|
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 September 29 2016 01:44 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 01:32 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 01:26 stilt wrote:On September 27 2016 21:44 farvacola wrote:On September 27 2016 21:41 zeo wrote:On September 27 2016 21:22 Mohdoo wrote: Taking credit for Obama's birth certificate and doubling down on stop and frisk is what surprised me the most. It makes no sense. He did really, really poorly last night. I am now convinced that he's actually this person. If he was actually well calculated, he would have appeared as normal as possible. I think from here, support crystallizes and Clinton sweeps.
Clinton taking full responsibility for emails and saying she wouldn't do it again just makes any more questions besting a dead horse. What a relief. She should be in jail then. You're welcome to send a letter to the Department of Justice so that they can be made aware of their mistake. Justice is only available for the weak. But thanks to remind us the total impudence of the elite. Justice is only a option for the weak????? So the strong don't get justice???? Being responsible for a mistake doesn't make it criminal. You guys are very distrusting of the government when it comes to lack of prosecution of police officers because of bias or corruption in the system, but very quick to agree with an FBI director who's boss and who's future boss are relevant to his recommendation to or not to prosecute, all under extremely suspect and unique circumstances. Its almost like we take every case in context and base our decisions around the amount of information we have. In the case of the Clinton emails, the information is overwhelming and the FBI director made a pretty good case why nothing that happened would have risen to criminal charges.
|
Curious why the Trump's been edging up in the stickied poll. Hmm.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 29 2016 01:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 01:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 29 2016 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On September 29 2016 01:39 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 01:34 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 29 2016 01:31 LegalLord wrote:On September 29 2016 01:25 Mohdoo wrote: Alright, I'm done. I wanted to watch in case something good happened, but these are complete lightweights. They don't even research what they are talking about. Comey is constantly correcting them for being just so unbelievably wrong. What a sad, sad mess. Yeah this is a trainwreck. I, too, am done - I have more important things to do than watch an obvious farce of a questioning session. The expression on Comey's face suggests he is thinking, "fucking morons wasting my time." It's internet lawyers versus the director of the FBI Even real lawyers wouldn’t try this stuff because the Judge plays referee on this like this. If an attorney are clearly wasting the witness’s time and is poorly prepared, they could get slapped around by the judge. Congress doesn’t have such features, sadly. It is to bad we can’t have the notorious RBG drive down and slap the congress member for not understanding how pleading the 5th works. Sad thing is a lot of these people are actual lawyers and they should know better. I truly think many of these people have simply taken the perspective of "Hilary can not be president" and are just doing whatever they can to help. I think they know what is happening but think the stakes are too high. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you why the "Trump cannot be president no matter what" approach is short-sighted, with this example as evidence. I don't take the perspective that Trump can't be president. I take the perspective that a Clinton presidency would have a non-zero benefit over a Trump presidency. So long as one side is better than the other, everything else is irrelevant to me, so long as only 2 options exist. Specifically referencing the "just throw Muslims under the bus to beat Trump" comment a while earlier.
The ends don't justify the means if you leave a trail of destruction in your wake. The mere words that these candidates utter have an effect felt all around the world. Imagine the fallout of that comment.
|
On September 29 2016 01:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 01:44 biology]major wrote:On September 29 2016 01:32 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 01:26 stilt wrote:On September 27 2016 21:44 farvacola wrote:On September 27 2016 21:41 zeo wrote:On September 27 2016 21:22 Mohdoo wrote: Taking credit for Obama's birth certificate and doubling down on stop and frisk is what surprised me the most. It makes no sense. He did really, really poorly last night. I am now convinced that he's actually this person. If he was actually well calculated, he would have appeared as normal as possible. I think from here, support crystallizes and Clinton sweeps.
Clinton taking full responsibility for emails and saying she wouldn't do it again just makes any more questions besting a dead horse. What a relief. She should be in jail then. You're welcome to send a letter to the Department of Justice so that they can be made aware of their mistake. Justice is only available for the weak. But thanks to remind us the total impudence of the elite. Justice is only a option for the weak????? So the strong don't get justice???? Being responsible for a mistake doesn't make it criminal. You guys are very distrusting of the government when it comes to lack of prosecution of police officers because of bias or corruption in the system, but very quick to agree with an FBI director who's boss and who's future boss are relevant to his recommendation to or not to prosecute, all under extremely suspect and unique circumstances. Its almost like we take every case in context and base our decisions around the amount of information we have. In the case of the Clinton emails, the information is overwhelming and the FBI director made a pretty good case why nothing that happened would have risen to criminal charges.
I doubt that, the bias is real from both sides and the goggles are always on regardless of how immune you think you are. We also learned one persons immunity should be revoked because they lied to the FBI after receiving immunity, so will that fall through?
|
On September 29 2016 01:49 ticklishmusic wrote: Curious why the Trump's been edging up in the stickied poll. Hmm.
Polls with an easy registration process are often brigaded if they are popular enough.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 29 2016 01:49 ticklishmusic wrote: Curious why the Trump's been edging up in the stickied poll. Hmm. Every poll ever on Clinton vs. Trump has started with a huge Clinton lead, then edged somewhat more towards Trump. I dunno, maybe all Trump supporters are night owls?
|
On September 29 2016 01:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 01:47 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 01:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 29 2016 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On September 29 2016 01:39 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 01:34 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 29 2016 01:31 LegalLord wrote:On September 29 2016 01:25 Mohdoo wrote: Alright, I'm done. I wanted to watch in case something good happened, but these are complete lightweights. They don't even research what they are talking about. Comey is constantly correcting them for being just so unbelievably wrong. What a sad, sad mess. Yeah this is a trainwreck. I, too, am done - I have more important things to do than watch an obvious farce of a questioning session. The expression on Comey's face suggests he is thinking, "fucking morons wasting my time." It's internet lawyers versus the director of the FBI Even real lawyers wouldn’t try this stuff because the Judge plays referee on this like this. If an attorney are clearly wasting the witness’s time and is poorly prepared, they could get slapped around by the judge. Congress doesn’t have such features, sadly. It is to bad we can’t have the notorious RBG drive down and slap the congress member for not understanding how pleading the 5th works. Sad thing is a lot of these people are actual lawyers and they should know better. I truly think many of these people have simply taken the perspective of "Hilary can not be president" and are just doing whatever they can to help. I think they know what is happening but think the stakes are too high. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you why the "Trump cannot be president no matter what" approach is short-sighted, with this example as evidence. I don't take the perspective that Trump can't be president. I take the perspective that a Clinton presidency would have a non-zero benefit over a Trump presidency. So long as one side is better than the other, everything else is irrelevant to me, so long as only 2 options exist. Specifically referencing the "just throw Muslims under the bus to beat Trump" comment a while earlier. The ends don't justify the means if you leave a trail of destruction in your wake. The mere words that these candidates utter have an effect felt all around the world. Imagine the fallout of that comment.
If throwing Muslims under the bus led to a presidency which, even considering the trail of destruction, was still even SLIIIIIIGHTLY better than a Trump presidency, I would unconditionally vote for Clinton without reservation. I would choose to have my father killed in front of me, rather than both my father and mother. If those are my only two choices, it's a slam dunk of a decision.
|
On September 29 2016 01:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 01:49 ticklishmusic wrote: Curious why the Trump's been edging up in the stickied poll. Hmm. Polls with an easy registration process are often brigaded if they are popular enough.
It's okay, I take solace in this:
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 29 2016 01:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On September 29 2016 01:39 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 01:34 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 29 2016 01:31 LegalLord wrote:On September 29 2016 01:25 Mohdoo wrote: Alright, I'm done. I wanted to watch in case something good happened, but these are complete lightweights. They don't even research what they are talking about. Comey is constantly correcting them for being just so unbelievably wrong. What a sad, sad mess. Yeah this is a trainwreck. I, too, am done - I have more important things to do than watch an obvious farce of a questioning session. The expression on Comey's face suggests he is thinking, "fucking morons wasting my time." It's internet lawyers versus the director of the FBI Even real lawyers wouldn’t try this stuff because the Judge plays referee on this like this. If an attorney are clearly wasting the witness’s time and is poorly prepared, they could get slapped around by the judge. Congress doesn’t have such features, sadly. It is to bad we can’t have the notorious RBG drive down and slap the congress member for not understanding how pleading the 5th works. Sad thing is a lot of these people are actual lawyers and they should know better. Being an attorney only proves you passed the BAR and didn't get your license taken away. We had an attorney challenge a part of our case recently because we "couldn't prove the mail was delivered by the US post office". He wanted us to prove something was mailed and that we couldn't satisfy the "chain of evidence" as used in criminal cases. About half way through the argument the judge figured out he was talking about a chain of evidence for mail, the lost his shit and told the entire the entire legal system could break down if we couldn't trust mail was delivered. The same attorney is trying the argument again in front of another court. He thinks he has a winner. Many of the member of congress remind me of this attorney. They have a law degree, but have not felt the pain of being wrong in a public setting and getting slapped for it. They should know better. Doesn't mean they always will. Especially in a field that deals with ambiguities to the extent that law does. And I'd wager that Congressional lawyers are probably less effective on average than practicing lawyers.
Part of the reason why I question the "an expert said it to be so, therefore it is true" perspective that some people hold. Though if all the experts disagree with you, the experts are probably right.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 29 2016 01:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 01:50 LegalLord wrote:On September 29 2016 01:47 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 01:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 29 2016 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2016 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On September 29 2016 01:39 Plansix wrote:On September 29 2016 01:34 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 29 2016 01:31 LegalLord wrote:On September 29 2016 01:25 Mohdoo wrote: Alright, I'm done. I wanted to watch in case something good happened, but these are complete lightweights. They don't even research what they are talking about. Comey is constantly correcting them for being just so unbelievably wrong. What a sad, sad mess. Yeah this is a trainwreck. I, too, am done - I have more important things to do than watch an obvious farce of a questioning session. The expression on Comey's face suggests he is thinking, "fucking morons wasting my time." It's internet lawyers versus the director of the FBI Even real lawyers wouldn’t try this stuff because the Judge plays referee on this like this. If an attorney are clearly wasting the witness’s time and is poorly prepared, they could get slapped around by the judge. Congress doesn’t have such features, sadly. It is to bad we can’t have the notorious RBG drive down and slap the congress member for not understanding how pleading the 5th works. Sad thing is a lot of these people are actual lawyers and they should know better. I truly think many of these people have simply taken the perspective of "Hilary can not be president" and are just doing whatever they can to help. I think they know what is happening but think the stakes are too high. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you why the "Trump cannot be president no matter what" approach is short-sighted, with this example as evidence. I don't take the perspective that Trump can't be president. I take the perspective that a Clinton presidency would have a non-zero benefit over a Trump presidency. So long as one side is better than the other, everything else is irrelevant to me, so long as only 2 options exist. Specifically referencing the "just throw Muslims under the bus to beat Trump" comment a while earlier. The ends don't justify the means if you leave a trail of destruction in your wake. The mere words that these candidates utter have an effect felt all around the world. Imagine the fallout of that comment. If throwing Muslims under the bus led to a presidency which, even considering the trail of destruction, was still even SLIIIIIIGHTLY better than a Trump presidency, I would unconditionally vote for Clinton without reservation. I would choose to have my father killed in front of me, rather than both my father and mother. If those are my only two choices, it's a slam dunk of a decision. Think carefully about the long-term effects of the strategy you propose. If that doesn't scream "race to the bottom" I don't know what does.
|
On September 29 2016 01:10 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 01:03 On_Slaught wrote: A picture taken from cell phone footage of the San Diego shooting clearly shows it was a justified shooting. Shouldn't be surprised that bystanders lied when they said he was shot with his hands in the air. Probably won't stop the protesters either. Would link it but on phone.
Npr has the picture. technical note: they may not have lied, but simply been mistaken. There's ample evidence that documents how terribly unreliable eyewitness accounts are.
If we wanted to follow evidence, eyewitness testimony shouldn't be allowed in court, period. Eyewitness testimony has been shown by a slew of psychological research to be horrifically unreliable.
|
On September 28 2016 23:16 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 15:41 oBlade wrote:On September 28 2016 14:22 Rebs wrote:On September 28 2016 10:51 LegalLord wrote:On September 28 2016 10:46 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 10:33 KwarK wrote:On September 28 2016 10:30 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 10:12 KwarK wrote: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. You don't know what a straw argument is.
On September 28 2016 23:16 Rebs wrote:It takes 2 countries to cause nuclear war. + Show Spoiler + 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. China did not help North Korea or want nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula, just nonsense.
On September 28 2016 23:16 Rebs wrote: 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. So again, ask yourself why the noble country of Pakistan couldn't help with such a basic task as the manhunt for the most wanted man in the world, a pathetic has-been terrorist kingpin, taking refuge in their own territory.
|
On September 29 2016 01:25 Doodsmack wrote: Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right — who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us. Hahaha this reads like the stream of consciousness of your typical drunk guy at the local bar.
|
On September 29 2016 02:01 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 01:25 Doodsmack wrote: Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right — who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us. Hahaha this reads like the stream of consciousness of your typical drunk guy at the local bar.
I play a game called Trump or Markov. Typically the Markov chain generator is the more coherent one
|
On September 29 2016 02:00 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 23:16 Rebs wrote:On September 28 2016 15:41 oBlade wrote:On September 28 2016 14:22 Rebs wrote:On September 28 2016 10:51 LegalLord wrote:On September 28 2016 10:46 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 10:33 KwarK wrote:On September 28 2016 10:30 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 10:12 KwarK wrote: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. You don't know what a straw argument is. Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 23:16 Rebs wrote:It takes 2 countries to cause nuclear war. + Show Spoiler + 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. China did not help North Korea or want nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula, just nonsense. Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 23:16 Rebs wrote: 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. So again, ask yourself why the noble country of Pakistan couldn't help with such a basic task as the manhunt for the most wanted man in the world, a pathetic has-been terrorist kingpin, taking refuge in their own territory.
They didnt care ... And yes China has been pretty involved with North Korea, its just as viable a possibility as the one we were accused of with limited proof.
As for OBL. They just didnt give a shit. There is nothing noble about any of this, lay of the platitudes.
They have their interests and their goals which are centered in what they feel best serve their national interest. They can be wrong or right. Just as much as US FP has been an unmitigated disaster since the cold war.
You keep attacking the moral question here but what im trying to explain to you here that you dont have any moral high ground to attack any country from let alone Pakistan so please drop it k ? And this is all strawmanning Im not saying Pakistan is noble or doesnt have issues or that its ok to let OBL hang around. Theres a reason I live in Canada.
So thanks for the condescending bullshit that is your conservative thinking but Ill pass.
The original issue was the claim that "Pakistan is the most danger country in the world.. because nukes"
Which is a load of bullshit and you know it. The only evidence you will ever find for this is populist right wing indian newspapers but then again a Drumpf supporter should be all about populist bullshit propaganda. Im done. You are wrong.
+ Show Spoiler +(which we have our own equivalent off naturally but thats besides the point)
Thanks,
|
Relationships and alliances with other nations are not zero sum equations. We take the good with the bad, just like them. If anyone thinks the people of Pakistan are super pumped about US drone strikes, think again.
|
On September 29 2016 01:31 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 01:25 Mohdoo wrote: Alright, I'm done. I wanted to watch in case something good happened, but these are complete lightweights. They don't even research what they are talking about. Comey is constantly correcting them for being just so unbelievably wrong. What a sad, sad mess. Yeah this is a trainwreck. I, too, am done - I have more important things to do than watch an obvious farce of a questioning session. The expression on Comey's face suggests he is thinking, "fucking morons wasting my time." it's annoying how much time-wasting there is in congressional hearings in general.
|
On September 29 2016 02:01 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 01:25 Doodsmack wrote: Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right — who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us. Hahaha this reads like the stream of consciousness of your typical drunk guy at the local bar. Wait what, is this quote actually legit?O_o
|
On September 29 2016 02:06 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 02:00 oBlade wrote:On September 28 2016 23:16 Rebs wrote:On September 28 2016 15:41 oBlade wrote:On September 28 2016 14:22 Rebs wrote:On September 28 2016 10:51 LegalLord wrote:On September 28 2016 10:46 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 10:33 KwarK wrote:On September 28 2016 10:30 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 10:12 KwarK wrote: [quote] 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. You don't know what a straw argument is. On September 28 2016 23:16 Rebs wrote:It takes 2 countries to cause nuclear war. + Show Spoiler + 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. China did not help North Korea or want nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula, just nonsense. On September 28 2016 23:16 Rebs wrote: 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. So again, ask yourself why the noble country of Pakistan couldn't help with such a basic task as the manhunt for the most wanted man in the world, a pathetic has-been terrorist kingpin, taking refuge in their own territory. They didnt care ... And yes China has been pretty involved with North Korea, its just as viable a possibility as the one we were accused of with limited proof. It's documented that Pakistan and North Korea were exchanging ballistic missile and nuclear tech. This sort of clandestine activity is common among countries like Cuba, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran as you pointed out. The last thing China wanted was a starving state with nuclear weapons right next to them which is evident by their changing foreign policy stance towards the DPRK now.
On September 29 2016 02:06 Rebs wrote: As for OBL. They just didnt give a shit. There is nothing noble about any of this, lay of the platitutdes. They didn't give a shit about Osama Bin Laden. Great answer.
On September 29 2016 02:06 Rebs wrote: They have their interests and their goals. You keep attacking the moral question here but what im trying to explain to you here that you dont have any moral high ground to attack any country from let alone Pakistan so please drop it k ? You can shit on the US ad nauseam but it's irrelevant. The US could annex Mexico tomorrow and sink South America the day after that. That would not erase the threat of regional nuclear war and Pakistani weapons falling into the wrong hands.
On September 29 2016 02:06 Rebs wrote: The original issue was the claim that "Pakistan is the most danger country in the world.. because nukes" Which is a load of bullshit and you know it. The only evidence you will ever find for this is populist right wing indian newspapers but then again a Drumpf supporter should be all about populist bullshit propoganda. This has nothing to do with the US election, I've said for a while allowing proliferation of nuclear weapons to Pakistan was the biggest mistake in modern times.
|
On September 29 2016 02:26 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 02:01 TheDwf wrote:On September 29 2016 01:25 Doodsmack wrote: Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right — who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us. Hahaha this reads like the stream of consciousness of your typical drunk guy at the local bar. Wait what, is this quote actually legit?O_o Yes. If you ever quote Trump, it becomes clear he doesn't finish sentences. Or thoughts.
|
|
|
|