|
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 November 11 2016 04:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +VIENNA — The United Nations agency monitoring the nuclear pact between Iran and six world powers said Wednesday that Iran is in violation of the deal meant to curb its ability to make atomic arms by storing marginally more heavy water than the agreement allows.
Heavy water is a concern because it is used to cool reactors that can produce substantial amounts of plutonium. That, in turn, can be applied to making the fissile core of nuclear warheads.
The U.N’s International Atomic Energy Agency said in a confidential report obtained by The Associated Press that Iran had exceeded the heavy water allotment of 130 metric tons (143.3 tons) only slightly — by 100 kilograms (220 pounds.) The report also noted that Iran had served notice it would resolve the issue by exporting 5 metric tons, substantially over the excess amount.
Wednesday’s report said the agency verified the overhang on Tuesday, just days after IAEA chief Yukiya Amano “expressed concerns” to top Iranian officials.
A senior diplomat familiar with the issue said the Iranians had told the IAEA that the shipment would be leaving their country within the next few days. The diplomat requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record about Iran’s nuclear program.
Still, with both sides closely watching for violations, the breach was sensitive even beyond the technical uses of heavy water, especially since it was the second such breach since implementation of the deal curbing Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
In February, a month after the deal went into effect, the agency noted for the first time that Iran had exceeded its allotted limit of heavy water. The amount was greater in that case and some of the excess was exported to the United States under an arrangement criticized by U.S. congressional opponents as facilitating Iranian violations of the deal. WaPoState Department when quizzed on the news: They could've handled this one better. Prove to the American people the deal is good and the violations are small by acting like adults when they happen. Anything otherwise is foolhardy.
It'd also help if the newspaper reporter didn't ask leading questions. The initial post you quoted has both the violation and the proposed solution. Not quite sure what else the journalist wants. It's quite clear he wants a soundbyte that he can spin into gross negligence by the state department when following up on the Iran deal.
Did Iran violate the terms of the deal? Yes, by a tiny bit, but for the second time.
Is the State Department doing anything about it? Yes, the UN has negotiated with Iran that they will compensate for the violation by reducing their heavy water by a far larger amount than the amount by which they violated the deal.
Is there a reason for concern? Maybe, but it also shows that the IAEA surveillance is working. We should continue to monitor Iran and make sure they continue to honor the deal.
But they violated the deal, shouldn't we slam the sanctions back on and bomb Iran into the stone age? No, of course not.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 11 2016 04:26 TheYango wrote:
The optimistic view is that as young people from these communities realize they don't have the same responsibilities that their parents do and have a lot more mobility available to them, they will be able to spearhead the movement away from these rural communities and into a more sustainable lifestyle.
The pessimistic view is that the continued astronomical rate of technological advancement will leave people behind faster than each generation can grow and adapt to a new way of life and more and more people will be left in the dust.
The even more pessimistic view is that the only way we can re-mobilize the economy in a way that gives these people jobs and livelihoods again is participation in another global-scale war that mobilizes sectors of the economy that don't operate fully during peacetime.
Things do tend to work better when an existential crisis is in progress, that much is true.
"Mobility" only works until you want to have a family and some stability in your life. I'm not particularly inclined towards selling my house and moving cross-country every time the company I work for decides to have layoffs. This contributes very strongly to economic uncertainty and by proxy, a demographics crisis.
|
On November 11 2016 04:25 LegalLord wrote:
Education isn't a solution. They get CS or engineering degrees and they are going to go where those jobs are. Which means big cities, and so the small towns get smaller. And no one from outside the small towns wants to move there until there's infrastructure to make it justifiable.
How much of that is avoidable though? Urbanization of human society isn't something that's really attributable to globalization because it's been going on for far longer. Even the countries that our supposed rural jobs are going to are urbanizing at an astounding rate.
I'm not convinced that rural human society has a future 50-100 years from now. And that really sucks, but I'm also not sure it's in everyone's best interest to try and delay the inevitable.
|
On November 11 2016 04:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 04:38 Logo wrote:On November 11 2016 04:36 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 04:31 Nyxisto wrote:On November 11 2016 04:25 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 04:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 11 2016 04:10 LegalLord wrote:
If the old jobs aren't coming back, what is meant to happen to the people left behind by "inevitable globalization?" Is "no one really knows what to do about your plight" a justification for essentially abandoning them in the name of concerns that mostly affect dense population centers?
They rightly perceive that their way of life is crumbling. They move to the big cities, or they end up not having any work. And the fact that we're talking about them now just says how much they intend to make their voices heard on the matter. The short-term answer is new education opportunities and new jobs in emerging fields. This is obviously problematic because people (particularly conservatives, duh) don't like change. This approach requires them to accept that their previous skills or way of life are obsolete and that they need to adapt. The long-term answer is that there might not be a a simple solution to just magically replace these jobs. This is one of the biggest debates of an increasingly globalized and technological world. More and more jobs are becoming automated or outsourced, so what do you do with unskilled or uneducated workers? Education isn't a solution. They get CS or engineering degrees and they are going to go where those jobs are. Which means big cities, and so the small towns get smaller. And no one from outside the small towns wants to move there until there's infrastructure to make it justifiable. That's actually not entirely true. There's lots of incubators around that try to bring these jobs to struggling cities. Read a very interesting article about this last year: https://backchannel.com/canary-in-the-code-mine-903884eca853#.9q0p57npe I'm sure they try. As a similar example, there were huge initiatives in Soviet Russia to counter the rural blight that came with a pretty effective standardized education system. It doesn't mean it will work - this is a really hard problem. For sure, though I would caution that as with any hard problem it's probably wise to avoid the nirvana fallacy. Like better education and incubator programs are probably not going to solve all the problems but they seem certainly like part of a solution. Basically you have to give them a good reason to stay in their general area instead of crowding into overpopulated cities after getting the education. I know from experience that that is not easy to solve and I'll probably have to write a long post about it.
If you do I'd be interested to see if you include any thoughts about the difference between isolated rural areas (like northern midwest) vs rural areas that are in relative proximity to non-rural areas (rural Vermont/Maine/NH/Southwest for example). To me the difference between the former and the latter is why I think spreading out industries to more mid sized cities, while not a solution to rural problems, can still be of help.
|
On November 11 2016 04:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 04:19 Mohdoo wrote:On November 11 2016 04:10 LegalLord wrote:
If the old jobs aren't coming back, what is meant to happen to the people left behind by "inevitable globalization?" Is "no one really knows what to do about your plight" a justification for essentially abandoning them in the name of concerns that mostly affect dense population centers?
They rightly perceive that their way of life is crumbling. They move to the big cities, or they end up not having any work. And the fact that we're talking about them now just says how much they intend to make their voices heard on the matter. No one is denying that. But I mean, look at how societies have already changed over the years. This is not the first time in history that a massive societal shift has changed civilization. It won't be the last. These rural voters have a ridiculous view of time suddenly freezing in the mid 50s. What happened to communities when boats became a thing? Obviously a shitty example, but my point remains. Sometimes, the world changes. It isn't always reversible and it shouldn't always be reversible. I have zero sympathy for people saying "My dad lived a life like ____ and I feel like I should be able to have the same life". That is so beyond ridiculous. We weren't amazingly ahead because we were just that amazing. The world had a lot of catching up to do. But then they caught up. With the spread of information, technology and education, one country being incredibly distinct and glorious among the others was never going to last. Extreme American exceptionalism let rural communities feel more sustainable and realistic than they ever were. There is so much of a cultural component to how you choose to live in a small town that they rightfully perceive that rural blight will be the death of their culture. It's the issue of cultural preservation and it would take more time than I have to convince you of its importance. I'll get to that later.
I understand this and I actually know quite a few rural people and understand their perspective.
I just see it as similar to the Bernie situation. Once he lost the primary, what was left to do? Without economic feasibility, the culture they are trying to preserve is 100% toast. There is no way in hell it will survive the next 20 years. Already, rural communities are being drained as college enrollment goes up and people get jobs like others have described above.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 11 2016 04:46 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 04:25 LegalLord wrote:
Education isn't a solution. They get CS or engineering degrees and they are going to go where those jobs are. Which means big cities, and so the small towns get smaller. And no one from outside the small towns wants to move there until there's infrastructure to make it justifiable. How much of that is avoidable though? Urbanization of human society isn't something that's really attributable to globalization because it's been going on for far longer. Even in the country that our supposed rural jobs are going to are urbanizing at an astounding rate.
It's avoidable to the extent that you can entice people to stay in or move to rural areas after they get an education that enables them to make good money in big cities.
As I talked about earlier, Soviet Russia did a lot of this. It was hard. That Russia has had a farming problem for almost a century is a testament to that it is tough to undo what was done by urban migration. And the fact that under protectionism (forced by sanctions) they are finally starting to see some respectable improvement is testament to the fact that there is some globalization element to that struggle.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 11 2016 04:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 04:30 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 04:19 Mohdoo wrote:On November 11 2016 04:10 LegalLord wrote:
If the old jobs aren't coming back, what is meant to happen to the people left behind by "inevitable globalization?" Is "no one really knows what to do about your plight" a justification for essentially abandoning them in the name of concerns that mostly affect dense population centers?
They rightly perceive that their way of life is crumbling. They move to the big cities, or they end up not having any work. And the fact that we're talking about them now just says how much they intend to make their voices heard on the matter. No one is denying that. But I mean, look at how societies have already changed over the years. This is not the first time in history that a massive societal shift has changed civilization. It won't be the last. These rural voters have a ridiculous view of time suddenly freezing in the mid 50s. What happened to communities when boats became a thing? Obviously a shitty example, but my point remains. Sometimes, the world changes. It isn't always reversible and it shouldn't always be reversible. I have zero sympathy for people saying "My dad lived a life like ____ and I feel like I should be able to have the same life". That is so beyond ridiculous. We weren't amazingly ahead because we were just that amazing. The world had a lot of catching up to do. But then they caught up. With the spread of information, technology and education, one country being incredibly distinct and glorious among the others was never going to last. Extreme American exceptionalism let rural communities feel more sustainable and realistic than they ever were. There is so much of a cultural component to how you choose to live in a small town that they rightfully perceive that rural blight will be the death of their culture. It's the issue of cultural preservation and it would take more time than I have to convince you of its importance. I'll get to that later. I understand this and I actually know quite a few rural people and understand their perspective. I just see it as similar to the Bernie situation. Once he lost the primary, what was left to do? Without economic feasibility, the culture they are trying to preserve is 100% toast. There is no way in hell it will survive the next 20 years. Already, rural communities are being drained as college enrollment goes up and people get jobs like others have described above.
Best simple partial answer is that you have to get people to invest in the development of better high-profit industries within their communities. To be discussed in more depth later.
On November 11 2016 04:47 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 04:40 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 04:38 Logo wrote:On November 11 2016 04:36 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 04:31 Nyxisto wrote:On November 11 2016 04:25 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 04:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 11 2016 04:10 LegalLord wrote:
If the old jobs aren't coming back, what is meant to happen to the people left behind by "inevitable globalization?" Is "no one really knows what to do about your plight" a justification for essentially abandoning them in the name of concerns that mostly affect dense population centers?
They rightly perceive that their way of life is crumbling. They move to the big cities, or they end up not having any work. And the fact that we're talking about them now just says how much they intend to make their voices heard on the matter. The short-term answer is new education opportunities and new jobs in emerging fields. This is obviously problematic because people (particularly conservatives, duh) don't like change. This approach requires them to accept that their previous skills or way of life are obsolete and that they need to adapt. The long-term answer is that there might not be a a simple solution to just magically replace these jobs. This is one of the biggest debates of an increasingly globalized and technological world. More and more jobs are becoming automated or outsourced, so what do you do with unskilled or uneducated workers? Education isn't a solution. They get CS or engineering degrees and they are going to go where those jobs are. Which means big cities, and so the small towns get smaller. And no one from outside the small towns wants to move there until there's infrastructure to make it justifiable. That's actually not entirely true. There's lots of incubators around that try to bring these jobs to struggling cities. Read a very interesting article about this last year: https://backchannel.com/canary-in-the-code-mine-903884eca853#.9q0p57npe I'm sure they try. As a similar example, there were huge initiatives in Soviet Russia to counter the rural blight that came with a pretty effective standardized education system. It doesn't mean it will work - this is a really hard problem. For sure, though I would caution that as with any hard problem it's probably wise to avoid the nirvana fallacy. Like better education and incubator programs are probably not going to solve all the problems but they seem certainly like part of a solution. Basically you have to give them a good reason to stay in their general area instead of crowding into overpopulated cities after getting the education. I know from experience that that is not easy to solve and I'll probably have to write a long post about it. If you do I'd be interested to see if you include any thoughts about the difference between isolated rural areas (like northern midwest) vs rural areas that are in relative proximity to non-rural areas (rural Vermont/Maine/NH/Southwest for example). To me the difference between the former and the latter is why I think spreading out industries to more mid sized cities, while not a solution to rural problems, can still be of help.
Agreed. I'll get to that when I have the time to research the relevant topics in enough depth to give a decent answer.
|
On November 11 2016 04:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +VIENNA — The United Nations agency monitoring the nuclear pact between Iran and six world powers said Wednesday that Iran is in violation of the deal meant to curb its ability to make atomic arms by storing marginally more heavy water than the agreement allows.
Heavy water is a concern because it is used to cool reactors that can produce substantial amounts of plutonium. That, in turn, can be applied to making the fissile core of nuclear warheads.
The U.N’s International Atomic Energy Agency said in a confidential report obtained by The Associated Press that Iran had exceeded the heavy water allotment of 130 metric tons (143.3 tons) only slightly — by 100 kilograms (220 pounds.) The report also noted that Iran had served notice it would resolve the issue by exporting 5 metric tons, substantially over the excess amount.
Wednesday’s report said the agency verified the overhang on Tuesday, just days after IAEA chief Yukiya Amano “expressed concerns” to top Iranian officials.
A senior diplomat familiar with the issue said the Iranians had told the IAEA that the shipment would be leaving their country within the next few days. The diplomat requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record about Iran’s nuclear program.
Still, with both sides closely watching for violations, the breach was sensitive even beyond the technical uses of heavy water, especially since it was the second such breach since implementation of the deal curbing Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
In February, a month after the deal went into effect, the agency noted for the first time that Iran had exceeded its allotted limit of heavy water. The amount was greater in that case and some of the excess was exported to the United States under an arrangement criticized by U.S. congressional opponents as facilitating Iranian violations of the deal. WaPoState Department when quizzed on the news: https://twitter.com/Heminator/status/796784064124645376They could've handled this one better. Prove to the American people the deal is good and the violations are small by acting like adults when they happen. Anything otherwise is foolhardy.
You're off the deep end of sensationalized news with this one.
|
On November 11 2016 04:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 04:46 TheYango wrote:On November 11 2016 04:25 LegalLord wrote:
Education isn't a solution. They get CS or engineering degrees and they are going to go where those jobs are. Which means big cities, and so the small towns get smaller. And no one from outside the small towns wants to move there until there's infrastructure to make it justifiable. How much of that is avoidable though? Urbanization of human society isn't something that's really attributable to globalization because it's been going on for far longer. Even in the country that our supposed rural jobs are going to are urbanizing at an astounding rate. It's avoidable to the extent that you can entice people to stay in or move to rural areas after they get an education that enables them to make good money in big cities. As I talked about earlier, Soviet Russia did a lot of this. It was hard. That Russia has had a farming problem for almost a century is a testament to that it is tough to undo what was done by urban migration. And the fact that under protectionism (forced by sanctions) they are finally starting to see some respectable improvement is testament to the fact that there is some globalization element to that struggle.
Not much else to say but, farming is brutal. Even my small local farmer who's in a decidedly not very rural area is suffering like hell. He had to resort to scrapping to make ends meet. In this case it's drought + declining interest in supporting local farms (food delivery services seem to be gutting Community Supported Agriculture).
Makes you wish all those subsidies weren't spent on large farming corporations.
|
So Trump has deleted several of his core demands from his own campaign page between Tuesday and Wednesday. Backpedaling faster than the Brexit boys. I'm amused.
Among the demands he removed:
- his list of SCOTUS judges
- immigration ban on muslims
- dropping the Paris agreement
Also he "fixed" some details on defense, economy and regulation demands.
|
|
|
That "violation" by Iran is actually a pretty good illustration of diplomacy working. It's a negligible overage, and Iran is pledging to deal with it immediately. Trump's plan to scrap that deal (by which I mean withdraw while the other 7 or so countries continue to participate) is just not smart. This is the danger of a candidate who panders to low infos - those people do not know a thing about smart policy.
|
On November 11 2016 04:21 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 04:12 TheYango wrote:On November 11 2016 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Another problem is that these rural communities want to remain rural, yet somehow relevant. When people are resistant to moving to places with more jobs, and their entire area is devoid of jobs, it is hard to have sympathy when the reasoning is because their family has been there for generations or some shit.
As far as the election goes this is also somewhat related to which demographics participate most in the system. Young people are the ones that have the most mobility, but young people don't vote. Even in the deep red states, younger voters trend less toward Trump than their older counterparts. For older people, it's not that easy to say "move somewhere with more jobs". When you have a family, just enough income to get by, and can't realign your employable skills to an entirely new career the way someone 20 years younger than you can, you really just don't have that option. On November 11 2016 04:10 LegalLord wrote:
If the old jobs aren't coming back, what is meant to happen to the people left behind by "inevitable globalization?" Is "no one really knows what to do about your plight" a justification for essentially abandoning them in the name of concerns that mostly affect dense population centers? I don't think there's an easy answer to that question. As far as I'm concerned, Trump hasn't provided one either--and his "I'm going to bring jobs back" schtick is just setting people up for disappointment. It's going to be one of the major struggles of our time, and it's not something that a single president can solve. The Great Depression started along lines not all that far from this. The plight of rural farmers was the beginning, but then that prevalent decline traveled its way up the socioeconomic ladder until everyone was in a painful position. People are rightly opposed to the idea of having their entire lives uprooted in the name of global economy ( the benefits of which are perceived to be concentrated in the hands of the wealthy few) and while no one really knows how to properly integrate them into an inevitably more global world, the truth is that a lot of leaders just don't really want to try. The short-term costs of restructuring an economy for that purpose would be truly massive.
That's what the crowd angry at globalism should be focused on changing, on the actual problem. All of the countries with the highest inequality-adjusted HDI are part of the global economy, the same countries have the lowest GINI coefficients among the developed world. How about getting to that level first through internal policies, and then talk of rejecting globalism if unhappy with how much you can distribute the benefits from within? It's not the act of being a part of the global economy that prevents the working class from living well and benefiting from it, it's who the working class votes for that prevents that. And I'm not talking about this election, but about the voting pattern that lead to having the only two parties in the country to represent trickle-down and trickle-down-on-steroids.
Even after recognizing how much of a problem the upwards distribution of wealth has become, people would rather wealth gets destroyed via isolationism and that an hour of their time becomes less valuable in terms of what it can purchase, than for wealth to be redistributed through anything other than magical manufacturing jobs that for some arcane reason will pay more than similarly unskilled jobs in services, and will last long term instead of being replaced with more efficient machinery for the task than human hands.
It's not so much an economic or political failure as it is a cultural failure. There's nothing 'leaders' can do to curb this without the approval of the people to ditch archaic ideals such as muh free market and the American dream. People upset about globalism concentrating wealth and yet rejecting the idea of progressive tax as a means to redistribute those benefits of the global economy, they are by and large the ones to blame. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. Their leaders are nothing more than a reflection of their own contradictory beliefs. And it's doubly ironic that in such an individualistic culture people don't take responsibility for that and instead blame the boogeymen in the shadows.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 11 2016 05:20 mahrgell wrote:
So Trump has deleted several of his core demands from his own campaign page between Tuesday and Wednesday. Backpedaling faster than the Brexit boys. I'm amused.
Among the demands he removed:
- his list of SCOTUS judges
- immigration ban on muslims
- dropping the Paris agreement
Also he "fixed" some details on defense, economy and regulation demands.
Those actually sound like pretty damn good things to drop. We just might avoid the worst case scenarios we were worried about.
|
On November 11 2016 05:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 05:20 mahrgell wrote:
So Trump has deleted several of his core demands from his own campaign page between Tuesday and Wednesday. Backpedaling faster than the Brexit boys. I'm amused.
Among the demands he removed:
- his list of SCOTUS judges
- immigration ban on muslims
- dropping the Paris agreement
Also he "fixed" some details on defense, economy and regulation demands. Those actually sound like pretty damn good things to drop. We just might avoid the worst case scenarios we were worried about.
Maybe his 1998 quote is happening lol.
|
On November 11 2016 05:29 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 05:27 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 05:20 mahrgell wrote:
So Trump has deleted several of his core demands from his own campaign page between Tuesday and Wednesday. Backpedaling faster than the Brexit boys. I'm amused.
Among the demands he removed:
- his list of SCOTUS judges
- immigration ban on muslims
- dropping the Paris agreement
Also he "fixed" some details on defense, economy and regulation demands. Those actually sound like pretty damn good things to drop. We just might avoid the worst case scenarios we were worried about. Maybe his 1998 quote is happening lol.
Wasn't that fake?
|
On November 11 2016 05:29 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 05:27 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 05:20 mahrgell wrote:
So Trump has deleted several of his core demands from his own campaign page between Tuesday and Wednesday. Backpedaling faster than the Brexit boys. I'm amused.
Among the demands he removed:
- his list of SCOTUS judges
- immigration ban on muslims
- dropping the Paris agreement
Also he "fixed" some details on defense, economy and regulation demands. Those actually sound like pretty damn good things to drop. We just might avoid the worst case scenarios we were worried about. Maybe his 1998 quote is happening lol.
He never said that.
|
On November 11 2016 05:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 05:20 mahrgell wrote:
So Trump has deleted several of his core demands from his own campaign page between Tuesday and Wednesday. Backpedaling faster than the Brexit boys. I'm amused.
Among the demands he removed:
- his list of SCOTUS judges
- immigration ban on muslims
- dropping the Paris agreement
Also he "fixed" some details on defense, economy and regulation demands. Those actually sound like pretty damn good things to drop. We just might avoid the worst case scenarios we were worried about.
I don't disagree that it is a good thing to drop those. But I find it amusing to campaign on those heavily... and then drop then when you notice you accidentally won. Really similar to what happened with the Brexit.
|
On November 11 2016 05:31 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 05:29 Slaughter wrote:On November 11 2016 05:27 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 05:20 mahrgell wrote:
So Trump has deleted several of his core demands from his own campaign page between Tuesday and Wednesday. Backpedaling faster than the Brexit boys. I'm amused.
Among the demands he removed:
- his list of SCOTUS judges
- immigration ban on muslims
- dropping the Paris agreement
Also he "fixed" some details on defense, economy and regulation demands. Those actually sound like pretty damn good things to drop. We just might avoid the worst case scenarios we were worried about. Maybe his 1998 quote is happening lol. He never said that.
Given this election I don't think that means that it can't happen.
|
On November 11 2016 05:33 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 05:31 RvB wrote:On November 11 2016 05:29 Slaughter wrote:On November 11 2016 05:27 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 05:20 mahrgell wrote:
So Trump has deleted several of his core demands from his own campaign page between Tuesday and Wednesday. Backpedaling faster than the Brexit boys. I'm amused.
Among the demands he removed:
- his list of SCOTUS judges
- immigration ban on muslims
- dropping the Paris agreement
Also he "fixed" some details on defense, economy and regulation demands. Those actually sound like pretty damn good things to drop. We just might avoid the worst case scenarios we were worried about. Maybe his 1998 quote is happening lol. He never said that. Given this election I don't think that means that it can't happen.
yeah that's true. I thought Slaugther implied that Trump actually said it. If that's not the case it's my bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
