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 September 28 2016 23:09 KwarK wrote: Also Donald Trump is now claiming that he won and that everyone says he won but also the reason he lost is because he deliberately held back so although he lost he lost on purpose so really he won and also he won so he doesn't know why anyone even thinks he lost but if he did lose that means he won.
He also lost/ won/ lost because his rigged microphone stopped him from interrupting a 60th time, or something.
On September 28 2016 23:09 KwarK wrote: Also Donald Trump is now claiming that he won and that everyone says he won but also the reason he lost is because he deliberately held back so although he lost he lost on purpose so really he won and also he won so he doesn't know why anyone even thinks he lost but if he did lose that means he won.
I mean for fucks sake, even most of his allies are admitting he lost and rationalizing it instead of pretending he won.
On September 28 2016 09:00 biology]major wrote: Is there anyone here in support of the iran deal? I don't understand the logic behind it. We gave them a bunch of cash so we could completely control their nuclear production (not a guarantee), so they just wait 10 years and then what? Are we going to do a nuclear deal with north korea next?
Background: United States is the shitty party in the Iran-US relationship. The US may be objectively better as a nation (democracy, women's rights etc) but in terms of who is fucking who over the US has been the party chain fucking Iran while chestbeating because what the fuck are they gonna do about it. I can explain this at greater length but if you're familiar with the history of the region I shouldn't have to.
2003: GWB starts invading nations on his list and the only way to stop him doing so, as North Korea has shown, is to actually have WMDs as a deterrent. Saddam destroyed his WMDs as everyone, from the South Africans who worked with him on the program to the UN inspectors to intelligence services outside the US, said. Then he got invaded. The lesson was pretty fucking clear and a lot of important people inside the United States are publicly stating their intention to invade Iran. Given their inability to win militarily some other kind of deterrent is priority #1 for the survival of their nation.
2000s: Iraq goes super badly and Iran is looking like it won't be so fun so the Iran invasion doesn't happen, even though their nuke isn't done yet. Instead there are just sanctions.
2010s: The coalition behind the sanctions is fracturing and although the US can keep her own sanctions on forever that won't mean shit if they're the only ones doing it. Russia, China, half of Europe etc are no longer on board because Iran is offering a deal that the US refuses to take. Iran is perfectly happy to trade with its neighbours and China is perfectly happy to buy discounted oil that the US refuses to let US based multinationals buy. Meanwhile Iran gets closer and closer to completing a nuclear weapon.
At this point the US has basically lost. They can increase the intensity of the sanctions indefinitely but if they don't make the sanctions universally applied by a coalition that won't count for shit. And even if they do it won't stop Iran getting the nuke because as long as Iran believes the United States really does intend to invade, well, they actually need that nuke. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. They need the nuke because the US says they'll invade because the US doesn't want them to have a nuke. Given the US refuses to invade, and given the sanction regime was fracturing, there were no more cards left to play. We could delay Iran, as we did with Stuxnet, but not stop.
With this in mind we looked at the deal Iran was asking for in exchange for ending the sanctions. After all, the whole point of the sanctions wasn't to somehow force them to not get a nuke (North Korea is sanctioned more than anyone, can still get a nuke) but rather to create a bargaining position where they'd rather not get the nuke. The sanctions were intended to make shit generally unpleasant for them to force them to the negotiating table, if you refuse to negotiate once they're there and just scream "double the sanctions" a la Drumpf, well, what the hell were the sanctions even for in the first place. They wanted an end to sanctions (excluding controlled tech obviously, still a sales ban there) and the opportunity to flood the markets with their oil. We wanted guarantees that their nuclear program would end. They, in turn, wanted relations that would make it less necessary. We wanted guarantees from all of their neighbours that if their nuclear program didn't end the coalition of sanction countries would be back in force. They wanted back all the money stolen from them during the Revolution. We wanted some citizens, some of whom were spies they had caught.
In the end a deal was struck and it was a remarkably good deal, given the weakness of the American position going in. How good the deal was is indicative of their lack of commitment to their nuclear aspirations (which they only really needed as long as the US was going "no deal, INVADE") and their desire to reenter the international community.
Before, Iran was going to definitely get a nuke very soon. After, no evidence suggests that they are going to get a nuke, certainly not soon, the facilities could hypothetically be reactivated but right now they're dormant.
Before, Iran's sanctions were going to end as the coalition broke down causing bad blood between America and Russia/China and letting Russia/China partner with Iran and profit from the exclusive relationship. After, the dying sanctions are gone and Iranian oil is on the open market. And all the big nations have committed to return to stronger sanctions than before if Iran violates the deal.
It's a huge diplomatic coup and what makes it better is that both parties actually profit from it and can claim it as a victory. Iran wins by having the sanctions be over and not having to funnel all their money into a nuclear program to defend against the US anymore. The US wins by Iran scrapping their nuclear ambitions without having to invade at a colossal cost in resources and dead Americans. The entire argument was dumb as hell in the first place, it was a nuke to defend against the soldiers trying to stop them getting a nuke. Iran actually tried to work with the US after 9/11 including joining the coalition invading Afghanistan and helping US special forces with the initial invasion. It was only after the Bush doctrine and the Axis of Evil speech that shit all went wrong.
Additionally we all love cheap oil, except for Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia etc and fuck those guys, Iranian undermining of OPEC is bankrupting Russia. Additionally a strong Shia nation acts as a great counterbalance to SA in the region and ISIS specifically (Iran is on the ground fighting them in Syria). There is literally no part of resolving the Iran deal that isn't good, the deal is so amazingly good because the dispute was so retarded that Iran was motivated to end it. And they're being remarkably trusting of the US given shit like that treasonous stunt by the band of Senators and the Republican primary debates trying to outdo each other on "bomb Iran".
TLDR: The original plan was to put sanctions on them to stop them getting a nuke and then invade if that failed. But the invade plan died in a fire and the sanctions didn't stop them getting a nuke and the sanctions were ending anyway. The US had literally zero cards. But because the dispute was so fucking retarded anyway the US was able to trade folding their losing hand for (best case scenario) getting everything they wanted in the first place anyway or (worst case scenario) getting a much stronger hand than the one they folded (commitments from all major nations to return to a much stronger sanctions regime if Iran violates the deal). Even if Iran is scamming us this is still a good deal, they still delay their nukes which they'd have by now if there was no deal and they rebuild our coalition for us.
Thanks for the explanation, you say our sanctions initially didn't do shit because we were alone in applying them, so how did we get a coalition to agree on placing sanctions if Iran continued trying to get a nuke if they didn't care before?
No, we applied them with a bunch of other people back when the US had credibility. It lost that credibility and the will to maintain sanctions was breaking down. The sanctions were effective for fucking shit up in Iran but ineffective for stopping a nuke and wouldn't keep working once China and Russia backed out, and they were backing out once it became clear that a) the sanctions wouldn't stop Iran getting a nuke, b) Iran was willing to negotiate to end the nuclear program if the US was willing to talk about it.
Iran came to the table and asked for a deal and even though the US didn't want to make a deal if enough people thought that Iran's deal was good the US wouldn't be able to refuse on behalf of everyone, if that makes sense. If Iran offered terms that Russia, China etc thought were totally reasonable and the US refused to negotiate then Russia and China could unilaterally call off their sanctions at which point it wouldn't matter what the US thought. And inversely, if Iran violates it now then it's Russia and China who look retarded for allowing them to resume their nuclear program, hence why their interests are now aligned with the US again.
Hypothetically if Iran and North Korea both had fully functional nuclear capability, I don't see their governments really doing anything reckless. They aren't completely insane and would simply use it as a deterrent or probably a bargaining chip. The main worry would be if radical extremist groups get their hands on it some how and then we are completely screwed. It's only a matter of time before N korea gets one, and Iran will also be able to aquire one but probably a decade behind schedule.
You don't see a country which has a large population of religious zealots, nor a country with an unstable statist chaotic mess of a government using nukes irresponsibly?
There's a reason why Pakistan is considered to be the most dangerous country in the world.
uhh sorry.. by who exactly ? Our nukes are quite well protected and the safeguards in place do not involve people sleeping at the door with a system that launches of a floppy disk.
The nukes are controlled by the military and for all its faults and the misery and regression it has caused, the military is at the least a stable institution that our neighbor 10 times are size still hesitates to fuck with.
The most dangerous country in the world is the one you are living in. Never try to convince yourself otherwise. The world has made peace with that fact but a little introspection never hurt anyone.
Oh and number 2 we have Saudi Arabia, if it werent for them you wouldnt have "radical islam" so really it all comes back full circle. I dont like this game but I dont appreciate someone with zero clue pointing fingers either.
The proliferation of nuclear weapons on the subcontinent is what led to trading knowledge and technology with North Korea, and together you're the two most likely countries to cause a nuclear war.
On the subject of introspection, ask yourself what role Pakistan had in helping the US hunt down Bin Laden.
STRAWMAN>>>><<<>>> Has nothing to do with nukes or Pakistan posing a danger ot anyone.
Pakistans proliferation was purely retaliatory. And yes the generals sold secrets and knowledge..... to Iran. Most of the credit for North Korea goes to China, they have a completely different tech to what we have. The base itself for the bombs are completely different.
What does that have to do with our own nukes being unsafe?
And as much as you might like to pat yourself on the back for taking out Bin Laden, what did that achieve exactly ? Some catharsis but thats about it. Bin Laden was a dying nobody at that point and that has proven to be the case since as is pretty evident.
The bottom line is, you dont get to cause the most shit on the planet compared to everyone else combined and then call other countries dangerous.
On September 28 2016 23:06 Biff The Understudy wrote: Oliver straightens up the whole scandal race shit :
I think he did a really thorough job on researching the scandals he talked about, and I think it shows a double standard of expectations between the candidates.
Well people have been told and told that Clinton is a liar and corrupt so they absolutely want to believe it. In fact there is no evidence that she is not fairly honest other than a systematic bias and defamation campaign.
An explanation by Krugman about the ridiculous pro-Trump bias of the media :
Why are the media objectively pro-Trump?
Because they are, at this point. It’s not even false equivalence: compare the amount of attention given to the Clinton Foundation despite absence of any evidence of wrongdoing, and attention given to Trump Foundation, which engaged in more or less open bribery — but barely made a dent in news coverage. Clinton was harassed endlessly over failure to give press conferences, even though she was doing lots of interviews; Trump violated decades of tradition by refusing to release his taxes, amid strong suspicion that he is hiding something; the press simply dropped the subject.
Brian Beutler argues that it’s about protecting the media’s own concerns, namely access. But I don’t think that works. It doesn’t explain why the Clinton emails were a never-ending story but the disappearance of millions of George W. Bush emails wasn’t, or for that matter Jeb Bush’s deletion of records; the revelation that Colin Powell did, indeed, offer HRC advice on how to have private email the way he did hasn’t even been reported by some major news organizations.
And I don’t see how the huffing and puffing about the foundation — which “raised questions”, but where the media were completely unwilling to accept the answers they found — fits into this at all.
No, it’s something special about Clinton Rules. I don’t really understand it. But it has the feeling of a high school clique bullying a nerdy classmate because it’s the cool thing to do.
And as I feared, it looks as if people who cried wolf about non-scandals are now engaged in an all-out effort to dig up or invent dirt to justify their previous Clinton hostility.
Hard to believe that such pettiness could have horrifying consequences. But I am very scared.
On September 28 2016 23:09 KwarK wrote: Also Donald Trump is now claiming that he won and that everyone says he won but also the reason he lost is because he deliberately held back so although he lost he lost on purpose so really he won and also he won so he doesn't know why anyone even thinks he lost but if he did lose that means he won.
I think he did a really thorough job on researching the scandals he talked about, and I think it shows a double standard of expectations between the candidates.
Well people have been told and told that Clinton is a liar and corrupt so they absolutely want to believe it. In fact there is no evidence that she is not fairly honest other than a systematic bias and defamation campaign.
Hillary isn't the Satan spawn that the Republicans claim she is, but you may be ever-so-slightly exaggerating here.
I think he did a really thorough job on researching the scandals he talked about, and I think it shows a double standard of expectations between the candidates.
Well people have been told and told that Clinton is a liar and corrupt so they absolutely want to believe it. In fact there is no evidence that she is not fairly honest other than a systematic bias and defamation campaign.
Hillary isn't the Satan spawn that the Republicans claim she is, but you may be ever-so-slightly exaggerating here.
Not really. She is described as the most scandal rigged candidate in modern history.
We are talking about those scandals :
Benghazi. Which was in fact not a scandal at all. The Clinton foundation. That is not a scandal at all either, since it appears she hasn't done anything remotely wrong. The email server, that was, according to the FBI, simply very careless and certainly not criminal.
Now, against that, we are talking of a man whose list of REAL scandals would be longer than this thread. We are talking of robbing people, crooking vulnerable students, crooking shareholders, using for his own lawsuits the money given to his foundation in which he doesn't put a penny (now THAT is a scandal, spot the difference?), lying all the fucking time in the most outrageous manner, etc etc etc etc.
Read this thread and you hear bright people like GH say that Clinton is "a serial liar", because, yep, she apparently makes 13% of false statements according to Politico, but Trump is ok, because his bullshit'o'meter is only 53% and he says a blatant lie only once every 3 minutes. GH will certainly never call Trump a serial liar. He exaggerates a little bit that's all. (Ok, GH is not a good example, because he is the political equivalent of a lemming, really trying hard to make sure that the ideals he fought for will be buried for good.)
Anyway, my point is that the public thinks that Hillary is the untrustworthy one. Which is pathetic. That's one hell of a media fail.
It is interesting that they put Trump's mic at seemingly the same height as Hillary's. He was constantly having to bend down. I don't know what idiot set the podiums up.
The Arizona Republic endorsed Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night, becoming the latest traditionally Republican newspaper to back the Democratic nominee.
In a passionate editorial, the largest newspaper in Arizona argued that Republican Donald Trump was fundamentally unfit for the presidency. It was the first time the Republic had endorsed a Democrat.
“Trump’s inability to control himself or be controlled by others represents a real threat to our national security. His recent efforts to stay on script are not reassuring. They are phony. The president commands our nuclear arsenal. Trump can’t command his own rhetoric,” the paper opined.
“Being the leader of the free world requires a sense of propriety that Trump lacks,” it added.
The Republic’s editorial heaped praise on Clinton, who it says “retains her centrist roots” despite tacking left during the Democratic primary. “Clinton retains her composure under pressure. She’s tough. She doesn’t back down,” it argued. “Trump responds to criticism with the petulance of verbal spit wads.”
The endorsement is especially notable because the Republic has always backed Republicans for president.
On September 28 2016 22:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'm teaching my statistics students about bias, and these articles are great
Just attended a very interesting lecturer on bias in machine learning and the web. A lot I knew already, but there are so many more "hidden" biases, and ones that are correlated without you initially realizing it. Shit's hard man.
I think he did a really thorough job on researching the scandals he talked about, and I think it shows a double standard of expectations between the candidates.
Well people have been told and told that Clinton is a liar and corrupt so they absolutely want to believe it. In fact there is no evidence that she is not fairly honest other than a systematic bias and defamation campaign.
Hillary isn't the Satan spawn that the Republicans claim she is, but you may be ever-so-slightly exaggerating here.
Not really. She is described as the most scandal rigged candidate in modern history.
We are talking about those scandals :
Benghazi. Which was in fact not a scandal at all. The Clinton foundation. That is not a scandal at all either, since it appears she hasn't done anything remotely wrong. The email server, that was, according to the FBI, simply very careless and certainly not criminal.
Now, against that, we are talking of a man whose list of REAL scandals would be longer than this thread. We are talking of robbing people, crooking vulnerable students, crooking shareholders, lying all the fucking time in the most outrageous manner, etc etc etc etc.
But the public thinks that Hillary is the untrustworthy. Which is pathetic.
Not quite. Those are her scandals as described by the Republican Party. Which specifically has an interest in acknowledging the shitty actions they themselves had dealings in. Going after Libya (a trainwreck that was one of Hillary's more prominent pet projects) would be much more promising than Benghazi, except - you guessed it - Republicans were all for the Libya intervention.
I really don't think that the FBI's appraisal of Hillary was all that positive. Comey had plenty of criticism for Hillary, and even though he ultimately decided not to prosecute it's pretty clear that it was a shitty dealing and not something to dismiss as "merely" careless. It was a very stupid thing to do and a matter that was definitely played down by the Hillary camp for months. It would be enough to sink her campaign if her opponent weren't Trump. Also relevant is Hillary's general cronyism within the DNC as shown by the DNC leaks. As GH put it, you'd have to be an idiot to look at all the times that Hillary has lied and conclude that she is trustworthy.
You seem to be taking a "stop Republicans/Trump at any cost" position, and in doing so you play down Hillary's shittiness.
Though the bank’s evaluations [of Trump's net worth] aren’t public, discussion of them in a later deposition of Trump revealed they were unflattering. The deposition was taken in a defamation lawsuit Trump filed against journalist Tim O’Brien, who wrote a book that questioned Trump’s net worth. Trump lost the suit.
“(North Fork) concluded in their estimation that your net worth was actually $1.2 billion instead of $3.5 billion as you claimed. Are you aware of that?” asked O’Brien’s attorney, Andrew Ceresney.
Trump said he had not known that, but dismissed the quality of the bank’s opinion.
“The numbers are wrong,” he said.
North Fork wasn’t alone in marking down Trump’s net worth. Deutsche Bank also reviewed Trump’s finances as of 2004, deeming him to be worth “give or take $788 million,” Ceresney said in the deposition. The attorney did not say whether Deutsche Bank relied on Trump’s tax return in its calculation.
Though the bank’s evaluations [of Trump's net worth] aren’t public, discussion of them in a later deposition of Trump revealed they were unflattering. The deposition was taken in a defamation lawsuit Trump filed against journalist Tim O’Brien, who wrote a book that questioned Trump’s net worth. Trump lost the suit.
“(North Fork) concluded in their estimation that your net worth was actually $1.2 billion instead of $3.5 billion as you claimed. Are you aware of that?” asked O’Brien’s attorney, Andrew Ceresney.
Trump said he had not known that, but dismissed the quality of the bank’s opinion.
“The numbers are wrong,” he said.
North Fork wasn’t alone in marking down Trump’s net worth. Deutsche Bank also reviewed Trump’s finances as of 2004, deeming him to be worth “give or take $788 million,” Ceresney said in the deposition. The attorney did not say whether Deutsche Bank relied on Trump’s tax return in its calculation.
Though the bank’s evaluations [of Trump's net worth] aren’t public, discussion of them in a later deposition of Trump revealed they were unflattering. The deposition was taken in a defamation lawsuit Trump filed against journalist Tim O’Brien, who wrote a book that questioned Trump’s net worth. Trump lost the suit.
“(North Fork) concluded in their estimation that your net worth was actually $1.2 billion instead of $3.5 billion as you claimed. Are you aware of that?” asked O’Brien’s attorney, Andrew Ceresney.
Trump said he had not known that, but dismissed the quality of the bank’s opinion.
“The numbers are wrong,” he said.
North Fork wasn’t alone in marking down Trump’s net worth. Deutsche Bank also reviewed Trump’s finances as of 2004, deeming him to be worth “give or take $788 million,” Ceresney said in the deposition. The attorney did not say whether Deutsche Bank relied on Trump’s tax return in its calculation.
When Trump says something is wrong, it tends to be right.
Not necessarily. He could have stashed it all offshore. So while the bank records show he's not as rich (refuse to use 'wealthy') he probably has more than what has been shown.
Though the bank’s evaluations [of Trump's net worth] aren’t public, discussion of them in a later deposition of Trump revealed they were unflattering. The deposition was taken in a defamation lawsuit Trump filed against journalist Tim O’Brien, who wrote a book that questioned Trump’s net worth. Trump lost the suit.
“(North Fork) concluded in their estimation that your net worth was actually $1.2 billion instead of $3.5 billion as you claimed. Are you aware of that?” asked O’Brien’s attorney, Andrew Ceresney.
Trump said he had not known that, but dismissed the quality of the bank’s opinion.
“The numbers are wrong,” he said.
North Fork wasn’t alone in marking down Trump’s net worth. Deutsche Bank also reviewed Trump’s finances as of 2004, deeming him to be worth “give or take $788 million,” Ceresney said in the deposition. The attorney did not say whether Deutsche Bank relied on Trump’s tax return in its calculation.
When Trump says something is wrong, it tends to be right.
Not necessarily. He could have stashed it all offshore. So while the bank records show he's not as rich (refuse to use 'wealthy') he probably has more than what has been shown.
Probably just keeps all his money in his Swedish bank account.
Though the bank’s evaluations [of Drumpf's net worth] aren’t public, discussion of them in a later deposition of Drumpf revealed they were unflattering. The deposition was taken in a defamation lawsuit Drumpf filed against journalist Tim O’Brien, who wrote a book that questioned Drumpf’s net worth. Drumpf lost the suit.
“(North Fork) concluded in their estimation that your net worth was actually $1.2 billion instead of $3.5 billion as you claimed. Are you aware of that?” asked O’Brien’s attorney, Andrew Ceresney.
Drumpf said he had not known that, but dismissed the quality of the bank’s opinion.
“The numbers are wrong,” he said.
North Fork wasn’t alone in marking down Drumpf’s net worth. Deutsche Bank also reviewed Drumpf’s finances as of 2004, deeming him to be worth “give or take $788 million,” Ceresney said in the deposition. The attorney did not say whether Deutsche Bank relied on Drumpf’s tax return in its calculation.
When Drumpf says something is wrong, it tends to be right.
Not necessarily. He could have stashed it all offshore. So while the bank records show he's not as rich (refuse to use 'wealthy') he probably has more than what has been shown.
Probably just keeps all his money in his Swedish bank account.
EPT
