|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 16 2015 09:39 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 09:30 coverpunch wrote:On April 16 2015 09:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2015 08:50 Yoav wrote:On April 16 2015 08:40 Millitron wrote:On April 16 2015 08:37 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 16 2015 07:11 Yoav wrote:
Rand Paul, for anyone keeping track, promises to end any law that disproportionately jails blacks. Not sure he could even if he wanted to, but it's a step in the right direction to say such things. I've heard this brought up in a discussion a few months ago actually; Rand Paul has been making moves in that direction ever since his campaign became a near inevitability. The general consensus from the black community leaders that were discussing at a panel was that this is: 1) A positive step for the Republican party, and 2) Rand Paul is almost certainly NOT the person to deliver on this, or from whom it will be readily believed among the African-American community. Pretty tough for the Republican party to no longer be the party of old white guys when black people just refuse to believe any of them who actually are trying to help with race relations. I wish the Republican party would ditch the bible belt. They'd get so many more moderates if they focused on the libertarian side of the party. Amen. No, the last while has made me wonder if it wouldn't be better if we had a multiparty system so Republicans could divide into libertarians and xenophobic nutjobs and the Democrats could divide into liberals and populist nutjobs. The way I see it, Republicans are going to lose the presidential race for the next few cycles (barring an Obama like rise from someone or a self destruction from a candidate on the left). Libertarians are going to lose too (being trapped within the Republican party). So I think Libertarians should just cut the social conservative dead weight and trade them for rational moderates and independents. They probably won't be successful for a bit but in the meantime they can focus on shaving off leaning liberal's support for Dems until Social conservatives/Traditional republicans have to choose between the Democrat's nominee and the Libertarian representative (Because their future Huckabee/Perry or whoever won't have a chance). I think libertarians have a better chance turning Jeb voters libertarian than the Republican party has turning Blacks into Republican voters. Considering where the right has been going on immigration, Hispanic support will probably be as low or lower than when Obama ran too. So...you're not only writing off the GOP in 2016 before the race has even started in earnest, you assume they're already going to lose the race in 2020 and 2024 too? How arrogant can you be? About 20% as arrogant as xdaunt. They lost in 2012 against the black socialist muslim antichrist. They have decided to double down on the tactics that lost them the election in 2012 for this election season. Unless the republican party ditches the Tea Party, they will keep producing nominees who are unelectable (see: Paul, Cruz). The only saving grace they have this year is that Jeb Bush is running, and he might not say stupid shit like the other potentials because he has enough political capital to be a threat without the support of the Tea Party.
Hillary lost to the same man in 2008. Don't forget that little detail.
|
On April 16 2015 09:55 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 09:39 Jormundr wrote:On April 16 2015 09:30 coverpunch wrote:On April 16 2015 09:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2015 08:50 Yoav wrote:On April 16 2015 08:40 Millitron wrote:On April 16 2015 08:37 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 16 2015 07:11 Yoav wrote:
Rand Paul, for anyone keeping track, promises to end any law that disproportionately jails blacks. Not sure he could even if he wanted to, but it's a step in the right direction to say such things. I've heard this brought up in a discussion a few months ago actually; Rand Paul has been making moves in that direction ever since his campaign became a near inevitability. The general consensus from the black community leaders that were discussing at a panel was that this is: 1) A positive step for the Republican party, and 2) Rand Paul is almost certainly NOT the person to deliver on this, or from whom it will be readily believed among the African-American community. Pretty tough for the Republican party to no longer be the party of old white guys when black people just refuse to believe any of them who actually are trying to help with race relations. I wish the Republican party would ditch the bible belt. They'd get so many more moderates if they focused on the libertarian side of the party. Amen. No, the last while has made me wonder if it wouldn't be better if we had a multiparty system so Republicans could divide into libertarians and xenophobic nutjobs and the Democrats could divide into liberals and populist nutjobs. The way I see it, Republicans are going to lose the presidential race for the next few cycles (barring an Obama like rise from someone or a self destruction from a candidate on the left). Libertarians are going to lose too (being trapped within the Republican party). So I think Libertarians should just cut the social conservative dead weight and trade them for rational moderates and independents. They probably won't be successful for a bit but in the meantime they can focus on shaving off leaning liberal's support for Dems until Social conservatives/Traditional republicans have to choose between the Democrat's nominee and the Libertarian representative (Because their future Huckabee/Perry or whoever won't have a chance). I think libertarians have a better chance turning Jeb voters libertarian than the Republican party has turning Blacks into Republican voters. Considering where the right has been going on immigration, Hispanic support will probably be as low or lower than when Obama ran too. So...you're not only writing off the GOP in 2016 before the race has even started in earnest, you assume they're already going to lose the race in 2020 and 2024 too? How arrogant can you be? About 20% as arrogant as xdaunt. They lost in 2012 against the black socialist muslim antichrist. They have decided to double down on the tactics that lost them the election in 2012 for this election season. Unless the republican party ditches the Tea Party, they will keep producing nominees who are unelectable (see: Paul, Cruz). The only saving grace they have this year is that Jeb Bush is running, and he might not say stupid shit like the other potentials because he has enough political capital to be a threat without the support of the Tea Party. Hillary lost to the same man in 2008. Don't forget that little detail.
If there's a dark horse out there that can overshadow Hillary then the republican race is even more futile, so I don't quite understand what your point is.
|
On April 16 2015 09:50 puerk wrote:
Abolish the fed, dismantle social security, end medicaid/medicare...
well is there any 3rd rail he hasn't licked?
The Fed's lack of oversight is a big reason for the housing crisis.
The existence of 3rd rails itself is a problem. It's like trying to take an addict's drugs away. It's good for him in the end, but he'll fight tooth and nail to prevent it.
A big problem with social security and medicaid/medicare is people start feeling entitled to them. So it's political suicide to try to make any real changes to them, even if the changes are absolutely necessary. Have you actually listened to any of his points about SS or medicare/medicaid?
|
On April 16 2015 10:07 Millitron wrote:
A big problem with social security and medicaid/medicare is people start feeling entitled to them.
...implying that people should not? There's a reason social security has the word 'security' in it.
|
On April 16 2015 10:05 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 09:55 coverpunch wrote:On April 16 2015 09:39 Jormundr wrote:On April 16 2015 09:30 coverpunch wrote:On April 16 2015 09:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2015 08:50 Yoav wrote:On April 16 2015 08:40 Millitron wrote:On April 16 2015 08:37 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 16 2015 07:11 Yoav wrote:
Rand Paul, for anyone keeping track, promises to end any law that disproportionately jails blacks. Not sure he could even if he wanted to, but it's a step in the right direction to say such things. I've heard this brought up in a discussion a few months ago actually; Rand Paul has been making moves in that direction ever since his campaign became a near inevitability. The general consensus from the black community leaders that were discussing at a panel was that this is: 1) A positive step for the Republican party, and 2) Rand Paul is almost certainly NOT the person to deliver on this, or from whom it will be readily believed among the African-American community. Pretty tough for the Republican party to no longer be the party of old white guys when black people just refuse to believe any of them who actually are trying to help with race relations. I wish the Republican party would ditch the bible belt. They'd get so many more moderates if they focused on the libertarian side of the party. Amen. No, the last while has made me wonder if it wouldn't be better if we had a multiparty system so Republicans could divide into libertarians and xenophobic nutjobs and the Democrats could divide into liberals and populist nutjobs. The way I see it, Republicans are going to lose the presidential race for the next few cycles (barring an Obama like rise from someone or a self destruction from a candidate on the left). Libertarians are going to lose too (being trapped within the Republican party). So I think Libertarians should just cut the social conservative dead weight and trade them for rational moderates and independents. They probably won't be successful for a bit but in the meantime they can focus on shaving off leaning liberal's support for Dems until Social conservatives/Traditional republicans have to choose between the Democrat's nominee and the Libertarian representative (Because their future Huckabee/Perry or whoever won't have a chance). I think libertarians have a better chance turning Jeb voters libertarian than the Republican party has turning Blacks into Republican voters. Considering where the right has been going on immigration, Hispanic support will probably be as low or lower than when Obama ran too. So...you're not only writing off the GOP in 2016 before the race has even started in earnest, you assume they're already going to lose the race in 2020 and 2024 too? How arrogant can you be? About 20% as arrogant as xdaunt. They lost in 2012 against the black socialist muslim antichrist. They have decided to double down on the tactics that lost them the election in 2012 for this election season. Unless the republican party ditches the Tea Party, they will keep producing nominees who are unelectable (see: Paul, Cruz). The only saving grace they have this year is that Jeb Bush is running, and he might not say stupid shit like the other potentials because he has enough political capital to be a threat without the support of the Tea Party. Hillary lost to the same man in 2008. Don't forget that little detail. If there's a dark horse out there that can overshadow Hillary then the republican race is even more futile, so I don't quite understand what your point is.
The point is it is highly arrogant to call the race and even more so to cry crocodile tears for the Republicans before it has even started. It's also strangely dismissive to say the Republicans are doomed because Obama won re-election in 2012 and simply assume the Democrats will have the same turnout and voting margin with any other candidate.
|
On April 16 2015 10:10 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 10:07 Millitron wrote:
A big problem with social security and medicaid/medicare is people start feeling entitled to them. ...implying that people should not? There's a reason social security has the word 'security' in it.
Imagine this. SS has a problem. But the people throw a hissy fit whenever anyone talks about changing it in any meaningful way. Any politician who even thinks about touching it is chased out of politics. So the problem never gets fixed.
It's an addiction.
Edit: Name's mean nothing. Otherwise the Patriot act would be great.
Also remember, when Social Security was first started, it was not a social safety net. It was a retirement plan. It was not designed to be a bread line.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 16 2015 09:44 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 09:39 Jormundr wrote:On April 16 2015 09:30 coverpunch wrote:On April 16 2015 09:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2015 08:50 Yoav wrote:On April 16 2015 08:40 Millitron wrote:On April 16 2015 08:37 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 16 2015 07:11 Yoav wrote:
Rand Paul, for anyone keeping track, promises to end any law that disproportionately jails blacks. Not sure he could even if he wanted to, but it's a step in the right direction to say such things. I've heard this brought up in a discussion a few months ago actually; Rand Paul has been making moves in that direction ever since his campaign became a near inevitability. The general consensus from the black community leaders that were discussing at a panel was that this is: 1) A positive step for the Republican party, and 2) Rand Paul is almost certainly NOT the person to deliver on this, or from whom it will be readily believed among the African-American community. Pretty tough for the Republican party to no longer be the party of old white guys when black people just refuse to believe any of them who actually are trying to help with race relations. I wish the Republican party would ditch the bible belt. They'd get so many more moderates if they focused on the libertarian side of the party. Amen. No, the last while has made me wonder if it wouldn't be better if we had a multiparty system so Republicans could divide into libertarians and xenophobic nutjobs and the Democrats could divide into liberals and populist nutjobs. The way I see it, Republicans are going to lose the presidential race for the next few cycles (barring an Obama like rise from someone or a self destruction from a candidate on the left). Libertarians are going to lose too (being trapped within the Republican party). So I think Libertarians should just cut the social conservative dead weight and trade them for rational moderates and independents. They probably won't be successful for a bit but in the meantime they can focus on shaving off leaning liberal's support for Dems until Social conservatives/Traditional republicans have to choose between the Democrat's nominee and the Libertarian representative (Because their future Huckabee/Perry or whoever won't have a chance). I think libertarians have a better chance turning Jeb voters libertarian than the Republican party has turning Blacks into Republican voters. Considering where the right has been going on immigration, Hispanic support will probably be as low or lower than when Obama ran too. So...you're not only writing off the GOP in 2016 before the race has even started in earnest, you assume they're already going to lose the race in 2020 and 2024 too? How arrogant can you be? About 20% as arrogant as xdaunt. They lost in 2012 against the black socialist muslim antichrist. They have decided to double down on the tactics that lost them the election in 2012 for this election season. Unless the republican party ditches the Tea Party, they will keep producing nominees who are unelectable (see: Paul, Cruz). The only saving grace they have this year is that Jeb Bush is running, and he might not say stupid shit like the other potentials because he has enough political capital to be a threat without the support of the Tea Party. What makes Paul unelectable?
being crazy
|
The other reason people get "addicted" to social security is because it ended a horrific status quo. Before social security nearly half of all elderly people died in poverty and now it is closer to ten percent. We definitely need to find ways to make government more agile, especially in respect to these major programs, but we took on this major responsibility in response to a human rights disaster happening on our watch. Simply going back to that is not an option.
|
On April 16 2015 10:55 Velocirapture wrote:
The other reason people get "addicted" to social security is because it ended a horrific status quo. Before social security nearly half of all elderly people died in poverty and now it is closer to ten percent. We definitely need to find ways to make government more agile, especially in respect to these major programs, but we took on this major responsibility in response to a human rights disaster happening on our watch. Simply going back to that is not an option.
You know not just elderly people receive social security right? It's not just a retirement plan anymore, even though that was what it was designed as.
You still haven't really refuted the point about entitlements being bad because they become impossible to change.
|
On April 16 2015 11:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 10:55 Velocirapture wrote:
The other reason people get "addicted" to social security is because it ended a horrific status quo. Before social security nearly half of all elderly people died in poverty and now it is closer to ten percent. We definitely need to find ways to make government more agile, especially in respect to these major programs, but we took on this major responsibility in response to a human rights disaster happening on our watch. Simply going back to that is not an option. You know not just elderly people receive social security right? It's not just a retirement plan anymore, even though that was what it was designed as. You still haven't really refuted the point about entitlements being bad because they become impossible to change.
You were not talking to me lol. I was making a point as an aside. The reason why you can't just repeal social security is that it works. It literally saves tens of millions of Americans from destitution. Like I said in my original post, we need a way to go in with a scalpel and make changes with these programs but a wholesale deletion gets rid of both the failures and the successes. Taking care of these people is a moral imperative most Americans take seriously. Develop a sustainable, more effective system we can transition into and collect your Nobel Prize.
|
On April 16 2015 11:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 10:55 Velocirapture wrote:
The other reason people get "addicted" to social security is because it ended a horrific status quo. Before social security nearly half of all elderly people died in poverty and now it is closer to ten percent. We definitely need to find ways to make government more agile, especially in respect to these major programs, but we took on this major responsibility in response to a human rights disaster happening on our watch. Simply going back to that is not an option. You know not just elderly people receive social security right? It's not just a retirement plan anymore, even though that was what it was designed as. You still haven't really refuted the point about entitlements being bad because they become impossible to change.
Because your point makes as much sense as them saying "they shouldnt have built the brooklyn bridge because if it turns out that there is a more efficient way to use that land people will never want to temporarily give up the convenience of the bridge."
If someone had a better idea that accomplished everything social security did but somehow magically did it cheaper then it would not be that hard to convince people to take that option. However since no one ever has proposed such a thing for any of the entitlements then yes you would have people objecting to a plan of just making there lives worse with no real potential benefit.
|
On April 16 2015 09:50 puerk wrote:
Abolish the fed, dismantle social security, end medicaid/medicare...
well is there any 3rd rail he hasn't licked?
You are aware there are two Pauls, right? And only one of them wants to abolish the Fed. Hint: It's not the one who's running.
Also, Social Security kinda needs to be taken down a notch if it is to continue to exist for my generation's retirement.
On April 16 2015 09:39 Jormundr wrote:Unless the republican party ditches the Tea Party, they will keep producing nominees who are unelectable (see: Paul, Cruz).
Neither Paul nor Cruz will be the nominee. Yes, there is too much kowtowing to the Tea Party (and other kinds of extremists), and it probably cost McCain the election. But the form it takes is compelling the moderate who wins to pay homage, not putting up unelectable nominees.
|
On April 16 2015 11:17 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 09:39 Jormundr wrote:Unless the republican party ditches the Tea Party, they will keep producing nominees who are unelectable (see: Paul, Cruz). Neither Paul nor Cruz will be the nominee. Yes, there is too much kowtowing to the Tea Party (and other kinds of extremists), and it probably cost McCain the election. But the form it takes is compelling the moderate who wins to pay homage, not putting up unelectable nominees.
You're right. The problem for the GOP is not the Tea Party candidates actually winning (the people who have co-opted the Tea Party would never actually allow that to happen), the problem is the way their nomination shift the primary narrative towards stances that force "moderate" politicians to make statements on the record that they cannot effectively recant for the general election. Look at how hard Romney had to backpedal away from anything even the least bit moderate about his MA governorship-he was left without a coherent campaign message beyond "businessmen are smart XD" as a result.
On a side note, thank God Paul Ryan appears to have dropped off the face of the earth.
Edit: At the same time, the GOP cannot abandon the Tea Party due to the massive advantage they have provided in the Senate and House (in which nobody gets called on BS stances or lunacy).
|
On April 16 2015 11:15 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 11:00 Millitron wrote:On April 16 2015 10:55 Velocirapture wrote:
The other reason people get "addicted" to social security is because it ended a horrific status quo. Before social security nearly half of all elderly people died in poverty and now it is closer to ten percent. We definitely need to find ways to make government more agile, especially in respect to these major programs, but we took on this major responsibility in response to a human rights disaster happening on our watch. Simply going back to that is not an option. You know not just elderly people receive social security right? It's not just a retirement plan anymore, even though that was what it was designed as. You still haven't really refuted the point about entitlements being bad because they become impossible to change. You were not talking to me lol. I was making a point as an aside. The reason why you can't just repeal social security is that it works. It literally saves tens of millions of Americans from destitution. Like I said in my original post, we need a way to go in with a scalpel and make changes with these programs but a wholesale deletion gets rid of both the failures and the successes. Taking care of these people is a moral imperative most Americans take seriously. Develop a sustainable, more effective system we can transition into and collect your Nobel Prize.
It's pretty impossible to develop a better system when you're chased out of politics for so much as discussing changing it.
On April 16 2015 11:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 11:17 Yoav wrote:On April 16 2015 09:39 Jormundr wrote:Unless the republican party ditches the Tea Party, they will keep producing nominees who are unelectable (see: Paul, Cruz). Neither Paul nor Cruz will be the nominee. Yes, there is too much kowtowing to the Tea Party (and other kinds of extremists), and it probably cost McCain the election. But the form it takes is compelling the moderate who wins to pay homage, not putting up unelectable nominees. You're right. The problem for the GOP is not the Tea Party candidates actually winning (the people who have co-opted the Tea Party would never actually allow that to happen), the problem is the way their nomination shift the primary narrative towards stances that force "moderate" politicians to make statements on the record that they cannot effectively recant for the general election. Look at how hard Romney had to backpedal away from anything even the least bit moderate about his MA governorship-he was left without a coherent campaign message beyond "businessmen are smart XD" as a result. On a side note, thank God Paul Ryan appears to have dropped off the face of the earth. Edit: At the same time, the GOP cannot abandon the Tea Party due to the massive advantage they have provided in the Senate and House (in which nobody gets called on BS stances or lunacy).
At first the Tea Party wasn't that bad. They were fiscal conservatives, and didn't really have a united stance on social issues. But somehow it got co-opted (like the rest of the GOP) by social conservatives and we end up with nonsense like Sarah Palin being a VP candidate.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Iran issues its fact sheet of the deal:
The period for the Join Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) should be limited to five years, in which about 10,000 active centrifuges operating at Natanz and Fordo now will continue nuclear fuel production by enriching uranium below the 5% grade.
The UF6 enriched reserves which are under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should be kept at Fordo nuclear plant and will be turned into nuclear fuel complex based on the existing capabilities.
During the five-year period, the Islamic Republic of Iran will continue to keep the excess centrifuges installed at Natanz and Fordo or will gradually dismantle them, and at the end of the 5-year period, it will replace all the existing centrifuges, including the active or inactive ones, with the new generation of (IR-N) centrifuge machines with the help of the new spaces and infrastructures which will have been already prepared and will use them without any limitation.
So...this already contradicts all the major points of the deal issued by the White House. It is 5 years instead of 10, 10000 centrifuges instead of 6000, 5% grade instead of 3.67%, Iran keeps the excess centrifuges instead of handing them to the IAEA, they actively promise new infrastructure instead of agreeing to not build any new facilities, and they say absolutely nothing about refraining from building nuclear weapons.
They go on to say research will continue at Fordow and Arak and they insist on ending the sanctions immediately and entirely, which also contradicts the White House deal.
This deal is...not as good as the White House one.
|
On April 16 2015 11:41 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 11:15 Velocirapture wrote:On April 16 2015 11:00 Millitron wrote:On April 16 2015 10:55 Velocirapture wrote:
The other reason people get "addicted" to social security is because it ended a horrific status quo. Before social security nearly half of all elderly people died in poverty and now it is closer to ten percent. We definitely need to find ways to make government more agile, especially in respect to these major programs, but we took on this major responsibility in response to a human rights disaster happening on our watch. Simply going back to that is not an option. You know not just elderly people receive social security right? It's not just a retirement plan anymore, even though that was what it was designed as. You still haven't really refuted the point about entitlements being bad because they become impossible to change. You were not talking to me lol. I was making a point as an aside. The reason why you can't just repeal social security is that it works. It literally saves tens of millions of Americans from destitution. Like I said in my original post, we need a way to go in with a scalpel and make changes with these programs but a wholesale deletion gets rid of both the failures and the successes. Taking care of these people is a moral imperative most Americans take seriously. Develop a sustainable, more effective system we can transition into and collect your Nobel Prize. It's pretty impossible to develop a better system when you're chased out of politics for so much as discussing changing it. Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 11:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 16 2015 11:17 Yoav wrote:On April 16 2015 09:39 Jormundr wrote:Unless the republican party ditches the Tea Party, they will keep producing nominees who are unelectable (see: Paul, Cruz). Neither Paul nor Cruz will be the nominee. Yes, there is too much kowtowing to the Tea Party (and other kinds of extremists), and it probably cost McCain the election. But the form it takes is compelling the moderate who wins to pay homage, not putting up unelectable nominees. You're right. The problem for the GOP is not the Tea Party candidates actually winning (the people who have co-opted the Tea Party would never actually allow that to happen), the problem is the way their nomination shift the primary narrative towards stances that force "moderate" politicians to make statements on the record that they cannot effectively recant for the general election. Look at how hard Romney had to backpedal away from anything even the least bit moderate about his MA governorship-he was left without a coherent campaign message beyond "businessmen are smart XD" as a result. On a side note, thank God Paul Ryan appears to have dropped off the face of the earth. Edit: At the same time, the GOP cannot abandon the Tea Party due to the massive advantage they have provided in the Senate and House (in which nobody gets called on BS stances or lunacy). At first the Tea Party wasn't that bad. They were fiscal conservatives, and didn't really have a united stance on social issues. But somehow it got co-opted (like the rest of the GOP) by social conservatives and we end up with nonsense like Sarah Palin being a VP candidate.
Sarah Palin was absolutely the perfect candidate for VP at the time and the Tea Party did not really even exist back then.
You have to look at it on paper. When you are down you need an opportunity to make a splash and I dont think there was another person in the country who could tick as many boxes as her. She was a popular conservative governor which helped sure up John McCain the base who did not trust him and helped there current message about experience being needed, She was also a woman which after a brutal democratic primary might have helped sway some of the disgruntled Hilary voters over to there side. Not to mention she was awesome on the stump and great at riling up crowds.
If she had anything resembling knowledge of any real issue or any ability to actually pretend one on one to not be an airhead then John McCain would be president right now and it would have been largely because of her.
|
On April 16 2015 20:03 coverpunch wrote:Iran issues its fact sheet of the deal:Show nested quote +The period for the Join Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) should be limited to five years, in which about 10,000 active centrifuges operating at Natanz and Fordo now will continue nuclear fuel production by enriching uranium below the 5% grade.
The UF6 enriched reserves which are under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should be kept at Fordo nuclear plant and will be turned into nuclear fuel complex based on the existing capabilities.
During the five-year period, the Islamic Republic of Iran will continue to keep the excess centrifuges installed at Natanz and Fordo or will gradually dismantle them, and at the end of the 5-year period, it will replace all the existing centrifuges, including the active or inactive ones, with the new generation of (IR-N) centrifuge machines with the help of the new spaces and infrastructures which will have been already prepared and will use them without any limitation. So...this already contradicts all the major points of the deal issued by the White House. It is 5 years instead of 10, 10000 centrifuges instead of 6000, 5% grade instead of 3.67%, Iran keeps the excess centrifuges instead of handing them to the IAEA, they actively promise new infrastructure instead of agreeing to not build any new facilities, and they say absolutely nothing about refraining from building nuclear weapons. They go on to say research will continue at Fordow and Arak and they insist on ending the sanctions immediately and entirely, which also contradicts the White House deal. This deal is...not as good as the White House one.
That's a conservative and religious news source with questionable motivations. Did you not find it odd that no one else is carrying this story, not even Al Jazeera?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
where's the link to the actual release?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
