.
Man, I remember when Dan Quayle was mocked and declared unpresidential because he used a regional variation to spell potatoes. In the modern GOP he'd probably be the egghead.
As to the actual timeline of the slide, there's a whole bunch of points you could point to for when it began. The line can be drawn at the beginning of FOX News, as that was when Republicans stopped engaging with greater society, now they had such a reliable recipient for their message. Personally I've used Newt Gingrich's appointment as speaker, as that was the point the GOP committed to using the tools of government not to govern but to continue the political war. But really both those points were the product of earlier choices. To me it really began with Reagan's election with his policy of supply side economics. This isn't to villify Reagan, who reversed much of the policy when it became clear it didn't work. But Reagan reversed it because the GOP he led was still full of actual experts who could speak freely about the problems they saw. But supply side wasn't fully rejected despite clearly not working as claimed and being pretty obviously stupid. With Reagan's two big wins the party had a policy that lobbyists and the donor class loved, moving away from that as a party is near impossible. But because the idea was so stupid, something no serious academic or thinker could pretend to believe, the result was serious academics and thinkers slowly stopped entering Republican circles. Over time the existing serious thinkers were slowly replaced grifters who didn't care if it was crap, or hacks who couldn't get work anywhere that required actual expertise. So what you see over the next couple of decades is all of Republican aligned academia just disappear.
Have you noticed that the last serious Republican proposal on any policy issue was on healthcare, and that ended in the early 90s? Since then they've produced nothing beyond 'how about some more tax cuts' and 'the Democrat thing is bad'. Once essential think tanks like Heritage became producers of pure nonsense, employing not a single researcher respected outside of the Republican bubble.
The one hope I've got right now is the unpopularity of the GOP tax cut. It's less popular than GW Bush and Clinton's tax hikes If the GOP realise that cutting taxes is not the electoral free ticket it once was, and won't keep winning them elections, they might start trying to build an actual base of policies, first by attracting some actual thinkers back to the party.
I really like your description of Trump as unprecedented but not an anomaly, gonna steal that.
sebster wrote: It's worth noting that TPP, the Paris Accord and now the Iran deal have all continued after the US has withdrawn. I think in each case there's been a judgement that Trump will go, and things will return to a kind of normal. I actually don't share that judgement, because I think Trump is far less of anomaly in Republican politics than people have yet realised. The fact you're here trying to defend his string of mistakes shows there is a decent base of Republican support that is perfectly okay with Trump's 'I do what I want for reasons I don't understand' brand of foreign policy.
Well the Iran deal is unlikely to continue. Iran needs those nukes as invasion is pretty much only matter of time since one of the most hostile and aggressive countries in the world with record of invasion and toppling of goverments withdrew from treaty.
Since Iran can't count on military aid when they get invaded they need to become force that others don't want to invade. And since conventional weapons are not going to be enough nukes are pretty much only thing they might get that's good enough.
Diplomacy and 100% no WMD's even when no WMD situation is known is not enough to protect from invasion. That's been shown before.
As it is only way you are safe is by either being able to hurt back enough no invasion feels worth or you simply have nothing worth sending military in for.
North Korea is pouring over every single bit of information they can get about not just Trump and Pompeo, but every advisor and analyst in the US team. Meanwhile, Pompeo puts out his press statement saying he is working to put in place the agenda between the President and "Chairman Un". The second most important guy on the US side can't even get the NK leader's name right. And he's still a lot better prepared than the most important guy, because the most important guy is Trump and he thinks if he can just get in a room with Kim he can wing it.
tneva82 wrote: Well the Iran deal is unlikely to continue. Iran needs those nukes as invasion is pretty much only matter of time since one of the most hostile and aggressive countries in the world with record of invasion and toppling of goverments withdrew from treaty.
Since Iran can't count on military aid when they get invaded they need to become force that others don't want to invade. And since conventional weapons are not going to be enough nukes are pretty much only thing they might get that's good enough.
Iran is now in a very weird place. I honestly don't know how they're going to play it. They're absolutely right to be afraid of US invasion, and nukes is the only real protection against that as long as people like Trump can be elected, and as long as people like Bolton are a factor in one side of US politics.
But returning to building the bomb is really just gifting the US their casus belli. And even the hardliners in Iranian society would have to admit given the data breaches so far there's no way they could confidently develop the bomb without news of it coming out.
sebster wrote: It's worth noting that TPP, the Paris Accord and now the Iran deal have all continued after the US has withdrawn. I think in each case there's been a judgement that Trump will go, and things will return to a kind of normal. I actually don't share that judgement, because I think Trump is far less of anomaly in Republican politics than people have yet realised. The fact you're here trying to defend his string of mistakes shows there is a decent base of Republican support that is perfectly okay with Trump's 'I do what I want for reasons I don't understand' brand of foreign policy.
Well the Iran deal is unlikely to continue. Iran needs those nukes as invasion is pretty much only matter of time since one of the most hostile and aggressive countries in the world with record of invasion and toppling of goverments withdrew from treaty.
Since Iran can't count on military aid when they get invaded they need to become force that others don't want to invade. And since conventional weapons are not going to be enough nukes are pretty much only thing they might get that's good enough.
Diplomacy and 100% no WMD's even when no WMD situation is known is not enough to protect from invasion. That's been shown before.
As it is only way you are safe is by either being able to hurt back enough no invasion feels worth or you simply have nothing worth sending military in for.
Spot on. When there was all that whining and carrying on about the deal (and Iran's nuclear program) at the beginning my first thought was "this a country that stalemated with Iraq and thus is of roughly equal strength. The US proved it could overwhelm conventional forces of that strength, so the rational move is to get non-conventional weapons".
I really don't understand how this surprised anyone, except maybe the part of the GOP base that thinks the whole of Iran is two guys with a goat in a desert.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Ok, don't look surprised once Iran actually develops that bomb, cause they basically promised they would now that Trump reneged on the deal.
Which as much as I hate nuclear weapons is still the smart thing to do. US broke their part of bargain. Why reward that by still holding up on their part? Especially as they now have to face real possibility of US invasion in the future. Better to try to get nuclear arsenal as strong that is about only thing that can really protect them from invasion. Only way to be sure of that is have ability to hurt US directly enough they don't feel like invasion is worth it.
Some US academics of the Neorealist international relations approach actually advocate Iran getting nuclear weapons because it will tone down Iran and stabilize a region with only a single nuclear power as of now. Iran being so heavily comitted to proxy wars and terrorism because it shifts any potential attention elsewhere. If Iran wasn't doing such things they argue, they might give enemies time to invade in the mind of Iran. It certainly seems to be in Iranian interest to quickly develop something, but the issue is that if Trump wants to invade, the Iranians will never make it timewise.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So, we're now again in the second year of a Republican Presidency, agitating against a country that has a single letter changed from Iraq and Pompeo doing his best Rumsfeldian "known unknowns" impressions. It sure feels like 2003 all over again.
Trump is like adding together all the past Republican presidents, but making each part just that little bit more stupid. Russia collusion is like stupid Watergate. The tax cut is like Reagan's tax cut, but stupider. And now we have Bush's adventurism in the middle east, but somehow even stupider.
Trump and co are basically Republican Jackass, they see stupid things and try to make it look even worse to bask in all the attention.
Foreign policy wise? Let's see...
-withdrew from Paris Accord...
-withdrew from TPP...
-decimated ISIS...
-Syrian response...
-detente with North Korea (so far)
-and now withdrawing from Iran Nuke Accord
The Paris Accord withdrawel has let China of all countries step into the normative leader role and reap the economic benefits of the future, fossile fuels are not sustainable in the long run, because technology is moving past it. It is the US saving some money now to miss out on a lot in the future.
As for the TPP. That was an incredible move to establish because it basically meant that China would be pressured into playing by the rules of the US. You know your foreign policy decisions are sound when Xi Jinping is jumping up and down for joy about you leaving the TPP... Again, the US giving up an extremely beneficial political and economic role on the international level and for what? Saving jobs that turns out are going to be lost anyway?
ISIS was already decimated. Its defeat assured under Obama. The fate of Mosul was decided upon in the closing months of the Obama admin. All Trump did was make the US military bomb more to speed up the process. We have independent organizations noting that civilian casualties skyrocketed. And it was all for nothing, ISIS was a spent force. The only thing keeping ISIS in Iraq and Syria was Iraqi and Syrian incompetence when it came to quick offensive actions. That is how Trump speeded it up, by bombing everything the Iraqi army was too scared to push on without it being levelled first. The second the US went back to Iraq it was over, it wasn't a matter of if, just when.
The Syrian response is symbolism. It was punishing someone for having blood on his hands when he was already up to his waist in a sea of blood. Assad is going to win this civil war, nothing has improved.
Again, North Korea comes in for a detente on about a 10 year rotation. With no indication that this time its different. All Kim has done is some non-comittal showmanship. And even if it proceeds, NK can afford the detente seeing as it has nukes now. If actual detente comes about that is by virtue of NK becoming a nuclear power, not Trump yelling at Kim on twitter. Iran just killed any possible deal, no peace in the Korean peninsula this decade. If Kim plays his cards right he might develop larger international economic relations while holding on to his nukes, because Trump comes across as the untrustworthy one right now.
Just another note on how completely stupid Republican policy positions have become, does everyone remember back during the depths of the GFC when it was very popular on the right to claim that unemployment wasn't due to demand shortage because of the housing and financial sector crash, actually it was due to the 'skills gap', the difference between the skills the labour force had and the skills that employers actually needed? They argued that all this stuff about short term deficits to offset the fall in private spending was doomed, what was needed was vast reforms to education and industry.
Those vast reforms never happened. Despite that, somehow the number of jobs to unemployed people steadily fell, year on year. It was as if the sudden spike in unemployment then its slow steady recovery was nothing to do with the sudden emergence of a skills gap, but was actually about a sudden fall in private spending caused by a collapse in housing and the financial sector, followed by a slow but steady recovery.
Years later, has a single one of those right wing pundits ever addressed their mistakes, admitted they got it all wrong? Of course not, instead they just continued claiming everything was terrible in the economy while Obama was president, then switched to everything being great now Trump is president, with not one sensible reason as to why. Silence on the bull market under Obama switched to cheering that same bull market once Trump was in power, before it returned to silence once it turned to bear.
Also, these are the same guys who called for hyperinflation year after year. Has one of them ever admitted they were wrong? These are the same guys who claimed Bush's tax cuts and then Trump's, would produce increased tax revenues. Absolutely wrong, never a moment's reflection from any of them.
Thing is, every political party has hacks. It's just a necessary reality of politics. The issue with Republicans today is there's nothing but hacks. In order to be part of the Republican party you have to embrace ideas that only the most shameless hacks will even consider. And then these are the same guys you rely on to write new policy. It's a grim place for a major political party to wander in to.
How can they be wrong when it is going to happen in the future sometime? In 20 or 30 years from now if it ever occurs they can say "see we told you so, thanks Obama."
Probably like this. Trump's election is the fault of Obama so everything he does is really the fault of Obama if it goes wrong. The next Democratic President is a backlash against Trump, when the primary person responsible for Trump is obviously Obama, so its still his fault. When the new Republican President comes in after that, it is obviously another backlash against the Democrat who only got in thanks to, you guessed it, Obama.
Don 'I married an asian woman while Mitch McConnell married a China person' Blankenship lost and that's been the big story out of Tuesday's primaries, but also interesting to note was the Sanders wing continues to misfire completely. Kucinich couldn't crack 25% in his primary, and Swearingin just limped over 30% in WV. The dreams of a far left take over the Democratic party are yet to take a single scalp. Compare to the Tea Party primaries in 2010, which began with an incredible string of incumbents being defeated in primaries by far right candidates.
And on a slightly different note, here's a friendly reminder that coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign was incredibly stupid. Dowd isn't some random hack either, she's won a Pulitzer for her work on Clinton & Lewinksy. Among certain parts of the left wing she's an absolute darling. I never liked her work much, but that's because it tended towards gossip and personality over policy, not because it was crap. But there she was in 2016 producing the most extraordinary rubbish, and she was far from alone.
Disciple of Fate wrote: How can they be wrong when it is going to happen in the future sometime? In 20 or 30 years from now if it ever occurs they can say "see we told you so, thanks Obama."
The skills shortage was meant to be happening right now, it was the explanation for the high unemployment of 2009, 2010 etc.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Ok, don't look surprised once Iran actually develops that bomb, cause they basically promised they would now that Trump reneged on the deal.
Which as much as I hate nuclear weapons is still the smart thing to do. US broke their part of bargain. Why reward that by still holding up on their part? Especially as they now have to face real possibility of US invasion in the future. Better to try to get nuclear arsenal as strong that is about only thing that can really protect them from invasion. Only way to be sure of that is have ability to hurt US directly enough they don't feel like invasion is worth it.
Some US academics of the Neorealist international relations approach actually advocate Iran getting nuclear weapons because it will tone down Iran and stabilize a region with only a single nuclear power as of now. ... ... ... .
The region contains four nuclear powers; Russia, Israel, Pakistan and India. I'm not sure if adding Iran would make this more stable or less.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Ok, don't look surprised once Iran actually develops that bomb, cause they basically promised they would now that Trump reneged on the deal.
Which as much as I hate nuclear weapons is still the smart thing to do. US broke their part of bargain. Why reward that by still holding up on their part? Especially as they now have to face real possibility of US invasion in the future. Better to try to get nuclear arsenal as strong that is about only thing that can really protect them from invasion. Only way to be sure of that is have ability to hurt US directly enough they don't feel like invasion is worth it.
Some US academics of the Neorealist international relations approach actually advocate Iran getting nuclear weapons because it will tone down Iran and stabilize a region with only a single nuclear power as of now. ... ... ... .
The region contains four nuclear powers; Russia, Israel, Pakistan and India. I'm not sure if adding Iran would make this more stable or less.
That depends, when talking about the Middle Eastern region generally those three aren't considered to be part of it. I should have been more specific, but those three countries are barely involved in Middle Eastern regional dynamics besides Russia for the moment.
The argument of proponents is that Iran is facing a security crisis with a hostile US and its host of Sunni regional allies. Acquiring nuclear weapons would solve the Iranian security crisis because they are now safe from outside invasion in a hostile region. If that occurs so the argument goes, the need for Iran to engage in hostile and agressive politics abroad will diminish, because the distraction value is not as vital anymore.
Disciple of Fate wrote: How can they be wrong when it is going to happen in the future sometime? In 20 or 30 years from now if it ever occurs they can say "see we told you so, thanks Obama."
The skills shortage was meant to be happening right now, it was the explanation for the high unemployment of 2009, 2010 etc.
I know you meant that, I was just helping them inevitably move their goalposts
sebster wrote: Thing is, every political party has hacks. It's just a necessary reality of politics. The issue with Republicans today is there's nothing but hacks. In order to be part of the Republican party you have to embrace ideas that only the most shameless hacks will even consider. And then these are the same guys you rely on to write new policy. It's a grim place for a major political party to wander in to.
That statement should read "And then these are the same guys you watch attempting to write new policy." Because it's worth continuing to hammer the point that with control of all three branches Republicans have gotten a tax bill the opposite of the '86 one (with the opposite public opinion even), and
Kilkrazy wrote: The region contains four nuclear powers; Russia, Israel, Pakistan and India. I'm not sure if adding Iran would make this more stable or less.
Pakistan isn't included in the middle east, and India certainly isn't. While it can be argued that's largely an artefact of British colonial rule of that region causing it to be seperated, that argument only goes so far, as Pakistani politics looks eastward towards India, while India only looks west in terms of Pakistan and is mostly looking at China. And if you're going to include India and Russia, why not China as well? China is a bigger player in ME politics now than India is.
As to whether ME politics would be more stable with a nuclear armed Iran, well no it wouldn't be. Nuclear non-proliferation is always better than not, and beyond that Iran is not a stable country. While some of their external instability from the threat of Saudia Arabia/USA would be removed by Iran getting the bomb, Iran is also unstable because its a religious theocracy ruling over a country with a growing, moderate urban population. It's another Pakistan, and we really don't want another one of those.
That's why Russia and China signed up alongside the US, Britain, France and Germany to install the sanctions, then use those sanctions to require Iran to give up its nuclear program. Because even countries with so many opposing interests like that group all know the last the world needs is another Pakistan.
I don't believe it would help overall stability either, just that some believe it would. But in the end it is the better option for Iran as the dust on the Iran deal settles. We could try and help Iran not become Pakistan and develop more slowly towards normalized politics as the population is agitating for. What the US shouldn't be doing is playing India to Iran's Pakistan and make them terrified enough about survival that they go nuclear. It didn't work for NK, why the hell would it work for Iran?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Honest question; could Iran be trusted to not work on building nuclear weapons?
Yes, Iran actually abandoned their efforts in 2003, which was verified by the IAEA, probably over the risk of what was happening next door. Now you blow the case wide open, the lack of trust while Iran is not doing anything is basically pressuring them to develop nuclear weapons, because the US doesn't trust them anyway and might go known unknowns on their ass. Better to have nuclear weapons out in the open in that case.
Edit: As Sebster mentions, the international community can observe, so I should have said "yes under the Iran deal" to be more precise.
NinthMusketeer wrote: That statement should read "And then these are the same guys you watch attempting to write new policy." Because it's worth continuing to hammer the point that with control of all three branches Republicans have gotten a tax bill the opposite of the '86 one (with the opposite public opinion even), and
Yeah, not just in result but in process it's the opposite of the '86 bill in a lot of ways. In '86 you had a long series of congressional committees talking to a lot of experts in accounting, tax law and economics, before a bi-partisan legislative process was begun, and only concluded about a year later. Trump's tax cut was written in draft form quite literally over a couple of weeks, by staffers of the key Republican legislators, with no input from any noted policy experts. The bill was hidden from the public until extremely late in the process, and tied to as tight a timeline as possible to avoid any public engagement.
As a result there was minimal offsets to the tax cuts. A handful of personal deductions that Republicans assessed would mostly impact blue states, but it was essentially just a deficit funded tax cut, which actually new special carve outs for high stakes property developers and hedge fund managers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Honest question; could Iran be trusted to not work on building nuclear weapons?
Not trusted, no. That's why the deal wasn't built around trust, but around the IAEA having the power to put as many investigators as they wanted in the country, with power to review not just nuclear sites but also any supply chain points that might be used to move nuclear infrastructure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: I don't believe it would help overall stability either, just that some believe it would. But in the end it is the better option for Iran as the dust on the Iran deal settles. We could try and help Iran not become Pakistan and develop more slowly towards normalized politics as the populatiin is agitating for. What the US shouldn't be doing is playing India to Iran's Pakistan and make them terrified enough about survival that they go nuclear. It didn't work for NK, why the hell would it work for Iran?
Oh sure, what's best for Iran, or more specifically the Iranian regime, is a very different question to what's best for the region or the world at large.
And yeah, with the invasion of Iraq, constant speculation about war with Iran and now dropping out of the Iran nuclear deal, its like the 21st century policy of the Republican party is to make Iran feel it needs the bomb.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I don't believe it would help overall stability either, just that some believe it would. But in the end it is the better option for Iran as the dust on the Iran deal settles. We could try and help Iran not become Pakistan and develop more slowly towards normalized politics as the populatiin is agitating for. What the US shouldn't be doing is playing India to Iran's Pakistan and make them terrified enough about survival that they go nuclear. It didn't work for NK, why the hell would it work for Iran?
Oh sure, what's best for Iran, or more specifically the Iranian regime, is a very different question to what's best for the region or the world at large.
And yeah, with the invasion of Iraq, constant speculation about war with Iran and now dropping out of the Iran nuclear deal, its like the 21st century policy of the Republican party is to make Iran feel it needs the bomb.
A very different question indeed. But I indeed started off with mentioning that some Neorealists consider Iran getting the bomb to be good for regional stability, because it removes an element of anarchy. I don't agree with that approach or most of Neorealism for that matter. But the an academic opinion in support of Iran exists in the US.
The main question mark is going to be if the rest of the nations can maintain the Iran deal as is when the US just sets it on fire. Its going to be interesting to see if Iran gains some concessions in exchange for sticking to the terms.
whembly wrote: Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
Pedantic gibberish. When another country deals with the US it wants to know that any deal it commits to will be upheld by the US. What we've seen now is that any deal made with the US is only good for the duration of that president, with his replacement free to completely change policy without even articulating a coherent reason for the change.
It shouldn't be hard for anyone to understand why this means the US is surrendering its place driving international agreements. If you want to get hung up on the exact meaning of 'breaking your word', well of course that's what you're going to do, because it lets you ignore the responsibility you have for supporting the collection of idiots and con artists known as the Republican party, who are directly responsible for America ceding its place in world leadership.
Executive actions by a sittting POTUS are always subject to change by the next administration. This has been a well known fact since Washington became our first President. Quite often candidates run on platforms of 180 shifts in policy and agreements of the previous or incumbent POTUS. Obama ran on countermanding numerous executive orders and policies of the Bush administration. Anything done by a current POTUS can be undone by a future POTUS and anything done by a current session of Congress can be undone by a future session of Congress this has been true throughout US history and instances of it happening aren’t uncommon at all.
Future War Cultist wrote: Honest question; could Iran be trusted to not work on building nuclear weapons?
Not on their words. That's why there's these things called "inspectors".
Now we are expected to trust Trump's word more than IAEA that they have broken the deal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: The main question mark is going to be if the rest of the nations can maintain the Iran deal as is when the US just sets it on fire. Its going to be interesting to see if Iran gains some concessions in exchange for sticking to the terms.
But has they interest in sticking to terms when not creating bomb will result in US invasion...What they can get from other countries? Quaranteed military intervention when US attacks? Like they would believe EU would send their forces into war against US.
whembly wrote: Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
Pedantic gibberish. When another country deals with the US it wants to know that any deal it commits to will be upheld by the US. What we've seen now is that any deal made with the US is only good for the duration of that president, with his replacement free to completely change policy without even articulating a coherent reason for the change.
It shouldn't be hard for anyone to understand why this means the US is surrendering its place driving international agreements. If you want to get hung up on the exact meaning of 'breaking your word', well of course that's what you're going to do, because it lets you ignore the responsibility you have for supporting the collection of idiots and con artists known as the Republican party, who are directly responsible for America ceding its place in world leadership.
Executive actions by a sittting POTUS are always subject to change by the next administration. This has been a well known fact since Washington became our first President. Quite often candidates run on platforms of 180 shifts in policy and agreements of the previous or incumbent POTUS. Obama ran on countermanding numerous executive orders and policies of the Bush administration. Anything done by a current POTUS can be undone by a future POTUS and anything done by a current session of Congress can be undone by a future session of Congress this has been true throughout US history and instances of it happening aren’t uncommon at all.
That isn't the point. The point is that these actions undermine US credibility for zero reason. There isn't one convincing argument to be made because having international oversight with less sanctions is far better than no oversight with sanctions. It benefits the US economically to stay in the deal. Iran isn't going to give in to Trump's demands and arguing about how Trump can do it is just a meaningless distraction from the wider consequences. Its trying to debate semantics with a firefighter while the house is burning down.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The main question mark is going to be if the rest of the nations can maintain the Iran deal as is when the US just sets it on fire. Its going to be interesting to see if Iran gains some concessions in exchange for sticking to the terms.
But has they interest in sticking to terms when not creating bomb will result in US invasion...What they can get from other countries? Quaranteed military intervention when US attacks? Like they would believe EU would send their forces into war against US.
Exactly, that is the interesting part. Are the other parties willing to keep imposing sanctions if the US is the unreliable partner breaking the deals? Iran is not at fault, so are you going to punish them for not holding to a deal someone else already broke? The only deal at that. That is going to be most interesting from a European/Russian/Chinese perspective.
whembly wrote: Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
Pedantic gibberish. When another country deals with the US it wants to know that any deal it commits to will be upheld by the US. What we've seen now is that any deal made with the US is only good for the duration of that president, with his replacement free to completely change policy without even articulating a coherent reason for the change.
It shouldn't be hard for anyone to understand why this means the US is surrendering its place driving international agreements. If you want to get hung up on the exact meaning of 'breaking your word', well of course that's what you're going to do, because it lets you ignore the responsibility you have for supporting the collection of idiots and con artists known as the Republican party, who are directly responsible for America ceding its place in world leadership.
Executive actions by a sittting POTUS are always subject to change by the next administration. This has been a well known fact since Washington became our first President. Quite often candidates run on platforms of 180 shifts in policy and agreements of the previous or incumbent POTUS. Obama ran on countermanding numerous executive orders and policies of the Bush administration. Anything done by a current POTUS can be undone by a future POTUS and anything done by a current session of Congress can be undone by a future session of Congress this has been true throughout US history and instances of it happening aren’t uncommon at all.
That isn't the point. The point is that these actions undermine US credibility for zero reason. There isn't one convincing argument to be made because having international oversight with less sanctions is far better than no oversight with sanctions. It benefits the US economically to stay in the deal. Iran isn't going to give in to Trump's demands and arguing about how Trump can do it is just a meaningless distraction from the wider consequences. Its trying to debate semantics with a firefighter while the house is burning down.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The main question mark is going to be if the rest of the nations can maintain the Iran deal as is when the US just sets it on fire. Its going to be interesting to see if Iran gains some concessions in exchange for sticking to the terms.
But has they interest in sticking to terms when not creating bomb will result in US invasion...What they can get from other countries? Quaranteed military intervention when US attacks? Like they would believe EU would send their forces into war against US.
Exactly, that is the interesting part. Are the other parties willing to keep imposing sanctions if the US is the unreliable partner breaking the deals? Iran is not at fault, so are you going to punish them for not holding to a deal someone else already broke? The only deal at that. That is going to be most interesting from a European/Russian/Chinese perspective.
Trumps backing out of the Iran agreement doesn’t undermine anything because Trump wasn’t the President that made the agreement in the first place. A commitment by the Executive branch that isn’t ratified by Congress does not and never has in US history compel any and every future administration to abide by it. Failing to abide by an obligation that doesn’t actually exist doesn’t undermine anything. Every new administration is a fresh start that isn’t beholden to any previous administration that has always been the case. Obama campaigned on reversing pretty much all of Bushs foreign policy decisions and nobody thought that was unusual because of Obamacare won nobody expected him to feel compelled to support the foreign policy of his predecessor. Obama won he changed US foreign policy and the ability of future presidents to negotiate with foreign powers wasn’t undermined forever. I’m not a fan of Trump either and I’m glad I didn’t vote for him but it’s ridiculous to invent unwritten rules to be mad at Trump for breaking.
Trumps backing out of the Iran agreement doesn’t undermine anything because Trump wasn’t the President that made the agreement in the first place. A commitment by the Executive branch that isn’t ratified by Congress does not and never has in US history compel any and every future administration to abide by it. Failing to abide by an obligation that doesn’t actually exist doesn’t undermine anything. Every new administration is a fresh start that isn’t beholden to any previous administration that has always been the case. Obama campaigned on reversing pretty much all of Bushs foreign policy decisions and nobody thought that was unusual because of Obamacare won nobody expected him to feel compelled to support the foreign policy of his predecessor. Obama won he changed US foreign policy and the ability of future presidents to negotiate with foreign powers wasn’t undermined forever. I’m not a fan of Trump either and I’m glad I didn’t vote for him but it’s ridiculous to invent unwritten rules to be mad at Trump for breaking.
How does it not undermine the North Korea talks or any future talks with Iran. International politics is more than just internal US justification, a lot of it is based on reputation and trust. If Trump goes around willy nilly breaking deals because he can that damages the US in the future too. Nobody is going to just make deals when the next idiot in chief can just say feth these people.
The unspoken rules of international politics have existed before Trump was even born, no need to invent them. And In case you missed it Obama fixed a lot of the international standing of the US after it took a nosedive under Bush over Iraq.
Trumps backing out of the Iran agreement doesn’t undermine anything because Trump wasn’t the President that made the agreement in the first place. A commitment by the Executive branch that isn’t ratified by Congress does not and never has in US history compel any and every future administration to abide by it. Failing to abide by an obligation that doesn’t actually exist doesn’t undermine anything. Every new administration is a fresh start that isn’t beholden to any previous administration that has always been the case. Obama campaigned on reversing pretty much all of Bushs foreign policy decisions and nobody thought that was unusual because of Obamacare won nobody expected him to feel compelled to support the foreign policy of his predecessor. Obama won he changed US foreign policy and the ability of future presidents to negotiate with foreign powers wasn’t undermined forever. I’m not a fan of Trump either and I’m glad I didn’t vote for him but it’s ridiculous to invent unwritten rules to be mad at Trump for breaking.
How does it not undermine the North Korea talks or any future talks with Iran. International politics is more than just internal US justification, a lot of it is based on reputation and trust. If Trump goes around willy nilly breaking deals because he can that damages the US in the future too. Nobody is going to just make deals when the next idiot in chief can just say feth these people.
The unspoken rules of international politics have existed before Trump was even born, no need to invent them. And In case you missed it Obama fixed a lot of the international standing of the US after it took a nosedive under Bush over Iraq.
It undermines Trumps credibility but not the US. I don’t expect Iran to want to negotiate with Trump but if we have a new President in 2020 I don’t expect other nations to not trust that new POTUS because of stuff Trump did. Blair committed to sending troops and supporting the US invasion of Iraq so should I presume that the current PM will send troops to help invade Iran if Trump decides to do that? No I shouldn’t because new administrations aren’t beholden to the policies of old ones. Obama had Hillary as SecState give Putin an actual reset button to highlight the fact that the Obama administration was a fresh start wholly independent from the previous Bush administration, this isn’t a new or radical concept. Iran mad early this season with the Obama administration knowing full well that it was not binding in any way for the next “idiot in chief” or the following one. Again, understanding that agreements with a given POTUS administration only last for the duration of that administration has been an accepted fact of the US govt/political system for the entirety of our existence.
Trump backing out of the Iran agreement undermines lots.
For a start it undermines the agreement.
It undermines the confidence of all of the USA's allies except the Saudis. (Nearly everyone, including loads of the Israeli military and security establishment, wants to leep the agreement.
No-one cares that Trump technically has the right to back out. He technically has the right to hand over the nuclear launch codes to Russia, shoot Melanie and pardon himself for it, and send troops into Canada for a "police action".
We're not saying we oppose Trump backing out because it was illegal. We oppose it because it's harmful.
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump backing out of the Iran agreement undermines lots.
For a start it undermines the agreement.
It undermines the confidence of all of the USA's allies except the Saudis. (Nearly everyone, including loads of the Israeli military and security establishment, wants to leep the agreement.
No-one cares that Trump technically has the right to back out. He technically has the right to hand over the nuclear launch codes to Russia, shoot Melanie and pardon himself for it, and send troops into Canada for a "police action".
We're not saying we oppose Trump backing out because it was illegal. We oppose it because it's harmful.
I agree that Trump shouldn’t have backed out of the agreement because the agreement was good foreign policy. The US should have a better relationship with Iran that is important for the ME region and US interests. Backing out of the agreement undermines Trumps trustworthiness and makes him look weak and easily influenced by foreign interests (backing out makes the US look like a tool of KSA because this move really doesn’t help the US). The idea that this decision by Trump will undermine the ability of future presidents who aren’t Trump to make deals and agreements is hyperbolic.
Trumps backing out of the Iran agreement doesn’t undermine anything because Trump wasn’t the President that made the agreement in the first place. A commitment by the Executive branch that isn’t ratified by Congress does not and never has in US history compel any and every future administration to abide by it. Failing to abide by an obligation that doesn’t actually exist doesn’t undermine anything. Every new administration is a fresh start that isn’t beholden to any previous administration that has always been the case. Obama campaigned on reversing pretty much all of Bushs foreign policy decisions and nobody thought that was unusual because of Obamacare won nobody expected him to feel compelled to support the foreign policy of his predecessor. Obama won he changed US foreign policy and the ability of future presidents to negotiate with foreign powers wasn’t undermined forever. I’m not a fan of Trump either and I’m glad I didn’t vote for him but it’s ridiculous to invent unwritten rules to be mad at Trump for breaking.
How does it not undermine the North Korea talks or any future talks with Iran. International politics is more than just internal US justification, a lot of it is based on reputation and trust. If Trump goes around willy nilly breaking deals because he can that damages the US in the future too. Nobody is going to just make deals when the next idiot in chief can just say feth these people.
The unspoken rules of international politics have existed before Trump was even born, no need to invent them. And In case you missed it Obama fixed a lot of the international standing of the US after it took a nosedive under Bush over Iraq.
It undermines Trumps credibility but not the US. I don’t expect Iran to want to negotiate with Trump but if we have a new President in 2020 I don’t expect other nations to not trust that new POTUS because of stuff Trump did. Blair committed to sending troops and supporting the US invasion of Iraq so should I presume that the current PM will send troops to help invade Iran if Trump decides to do that? No I shouldn’t because new administrations aren’t beholden to the policies of old ones. Obama had Hillary as SecState give Putin an actual reset button to highlight the fact that the Obama administration was a fresh start wholly independent from the previous Bush administration, this isn’t a new or radical concept. Iran mad early this season with the Obama administration knowing full well that it was not binding in any way for the next “idiot in chief” or the following one. Again, understanding that agreements with a given POTUS administration only last for the duration of that administration has been an accepted fact of the US govt/political system for the entirety of our existence.
It would if Trump was a private citizen, but he is not. He represent the US on an international level. His actions damage the US wether we believe he is an idiot or not, because there is no guarantee another one like Trump doesn't get elected. So Trump damages US credibility by demonstrating that these periods of chaos could be normal practice in the US government.
I don't expect Iran will want to negotiate at all after 2020 unless the US makes more concessions, seeing as there is no guarantee Trump 2.0 might not get elected in 2024. The comment on Blair is just a non sequitur, its not that they have to do it, its creating uncertainty that they might do so again. Iraq demonstrated that the US might just invade other countries over known unknowns and international law be damned. That damaged the credibility of international law, the normative role of the US and the UN. Its no guarantee they are going to do it again, but Iraq shows that there is nothing holding back the US if it wants another go. That is the critical point. Why should countries trust the US when it comes to international law when it broke it with Iraq?
So what did Obama do to Bush's Russia policies then? Changing the direction of international policies isn't a bad thing, the bad thing is breaking deals and promises left and right because you're no longer seen as trustworthy. Everybody knows directions change and Bush being overfocused on the WoT required it, but that doesn't mean throwing all of it on a bonfire. You don't burn down your relations with a country just because the previous guy was more friendly towards it. There is no rhyme or reason behind anything, it is anarchy in its purest Neorealist form.
For everyone except the US it does not matter how it works internally, all that matters is what comes across externally, that is the vital difference.
It may reflect on future possible Republican presidents if they are seen as pages from the same book. (That sort of thing would emerge during the campaign.)
Apart from that, I think the world will return to sanity once Trump has gone and the USA comes to be seen as a trustworthy nation once again.
Trumps backing out of the Iran agreement doesn’t undermine anything because Trump wasn’t the President that made the agreement in the first place. A commitment by the Executive branch that isn’t ratified by Congress does not and never has in US history compel any and every future administration to abide by it. Failing to abide by an obligation that doesn’t actually exist doesn’t undermine anything. Every new administration is a fresh start that isn’t beholden to any previous administration that has always been the case. Obama campaigned on reversing pretty much all of Bushs foreign policy decisions and nobody thought that was unusual because of Obamacare won nobody expected him to feel compelled to support the foreign policy of his predecessor. Obama won he changed US foreign policy and the ability of future presidents to negotiate with foreign powers wasn’t undermined forever. I’m not a fan of Trump either and I’m glad I didn’t vote for him but it’s ridiculous to invent unwritten rules to be mad at Trump for breaking.
How does it not undermine the North Korea talks or any future talks with Iran. International politics is more than just internal US justification, a lot of it is based on reputation and trust. If Trump goes around willy nilly breaking deals because he can that damages the US in the future too. Nobody is going to just make deals when the next idiot in chief can just say feth these people.
The unspoken rules of international politics have existed before Trump was even born, no need to invent them. And In case you missed it Obama fixed a lot of the international standing of the US after it took a nosedive under Bush over Iraq.
NK came up during a conversation with a coworker this morning and he put forward an interesting theory. His idea was that KJU hadn't changed at all, but that he has come to recognize that due to Trump's rhetoric, he's the prime candidate for Trump focusing us on something other than his personal messes. Trump sees impeachment on the table or congress flips, that smart bombs start falling his way.He knows how the madman card works. The madman card only works if you play it often enough to make people realize that you're willing to go to extremes, but not often enough that people get sick of your games and end your regime. The Trump madman card is pretty badass. It includes carrier groups, JDAMs, the best special forces in the world and enough naval ass to close them off from the world. KJU doesn't want to end up in those sights. He plays nice, takes an attack on NK off the table until we have regime change and then spins his nuke program back up.
At least in my coworker's eyes, you have to look at KJU as having a singular goal - Stay in power at all costs. There is no retirement from his line of work. You either get a massive state funeral under the regime of your offspring or you get hung by piano wire in the public square. So there is nothing he won't do to make sure that happens. If that means playing nice until a bigger madman is out of power, he will.
Trumps backing out of the Iran agreement doesn’t undermine anything because Trump wasn’t the President that made the agreement in the first place. A commitment by the Executive branch that isn’t ratified by Congress does not and never has in US history compel any and every future administration to abide by it. Failing to abide by an obligation that doesn’t actually exist doesn’t undermine anything. Every new administration is a fresh start that isn’t beholden to any previous administration that has always been the case. Obama campaigned on reversing pretty much all of Bushs foreign policy decisions and nobody thought that was unusual because of Obamacare won nobody expected him to feel compelled to support the foreign policy of his predecessor. Obama won he changed US foreign policy and the ability of future presidents to negotiate with foreign powers wasn’t undermined forever. I’m not a fan of Trump either and I’m glad I didn’t vote for him but it’s ridiculous to invent unwritten rules to be mad at Trump for breaking.
How does it not undermine the North Korea talks or any future talks with Iran. International politics is more than just internal US justification, a lot of it is based on reputation and trust. If Trump goes around willy nilly breaking deals because he can that damages the US in the future too. Nobody is going to just make deals when the next idiot in chief can just say feth these people.
The unspoken rules of international politics have existed before Trump was even born, no need to invent them. And In case you missed it Obama fixed a lot of the international standing of the US after it took a nosedive under Bush over Iraq.
It undermines Trumps credibility but not the US. I don’t expect Iran to want to negotiate with Trump but if we have a new President in 2020 I don’t expect other nations to not trust that new POTUS because of stuff Trump did. Blair committed to sending troops and supporting the US invasion of Iraq so should I presume that the current PM will send troops to help invade Iran if Trump decides to do that? No I shouldn’t because new administrations aren’t beholden to the policies of old ones. Obama had Hillary as SecState give Putin an actual reset button to highlight the fact that the Obama administration was a fresh start wholly independent from the previous Bush administration, this isn’t a new or radical concept. Iran mad early this season with the Obama administration knowing full well that it was not binding in any way for the next “idiot in chief” or the following one. Again, understanding that agreements with a given POTUS administration only last for the duration of that administration has been an accepted fact of the US govt/political system for the entirety of our existence.
It would if Trump was a private citizen, but he is not. He represent the US on an international level. His actions damage the US wether we believe he is an idiot or not, because there is no guarantee another one like Trump doesn't get elected. So Trump damages US credibility by demonstrating that these periods of chaos could be normal practice in the US government.
I don't expect Iran will want to negotiate at all after 2020 unless the US makes more concessions, seeing as there is no guarantee Trump 2.0 might not get elected in 2024. The comment on Blair is just a non sequitur, its not that they have to do it, its creating uncertainty that they might do so again. Iraq demonstrated that the US might just invade other countries over known unknowns and international law be damned. That damaged the credibility of international law, the normative role of the US and the UN. Its no guarantee they are going to do it again, but Iraq shows that there is nothing holding back the US if it wants another go. That is the critical point. Why should countries trust the US when it comes to international law when it broke it with Iraq?
So what did Obama do to Bush's Russia policies then? Changing the direction of international policies isn't a bad thing, the bad thing is breaking deals and promises left and right because you're no longer seen as trustworthy. Everybody knows directions change and Bush being overfocused on the WoT required it, but that doesn't mean throwing all of it on a bonfire. You don't burn down your relations with a country just because the previous guy was more friendly towards it. There is no rhyme or reason behind anything, it is anarchy in its purest Neorealist form.
For everyone except the US it does not matter how it works internally, all that matters is what comes across externally, that is the vital difference.
Again, Trump pulling out of the Iran agreement Obama made doesn't change anything that hasn't been true throughout US history. There is no guarantee the next POTUS elected will choose to continue programs, policies and treaties that previous administrations put in place. There is no guarantee that the next POTUS elected will be a good President and not a bad/incompetent President. Throughout US history working with this system in place has enabled Presidents and Congress to made deals and enact foreign policy even though everything they do can be undone by future administrations and sessions of Congress. There is nothing that a President or Congress can do that can't be undone by a successive President or Congress but that's never stopped current administrations from getting things done.
Just because we always could, doesn’t mean we always have.
There has been a certain expectation on how the US, through POTUS, will have a certain level of continuity regarding previous promises by a different POTUS on behalf of the US.
Hell, people bitch about Craftsman tools going down the drain. Yeah, whoever the owner or CEO is has the power to make lots of decisions and can change what previous owners did. There is nothing stopping the company from turning to gak, and it’s their right to become the next Harbor Freight. But people had a certain expectation of what Craftsman means and what they stand for. Even if they get a new CEO and/or owners who decides the company should return to the quality people were used to, the damage to the brand is done and it will take time to recover. People don’t see CEO Smith Tools, they don’t see Owner Bob Tools, they see Craftsman tools. And whatever decisions single people made, they were made by the Craftsman brand.
And the USA is a brand in the same regard, and the POTUS is the spokesperson for that brand. And in the same regard it wasn’t just POTUS Obama who made a deal and POTUS Trump who dumped the deal, it was the USA Brand who made a deal, and the USA Brand who dumped the deal.
I think Trump still has the mindset from his other business that “Trump the person” and “Trump the Brand” is the same thing. And with the mindset he treats the USA as Trump USA, that the country has become an extension of him. The USA represents the Trump brand, rather than Trump representing the USA.
Trumps backing out of the Iran agreement doesn’t undermine anything because Trump wasn’t the President that made the agreement in the first place. A commitment by the Executive branch that isn’t ratified by Congress does not and never has in US history compel any and every future administration to abide by it. Failing to abide by an obligation that doesn’t actually exist doesn’t undermine anything. Every new administration is a fresh start that isn’t beholden to any previous administration that has always been the case. Obama campaigned on reversing pretty much all of Bushs foreign policy decisions and nobody thought that was unusual because of Obamacare won nobody expected him to feel compelled to support the foreign policy of his predecessor. Obama won he changed US foreign policy and the ability of future presidents to negotiate with foreign powers wasn’t undermined forever. I’m not a fan of Trump either and I’m glad I didn’t vote for him but it’s ridiculous to invent unwritten rules to be mad at Trump for breaking.
How does it not undermine the North Korea talks or any future talks with Iran. International politics is more than just internal US justification, a lot of it is based on reputation and trust. If Trump goes around willy nilly breaking deals because he can that damages the US in the future too. Nobody is going to just make deals when the next idiot in chief can just say feth these people.
The unspoken rules of international politics have existed before Trump was even born, no need to invent them. And In case you missed it Obama fixed a lot of the international standing of the US after it took a nosedive under Bush over Iraq.
NK came up during a conversation with a coworker this morning and he put forward an interesting theory. His idea was that KJU hadn't changed at all, but that he has come to recognize that due to Trump's rhetoric, he's the prime candidate for Trump focusing us on something other than his personal messes. Trump sees impeachment on the table or congress flips, that smart bombs start falling his way.He knows how the madman card works. The madman card only works if you play it often enough to make people realize that you're willing to go to extremes, but not often enough that people get sick of your games and end your regime. The Trump madman card is pretty badass. It includes carrier groups, JDAMs, the best special forces in the world and enough naval ass to close them off from the world. KJU doesn't want to end up in those sights. He plays nice, takes an attack on NK off the table until we have regime change and then spins his nuke program back up.
At least in my coworker's eyes, you have to look at KJU as having a singular goal - Stay in power at all costs. There is no retirement from his line of work. You either get a massive state funeral under the regime of your offspring or you get hung by piano wire in the public square. So there is nothing he won't do to make sure that happens. If that means playing nice until a bigger madman is out of power, he will.
You should tell your coworker that his theory is just a rehash of the Bush one with the "axis of evil" speech but just with Trump. Nothing is new about what either the US or NK is doing, we have been through this song and dance before and as I said, its always been about stalling for time with NK. I don't think NK thinks Trump is a madman though, maybe they just think he is an idiot who might be more easily played than Bush could be. And Trump being an idiot might just give NK some wiggle room for improved economic conditions with South Korea without having to make nuclear concessions.
Again, Trump pulling out of the Iran agreement Obama made doesn't change anything that hasn't been true throughout US history. There is no guarantee the next POTUS elected will choose to continue programs, policies and treaties that previous administrations put in place. There is no guarantee that the next POTUS elected will be a good President and not a bad/incompetent President. Throughout US history working with this system in place has enabled Presidents and Congress to made deals and enact foreign policy even though everything they do can be undone by future administrations and sessions of Congress. There is nothing that a President or Congress can do that can't be undone by a successive President or Congress but that's never stopped current administrations from getting things done.
Fine you don't agree. But the US has shown the world that the next POTUS could be pants on head crazy. You can still work with a bad or incompetent President when the rest of the admin runs ok. But the US government under Trump is just as batgak crazy as he is, there is a difference in bad President and Presidents living in an alternate reality. And that is the reality now, no longer will the US just have bad Presidents, they are going to have Presidents completely unhinged from reality. Every time the US tries to make deals on the international scenes, that is all the others are going to think about, "this deal is nice and all, but the next one might just declare war on the moon and quit because they think we're run by lizardpeople." Because those are the kinds of people the US has shown to be comfortable with running the country.
Man who once illegally covertly sold weapons to Iran to fund Nicaraguan terrorists, who is now somehow head of the NRA, also now thinks Trump should sanction anyone who does business with Iran.
Oliver North, who was once at the center of a controversy in which he sold weapons to Tehran to fund a rebel group in Nicaragua, said on Tuesday that President Trump should sanction anyone who does business with Iran, Fox News reported.
"If we sanction [Iran] again, we ought to sanction anybody else who does business with them," North, who was recently elected as the new leader of the NRA, told Fox News. "That'll stop the Euros from helping to bail them out while they cheat on this program."
Frazzled wrote: That's funny. Yeah the NRA punched itself in the cojones with that one.
I dunno...
PR-wise it's definitely a nut punch.
But, if we're always going to hold someone at their worst... forgiveness would never happen and gak won't get done.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also...
I am pleased to inform you that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is in the air and on his way back from North Korea with the 3 wonderful gentlemen that everyone is looking so forward to meeting. They seem to be in good health. Also, good meeting with Kim Jong Un. Date & Place set.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 9, 2018
This is unambiguously good news. A concrete confidence building measure from NK, at long last. And yet, it MUST be noted that this is why you take hostages. So that you can appear to be conceding something in a negotiation when in reality you've given up virtually nothing.
That doesn't absolve the NK regime of anything as it's still a massive human rights violating, murderous regime.
Makes me glad to have Mattis, Pompeo and Bolton on deck in this regard.
Frazzled wrote: That's funny. Yeah the NRA punched itself in the cojones with that one.
I dunno...
PR-wise it's definitely a nut punch.
But, if we're always going to hold someone at their worst... forgiveness would never happen and gak won't get done.
Ollie North has been treated obscenely well in life, and I really do mean obscenely. He emerged from Iran-Contra with his skin intact and with no convictions thanks to a technicality, and went on to make gobs of money as a political partisan hack and presenting "hero" stories on Fox.
Forgiveness? The dude has been richly rewarded.
To now spout about Iran and "the euros" like this without even the pretext of a minimal amount of self awareness...? And now we're worried about forgiveness for poor Ollie North?
are we talking about sex as if it's some kind of crime that people need to accept the punishment for? Why is "responsibility" so important that not having a kid is unacceptable? Who cares if people are using abortion as birth control, we're talking about a blob of cells with no functioning brain and less moral value than the cockroach all of us would not hesitate a moment to kill for our convenience.
facts are so 20th century.
