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.

Yeah, despite the many crazy ideas I think you have, being a birther hasn’t been one of those things.

But we know Trump championed the birther movement, so it makes me wonder if some of his supporters might be thinking along that line.

Looks like Cohen just got in even deeper trouble, by accepting a bunch of money that looks like structured payments (obviously illegal), and a lot of it is connected to Russians or Russian owned businesses by the looks of it.

 whembly wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If the same Iran deal was made under Bush and Obama had ended it Whembly would be outraged at the undermining of US credibility.

No... because I can look at this deal in isolation from who advocated for it.

Heh.

 d-usa wrote:
Not whembly specifically here, but I do wonder if “Obama does not speak for America” and “Obama does not make deals for America” is an extension of “Obama is not an American” for some.

What Trump supporters see.

From that vile nest of ill-informed Canadian sponsored socialist propaganda, Boingboing.

To return to international news, The UK has now backed the Iran deal too. This leaves Trump isolated from everyone except Saudi Arabia and Netanyahu.

It will be interesting to see how much damage Trump inflicts on his close allies to try and compel them to support his initiative they all told him was a bad idea.

 Ouze wrote:

Well, I hope somebody in Washington knows what language the Persians speak, because it sure as hell ain't Arabic....

Locally, I have had people ask me if the language being spoken was Arabic when the language spoken was -
French (which sounds nothing like Arabic). (More accurately Quebecois - Canadian French.)
Swahili (which sounds nothing like Arabic).
Greek (which sounds nothing like any other language I can name....)
And Dutch (which kinda sounds like German, a bit?).

Americans are amazingly insular about what we know about other cultures and languages.

The Auld Grump

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 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).

This is why I think 2020 will be a pivotal year. Leaders who run an absolute clown car of a government aren't unknown, in American history or anywhere else. Democracy allows for that to happen, and it wouldn't be a true democracy if it didn't. The important thing will be, will the system correct itself? Or, will anyone care?

For democracy to work, there needs to be a point where the voters will realise a leader is bad for them and vote them out. If they fail to do that because of media bubbles, blind partisanship or apathy, then maybe democracy needs revision.

 Elemental wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 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).

This is why I think 2020 will be a pivotal year. Leaders who run an absolute clown car of a government aren't unknown, in American history or anywhere else. Democracy allows for that to happen, and it wouldn't be a true democracy if it didn't. The important thing will be, will the system correct itself? Or, will anyone care?

For democracy to work, there needs to be a point where the voters will realise a leader is bad for them and vote them out. If they fail to do that because of media bubbles, blind partisanship or apathy, then maybe democracy needs revision.

It's not the democracy, it's the people.

 whembly wrote:
You can have an executive agreement... just don't expect the next administration to honor it to the 't'.

C'mon D... the US Constitution isn't a state secret. Every international government knows this.

That's not the point. As we tried explaining to you during the supreme court nomination debacle there's far more to government than RAW. The US constitution sets RAW, but the actual functioning of government depends on a whole mess of unwritten rules, well-established traditions, etc. And yes, you can break those precedents and cite RAW, but unless you're a narcissistic spray tanned child and/or Ayn Rand fan obsessed with destroying the government you only do it as a last resort in the most important of situations. You may get what you want in the moment, but at a high price in the future functioning of the government once the precedent you broke has been removed. That doesn't mean you can't ever do it, but you'd better be getting one hell of a return on your actions for it to be justified.

As a non-US example the UK still has a monarch with considerable power RAW. However, it also has an implicit understanding that the monarch is now a figurehead with no power, and they will not ever use the power they still have by RAW. Any use of said power would be legal RAW, but the consequences of it would likely be the UK abolishing the monarchy and completely revising its system of government. So, assuming a responsible adult remains the monarch and no Trump equivalent ever sits on the throne, that power will likely never be used. The monarch understands that any use of their power is an extreme last resort, to be used only in the most dire of circumstances where something needs to be done regardless of the cost. The implicit understanding, while not RAW, is not a frivolous thing that is to be tossed aside to win this week's political argument.

So where does that leave Trump? Is scrapping the Iran deal such an urgent priority that doing so is worth the cost of damaging all of the implicit understandings that the US government requires to operate, including the implicit understandings that when other countries negotiate with the US president that negotiation has value beyond the four-year term of the current president? Is it so important to end the Iran deal that we should be willing to pay a high price in all of the other deals that the US will be unable to negotiate because the credibility of our primary negotiator has been severely undermined? It's possible that the answer is yes, and that this is the time to break precedent and use the emergency RAW power. Or it's much more likely that this is Trump being an incompetent narcissist again, there is no carefully calculated decision that the Iran deal is an incredibly urgent problem that must be dealt with, and there is no long-term plan for handling the situation beyond giving Trump a "win" to brag about on Fox News this week and draw attention away from his various scandals. And I think it should be obvious why the second option is a terrifying one.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You can have an executive agreement... just don't expect the next administration to honor it to the 't'.

C'mon D... the US Constitution isn't a state secret. Every international government knows this.

That's not the point. As we tried explaining to you during the supreme court nomination debacle there's far more to government than RAW. The US constitution sets RAW, but the actual functioning of government depends on a whole mess of unwritten rules, well-established traditions, etc. And yes, you can break those precedents and cite RAW, but unless you're a narcissistic spray tanned child and/or Ayn Rand fan obsessed with destroying the government you only do it as a last resort in the most important of situations. You may get what you want in the moment, but at a high price in the future functioning of the government once the precedent you broke has been removed. That doesn't mean you can't ever do it, but you'd better be getting one hell of a return on your actions for it to be justified.

As a non-US example the UK still has a monarch with considerable power RAW. However, it also has an implicit understanding that the monarch is now a figurehead with no power, and they will not ever use the power they still have by RAW. Any use of said power would be legal RAW, but the consequences of it would likely be the UK abolishing the monarchy and completely revising its system of government. So, assuming a responsible adult remains the monarch and no Trump equivalent ever sits on the throne, that power will likely never be used. The monarch understands that any use of their power is an extreme last resort, to be used only in the most dire of circumstances where something needs to be done regardless of the cost. The implicit understanding, while not RAW, is not a frivolous thing that is to be tossed aside to win this week's political argument.

So where does that leave Trump? Is scrapping the Iran deal such an urgent priority that doing so is worth the cost of damaging all of the implicit understandings that the US government requires to operate, including the implicit understandings that when other countries negotiate with the US president that negotiation has value beyond the four-year term of the current president? Is it so important to end the Iran deal that we should be willing to pay a high price in all of the other deals that the US will be unable to negotiate because the credibility of our primary negotiator has been severely undermined? It's possible that the answer is yes, and that this is the time to break precedent and use the emergency RAW power. Or it's much more likely that this is Trump being an incompetent narcissist again, there is no carefully calculated decision that the Iran deal is an incredibly urgent problem that must be dealt with, and there is no long-term plan for handling the situation beyond giving Trump a "win" to brag about on Fox News this week and draw attention away from his various scandals. And I think it should be obvious why the second option is a terrifying one.

I get your point... I really do.

But this can't be a surprise to you.

Private citizen Trump lamblasted this deal on day 1.

He *campaigned* on it.

Hell... most of the GOP candidates ran on getting us out of the deal. Even democratic bigwigs objected to the deal (Menendez, Schumer, etc...). The public never liked the deal.

He publicly HATED extending the agreement as statutorily required every 6 months. He made YUUUGE deal about it.

All of this was telegraphed, especially when Trump tapped Bolton and Pompeo for his administration...probably two of the biggest anti-JCPOA foreign policy wonks.

Now that we're out of JCPOA...nations will be put to a choice: You can have access to the US economy or you can have commerce with Iran. Just not both (though, I'd imagine waivers would be granted for existing contracts or something... otherwise, this'll be quite jarring). THIS is whats pissing off our European allies... as they know this is not a real choice and that their companies will lose out from accessing Iranian moolah. Has nothing to do with the agreement is "working" to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weaponry.

Its quite... Trumpy. I'll admit...and if you despise Trump, this will upset you to no end.

I just wished he submitted the agreement for formal up/down treaty review, so that the world would know Congress would refuse to ratify it.

So, the other P+5 nations are in a big hissy fit... just like the Paris Accord.

Let this be a reminder to all of our allies and our adversaries that a president has no power unilaterally bind the USA to an international agreement. We give our word when we enter a treaty or enact legislations. Otherwise, you'll be at the mercy of the "pen" from each successive administration.

This isn't me playing RAW games... this is how all of this works.

Prestor Jon wrote:
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.

And by your grand theory, Iran would enter that negotiation accepting that it could very well be renegged on in 2024. Note that the current deal began in a process started by GW Bush, then expanded and finally realised by Obama. Getting these stuff in place can take years, so the idea that it is normal and accepted for these positions to be reversed every four years couldn't be more ridiculous.

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?

You haven't even realised what the US has lost. Australia went with the US into Iraq, not because our PM individually made a choice, but because he went with the advice of the military and foreign policy staff that Australia should always remain on the side of the US. This was the Australian position because we had over generations found the US to be a steadfast ally that it was worth always supporting. And this wasn't just an Australian position, while not as strong as Australia, every other Western democracy held a position along those lines.

We all followed you in to Afghanistan, without question. Then it turned out Iraq was such a stupid endeavor that most allies wouldn't follow you in to that one, but it still didn't end the idea of following the US lead on further operations.

But that's now ending, very quickly. Now we have foreign leaders talking openly about what to do in a world where the US can't be relied upon as a stable world leader. This is a major shift in world politics, and you don't even realised it's happened, because all you think that matters is legally what a president is able to upend from his predecessor.

Prestor Jon wrote:
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.

If Trump was out of the blue I'd agree with that. But GW Bush was the disaster we all gave you a mulligan on. Now Trump is seen not as out of the blue, but as a continuation of a trend. Note there is nothing of any meaning coming out of the Republican party in opposition to Trump's foreign policy reversals, and the Republican base supports it (though backing out of the Iran deal is majority unpopular, and only about 60-40 among Republicans).

There is a large industry of US watchers outside of America, trying to figure out what American politics means for the rest of the world, and right now all the talk is about what we do without American leadership, because its looking like this kind of silliness may well become the norm in about half of US administrations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
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.

It's a nice theory, but it ignores the reality that NK have alternated between heated rhetoric and coming to the table with every US president. There have been extensive talks before, and some of those talks even produced deals. The last deal was struck by Clinton, and fell apart during Bush's term when NK shifted back in to a hostile phase. Then NK shifted back in to a talking phase and had some talks with the Bush admin.

People are treating this latest round of talks as some historic, ground shifting event, but it's a wildly ignorant position. The only thing that is different so far is Trump agreeing to take part without NK first making concessions, something other presidents had insisted on under advice from the state department.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Makes me glad to have Mattis, Pompeo and Bolton on deck in this regard.

Mattis is a fine operator, Pompeo thinks Kim's name is 'Chairman Un' and Bolton is there to make Pompeo look smart.

Claiming you're glad the latter two are in this is playing imaginary politics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I think there is a certain strand in Washington that will never forgive Iran for humiliating the USA back in the 1970s.

It's not just a Washington thing, the petty vendetta exists in Iran as well. In Tehran you can visit the former US embassy, it has been renamed 'The Den of Espionage', and inside Iran has preserved everything, so you can walk past some old vacuum tube computer with a label like 'Spy Satellite Computer'.

A few years ago when Iran got their hands on a US drone that either malfunctioned, was hacked or shot down, I can't remember, the Iranian government produced all these special replicas for kids to celebrate that great win over America. The ones made for girls were pink, which was a nice touch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Stop ignoring the Iranian actors in Syria/Yemen/Africa now.

It is central component of bonkers conservative foreign policy that it is unacceptable that Iran would support proxies in regional conflicts, but Saudi Arabia supporting their own proxies in the same conflicts is just middle east politics. Bleh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Also... Mitch's staff are getting checky these days:

The day before McConnell wouldn't even call Blankenship racist for directly calling McConnell's own wife a 'china person'. But after Blankenship lost McConnell got so very brave all of a sudden. What a pathetically weak man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
You can have an executive agreement... just don't expect the next administration to honor it to the 't'.

C'mon D... the US Constitution isn't a state secret. Every international government knows this.

I mean, are you telling me that President Warren wouldn't rescind a Trump agreement at her discretion?

Are you trying to claim that before now the US was noted for suddenly reversing foreign policy positions and commitments? Do you think there is a debate in South Korea before each US election that SK needs a plan that doesn't involve US support, because maybe this next guy will be the president who will just walk away from US commitment to the peninsula?

You guys are arguing for the existence of fictional history. The US you are arguing for, of unstable, sudden shifts in foreign policy, that country never existed. So just stop with the silliness, please.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

India and Pakistan are properly southern Asia, not the Mideast. And strategically they are more worried about each other and China than Iran, because the terrain does not favor Iran moving in their direction. And the same terrain limits inhibit their interest in moving east.

Russia, of course, backs Syria in the region, but is definitely aware that it's nuclear options are heavily restrained by the probability of American retaliation. It's unlikely they'd risk us nuking their homeland if they nuke one of our allies in the region.

Israel, of course, does not care who it angers if they feel their back is to the wall, and they've occasionally been quite creative about defining what that means. Which effectively makes them the solo nuclear power in the region.

 whembly wrote:
You keep strawmanning here... Are you sure this isn't simply a reflection reaction by you to defend Obama's policy? Or, are you honest-to-god believe this Iran deal was a good deal for the US?

I get why the other P+5 nations are pissed, because they want access to Iranian markets... but, if the US goal is to eliminate the Iran's ability from developing nukes, this agreement was flawed from the get-go.

P+5? What is the 5 you're adding to the 'P'? This is ridiculous. It is P5+1. P5 is the five permanent security council members, and the +1 is Germany, because while they're not a permanent security member for obvious historical reasons, they're a major economic and foreign policy player, and essential to deals like this. Honestly, it is stuff like that which shows you don't actually read about this stuff. If you did that's not an error you'd make, because you wouldn't just be copying phrasing you don't understand and mangling it. Instead you just read political opinions from sources you know will give you reliable conservative babble, and that's no way to actually learn how any of this stuff works.

As to the actual argument you just made, it is pure junk. Yes, the Iran deal was good for the US, it was good for everyone. It involved Iran having to give up its nuclear program and commit to a constant regime of inspectors, and in exchange for nothing, Iran was just allowed to be a regular country.

As to why the other countries want to continue the Iran deal - its because Iran is acting in accordance with the deal. That isn't just the conclusion of the IAEA, it isn't just the opinion in France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China, it's also what Trump own national security team stated under oath before congress.

The only people who claim Iran is in breach is Trump and his mob of ditto head liars, and the evidence they have attempted to use to justify this does the remarkable job of being full of lies and still not making the case even if the lies were true. It's beyond pathetic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Looks like Cohen just got in even deeper trouble, by accepting a bunch of money that looks like structured payments (obviously illegal), and a lot of it is connected to Russians or Russian owned businesses by the looks of it.

I'm not sure where the Russian stuff will go, but just on the face of it we're looking at $4.4m in a very obvious pay to play set up. And to believe this was just Cohen making money out of his connection to Trump, we'd have to believe some incredible nonsense.

For instance, Novartis paid Cohen $1.2 million. Novartis claims after a single meeting it was clear it was a waste of time, but they kept paying Cohen because they didn't want to upset Trump. Trump claims he has no idea the payments happened, so we're asked to believe Novartis was concerned about upsetting Trump over payments he didn't know about. But it gets sillier. Because the Novartis CEO and Trump met several times, including at the CEO dinner at Davos. We're being asked to belief that Cohen was grifting millions for access, then Trump was doing the work of actually meeting with these people, without asking for anything for himself. That doesn't sound much like Trump. And then, of course, we've got Trump allowing sudden increases in drug costs, and no action at all on opioids, which benefit Novartis enormously. We're asked to believe that's a totally coincidental to these payments.

I don't know how much of what actually happened will be uncovered and proven, but I know that what's really been going on is some pretty obvious, straight up bribery.

 Vaktathi wrote:
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.


http://thehill.com/policy/international/386871-oliver-north-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."

I have...no words.

Well since eu has said they will keep deal on i- trump decides on this full trade war between eu and us. Yey.

Oh and now israel claiming iran attacked them. Does us-israel invasion start sooner than i expected? I thought we would have few months at least


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If the same Iran deal was made under Bush and Obama had ended it Whembly would be outraged at the undermining of US credibility.

No... because I can look at this deal in isolation from who advocated for it.

Heh.

Did guy who thinks r=always right, d=always wrong just say THAT?

Novartis drops money in Cohen's shell company and despite his constant rhetoric on the opioid crisis, Trump does nothing. He declares a crisis, but its just words, there's no money, no proposed laws, and no directions given to government departments to do anything.

AT&T drops money in Cohen's shell company, and Ajit Pai ends net neutrality. AT&T went low ball though, and of course Trump has a hate on for CNN which might even exceed his love of money, so the merger with Time Warner still ended up in the courts. $200k doesn't buy much.

Now, maybe these things are coincidental. Afterall, Trump has been extremely generous to the corporate sector at large, so really any company that gave money to Trump's personal lawyer could probably be linked to some favour doled out by Trump. But the point is we don't know. Because Trump's personal lawyer set up a shell company and used it to take money from a web of corporate and foreign interests, while also making secret hush payments on Trump's behalf. It is also because despite his campaign rhetoric, Trump has been extremely generous to the corporate sector, dismantling environmental, telecoms & financial regs. It is now impossible to know if any of those moves came out of a commitment to standard Republican deregulation, or if it was due to bribes from special interests, because the impact is the same.

 whembly wrote:

I get your point... I really do.

But this can't be a surprise to you.

Private citizen Trump lamblasted this deal on day 1.

He *campaigned* on it.

Hell... most of the GOP candidates ran on getting us out of the deal. Even democratic bigwigs objected to the deal (Menendez, Schumer, etc...). The public never liked the deal.

He publicly HATED extending the agreement as statutorily required every 6 months. He made YUUUGE deal about it.

All of this was telegraphed, especially when Trump tapped Bolton and Pompeo for his administration...probably two of the biggest anti-JCPOA foreign policy wonks.

Now that we're out of JCPOA...nations will be put to a choice: You can have access to the US economy or you can have commerce with Iran. Just not both (though, I'd imagine waivers would be granted for existing contracts or something... otherwise, this'll be quite jarring). THIS is whats pissing off our European allies... as they know this is not a real choice and that their companies will lose out from accessing Iranian moolah. Has nothing to do with the agreement is "working" to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weaponry.

Its quite... Trumpy. I'll admit...and if you despise Trump, this will upset you to no end.

I just wished he submitted the agreement for formal up/down treaty review, so that the world would know Congress would refuse to ratify it.

So, the other P+5 nations are in a big hissy fit... just like the Paris Accord.

Let this be a reminder to all of our allies and our adversaries that a president has no power unilaterally bind the USA to an international agreement. We give our word when we enter a treaty or enact legislations. Otherwise, you'll be at the mercy of the "pen" from each successive administration.

This isn't me playing RAW games... this is how all of this works.

This is insane. You're going to advocate an economic war with Europe and China just to piss off Iran? Is this some sort of elaborate murder-suicide ritual to end US Empire?

Also again, the general public is useless in complicated policy debates when they can't even identify Iran on a map.

Also, as pointed out time and time again, there is no good reason Congress wouldn't ratify it.

Every argument Whembly has put forward about why the deal is bad has been debunked by multiple posters in detail.

Their refusal to ratify boils entirely down to party politics and hatred of Obama.

Needless to say that is no way to govern a country.

Last week we learned that Devin Nunes didn't even bother to read the documents he had threatened motions of contempt against the DoJ to read. The same thing had happened back in February, when Nunes fought to access the FISA applications but never bothered to read them.

This week we get a new Nunes drama. He's back and he's subpoenaed more from the DoJ, and is once again threatening escalation after an initial rebuff. Due to the sensitive nature of the intel, we don't know exactly what was requested, but the refusal said the info would endanger the life of a key source. Nunes team said that the House Intel committee needs to be trusted with confidential intel, which was a bit incredible after the unredacted Comey memo leaked within 10 minutes of being presented, and that wasn't even a scandal everyone just accepted it as an obvious result of providing it to the House committee.

It's unclear what Nunes actually wants or why, but given the pattern of demanding intel so far, then not bothering to read it when it is given, it sure looks like all Nunes is trying to achieve is forcing Wray or Rosenstein out of power, to get a wedge in to the Mueller investigation.

Why he's doing this is the big guess. The chattering left has already concluded Nunes is corrupted by Russia, but that's not likely at all because when someone with direct Russia connections gets in a position of national importance, the IC makes sure they're gone. The IC don't leak much, but they'll do what's necessary to clear compromised people out. Look at what happened to Flynn, nothing like that has happened with Nunes. But at the same time if someone in Nunes' position was acting to harm the investigation as much as possible, their conduct would be indistinguishable from what Nunes has done.

So what is it? I don't know. Maybe the most important thing to note is that the whole time Nunes has been running his campaign of lies and dysfunction, Paul Ryan has had the power to replace him but has refused to even consider it. And it isn't just a Paul Ryan thing, Ryan's two most likely replacements, Kevin McCarthy and Steven Scalise both also love Nunes in the role. Whatever the hell Nunes is up to, he's doing it with the full support of the present and future leadership House Republicans.

Whatever Nunes' con is, it is the con game of the whole GOP.

sebster wrote:Novartis drops money in Cohen's shell company and despite his constant rhetoric on the opioid crisis, Trump does nothing. He declares a crisis, but its just words, there's no money, no proposed laws, and no directions given to government departments to do anything.

AT&T drops money in Cohen's shell company, and Ajit Pai ends net neutrality. AT&T went low ball though, and of course Trump has a hate on for CNN which might even exceed his love of money, so the merger with Time Warner still ended up in the courts. $200k doesn't buy much.

Now, maybe these things are coincidental.

What I think you're doing here is distracting from talking about the real issues, like the Clinton Foundation.

sebster wrote:Last week we learned that Devin Nunes didn't even bother to read the documents he had threatened motions of contempt against the DoJ to read. The same thing had happened back in February, when Nunes fought to access the FISA applications but never bothered to read them.

This week we get a new Nunes drama. He's back and he's subpoenaed more from the DoJ, and is once again threatening escalation after an initial rebuff. Due to the sensitive nature of the intel, we don't know exactly what was requested, but the refusal said the info would endanger the life of a key source. Nunes team said that the House Intel committee needs to be trusted with confidential intel, which was a bit incredible after the unredacted Comey memo leaked within 10 minutes of being presented, and that wasn't even a scandal everyone just accepted it as an obvious result of providing it to the House committee.

It's unclear what Nunes actually wants or why, but given the pattern of demanding intel so far, then not bothering to read it when it is given, it sure looks like all Nunes is trying to achieve is forcing Wray or Rosenstein out of power, to get a wedge in to the Mueller investigation.

This is exactly what the game plan is. Nunes is going to keep asking for more until Rod Rosenstein is forced to refuse to give them (something), and then he can use it as a pretext to impeach Rosenstein and then end the Mueller investigation.

Our government was not really built to handle this kind of cross-branch corruption, I don't think. So I have no idea how to fix something like this. I guess voting Nunes out when he comes up?

 whembly wrote:
Let this be a reminder to all of our allies and our adversaries that a president has no power unilaterally bind the USA to an international agreement. We give our word when we enter a treaty or enact legislations. Otherwise, you'll be at the mercy of the "pen" from each successive administration.

You are reading the words, but you are not understanding the point. Everyone here understands that, RAW, this is how it works. The president can not create a legally binding agreement, and the Iran deal was unpopular with the republican party. But that's completely missing the point. The question is not "can we do it", the question is "should we do it". Whether or not it is RAW it is a fact that the US president is a primary negotiator for the US, and the ability to make agreements with the US president without a formal treaty vote is a powerful tool for the US president and for the effective functioning of the US government.

What Trump is doing here is saying "ending the Iran deal is so immensely important to me that I am willing to sacrifice any power I have for future negotiations and simultaneously get my allies to hate me if that's what it takes to end the deal". Going forward why should anyone negotiate with Trump, or any future US president? GTFO and bring in the senate leaders, because the president is now a worthless figurehead. And why should our allies have a favorable opinion of us and be willing to make informal deals (such as Australia giving us military assistance despite the lack of a treaty agreement to do so, as sebster pointed out) if we aren't going to honor them? Is this genuinely a national crisis, so important that it is worth sacrificing so much to save our country from an unacceptable fate? Or is this, once again, the republican party accepting (or pretending they can ignore) catastrophic long-term consequences in exchange for winning the week's political argument? You don't do this over routine policy disagreements, if you're a responsible government run by functioning adults, but that's exactly what the republican party is doing.

By RAW, Trump can declassify the nuclear codes and give them to Putin in return for some Novichok, use that to nerve gas the Supreme Court, send troops into Mexico on a "police action" to get the money for his wall, then resign and have Mike Pence give him a presidential pardon.

Would it be a jolly good thing if he did all this because he had the idea that it would be a jolly good thing?

Clearly I am making an argumentum ad absurdum, but let's remember that Trump boasted he could shoot someone dead on 5th Avenue and get away with it because he is so popular.

Really, people need to come up with a proper argument that actually supports what Trump does, not a specious argument that he is allowed to do it and that makes it fine.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, as pointed out time and time again, there is no good reason Congress wouldn't ratify it.

Every argument Whembly has put forward about why the deal is bad has been debunked by multiple posters in detail.

Their refusal to ratify boils entirely down to party politics and hatred of Obama.

Needless to say that is no way to govern a country.

"No good reason?"
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75, “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division. The two-thirds requirement adds to the burdens of the Senate leadership, and may also encourage opponents of a treaty to engage in a variety of dilatory tactics in hopes of obtaining sufficient votes to ensure its defeat.

Nevermind the merits or demerits of the Iran deal... this was Obama's agreement as POTUS. Since it wasn't a treaty, any such agreement is vulnerable to the next administration.

You can yell at that sky that "it's a poor way to run a government" all you want.

I'm trying to explain how this works.

When all you can fall back on to defend a decision is technicalities you've already given up the actual argument.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
When all you can fall back on to defend a decision is technicalities you've already given up the actual argument.

I don't think there was any decision as such, it was just another part of the whole 'Obama did it, so we're undoing it' process...

In the end, it doesn't matter what the rules in the USA are. It matters what the allies, enemies and neutral parties think in terms of geopolitics. I think it's pretty clear that Trump has damaged relationships with allies and showed neutrals and enemies that he is unreliable and treacherous.

The USA is weaker because of Trump's actions.

As an EU citizen, I'm pretty gloomy about it all. If there's another war, the USA will likely shirk it's humanitarian responsibilities and Europe will bear the brunt of any refugee crisis. And when the EU stands up to Trump he's going to hurt us economically. We will hurt the USA back, but they're economically bigger than us. But it's so pointless. None of this needs to be happening.

 Da Boss wrote:
We will hurt the USA back, but they're economically bigger than us.

They're actually not. The EU is bigger economically than the US.

 Da Boss wrote:
But it's so pointless. None of this needs to be happening.

100% correct.

But they're gonna do it anyway, because stiggnit to the libs and perma-war in the middle east is basically core policy at this point.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
We will hurt the USA back, but they're economically bigger than us.

They're actually not. The EU is bigger economically than the US.

I know we're a bigger market and so on, but I'm not sure you could say we're the bigger bloc economically because there's so many ways to look at it. But perhaps you're right. In any case, we'll hurt each other to no gain.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Let this be a reminder to all of our allies and our adversaries that a president has no power unilaterally bind the USA to an international agreement. We give our word when we enter a treaty or enact legislations. Otherwise, you'll be at the mercy of the "pen" from each successive administration.

You are reading the words, but you are not understanding the point. Everyone here understands that, RAW, this is how it works. The president can not create a legally binding agreement, and the Iran deal was unpopular with the republican party.

It was deeply unpopular with many Democrats and the public at large.

But that's completely missing the point.

Absolutely not.

The question is not "can we do it", the question is "should we do it". Whether or not it is RAW it is a fact that the US president is a primary negotiator for the US, and the ability to make agreements with the US president without a formal treaty vote is a powerful tool for the US president and for the effective functioning of the US government.

...and the answer is "Yes, we should do it".

What Trump is doing here is saying "ending the Iran deal is so immensely important to me that I am willing to sacrifice any power I have for future negotiations and simultaneously get my allies to hate me if that's what it takes to end the deal".

That's your opinion as how you think this occurred.

He's doing what he pledged to do... it's amazing that it took so long.

Going forward why should anyone negotiate with Trump,

He's the President... I'm sure foreign negotiators would factor that in whatever agreement they may make with Trump. Whether its some assurances down the road, or something tangible up front.

or any future US president?

Depends on who's the potus . But, really they won't have a choice...

GTFO and bring in the senate leaders, because the president is now a worthless figurehead.

Potus *is* a figurehead... that's his (her) job. And yes, nations need to be cognizant of the fact that if they want lasting agreements that'll withstand the mini-revolutions that US experiences every 4 years, then they'll need to tailor such agreement that would meet the current Senate's approval. That fact that this Iran deal would've never been passed by the GOP control Senate speaks volume regarding the merits of this deal.

And why should our allies have a favorable opinion of us and be willing to make informal deals (such as Australia giving us military assistance despite the lack of a treaty agreement to do so, as sebster pointed out) if we aren't going to honor them?

Because our allies *knows* that this was an agreement by Obama. As such they *know* that a contentious agreement like this would be vulnerable to the whims of the next administration. THIS. IS. BAKED. IN. Unless, they didn't give it much thought since they believe Hillary Clinton would easily win and thus continue such agreement. Just like me, they were wrong. Hopefully, in the future that negotiating such agreements will keep these lessons to heart.

Is this genuinely a national crisis, so important that it is worth sacrificing so much to save our country from an unacceptable fate? Or is this, once again, the republican party accepting (or pretending they can ignore) catastrophic long-term consequences in exchange for winning the week's political argument?

Both can be true.

You don't do this over routine policy disagreements, if you're a responsible government run by functioning adults, but that's exactly what the republican party is doing.

There's nothing routine about all of this.

If you, unambiguously think this is a good deal, then you will have problems with Trump doing this and think this'll harm future interactions.

Fine. Nothing I'm going to say will dissuade you of that fact.

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, as pointed out time and time again, there is no good reason Congress wouldn't ratify it.

Every argument Whembly has put forward about why the deal is bad has been debunked by multiple posters in detail.

Their refusal to ratify boils entirely down to party politics and hatred of Obama.

Needless to say that is no way to govern a country.

"No good reason?"
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75, “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division. The two-thirds requirement adds to the burdens of the Senate leadership, and may also encourage opponents of a treaty to engage in a variety of dilatory tactics in hopes of obtaining sufficient votes to ensure its defeat.

Nevermind the merits or demerits of the Iran deal... this was Obama's agreement as POTUS. Since it wasn't a treaty, any such agreement is vulnerable to the next administration.

You can yell at that sky that "it's a poor way to run a government" all you want.

I'm trying to explain how this works.

So your response to the statement "There is no good reason to not ratify the agreement in treaty form" is to say that to do so requires support in congress.

Completely ignoring the point actually being made that the opposition to doing so is not based on the actual merits of the agreement but rather hatred of the person who brokered it. You have still not provided any reason, based on the actual content of the agreement, IAEA inspection reports etc. that would support a position of not ratifying the deal.

Please, list any reasons to not ratify the agreement in treaty form, which are based purely on the content of the agreement, which haven't already been debunked in this thread.

 Da Boss wrote:


As an EU citizen, I'm pretty gloomy about it all. If there's another war, the USA will likely shirk it's humanitarian responsibilities and Europe will bear the brunt of any refugee crisis. And when the EU stands up to Trump he's going to hurt us economically. We will hurt the USA back, but they're economically bigger than us. But it's so pointless. None of this needs to be happening.

Very true. Our American culture is caught in a moment of National Nihilism..... and I have no idea why.

You can see it in Politics, Pop Culture, Business, and Religion. I really don't understand why the most powerful country in the world is gripped by this National Nihilism.

Edit: Typos ahoy!