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 August 21 2015 04:52 Eskendereya wrote: It's pretty obvious Donald Trump is unstoppable at this point, Americans are taking back their country.
That's pretty ironic, because not many people represent big business and the 1% better than Donald Trump.
Every other word out of his mouth is about how much money he has.
Speaking as a not-at-all-Trump-fan, one of the talking points which he often brings up though, is that since he already has all the money he needs, he doesn't need to be beholden to super PACs and corporate interests.
Regardless of whether or not you believe that, it seems to be working to his favor. He paints a narrative of himself as a Washington outsider, and outside the influence of corporations, while at the same time pointing out that he's the only one who knows how things work since he's been there as a corporate insider as well.
On August 21 2015 03:01 ticklishmusic wrote: The deal is a good thing. Anyone with understanding of the situation and without some sort of ideological stake in it agrees.
Spoken like a true ideologue, well done. Brookings to boot.
The deal's always been controversial, not least of which out of concern for our ally Israel.
My issue with your statement: 1. Brookings is pretty mainstream, they're cited about equally by the left and right.
2. The guy who wrote the article is as close as you can get to being an expert on the issue. So, maybe worth reading rather than dismissing outright?
3. To put this in a slightly less lazy way: It's fine to raise objections and debate specific aspects of the deal, and I know that there are some points of concern. However, looking at the deal in the context of what it set out to achieve and what can be done in the Middle East, the logical conclusion is that it's a good deal. I have more respect for the educated people in this thread who have actually made some study of the issue over the politicians who try to play gotcha with people who probably know more about nuclear technology than most people know about their own toilets.
Anyways, I make lazy statements now and then because it seems to be the way to go in politics. Simplicity is strength right?
Secondly, the deal is good if you are obsessed with nonproliferation, however, I think that should be only our third or fourth priority when dealing with Iran. So its a bad deal on a macro level because we traded our primary leverage for a secondary or tertiary goal.
Actually, that is just not true. It's also a good deal when it comes to encouraging the development of a more moderate Iran and of a more stable Middle East, especially on the long term.
You linked your own (unsourced) post as evidence? I remember reading it before and it was unpersuasive then.
The deal has no stipulations about funding of terror groups and militia missions which should be the #1 priority because a nuke without those is a non-issue.
Edit: Even their own propaganda website says nothing of the sort.
How do you think Israel would react if an Iranian nuke appears imminent?
Massive aerial bombardment which, while destroying the immediate facilities, has no real lasting effect. Something about that was posted earlier in this thread. But hey good thing this treaty gives the world a better view at Iran so we can actually see if they are closing in rather then blindly stabbing in the dark like is happening currently.
I was asking Clutz, because I think Israel's probable reaction to Iran having a nuke would be as you described, though they might actually have to conduct a ground invasion to do lasting damage to the nuclear program.
Then maybe Russia starts selling Iran weapons (they really want to already) and we really don't need more tension between the US and Russia right now.
That's why I think it is a good idea to prioritize non-proliferation over trying to get Iran to behave better in the Middle East.
A short version of the press conference Jimmy Carter had on his melanoma. Long version in the spoiler.
Approaching 91, Jimmy Carter has lived a life of compassion and is someone who had a vision of a world different from what we have right now, in particular one based on love. He's the type of person who you'd say "redeems mankind," someone who was not focused on gaining power for himself or stroking his ego, but tried to bring the country into maturity during a time of sky high oil prices, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and Iran taking hostage US diplomats.
On August 21 2015 03:01 ticklishmusic wrote: The deal is a good thing. Anyone with understanding of the situation and without some sort of ideological stake in it agrees.
Spoken like a true ideologue, well done. Brookings to boot.
The deal's always been controversial, not least of which out of concern for our ally Israel.
My issue with your statement: 1. Brookings is pretty mainstream, they're cited about equally by the left and right.
2. The guy who wrote the article is as close as you can get to being an expert on the issue. So, maybe worth reading rather than dismissing outright?
3. To put this in a slightly less lazy way: It's fine to raise objections and debate specific aspects of the deal, and I know that there are some points of concern. However, looking at the deal in the context of what it set out to achieve and what can be done in the Middle East, the logical conclusion is that it's a good deal. I have more respect for the educated people in this thread who have actually made some study of the issue over the politicians who try to play gotcha with people who probably know more about nuclear technology than most people know about their own toilets.
Anyways, I make lazy statements now and then because it seems to be the way to go in politics. Simplicity is strength right?
Secondly, the deal is good if you are obsessed with nonproliferation, however, I think that should be only our third or fourth priority when dealing with Iran. So its a bad deal on a macro level because we traded our primary leverage for a secondary or tertiary goal.
Actually, that is just not true. It's also a good deal when it comes to encouraging the development of a more moderate Iran and of a more stable Middle East, especially on the long term.
You linked your own (unsourced) post as evidence? I remember reading it before and it was unpersuasive then.
The deal has no stipulations about funding of terror groups and militia missions which should be the #1 priority because a nuke without those is a non-issue.
Edit: Even their own propaganda website says nothing of the sort.
It's unpersuasive to you because you have made up your mind on the issue based on myths and deficient knowledge of the situation rather than on facts. First, the deal could not realistically have had stipulations about "funding of terror groups and militia missions", simply because it would not have been acceptable to the Iranians to have anything of the sort and because the others powers at the table did not want to make this a necessary condition for the deal. Second, and again, the deal is a good one on a macro level and from a long-term perspective, because it bolsters the moderates within the Iranian regime and because on the international level it encourages Iran to be a responsible actor in a more stable region (something that will allow it to push its economic interests). Several expertshavesummed up what can be said about the deal's impact on Iranian activity in the region: it's uncertain in the short-term, but there should be positive effects on the long-term. And even more so if the U.S. government seizes the opportunity to encourage improvements in Iran's relationships with other actors in the region.
On August 21 2015 09:35 Deathstar wrote: A short version of the press conference Jimmy Carter had on his melanoma. Long version in the spoiler.
Approaching 91, Jimmy Carter has lived a life of compassion and is someone who had a vision of a world different from what we have right now, in particular one based on love. He's the type of person who you'd say "redeems mankind," someone who was not focused on gaining power for himself or stroking his ego, but tried to bring the country into maturity during a time of sky high oil prices, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and Iran taking hostage US diplomats.
And back to the pathetic blows from kwizach, who's the one real debater in the room not believing in myths and having complete knowledge. Carter on this page is incidental, we wish him a safe recovery, but the same idiocy dealing with the Iranians permeated his presidency. The advancement of these moderates, some ephemeral vision of a responsible regional Iran, that fantasy wish of positive effects on the long-term. This is the status of the self-named practical people not tied up in ideology?
I'd like to hear how an Iran gaining legitimacy for its continued nuclear development while continuing to be a state funder of terrorist groups is great for regional stability. I wonder how giving up our only strong card in this game is worth weak inspections and trust placed in a famously untrustworthy regime. It's the same faces from the Clinton foreign policy and the Obama state department saying the crap. The multitude of would-be experts are comfortable with unlocking tens of billions of dollars to a banker and sponsor for terrorist groups in the middle east. The future will show which side played the fools in this deal.
Do you have a source for thinking that the inspection regime is weak? Everything I have read says that it is quite robust, and the best we could have hoped for.
Also, what do you mean by "would-be" experts? Because at this point pretty much every non-proliferation expert supports the deal, even the guy who used to be the president of UANI. Even the ones who don't really like it admit that it is probably better than any of the alternatives.
On August 21 2015 09:35 Deathstar wrote: A short version of the press conference Jimmy Carter had on his melanoma. Long version in the spoiler.
Approaching 91, Jimmy Carter has lived a life of compassion and is someone who had a vision of a world different from what we have right now, in particular one based on love. He's the type of person who you'd say "redeems mankind," someone who was not focused on gaining power for himself or stroking his ego, but tried to bring the country into maturity during a time of sky high oil prices, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and Iran taking hostage US diplomats.
God bless Jimmy Carter. He was a good man, someone who cared about helping others and the world.
Now he wasn't a great President, but in terms of character he's one of the top of the past 100 years.
I've had the luck/honor to see him speak twice at my university, and to once meet him at the Carter Center when I volunteered there. Say what you will about his presidency, but he's gone on to have a much greater positive impact than any other president I can think of. He's also a really funny guy.
On August 21 2015 10:24 Danglars wrote: And back to the pathetic blows from kwizach, who's the one real debater in the room not believing in myths and having complete knowledge. Carter on this page is incidental, we wish him a safe recovery, but the same idiocy dealing with the Iranians permeated his presidency. The advancement of these moderates, some ephemeral vision of a responsible regional Iran, that fantasy wish of positive effects on the long-term. This is the status of the self-named practical people not tied up in ideology?
I'd like to hear how an Iran gaining legitimacy for its continued nuclear development while continuing to be a state funder of terrorist groups is great for regional stability. I wonder how giving up our only strong card in this game is worth weak inspections and trust placed in a famously untrustworthy regime. It's the same faces from the Clinton foreign policy and the Obama state department saying the crap. The multitude of would-be experts are comfortable with unlocking tens of billions of dollars to a banker and sponsor for terrorist groups in the middle east. The future will show which side played the fools in this deal.
1. The inspection regime is anything but weak (see here and here).
2. There is no "trust" involved in the deal. Every step in sanctions relief depends on actual and verifiable compliance by the Iranian regime. If they don't comply, they don't get what they were supposed to get from the deal. Arguing that the deal is built on "trust placed in a famously untrustworthy regime" only highlights that you have zero clue about what you're talking about.
3. Overall, the deal is extremely good for non-proliferation efforts beyond the deal itself (see here).
4. It is good for regional stability to bring Iran back into the international community because: a) It boosts the moderates within the Iranian regime who are interested in more exchanges with the West and in achieving economic results through pacified relations with the country's economic partners b) It gives Iran the opportunity to consolidate its place as an important player in the region through other means than military violence (direct or indirect) c) It is in the interest of the U.S. to see a balance of power between the most important regional players in the Middle East, since this would be conducive to a more stable region (see here and here).
5. You are discarding the opinions of most non-proliferation and Middle-East experts because they happen to be based on facts and to disagree with your uninformed opinion. I'm sorry you're not interested in facts Danglars, but don't expect not to be called out on it when you spout arguments that are not rooted in reality and are based instead on empty rhetoric and right-wing talking points.
Illinois' Republican governor on Thursday signed a law banning mental health therapists from trying to change a young person's sexual orientation or gender identity.
The measure signed by Gov. Bruce Rauner outlaws the controversial practice of "gay conversion therapy," sometimes called "reparative therapy," on people younger than 18. Once the law takes effect on Jan. 1, violators will face discipline from their state licensing board, according to the text of the measure.
The law makes Illinois the fourth state to ban gay conversion therapy for minors. California, New Jersey, and Oregon -- as well as the District of Columbia -- also have outlawed the practice.
But the Illinois measure is the first to include language linking conversion therapy to consumer fraud, according to its sponsor, state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat who is an openly gay member of the State House.
Illinois' Republican governor on Thursday signed a law banning mental health therapists from trying to change a young person's sexual orientation or gender identity.
The measure signed by Gov. Bruce Rauner outlaws the controversial practice of "gay conversion therapy," sometimes called "reparative therapy," on people younger than 18. Once the law takes effect on Jan. 1, violators will face discipline from their state licensing board, according to the text of the measure.
The law makes Illinois the fourth state to ban gay conversion therapy for minors. California, New Jersey, and Oregon -- as well as the District of Columbia -- also have outlawed the practice.
But the Illinois measure is the first to include language linking conversion therapy to consumer fraud, according to its sponsor, state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat who is an openly gay member of the State House.
If it's like the other ones it won't be that useful since it only appllies to professional therapists with license who don't account for most of the people doing it.
Illinois' Republican governor on Thursday signed a law banning mental health therapists from trying to change a young person's sexual orientation or gender identity.
The measure signed by Gov. Bruce Rauner outlaws the controversial practice of "gay conversion therapy," sometimes called "reparative therapy," on people younger than 18. Once the law takes effect on Jan. 1, violators will face discipline from their state licensing board, according to the text of the measure.
The law makes Illinois the fourth state to ban gay conversion therapy for minors. California, New Jersey, and Oregon -- as well as the District of Columbia -- also have outlawed the practice.
But the Illinois measure is the first to include language linking conversion therapy to consumer fraud, according to its sponsor, state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat who is an openly gay member of the State House.
Curious to know how this law is worded...because on the surface it seems rife with abuse to stop transgendered people from getting proper treatment.
Not to mention that mental health diagnosis already has inherent issues with "one-size-fits-all" therapy, and Governments dictating what therapists can and can't do is something that sounds good on paper (when it's blocking malpractices) and terrible in practice (when it's forcing therapists to fit people into boxes).
On August 21 2015 15:38 cLutZ wrote: Lol, no. Its to stop parents from sending teens to quacks.
Yes, because we all know that the wording of laws will always align perfectly with the stated intent.
And that's not suggesting any malicious intent or anything of the sort. Lawmakers are just fucking stupid when it comes to loophole abuse and reactionary bans.
The Illinois Supreme Court is sufficiently liberal that such a thing should not be a concern. As are the majority of SAs in Illinois. Your concern is basically based on IL flipping dramatically politically, plus the new judges and SAs being incredibly biased. That and you are assuming that the treatment for Transgenders does not quickly evolve over the next 10 years (it probably will).
No, my concern is entirely that the article summary says "Illinois' Republican governor on Thursday signed a law banning mental health therapists from trying to change a young person's sexual orientation or gender identity" and I have absolutely no idea what the law considers to be a "change" and what exactly it considers to be a young person's "sexual orientation or gender identity."
Because without reading the legal text, those wordings sound so ambiguous that anything could happen. If a doctor evaluates a transgendered person and declares that they are not, does that mean the doctor is barring said person from getting therapy and help?
If a parent doesn't like their child being transgendered or gay, can they use this law as a bludgeon to force legal costs on therapists helping children to transition or come out by accusing the therapist of "changing" their child?
On August 21 2015 16:00 WolfintheSheep wrote: No, my concern is entirely that the article summary says "Illinois' Republican governor on Thursday signed a law banning mental health therapists from trying to change a young person's sexual orientation or gender identity" and I have absolutely no idea what the law considers to be a "change" and what exactly it considers to be a young person's "sexual orientation or gender identity."
Because without reading the legal text, those wordings sound so ambiguous that anything could happen. If a doctor evaluates a transgendered person and declares that they are not, does that mean the doctor is barring said person from getting therapy and help?
If a parent doesn't like their child being transgendered or gay, can they use this law as a bludgeon to force legal costs on therapists helping children to transition or come out by accusing the therapist of "changing" their child?
Yeah, we'd have to look into the specifics of the law to make sure, but I'd take this one at the word that it has been designed to prevent conversion therapy, not to prevent therapists from helping people come out of the closet.
Despite being a republican, Rauner (the governor of my state) is not a social conservative. Socially, he's pretty liberal and that's why he was able to win the election while promising to fix deficit issues through conservative economic policies. I didn't vote for him, but I'm not completely against him and am willing to give him a chance in Illinois.
He's a blue-state republican representing blue-state interests, which is quite different from the republicans that you'll see on the national stage.
Its to prevent conversion therapy, which amounts to abusing your child because you don't like that are gay or transgender. They have been proven to be harmful and generally run by terrible people, so parents are no longer allowed to avoid charges for send their kids to places where they will just be abused.
EPT
