|
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 August 19 2016 10:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 10:27 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2016 10:23 TheYango wrote:On August 19 2016 10:20 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2016 10:10 Plansix wrote:
Did you expect them to do anything but spin this as a good for them? Of course Iran was going to spin it. That's not the point. The real is point is the significance of Iran's ability to spin it. That's the red flag that the Justice Department was waving before the deal closed. It's the same reason why Obama did his best to cover up what really happened and insist publicly that the hostage release was completely unrelated to the larger settlement. He knew that, if the truth got out, it would send a bad message that could create further headaches for the US down the road. That's why he lied his ass off to prevent the truth from coming out. All of this talk about Republicans spinning the issue to their own benefit (which of course they are) is childish and irrelevant. What matters is the real effect on American foreign policy, and Obama let slip the appearance that the US will pay for the release of hostages. This is yet another moment (like his infamous Syrian "red line" remarks) where his actions on the world stage are wanting. How do you feel Obama should have handled it then? I'm generally pretty clueless about FP-related stuff, so I'm genuinely asking. He should have either created sufficient separation between the hostage release and the larger settlement such that no connection between the two could reasonably be made, or he should have kept the issue of the hostages completely out of the settlement agreement and negotiated for their release separately. The error was in creating a tangible link between monetary payment and release of the hostages. I think this is a valid point, although I don't know how fragile the trust between parties was. There might have been no way to convince Iran to do that. This entire problem could have been solved if we had viable banking systems with Iran. The physical transportation of the money is the real problem. Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 10:28 cLutZ wrote:On August 19 2016 10:23 TheYango wrote:On August 19 2016 10:20 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2016 10:10 Plansix wrote:
Did you expect them to do anything but spin this as a good for them? Of course Iran was going to spin it. That's not the point. The real is point is the significance of Iran's ability to spin it. That's the red flag that the Justice Department was waving before the deal closed. It's the same reason why Obama did his best to cover up what really happened and insist publicly that the hostage release was completely unrelated to the larger settlement. He knew that, if the truth got out, it would send a bad message that could create further headaches for the US down the road. That's why he lied his ass off to prevent the truth from coming out. All of this talk about Republicans spinning the issue to their own benefit (which of course they are) is childish and irrelevant. What matters is the real effect on American foreign policy, and Obama let slip the appearance that the US will pay for the release of hostages. This is yet another moment (like his infamous Syrian "red line" remarks) where his actions on the world stage are wanting. How do you feel Obama should have handled it then? I'm generally pretty clueless about FP-related stuff, so I'm genuinely asking. If Obama thought Iran was a good-faith partner of the level worthy of giving this kind of deal, he should have had the faith that a backroom handshake would ensure the release during the last few days of negotiations. That he felt that they were not, is indicative of his opinion of Iran's trustworthiness, which throws the entire agreement into disrepute. I would argue that the distrust was likely equal between the parties. People forget that turn the Iran deal we were talking about bombing them at least 2-3 times a week if it fell through.
I don't doubt the distrust, but its 4 prisoners. While its great that they are back, lets not confuse ourselves about their importance in the grand scheme. No matter what, releasing them on Iran's behalf is a show of good faith, unless it occurs under duress, as in this one circumstance.
At any point Iran could say something like, "We have spoken to Sec. Kerry and President Obama and believe them to be honest partners, as a move to show our own seriousness in joining the international community we have placed [the four Americans] on a plane to Riyadh early this morning." They are losing nothing that affects their own national interest at all.
|
As I said before, I think we need to entertain the idea that there was never going to be a good deal or one that wouldn't make it seem like we gave into Iran.
|
On August 19 2016 10:37 Introvert wrote:Maybe this will lighten up xDaunt's day: + Show Spoiler +Trump gave a good, yet Trumpian speech. Still too much protectionism and big "I will fix it" government, but he's had three solid speeches in a row, and hit a lot of good notes. If he apologizes to people by name (instead of citing "regrets") it will show he's making real progress. There is still time. Edit: I'm still not convinced, but this is some kind of Trump record.
I'm just tired and cranky from not getting enough sleep last night and having to deal with some needless bullshit at work.
This Trump speech is good. He's very strong when he stays on point with his core issues and avoids his shitty detouring. I also find his speeches fascinating from a technical standpoint because he incorporates a lot of the terminology and techniques that top trial attorneys use.
|
United States43203 Posts
I think you guys are overthinking how this deal will be perceived. This is the average American's response.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XJymYWb.jpg)
This whole "how can it be a ransom payment if we paid them their own money that we were going to give them anyway?" debate is meaningless. We all approach it with our preconceived views of Obama and Iran.
|
United States41117 Posts
|
On August 19 2016 10:45 Plansix wrote:
As I said before, I think we need to entertain the idea that there was never going to be a good deal or one that wouldn't make it seem like we gave into Iran.
The entire idea of needing to "win" against Iran makes any actual deal really damn hard to make.
|
Trump's play for the black vote at the end of his speech was unexpected. I doubt that it will resonate, but the basic message of "what do you have to lose by trying something new" certainly isn't far off the mark.
|
United States41117 Posts
The big question is with early voting starting in a few weeks is it too late? Hell the fact that he had to do this in North Carolina is telling enough.
|
On August 19 2016 11:31 xDaunt wrote:
what do you have to lose by trying something new
everything
|
On August 19 2016 11:31 xDaunt wrote:
Trump's play for the black vote at the end of his speech was unexpected. I doubt that it will resonate, but the basic message of "what do you have to lose by trying something new" certainly isn't far off the mark.
there's a fair bit of influence to lose; what do they have to gain other than vague assertions that trump will magically succeed?
|
On August 19 2016 11:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The big question is with early voting starting in a few weeks is it too late? Hell the fact that he had to do this in North Carolina is telling enough.
Nah, there's plenty of time for things to change.
|
United States41117 Posts
One of Donald Trump’s foreign policy advisers doubted the extent of the Holocaust and bragged about firing “the Jews” during his tenure as inspector general at the Defense Department, according to allegations surfaced by McClatchyDC on Thursday.
After working for the federal government, Joseph E. Schmitz worked as an executive at Blackwater Worldwide and now works as a private practice attorney in Washington. He was named as an adviser to Trump’s campaign in March.
In a complaint file obtained by McClatchy, senior intelligence official Daniel Meyer wrote of Schmitz, “His summary of his tenure’s achievement reported as ‘…I fired the Jews.’” Meyer, who worked in the Pentagon inspector general’s office, cited another Pentagon official, John Crane, as the source and witness to Schmitz’s alleged remark.
Crane reported Schmitz also made remarks casting doubt on the Holocaust, Meyer wrote in the complaint, which is now before the Merit Systems Protection Board.
“In his final days, he allegedly lectured Mr. Crane on the details of concentration camps and how the ovens were too small to kill 6 million Jews,” Meyer wrote.
In an interview with the site, Schmitz said the allegations are “completely false and defamatory.” He also said while his wife is not practicing, she is “ethnically Jewish.”
“I do not recall ever even hearing of any ‘allegations of anti-Semitism against [me],’ which would be preposterously false and defamatory because, among other reason(s), I am quite proud of the Jewish heritage of my wife of 38 years,” he wrote in an email to McClatchyDC.
Schmitz also accused Crane of being the source for other false allegations against him.
Meyer, who now works as the Obama administration’s top official reviewing how intelligence agencies handle complaints by whistleblowers, said he could not comment on the pending case.
Source
|
United States43203 Posts
|
On August 19 2016 12:35 KwarK wrote:
The best people.
Yeah, the alleged anti-Semite who is married to a Jew....
More importantly, we now have a new analogy that we can stick on the SAT or LSAT using this guy and Milo.
|
On August 19 2016 10:37 Introvert wrote:Maybe this will lighten up xDaunt's day: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd5GWWQRVuE Trump gave a good, yet Trumpian speech. Still too much protectionism and big "I will fix it" government, but he's had three solid speeches in a row, and hit a lot of good notes. If he apologizes to people by name (instead of citing "regrets") it will show he's making real progress. There is still time. Edit: I'm still not convinced, but this is some kind of Trump record.
While I admit this most recent speech wasn't bad, the previous 2 are indefensible, imo. His economic and terrorism speeches were constituted entirely of either lies, things we are already doing, things that won't work, or things that will actively hurt the country.
Will be interesting to see where he goes from here.
|
It's conceivable that an anti-semite would marry a non practicing ethnically Jewish person.
|
Let's hear for a moment from the Yahoo commenting base.
Personality, like IQ, is largely stable throughout one's life. What you've seen early on is his true self. If one wants to vote Republican, they should not delude themselves into thinking Trump will change or has changed, or that somehow he will be better than he really is. People should not be stupid and hopeful. People should not engage in any rationalizations, justifications. He will do and say things to get more votes. If you want to vote for him, vote for him, but don't think to yourself he is really better than what he has portrayed himself to be. Personally, change would be desirable, but I don't think Trump is the one to be in that office. He would be change for the worse. I don't see why people don't see that. Even maintaining the status quo, while not optimal, is better than change for the worse. I don't see how people could even entertain the idea of Trump being president. People wouldn't want him to be in charge of anything else, given what we've seen so far.
|
United States43203 Posts
On August 19 2016 13:57 Doodsmack wrote:
It's conceivable that an anti-semite would marry a non practicing ethnically Jewish person.
Farage is married to an immigrant from the EU.
|
On August 19 2016 14:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 13:57 Doodsmack wrote:
It's conceivable that an anti-semite would marry a non practicing ethnically Jewish person. Farage is married to an immigrant from the EU.
So that could mean that he may have some reasonable points rather than being anti-whatever becuase its cool.
|
The right wing swiss populist also like their eastern european or thai girls. The reasons are not, that they aren't racist/xenophobes... Why i know this? Because these stupid cunts actually gave interviews about it.
Tipp: Its that they don't dare to talk up to them and are in general less emancipated or "behave more like a woman should".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
