Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm just here to talk about Netanyahu.

It was embarrassing to see a word leader give a high school power point presentation like that. IRAN LIED emblazoned in giant letters, as though it was Watergate or something.

Feth me, I half expected Donald Rumsfeld to walk on stage and mention known unknowns

And as always, the US reaction was depressingly predictable. The Israeli tail wagging the American dog.

For years, I have wondered what the USA gets out of this partnership. It has never made any sense from a geo-politcal point of view, certainly not when you compare it to the actions of the last super power who used to run the Middle East i.e Britain.

War drums in the media priming the people for the 'necessary' war to safeguard the security of the world etc etc etc etc

Predictable but not surprising.

How doesn't it make sense to have Israel as a partner. While US support often goes too far, Israel still provides a powerful Western ally in the region with a top notch intelligence service. An ally that is stable at that and has few options to turn away from the US.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
How doesn't it make sense to have Israel as a partner. While US support often goes too far, Israel still provides a powerful Western ally in the region with a top notch intelligence service. An ally that is stable at that and has few options to turn away from the US.

The USA has no Suez Canal to protect.

The USA produces a lot of its own oil, and if fracking took off, would be completely self-sufficient in energy supply. Hell, they could set up solar panals in Arizona or New Mexico.

The continuing US presence in the Middle East is by choice, not strategic necessity. It's emotion drivien.

As I said two weeks ago, the British Empire backing the creation of a Jewish nation makes perfect sense = friendly nation next to Suez Canal.

Britain invades Syria to stop Vichy France allowing Germany airfields and a presense that threatens crucial oil pipelines = perfect sense.

The USA in the Middle East in 2018? I remain unconvinced. If Israel needs tanks and guns, sell them or gift them to Israel.

The only MIddile East nation the USA should really care about is Turkey for NATO obligations.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

For years, I have wondered what the USA gets out of this partnership. It has never made any sense from a geo-politcal point of view, certainly not when you compare it to the actions of the last super power who used to run the Middle East i.e Britain.

It's a mix of the benefit of having an ally in the region, a bit of WW2 guilt, and the religious implications of Israel being Israel.

Religion is a big driver for the US support for Israel. There is a sense that if you love Jesus, you must love and support Israel. And without Israel existing there won't be a 2nd coming of Christ, so we must prevent it from ever falling. How can you build the Third Temple if Israel no longer exists? Stuff like that. It's a bit of the same reasons the Church launched all those crusades in the past, but with a bit less antisemitism thrown into the mix.

But sometimes, things don't really change.

Yeah, the religion angle is one I'm familiar with, and it makes a lot of sense in understanding why certain decisions are made, but long I've maintained that a foreign policy based on emotionalism is always a bad mix.

Israel and Saudi Arabia have a problem with Iran, and now by default, the USA has a problem with Iran.

But on the most basic level of self-preservation, Iran is no threat to the US mainland, and even a nuclear armed Iran is no threat on the basis that the US nuclear arsenal would destroy Iran 10 times over, if Iran ever struck first against Washington or Chicago or whatever.

It's why I respect the Founding Fathers. They weren't perfect, and many were religious men themselves, but they knew the outcome of politics and religion mixing, which is why they strove to keep them separate.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
How doesn't it make sense to have Israel as a partner. While US support often goes too far, Israel still provides a powerful Western ally in the region with a top notch intelligence service. An ally that is stable at that and has few options to turn away from the US.

The USA has no Suez Canal to protect.

The USA produces a lot of its own oil, and if fracking took off, would be completely self-sufficient in energy supply. Hell, they could set up solar panals in Arizona or New Mexico.

The continuing US presence in the Middle East is by choice, not strategic necessity. It's emotion drivien.

As I said two weeks ago, the British Empire backing the creation of a Jewish nation makes perfect sense = friendly nation next to Suez Canal.

Britain invades Syria to stop Vichy France allowing Germany airfields and a presense that threatens crucial oil pipelines = perfect sense.

The USA in the Middle East in 2018? I remain unconvinced. If Israel needs tanks and guns, sell them or gift them to Israel.

The only MIddile East nation the USA should really care about is Turkey for NATO obligations.

No it is most definitely a necessity. Since WW2 the US has led an economic and political hegemony that makes countries such as Israel vital. Retreating from those commitments means the degrading of US power in this world, power from which it immensely benefits. I thought you were a student of US history?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
How doesn't it make sense to have Israel as a partner. While US support often goes too far, Israel still provides a powerful Western ally in the region with a top notch intelligence service. An ally that is stable at that and has few options to turn away from the US.

The USA has no Suez Canal to protect.

The USA produces a lot of its own oil, and if fracking took off, would be completely self-sufficient in energy supply. Hell, they could set up solar panals in Arizona or New Mexico.

The continuing US presence in the Middle East is by choice, not strategic necessity. It's emotion drivien.

As I said two weeks ago, the British Empire backing the creation of a Jewish nation makes perfect sense = friendly nation next to Suez Canal.

Britain invades Syria to stop Vichy France allowing Germany airfields and a presense that threatens crucial oil pipelines = perfect sense.

The USA in the Middle East in 2018? I remain unconvinced. If Israel needs tanks and guns, sell them or gift them to Israel.

The only MIddile East nation the USA should really care about is Turkey for NATO obligations.

No it is most definitely a necessity. Since WW2 the US has led an economic and political hegemony that makes countries such as Israel vital. Retreating from those commitments means the degrading of US power in this world, power from which it immensely benefits. I thought you were a student of US history?

I am a student of US history, but if your argument about US economic hegemony is correct, and to be fair, there is some truth in what you say,

then why has the US surrendered the economic initiative to China in Africa or with the TPP in Asia?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
How doesn't it make sense to have Israel as a partner. While US support often goes too far, Israel still provides a powerful Western ally in the region with a top notch intelligence service. An ally that is stable at that and has few options to turn away from the US.

The USA has no Suez Canal to protect.

The USA produces a lot of its own oil, and if fracking took off, would be completely self-sufficient in energy supply. Hell, they could set up solar panals in Arizona or New Mexico.

The continuing US presence in the Middle East is by choice, not strategic necessity. It's emotion drivien.

As I said two weeks ago, the British Empire backing the creation of a Jewish nation makes perfect sense = friendly nation next to Suez Canal.

Britain invades Syria to stop Vichy France allowing Germany airfields and a presense that threatens crucial oil pipelines = perfect sense.

The USA in the Middle East in 2018? I remain unconvinced. If Israel needs tanks and guns, sell them or gift them to Israel.

The only MIddile East nation the USA should really care about is Turkey for NATO obligations.

No it is most definitely a necessity. Since WW2 the US has led an economic and political hegemony that makes countries such as Israel vital. Retreating from those commitments means the degrading of US power in this world, power from which it immensely benefits. I thought you were a student of US history?

I am a student of US history, but if your argument about US economic hegemony is correct, and to be fair, there is some truth in what you say,

then why has the US surrendered the economic initiative to China in Africa or with the TPP in Asia?

Because the US is a run by a man with the attention span of a toddler and the knowledge of one (really, picture flashcards?), supported by people more incompetent than the other and successful in decimating the experienced State Department staff. Before IS/Crimea reared its head the policy was a strategic pivot towards Asia to counter China. Clinton was also in favor of this pivot. There is some luck in the fact that China is now ruled by Xi Jinping, because his hardcore nationalism has driven Asian countries towards the US regardless of incompetence.

US empire was build on free trade and the Washington Consensus, but the US elected a man that seems to be a firm believer in 1930's protectionism.

Israel is one US ally amongst many in the Middle East, where the US alliance system relies on the 'hubs and spokes' system instead of the more coherent European approach. The same system is in place in Asia, its pretty smart actually, all those countries tend to dislike/hate each other, but because all interaction goes through the US and not amongst themselves, the US manages to salvage a pretty unified direction for such a unorganized region. It doesn't matter if they hate each other, as long as they are all aligned with the US.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm just here to talk about Netanyahu.

It was embarrassing to see a word leader give a high school power point presentation like that. IRAN LIED emblazoned in giant letters, as though it was Watergate or something.

Feth me, I half expected Donald Rumsfeld to walk on stage and mention known unknowns

And as always, the US reaction was depressingly predictable. The Israeli tail wagging the American dog.

For years, I have wondered what the USA gets out of this partnership. It has never made any sense from a geo-politcal point of view, certainly not when you compare it to the actions of the last super power who used to run the Middle East i.e Britain.

War drums in the media priming the people for the 'necessary' war to safeguard the security of the world etc etc etc etc

Predictable but not surprising.

It was a presentation for an audience of 1

We shall see how it goes down, I suspecy that a decision has already been made. At this point however, if Trump decides to decertify the deal, I cannot see any future negotiations looking productive, and the partners the US had arranging the deal will wash their hands of it and won't uphold sanctions, making the whole endeavor pointless except for the people who want to see other people die.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
How doesn't it make sense to have Israel as a partner. While US support often goes too far, Israel still provides a powerful Western ally in the region with a top notch intelligence service. An ally that is stable at that and has few options to turn away from the US.

The USA has no Suez Canal to protect.

The USA produces a lot of its own oil, and if fracking took off, would be completely self-sufficient in energy supply. Hell, they could set up solar panals in Arizona or New Mexico.

The continuing US presence in the Middle East is by choice, not strategic necessity. It's emotion drivien.

As I said two weeks ago, the British Empire backing the creation of a Jewish nation makes perfect sense = friendly nation next to Suez Canal.

Britain invades Syria to stop Vichy France allowing Germany airfields and a presense that threatens crucial oil pipelines = perfect sense.

The USA in the Middle East in 2018? I remain unconvinced. If Israel needs tanks and guns, sell them or gift them to Israel.

The only MIddile East nation the USA should really care about is Turkey for NATO obligations.

No it is most definitely a necessity. Since WW2 the US has led an economic and political hegemony that makes countries such as Israel vital. Retreating from those commitments means the degrading of US power in this world, power from which it immensely benefits. I thought you were a student of US history?

I am a student of US history, but if your argument about US economic hegemony is correct, and to be fair, there is some truth in what you say,

then why has the US surrendered the economic initiative to China in Africa or with the TPP in Asia?

Mostly ill-considered spite and latent xenophobia mixed with a regressively infantile mercantilist view of trade by the current administration.

Or, basically, because Obama was for it

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm just here to talk about Netanyahu.

It was embarrassing to see a word leader give a high school power point presentation like that. IRAN LIED emblazoned in giant letters, as though it was Watergate or something.

Feth me, I half expected Donald Rumsfeld to walk on stage and mention known unknowns

And as always, the US reaction was depressingly predictable. The Israeli tail wagging the American dog.

For years, I have wondered what the USA gets out of this partnership. It has never made any sense from a geo-politcal point of view, certainly not when you compare it to the actions of the last super power who used to run the Middle East i.e Britain.

War drums in the media priming the people for the 'necessary' war to safeguard the security of the world etc etc etc etc

Predictable but not surprising.

It was a presentation for an audience of 1

We shall see how it goes down, I suspecy that a decision has already been made. At this point however, if Trump decides to decertify the deal, I cannot see any future negotiations looking productive, and the partners the US had arranging the deal will wash their hands of it and won't uphold sanctions, making the whole endeavor pointless except for the people who want to see other people die.

I think the EU will consider the US a lost cause if Trump drops the Iran deal. The EU has been itching to get into those natural gas reserves so its hard to see what could sway the EU to side with mister flip flop.

@ vaktathi and Disciple.

I hope people are not bored of me saying this

but I spent 4-5 hours of my life watching John Kerry at the Congress and Senate hearings on the Iran deal.

I'm not John Kerry's greatest fan, but he argued the case well.

When he asked the GOP what they would do differently, they had FETHING nothing. No reply. Bluster and bullgak to a man and woman. Marco Rubio was a disgrace, out of his depth.

God Almighty, you can't run a superpower like that.

Because there is no other solution really. Try to be tougher and Iran just steps out and potentially restarts is nuclear program. The only recourse would be an invasion of Iran (a wet dream for the likes of Bolton and Pompeo), but with this admin that would probably go even worse than Iraq. This Iran deal is it, it is the best option and the Republicans sure as hell know it, which is why they have kept their mouth shut and silently pray that Trump doesn't break it. Just look at how vocal they were under Obama, and how deadly quiet they are now while in full control of the government.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Because there is no other solution really. Try to be tougher and Iran just steps out and potentially restarts is nuclear program. The only recourse would be an invasion of Iran (a wet dream for the likes of Bolton and Pompeo), but with this admin that would probably go even worse than Iraq. This Iran deal is it, it is the best option and the Republicans sure as hell know it, which is why they have kept their mouth shut and silently pray that Trump doesn't break it. Just look at how vocal they were under Obama, and how deadly quiet they are now while in full control of the government.

Agreed. Without a shadow of a doubt, in a conventional war, the USA knocks Iran into the middle of tomorrow every time.

But 3 factors are crucial here.

1. Like you say, nobody wants another Iraq and ISIL style groups filling the vacuum. Iran is a known quantity, regardless of what you think of the current regime.

2. How would Russia react? Does the USA want thousands of Russian 'tourists' descending on Iran?

3. Any war would create another massive headache of a refugee crisis that would destabilise the entire region.

Can the USA win? Yes. Do they want another dumpster fire to put out? Hell no.

John Bolton should be locked away in some Alaskan log cabin for a few years.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@ vaktathi and Disciple.

I hope people are not bored of me saying this

but I spent 4-5 hours of my life watching John Kerry at the Congress and Senate hearings on the Iran deal.

I'm not John Kerry's greatest fan, but he argued the case well.

When he asked the GOP what they would do differently, they had FETHING nothing. No reply. Bluster and bullgak to a man and woman. Marco Rubio was a disgrace, out of his depth.

God Almighty, you can't run a superpower like that.

hence why we have a President where an approval rating above 40% is seens as a record high and congressional approval rating in the teens.

The GOP has proven rather conclusively that it has no plans to govern and is incapable of actually ruling. With literally every branch of government under their control, they cant seem do anything except "tax cuts" and "undo anything Obama did". They seemingly have no agenda they can rally behind and push now that they have the responsibility of governing.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@ vaktathi and Disciple.

I hope people are not bored of me saying this

but I spent 4-5 hours of my life watching John Kerry at the Congress and Senate hearings on the Iran deal.

I'm not John Kerry's greatest fan, but he argued the case well.

When he asked the GOP what they would do differently, they had FETHING nothing. No reply. Bluster and bullgak to a man and woman. Marco Rubio was a disgrace, out of his depth.

God Almighty, you can't run a superpower like that.

hence why we have a President where an approval rating above 40% is seens as a record high and congressional approval rating in the teens.

The GOP has proven rather conclusively that it has no plans to govern and is incapable of actually ruling. With literally every branch of government under their control, they cant seem do anything except "tax cuts" and "undo anything Obama did". They seemingly have no agenda they can rally behind and push now that they have the responsibility of governing.

Why are you ignoring that Senate Democrats can easily stop anything their counter parts wishes to pass?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Because there is no other solution really. Try to be tougher and Iran just steps out and potentially restarts is nuclear program. The only recourse would be an invasion of Iran (a wet dream for the likes of Bolton and Pompeo), but with this admin that would probably go even worse than Iraq. This Iran deal is it, it is the best option and the Republicans sure as hell know it, which is why they have kept their mouth shut and silently pray that Trump doesn't break it. Just look at how vocal they were under Obama, and how deadly quiet they are now while in full control of the government.

Agreed. Without a shadow of a doubt, in a conventional war, the USA knocks Iran into the middle of tomorrow every time.

But 3 factors are crucial here.

1. Like you say, nobody wants another Iraq and ISIL style groups filling the vacuum. Iran is a known quantity, regardless of what you think of the current regime.

2. How would Russia react? Does the USA want thousands of Russian 'tourists' descending on Iran?

3. Any war would create another massive headache of a refugee crisis that would destabilise the entire region.

Can the USA win? Yes. Do they want another dumpster fire to put out? Hell no.

John Bolton should be locked away in some Alaskan log cabin for a few years.

1. Yup,pretty much going to be another 10 year bloody commitment.

2. I don't know if Russia would actually send men, as it would offer little benefit, more likely Russia would just funnel weapons and encourage Caucasian extremists to go to Iran.

3.That really depends, I think most countries would just close their borders on account of them being Iranian Shiites, when it comes to Syria most are Sunni for its neighbours. The only real option is Iraq for most.

And locking Bolton away in Alaska will only backfire, with him returning at the head of an army of walruses, obviously cowed by the most walrusy of walrus moustaches

So Iran has been lying and kept an active Nuclear program... but the US (specifically Republicans) are the vile evil morons?

The party that broke faith in the agreement is let off the hook, and those who take offense to the deception are bad?

Jeez. Its like the US can't win here.

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
So Iran has been lying and kept an active Nuclear program... but the US (specifically Republicans) are the vile evil morons?

The party that broke faith in the agreement is let off the hook, and those who take offense to the deception are bad?

Jeez. Its like the US can't win here.

No, if you actually read the reports there is nothing active and no proof that Iran is violating the Iran deal.

Its Israel and Pompeo/Bolton who are doing the deceiving here.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@ vaktathi and Disciple.

I hope people are not bored of me saying this

but I spent 4-5 hours of my life watching John Kerry at the Congress and Senate hearings on the Iran deal.

I'm not John Kerry's greatest fan, but he argued the case well.

When he asked the GOP what they would do differently, they had FETHING nothing. No reply. Bluster and bullgak to a man and woman. Marco Rubio was a disgrace, out of his depth.

God Almighty, you can't run a superpower like that.

hence why we have a President where an approval rating above 40% is seens as a record high and congressional approval rating in the teens.

The GOP has proven rather conclusively that it has no plans to govern and is incapable of actually ruling. With literally every branch of government under their control, they cant seem do anything except "tax cuts" and "undo anything Obama did". They seemingly have no agenda they can rally behind and push now that they have the responsibility of governing.

Why are you ignoring that Senate Democrats can easily stop anything their counter parts wishes to pass?

Mostly because of the fact that most of the GOP's agenda implosions have not fundamentally been attributable to the Senate Democrats. They have had plenty of issues with their own membership not just in the Senate but more importantly the House, while the administration undercuts itself regularly. Much like Trump bemoaning Democrat intransigence for his lack of appointee confirmations...it doesnt stick when youre not sending people for confirmation for the Democrats to even attempt to obstruct, and lets not forget the gakshow the House has become and how being Majority Leader was no prize office for Boehner or Ryan. The GOP isn't able to manage its own. Even in the senate, we have all the procedural games played with Reconciliation to allow for straight majority votes instead needing 60, where they wouldnt need a single Democrat, that they failed to wrangle their own people on board for.

In such a light, it is hard to see where it is the Senate Democrats (in the minority and without a tie breaker vote) standing in the way of the GOP as the great unconquerable barrier, easily stopping anything the GOP wishes to pass as a result.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@ vaktathi and Disciple.

I hope people are not bored of me saying this

but I spent 4-5 hours of my life watching John Kerry at the Congress and Senate hearings on the Iran deal.

I'm not John Kerry's greatest fan, but he argued the case well.

When he asked the GOP what they would do differently, they had FETHING nothing. No reply. Bluster and bullgak to a man and woman. Marco Rubio was a disgrace, out of his depth.

God Almighty, you can't run a superpower like that.

hence why we have a President where an approval rating above 40% is seens as a record high and congressional approval rating in the teens.

The GOP has proven rather conclusively that it has no plans to govern and is incapable of actually ruling. With literally every branch of government under their control, they cant seem do anything except "tax cuts" and "undo anything Obama did". They seemingly have no agenda they can rally behind and push now that they have the responsibility of governing.

Why are you ignoring that Senate Democrats can easily stop anything their counter parts wishes to pass?

Mostly because of the fact that most of the GOP's agenda implosions have not fundamentally been attributable to the Senate Democrats. They have had plenty of issues with their own membership not just in the Senate but more importantly the House, while the administration undercuts itself regularly. Much like Trump bemoaning Democrat intransigence for his lack of appointee confirmations...it doesnt stick when youre not sending people for confirmation for the Democrats to even attempt to obstruct, and lets not forget the gakshow the House has become and how being Majority Leader was no prize office for Boehner or Ryan. The GOP isn't able to manage its own. Even in the senate, we have all the procedural games played with Reconciliation to allow for straight majority votes instead needing 60, where they wouldnt need a single Democrat, that they failed to wrangle their own people on board for.

With respect to repealing Obamacare... yeah, you're not wrong there.

However, the House passed a feth tons of bills over the years, it's the Senate that's the stick in the mud.

But, don't forget the Democrats are utilizing every procedural tool to slow down the Senate, as it's their prerogative.

In such a light, it is hard to see where it is the Senate Democrats (in the minority and without a tie breaker vote) standing in the way of the GOP as the great unconquerable barrier, easily stopping anything the GOP wishes to pass as a result.

Mitch would fully have to go nuclear (meaning no more 60th vote), which he doesn't want to do. Otherwise, the minority holds considerable sway whether or not a bill gets to the floor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
So Iran has been lying and kept an active Nuclear program... but the US (specifically Republicans) are the vile evil morons?

The party that broke faith in the agreement is let off the hook, and those who take offense to the deception are bad?

Jeez. Its like the US can't win here.

No, if you actually read the reports there is nothing active and no proof that Iran is violating the Iran deal.

I read what I could this morning...

Dude... it confirms all the critic's suspicions. (provided its not made up).

Its Israel and Pompeo/Bolton who are doing the deceiving here.

Deceiving "how"? Seems like the Obama-bros and supporters are trying to gaslight everyone...

The timing of all this to come public just after the biggest anti-Iran hawk was confirmed as SoS makes me just a bit skeptical about anything Israel has to say.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
So Iran has been lying and kept an active Nuclear program... but the US (specifically Republicans) are the vile evil morons?

The party that broke faith in the agreement is let off the hook, and those who take offense to the deception are bad?

Jeez. Its like the US can't win here.

No, if you actually read the reports there is nothing active and no proof that Iran is violating the Iran deal.

Its Israel and Pompeo/Bolton who are doing the deceiving here.

The US can win by getting out of there.

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
So Iran has been lying and kept an active Nuclear program... but the US (specifically Republicans) are the vile evil morons?

The party that broke faith in the agreement is let off the hook, and those who take offense to the deception are bad?

Jeez. Its like the US can't win here.

No, if you actually read the reports there is nothing active and no proof that Iran is violating the Iran deal.

I read what I could this morning...

Dude... it confirms all the critic's suspicions. (provided its not made up).

The suspicions Iran was developing nuclear weapons? Well almost anyone could have seen that coming? Maybe the Iran deal wasn't so bad after all right?

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Its Israel and Pompeo/Bolton who are doing the deceiving here.

Deceiving "how"? Seems like the Obama-bros and supporters are trying to gaslight everyone...

There is zero proof Iran has violated the Iran deal. All these documents show is that Iran tried to develop a nuke before the deal and zero evidence they worked on it after the deal.

 sebster wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Absolutely. But there is some real credit there for both learning from previous mistakes and creating a bipartisan compromise. Oddly enough these things are anathema to the modern GOP. Reagan's party indeed.

Yep. Since then we've had 3 tax cuts under Republican presidents, and they all followed the model of the '81 tax cut, just an unfunded cut with a claim it won't bust the budget because of Laffer curve magic. Every time, the result was big deficit increases.

Slight change of subject, I read a funny thing recently. The Trump tax cut is very unpopular, under 30% approval. Which is interesting because its functionally no different to the two tax cuts under Bush, where small middle class tax cuts were used to deflect from large cuts for the wealthiest, and the whole thing was paid for with debt, and those were pretty popular because hey, free money. But this time, with the Trump tax cut, not only is the whole thing unpopular, it's managed to be less popular than the tax increases GHW Bush and Clinton passed.

Something has changed, when a tax cut is less popular than previous tax increases.

Thing is, Bush is strongly associated with the 2008 crash. And while it's far from his fault exclusively it's also pretty fair to make that connection. And when people are making that connection, those tax cuts are what comes to mind first. People still remember that recession keenly, especially millenials who are still being screwed by it. It's also a more direct slap in the face when the wealthy get permanent cuts while the ones for the rest of us are temporary (and it's well known).

Another factor is that more or less everyone knows our economic system is biased for the rich, which matters more now because of attitude towards them. I imagine it's difficult to see from an outsider perspective but there is a lot of simmering resentment against the rich that doesn't come up solely because the economy is doing well right now. They have hit the point of running out of scape goats. Finally, Trump represents the rich businessman and we both know where his approval is at.

The great irony is how the wealthy are cultivating their own demise. Like gun advocates but on a much bigger scale.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
So Iran has been lying and kept an active Nuclear program... but the US (specifically Republicans) are the vile evil morons?

The party that broke faith in the agreement is let off the hook, and those who take offense to the deception are bad?

Jeez. Its like the US can't win here.

No, if you actually read the reports there is nothing active and no proof that Iran is violating the Iran deal.

Its Israel and Pompeo/Bolton who are doing the deceiving here.

The US can win by getting out of there.

I mean Bolton and Bibi have always advocated an Iran intervention. Bolton must be the only human left on the planet who thinks Iraq was a great idea.

 d-usa wrote:
The timing of all this to come public just after the biggest anti-Iran hawk was confirmed as SoS makes me just a bit skeptical about anything Israel has to say.

That is worth noting... I'll give you that.

Trump has always wanted to get out of this agreement, so ample salt is required...especially when Pompeo was nominated as next SoS. A cynic take, would be to assuming that Pompeo asked Israel to provide some cover/excuse that would allow Trump to back out*.

*unless some judge in Hawaii issues an injunction for claiming that Trump doesn't have that power.

 d-usa wrote:
Honestly, for me the only reason these two main discussions (NRA and/or Reagon) even matter is because they expose a certain level of hypocrisy that simply annoy me.

The NRA will take any opportunity to rail against any law or regulation that creates a gun-free zone, makes it clear that anyone in a gun free zone makes him or herself vulnerable because criminals will always target gun-free zones, that nobody should walk in a gun-free zone, and that people would never advertise their home as a gun-free zone. But because they like Pence they will roll over and sanction a gun-free zone rather than just throwing a live video feed on a screen at the convention.

If you are a politician in favor of gun-free zones, they will throw money and resources into your state until the cows come home to make sure you are defeated because you are a threat to everything this country stands for. If you are a politician they like and you want to speak at their convention, they will throw up the "no guns allowed" sign faster than speed at which Trump pours Ketchup on his well-done steaks.

You're making a disingenuous argument here. The "Gun Free Zones" that the NRA objects to are nothing like what is happening at the convention. The Secret Service isn't going to demand a gun free zone for Pence's safety and then enforce it by only putting a sign in the lobby that says No Guns and has a picture of a pistol with a red circle with a line through it over it. The Secret Service will have armed security at all the entrances with metal detectors/wands and pat downs to make sure nobody brings a gun into the convention hall and the VP is protected. Marjory Stoneman Douglas was already a gun free zone but declaring a place to be a gun free zone doesn't actually do anything to keep guns out of the zone, it just creates a false sense of security. The majority of mass shootings occur in unenforced gun free zones so why is creating more unenforced gun free zones a good idea and why shouldn't the NRA oppose a solution that is demonstrably not effective in preventing murders?

When the NRA proposes policies like allowing faculty to be armed or assigning more armed LEOs or RSOs to schools it's dismissed as unworkable and intolerable. Yet armed security screenings are effective. Night clubs and strip clubs have armed bouncers at the door that will wand you and pat you down to make sure nobody brings a weapon into the building. They don't want arguments between patrons to escalate into lethal violence so they take the necessary measures to keep patrons from bringing weapons inside. At the Pulse shooting the first victims of the gunman were the armed guards at the door whom he shot from across the parking lot. The nightclub had its' security focused on stopping the commonplace arguments between patrons from involving weapons and not anticipating the extremely rare occurrence of a mass shooting so their guards were standing outside the door in the open. Ideally there would be some type of guardroom or vestibule in which security screenings would be done without exposing the guards. Club owners do more to keep weapons out of clubs than school boards do to keep weapons out of schools. As long as schools are completely unsecured premises where anyone can walk onto campus and enter a building it doesn't matter what laws are passed or what signs are posted, the students aren't protected from an attacker.

The gun walked onto Marjory Stoneman Douglas' campus, carrying an AR15 in a duffle bag, entered a building, pulled out the rifle and started murdering people. Why are we focusing on the AR15? Columbine and Virginia tech were the same thing, gunman walks into a school and starts murdering unarmed people until somebody who can shoot back shows up but those incidents didn't involve AR15s. We could ban AR15s tomorrow and at best it will have a slight tangential effect on school safety. You're in Oklahoma, try going onto OU's campus, go into the football building and try to walk right into Lincoln Riley's office and take a selfie with him. You'll likely run into layers of administration and security that will actively try to stop you. Then try going to any K-12 public school in your community and see if you can enter building, walk down the hall, go into a classroom and take a selfie with the teacher. How many obstacles will you encounter in the school?

For some reason it's unbearable to have students go through security screenings at schools but it's perfectly acceptable for those same children to go through security screenings at an airport along with everyone else. Having kids have their bags examines, their bodies scanned and possibly enduring a pat down just to take a commercial flight isn't too traumatizing or upsetting and doesn't ruin the flying experience. The NRA suggests using the same methods we use to secure things like nightclubs, airplanes and football coaches to secure something far more valuable, our children, and they're the bad guys?

You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extremely rare occurrence?

Relapse wrote:
Lots of hypocracy in the media and the anti gun lobby talking against guns because, ,”guns kill”, when alcohol is responsible for as many drunk driver deaths per year as are people murdered in gun related incidents. Add to that, overall alcohol kills 88,000 people per year, yet no where near the out rage as against guns. Quite the opposite, if advertisements for alcohol are anything to go by.

The difference is that alcohol is not designed to kill, while that is a very large part of the design philosophy of guns.

The Auld Grump - amazing how a device designed to kill is sometimes used to kill people....

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extremely rare occurrence?

A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.