|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 09 2018 07:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 06:56 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2018 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:44 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:22 Introvert wrote:
Many Democrats also opposed the deal (including Schumer). While arguing the merits would clearly be a slog (look at all these posts!) this should at least be a reminder that if you want a deal, you better go through proper Senate procedure. This says nothing about any potential treaty with NK, be cause that would actually be a treaty, properly ratified. Meanwhile Trump isn't breaking the deal, except insofar far as he is taking action he is lawfully allowed to take. If the Europeans so value their airplane sales, so be it.
I hope these lessons last, but I suspect they won't. Wait, are you telling me that after pages of hearing about how stupid and ineffective Republicans are for not being able to stop Trump that Trump and the Senate leader for the Democrats are both opposed the deal? Let's put it this way. There is a reason the administration chose not to submit it as a treaty needing 67 votes. As for the part about NK, no, there are no specifics. But the argument that the North Koreans won't trust us anymore is predicated on the idea that the only option is an "executive agreement" which is wrong. I see now that Democrats that wanted to stop the deal in the first place are now saying Trump doesn't have a plan and that's their concern. Don't they have one since if they had their way there wouldn't be a deal in the first place? I think you are being tounge in check? I don't know I'd they had one. I don't think anyone did. Yeah haha. I'm just saying the main complaint about Trump's action in Iran seems to be he doesn't have a plan to get out of it. Seems odd then that the Democrat leaders who wanted to prevent the deal in the first place wouldn't have an alternative ready to go. It's almost as if both sides wanted to bitch about the deal, and say they opposed it, but also didn't have an alternative. Trump's the bad guy because he's making what Republicans and Democrat leadership wanted happen and they are mad he didn't come up with a plan for getting out of something they didn't want to be in. Both sides look like idiots and Trump like the useful fool for doing what both parties wanted and having to take all the blame.
How, exactly, were they supposed to "have an alternative ready to go?"
Were those senators supposed to go to Iran and say "hey, look, this deal is going to get shot down any minute now. Best get a new deal going."
You can be opposed to something being implemented and still be mature enough to work with what is actually there right now.
I genuinely see no reason why anyone would trust any deal with the US in the future without lots of assurances that it would be expensive as shit for the US to pull out.
|
On May 09 2018 07:11 Aldehyde wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 07:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:56 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2018 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:44 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:22 Introvert wrote:
Many Democrats also opposed the deal (including Schumer). While arguing the merits would clearly be a slog (look at all these posts!) this should at least be a reminder that if you want a deal, you better go through proper Senate procedure. This says nothing about any potential treaty with NK, be cause that would actually be a treaty, properly ratified. Meanwhile Trump isn't breaking the deal, except insofar far as he is taking action he is lawfully allowed to take. If the Europeans so value their airplane sales, so be it.
I hope these lessons last, but I suspect they won't. Wait, are you telling me that after pages of hearing about how stupid and ineffective Republicans are for not being able to stop Trump that Trump and the Senate leader for the Democrats are both opposed the deal? Let's put it this way. There is a reason the administration chose not to submit it as a treaty needing 67 votes. As for the part about NK, no, there are no specifics. But the argument that the North Koreans won't trust us anymore is predicated on the idea that the only option is an "executive agreement" which is wrong. I see now that Democrats that wanted to stop the deal in the first place are now saying Trump doesn't have a plan and that's their concern. Don't they have one since if they had their way there wouldn't be a deal in the first place? I think you are being tounge in check? I don't know I'd they had one. I don't think anyone did. Yeah haha. I'm just saying the main complaint about Trump's action in Iran seems to be he doesn't have a plan to get out of it. Seems odd then that the Democrat leaders who wanted to prevent the deal in the first place wouldn't have an alternative ready to go. It's almost as if both sides wanted to bitch about the deal, and say they opposed it, but also didn't have an alternative. Trump's the bad guy because he's making what Republicans and Democrat leadership wanted happen and they are mad he didn't come up with a plan for getting out of something they didn't want to be in. Both sides look like idiots and Trump like the useful fool for doing what both parties wanted and having to take all the blame. How, exactly, were they supposed to "have an alternative ready to go?" Were those senators supposed to go to Iran and say "hey, look, this deal is going to get shot down any minute now. Best get a new deal going." You can be opposed to something being implemented and still be mature enough to work with what is actually there right now. I genuinely see no reason why anyone would trust any deal with the US in the future without lots of assurances that it would be expensive as shit for the US to pull out.
I think P6 got it. They didn't want a plan. They just wanted to pledge undying loyalty to Israel and this is where it's taken them. The posturing around the Iran deal was just that, posturing. As is the lamenting (by politicians on both sides) of Trump pulling out of the deal.
|
On May 09 2018 07:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 06:56 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2018 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:44 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:22 Introvert wrote:
Many Democrats also opposed the deal (including Schumer). While arguing the merits would clearly be a slog (look at all these posts!) this should at least be a reminder that if you want a deal, you better go through proper Senate procedure. This says nothing about any potential treaty with NK, be cause that would actually be a treaty, properly ratified. Meanwhile Trump isn't breaking the deal, except insofar far as he is taking action he is lawfully allowed to take. If the Europeans so value their airplane sales, so be it.
I hope these lessons last, but I suspect they won't. Wait, are you telling me that after pages of hearing about how stupid and ineffective Republicans are for not being able to stop Trump that Trump and the Senate leader for the Democrats are both opposed the deal? Let's put it this way. There is a reason the administration chose not to submit it as a treaty needing 67 votes. As for the part about NK, no, there are no specifics. But the argument that the North Koreans won't trust us anymore is predicated on the idea that the only option is an "executive agreement" which is wrong. I see now that Democrats that wanted to stop the deal in the first place are now saying Trump doesn't have a plan and that's their concern. Don't they have one since if they had their way there wouldn't be a deal in the first place? I think you are being tounge in check? I don't know I'd they had one. I don't think anyone did. Yeah haha. I'm just saying the main complaint about Trump's action in Iran seems to be he doesn't have a plan to get out of it. Seems odd then that the Democrat leaders who wanted to prevent the deal in the first place wouldn't have an alternative ready to go. It's almost as if both sides wanted to bitch about the deal, and say they opposed it, but also didn't have an alternative. Trump's the bad guy because he's making what Republicans and Democrat leadership wanted happen and they are mad he didn't come up with a plan for getting out of something they didn't want to be in. Both sides look like idiots and Trump like the useful fool for doing what both parties wanted and having to take all the blame.
i mean it might sound unfair but it is his responsibility to come up with another plan if he doesn't want this one. The fact that plenty of people cried about the plan is meaningless as long as those people aren't the ones in charge of putting something on the table.
Criticising something should be okay, even if you don't have a better solution yourself. Or it should be imo. The deadlock and partisanship is what makes this thing that should be okay in my mind not okay anymore because people do it for the sake of itself, rather than actually trying to point out flaws.
|
I think GH is also confusing Chuck Schumer, Senator from NY, home to one of the largest pro Israel populations in the world, as the stance of the democratic party at this time. NPR just reported that congressional Democrats do not support Trump backing out of the deal and wanted it to remain in place.
On May 09 2018 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 07:11 Aldehyde wrote:On May 09 2018 07:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:56 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2018 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:44 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:22 Introvert wrote:
Many Democrats also opposed the deal (including Schumer). While arguing the merits would clearly be a slog (look at all these posts!) this should at least be a reminder that if you want a deal, you better go through proper Senate procedure. This says nothing about any potential treaty with NK, be cause that would actually be a treaty, properly ratified. Meanwhile Trump isn't breaking the deal, except insofar far as he is taking action he is lawfully allowed to take. If the Europeans so value their airplane sales, so be it.
I hope these lessons last, but I suspect they won't. Wait, are you telling me that after pages of hearing about how stupid and ineffective Republicans are for not being able to stop Trump that Trump and the Senate leader for the Democrats are both opposed the deal? Let's put it this way. There is a reason the administration chose not to submit it as a treaty needing 67 votes. As for the part about NK, no, there are no specifics. But the argument that the North Koreans won't trust us anymore is predicated on the idea that the only option is an "executive agreement" which is wrong. I see now that Democrats that wanted to stop the deal in the first place are now saying Trump doesn't have a plan and that's their concern. Don't they have one since if they had their way there wouldn't be a deal in the first place? I think you are being tounge in check? I don't know I'd they had one. I don't think anyone did. Yeah haha. I'm just saying the main complaint about Trump's action in Iran seems to be he doesn't have a plan to get out of it. Seems odd then that the Democrat leaders who wanted to prevent the deal in the first place wouldn't have an alternative ready to go. It's almost as if both sides wanted to bitch about the deal, and say they opposed it, but also didn't have an alternative. Trump's the bad guy because he's making what Republicans and Democrat leadership wanted happen and they are mad he didn't come up with a plan for getting out of something they didn't want to be in. Both sides look like idiots and Trump like the useful fool for doing what both parties wanted and having to take all the blame. How, exactly, were they supposed to "have an alternative ready to go?" Were those senators supposed to go to Iran and say "hey, look, this deal is going to get shot down any minute now. Best get a new deal going." You can be opposed to something being implemented and still be mature enough to work with what is actually there right now. I genuinely see no reason why anyone would trust any deal with the US in the future without lots of assurances that it would be expensive as shit for the US to pull out. I think P6 got it. They didn't want a plan. They just wanted to pledge undying loyalty to Israel and this is where it's taken them. The posturing around the Iran deal was just that, posturing. As is the lamenting (by politicians on both sides) of Trump pulling out of the deal.
They never had a plan, but Obama and his team did. But you need 67 votes in the senate to pass it as a treaty. The thing likely would have never gotten a floor vote, in my opinion. Mitch is to much of a coward to blow up a deal with all of our allies. Democrats voiced their concerns with the agreement, but they were never given the chance to vote on it either.
And this deal was the first step in ending half a century of hostile behaviors towards Iran. It is real disheartening to see its end being used as a way to take shots at Democrats.
|
On May 09 2018 07:17 Plansix wrote:
I think GH is also confusing Chuck Schumer, Senator from NY, home to one of the largest pro Israel populations in the world, as the stance of the democratic party at this time. NPR just reported that congressional Democrats do not support Trump backing out of the deal and wanted it to remain in place.
No confusion. Schumer is the leader of the Senate Democrats (and the things you mention as well), and Democrats don't support Trump pulling out of the deal. That's posturing.
It's wasn't just Schumer btw, it was also Manchin ( Senate Select Committee on Intelligence), Menendez (Top Dem on the Foreign Relations committee), and Cardin (Foreign Relations committee) . Plus about 20 in the house, including popular resistance champion Ted Lieu.
Of course they oppose getting in the deal and getting out of it, that's how posturing works.
They never had a plan, but Obama and his team did. But you need 67 votes in the senate to pass it as a treaty. The thing likely would have never gotten a floor vote, in my opinion. Mitch is to much of a coward to blow up a deal with all of our allies. Democrats voiced their concerns with the agreement, but they were never given the chance to vote on it either.
And this deal was the first step in ending half a century of hostile behaviors towards Iran. It is real disheartening to see its end being used as a way to take shots at Democrats.
My point is it wasn't going to pass a vote if it got to the floor anyway. So the Democratic alternative to this was essentially no deal, and no plan. Basically the same thing Trump's got and Democrats are now deriding him for, despite them having basically been in the same position or worse with never having a deal in the first place.
|
United States43823 Posts
America destroying its own diplomatic credibility over Iran. They’re leaving their own coalition for literally no benefit.
|
On May 09 2018 07:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 07:17 Plansix wrote:
I think GH is also confusing Chuck Schumer, Senator from NY, home to one of the largest pro Israel populations in the world, as the stance of the democratic party at this time. NPR just reported that congressional Democrats do not support Trump backing out of the deal and wanted it to remain in place. No confusion. Schumer is the leader of the Senate Democrats (and the things you mention as well), and Democrats don't support Trump pulling out of the deal. That's posturing. It's wasn't just Schumer btw, it was also Manchin ( Senate Select Committee on Intelligence), Menendez (Top Dem on the Foreign Relations committee), and Cardin (Foreign Relations committee) . Plus about 20 in the house, including popular resistance champion Ted Lieu. Of course they oppose getting in the deal and getting out of it, that's how posturing works. Show nested quote +They never had a plan, but Obama and his team did. But you need 67 votes in the senate to pass it as a treaty. The thing likely would have never gotten a floor vote, in my opinion. Mitch is to much of a coward to blow up a deal with all of our allies. Democrats voiced their concerns with the agreement, but they were never given the chance to vote on it either.
And this deal was the first step in ending half a century of hostile behaviors towards Iran. It is real disheartening to see its end being used as a way to take shots at Democrats. My point is it wasn't going to pass a vote if it got to the floor anyway. So the Democratic alternative to this was essentially no deal, and no plan. Basically the same thing Trump's got and Democrats are now deriding him for, despite them having basically been in the same position or worse with never having a deal in the first place.
You didnt address his point though, just because they were opposed to it then doesn't mean they cant be mature enough to say today "well we are here now, and it would be a terrible idea to repeal it without reasonable alternatives",
Given the dearth of credibility within the administration and the legislature. Its almost like you believe because they had no alternative then, them being opposed to changing the status quo now (and making U.S policy look like a wild yo-yo) must be hypocrisy because we are in a vacuum where circumstances are always constant.
They well may just be posturing and you are likelier to be right, but the fact that you so flippantly dismissed as impossible what he suggested by echoing the sentiment you already hold is an example of why extremist liberals are starting to scare me.
|
On May 09 2018 08:14 KwarK wrote:
America destroying its own diplomatic credibility over Iran. They’re leaving their own coalition for literally no benefit.
I agree, this has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen in politics.
I imagine that we shall hear all about the false information supplied to America in the coming years as well.
|
On May 09 2018 08:15 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 07:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 07:17 Plansix wrote:
I think GH is also confusing Chuck Schumer, Senator from NY, home to one of the largest pro Israel populations in the world, as the stance of the democratic party at this time. NPR just reported that congressional Democrats do not support Trump backing out of the deal and wanted it to remain in place. No confusion. Schumer is the leader of the Senate Democrats (and the things you mention as well), and Democrats don't support Trump pulling out of the deal. That's posturing. It's wasn't just Schumer btw, it was also Manchin ( Senate Select Committee on Intelligence), Menendez (Top Dem on the Foreign Relations committee), and Cardin (Foreign Relations committee) . Plus about 20 in the house, including popular resistance champion Ted Lieu. Of course they oppose getting in the deal and getting out of it, that's how posturing works. They never had a plan, but Obama and his team did. But you need 67 votes in the senate to pass it as a treaty. The thing likely would have never gotten a floor vote, in my opinion. Mitch is to much of a coward to blow up a deal with all of our allies. Democrats voiced their concerns with the agreement, but they were never given the chance to vote on it either.
And this deal was the first step in ending half a century of hostile behaviors towards Iran. It is real disheartening to see its end being used as a way to take shots at Democrats. My point is it wasn't going to pass a vote if it got to the floor anyway. So the Democratic alternative to this was essentially no deal, and no plan. Basically the same thing Trump's got and Democrats are now deriding him for, despite them having basically been in the same position or worse with never having a deal in the first place. You didnt address his point though, just because they were opposed to it then doesn't mean they cant be mature enough to say today "well we are here now, and it would be a terrible idea to repeal it without reasonable alternatives", Given the dearth of credibility within the administration and the legislature. Its almost like you believe because they had no alternative then, them being opposed to changing the status quo now (and making U.S policy look like a wild yo-yo) must be hypocrisy because we are in a vacuum where circumstances are always constant. They well may just be posturing and you are likelier to be right, but the fact that you so flippantly dismissed as impossible what he suggested by echoing the sentiment you already hold is an example of why extremist liberals are starting to scare me.
I mean I did, it's posturing. Leaving the deal is a bad idea, but so was opposing it and there was never anything better than the deal on the table. They didn't want in, had they got what they wanted there would be no deal for Trump to withdraw from, but since they didn't get what they wanted, now they get to oppose Trump leaving the deal that wouldn't exist if they had their way.
It's all a big game to them and the absurdity of it a joke.
|
It seems Trump is more interested in protecting Israel and Saudi interests then working with his EU allies to bring stability to the middle east or give two shits that this could hurt his allies trading with Iran. How is he going to negotiate with Kim for North Korea's denuclearization after America can't even keep a promise they made. Sooner or later EU and Asia will get fed up with USA's warmongering efforts and America will find itself in isolation, when countries start ignoring this sanctions for their own interests...
|
On May 09 2018 07:16 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 07:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:56 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2018 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:44 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:22 Introvert wrote:
Many Democrats also opposed the deal (including Schumer). While arguing the merits would clearly be a slog (look at all these posts!) this should at least be a reminder that if you want a deal, you better go through proper Senate procedure. This says nothing about any potential treaty with NK, be cause that would actually be a treaty, properly ratified. Meanwhile Trump isn't breaking the deal, except insofar far as he is taking action he is lawfully allowed to take. If the Europeans so value their airplane sales, so be it.
I hope these lessons last, but I suspect they won't. Wait, are you telling me that after pages of hearing about how stupid and ineffective Republicans are for not being able to stop Trump that Trump and the Senate leader for the Democrats are both opposed the deal? Let's put it this way. There is a reason the administration chose not to submit it as a treaty needing 67 votes. As for the part about NK, no, there are no specifics. But the argument that the North Koreans won't trust us anymore is predicated on the idea that the only option is an "executive agreement" which is wrong. I see now that Democrats that wanted to stop the deal in the first place are now saying Trump doesn't have a plan and that's their concern. Don't they have one since if they had their way there wouldn't be a deal in the first place? I think you are being tounge in check? I don't know I'd they had one. I don't think anyone did. Yeah haha. I'm just saying the main complaint about Trump's action in Iran seems to be he doesn't have a plan to get out of it. Seems odd then that the Democrat leaders who wanted to prevent the deal in the first place wouldn't have an alternative ready to go. It's almost as if both sides wanted to bitch about the deal, and say they opposed it, but also didn't have an alternative. Trump's the bad guy because he's making what Republicans and Democrat leadership wanted happen and they are mad he didn't come up with a plan for getting out of something they didn't want to be in. Both sides look like idiots and Trump like the useful fool for doing what both parties wanted and having to take all the blame. i mean it might sound unfair but it is his responsibility to come up with another plan if he doesn't want this one. The fact that plenty of people cried about the plan is meaningless as long as those people aren't the ones in charge of putting something on the table. Criticising something should be okay, even if you don't have a better solution yourself. Or it should be imo. The deadlock and partisanship is what makes this thing that should be okay in my mind not okay anymore because people do it for the sake of itself, rather than actually trying to point out flaws.
I am not a big fan of criticizing stuff without at least a rough idea how to solve the problem in a better way. It is very easy to say "X is bad". But if X is a solution to a real problem, just stating that you don't like the solution, but without the faintest idea of how to solve the underlying problem is politics done by teenagers. Even if the solution you propose isn't one that can be easily implemented, that is fine. Just don't go around constantly declaring that everything everyone else does is bad. That is the simplest of stances, and not a very convincing or productive one.
|
On May 09 2018 08:34 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 07:16 Toadesstern wrote:On May 09 2018 07:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:56 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2018 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:44 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:22 Introvert wrote:
Many Democrats also opposed the deal (including Schumer). While arguing the merits would clearly be a slog (look at all these posts!) this should at least be a reminder that if you want a deal, you better go through proper Senate procedure. This says nothing about any potential treaty with NK, be cause that would actually be a treaty, properly ratified. Meanwhile Trump isn't breaking the deal, except insofar far as he is taking action he is lawfully allowed to take. If the Europeans so value their airplane sales, so be it.
I hope these lessons last, but I suspect they won't. Wait, are you telling me that after pages of hearing about how stupid and ineffective Republicans are for not being able to stop Trump that Trump and the Senate leader for the Democrats are both opposed the deal? Let's put it this way. There is a reason the administration chose not to submit it as a treaty needing 67 votes. As for the part about NK, no, there are no specifics. But the argument that the North Koreans won't trust us anymore is predicated on the idea that the only option is an "executive agreement" which is wrong. I see now that Democrats that wanted to stop the deal in the first place are now saying Trump doesn't have a plan and that's their concern. Don't they have one since if they had their way there wouldn't be a deal in the first place? I think you are being tounge in check? I don't know I'd they had one. I don't think anyone did. Yeah haha. I'm just saying the main complaint about Trump's action in Iran seems to be he doesn't have a plan to get out of it. Seems odd then that the Democrat leaders who wanted to prevent the deal in the first place wouldn't have an alternative ready to go. It's almost as if both sides wanted to bitch about the deal, and say they opposed it, but also didn't have an alternative. Trump's the bad guy because he's making what Republicans and Democrat leadership wanted happen and they are mad he didn't come up with a plan for getting out of something they didn't want to be in. Both sides look like idiots and Trump like the useful fool for doing what both parties wanted and having to take all the blame. i mean it might sound unfair but it is his responsibility to come up with another plan if he doesn't want this one. The fact that plenty of people cried about the plan is meaningless as long as those people aren't the ones in charge of putting something on the table. Criticising something should be okay, even if you don't have a better solution yourself. Or it should be imo. The deadlock and partisanship is what makes this thing that should be okay in my mind not okay anymore because people do it for the sake of itself, rather than actually trying to point out flaws. I am not a big fan of criticizing stuff without at least a rough idea how to solve the problem in a better way. It is very easy to say "X is bad". But if X is a solution to a real problem, just stating that you don't like the solution, but without the faintest idea of how to solve the underlying problem is politics done by teenagers. Even if the solution you propose isn't one that can be easily implemented, that is fine. Just don't go around constantly declaring that everything everyone else does is bad. That is the simplest of stances, and not a very convincing or productive one.
I disagree. Or at least somewhat.
Saying "I think this iran deal is stupid" is pointless if there's no alternative to it, yes.
But someone saying "I think there's a flaw in this deal about it not dealing with ICBMs whatsoever", without pointing to an alternative (because the deal was already in place and wouldn't be renegotiated) isn't that pointless imo. If you're in the opposition I'm totally fine with that kind of behavior. It goes enough into detail for people to understand what it is about it you don't like and gives them a chance to at least look at that. Whereas a flat "stupid deal" doesn't provide that chance because people are left asking "well, what about it is stupid in your mind?"
But that assumes you have parties that are willing to work together, hence me saying that I don't mind it in theory (or whatever I said), and don't think there should be something wrong with that. The fact that that basic assumption isn't in place is where problems start.
|
On May 09 2018 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 08:15 Rebs wrote:On May 09 2018 07:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 07:17 Plansix wrote:
I think GH is also confusing Chuck Schumer, Senator from NY, home to one of the largest pro Israel populations in the world, as the stance of the democratic party at this time. NPR just reported that congressional Democrats do not support Trump backing out of the deal and wanted it to remain in place. No confusion. Schumer is the leader of the Senate Democrats (and the things you mention as well), and Democrats don't support Trump pulling out of the deal. That's posturing. It's wasn't just Schumer btw, it was also Manchin ( Senate Select Committee on Intelligence), Menendez (Top Dem on the Foreign Relations committee), and Cardin (Foreign Relations committee) . Plus about 20 in the house, including popular resistance champion Ted Lieu. Of course they oppose getting in the deal and getting out of it, that's how posturing works. They never had a plan, but Obama and his team did. But you need 67 votes in the senate to pass it as a treaty. The thing likely would have never gotten a floor vote, in my opinion. Mitch is to much of a coward to blow up a deal with all of our allies. Democrats voiced their concerns with the agreement, but they were never given the chance to vote on it either.
And this deal was the first step in ending half a century of hostile behaviors towards Iran. It is real disheartening to see its end being used as a way to take shots at Democrats. My point is it wasn't going to pass a vote if it got to the floor anyway. So the Democratic alternative to this was essentially no deal, and no plan. Basically the same thing Trump's got and Democrats are now deriding him for, despite them having basically been in the same position or worse with never having a deal in the first place. You didnt address his point though, just because they were opposed to it then doesn't mean they cant be mature enough to say today "well we are here now, and it would be a terrible idea to repeal it without reasonable alternatives", Given the dearth of credibility within the administration and the legislature. Its almost like you believe because they had no alternative then, them being opposed to changing the status quo now (and making U.S policy look like a wild yo-yo) must be hypocrisy because we are in a vacuum where circumstances are always constant. They well may just be posturing and you are likelier to be right, but the fact that you so flippantly dismissed as impossible what he suggested by echoing the sentiment you already hold is an example of why extremist liberals are starting to scare me. I mean I did, it's posturing. Leaving the deal is a bad idea, but so was opposing it and there was never anything better than the deal on the table. They didn't want in, had they got what they wanted there would be no deal for Trump to withdraw from, but since they didn't get what they wanted, now they get to oppose Trump leaving the deal that wouldn't exist if they had their way. It's all a big game to them and the absurdity of it a joke.
I disagree with this characterization. Many Democrats in the Senate were unwilling to voice support the deal, but accepted it as the deal Obama and our allies worked out. There was no push within the Democratic party to end the Iran Deal since it was implemented and were willing to see if the deal worked out. They oppose the way the Trump administration ended, forcing our allies choose between keeping their word or backing the US.
Also, Obama and all the people who worked out the deal with Iran were Democrats.
|
5930 Posts
Someone probably already posted but it feels like this is getting buried under the Iran talk. AT&T is basically admitting to bribing Donald Trump:
For people who might not remember, AT&T wanted to merge with Time Warner and a whole host of other things. They paid Cohen for "insight". Coincidentally, this consulting deal ended when Net Neutrality got repealed.
While every country has to deal with special interest groups and lobbyists, I don't think I've seen such open corruption from the federal government since ever. Hell, there's also news that a Russian oligarch (lmao) has been funneling money into Cohen's coffers while Trump is President.
The Trump Administration is basically the Simpsons three stooges theory in action. There's so much corruption and bullshit happening that its impossible to keep track of all of it.
|
On May 09 2018 08:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 08:15 Rebs wrote:On May 09 2018 07:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 07:17 Plansix wrote:
I think GH is also confusing Chuck Schumer, Senator from NY, home to one of the largest pro Israel populations in the world, as the stance of the democratic party at this time. NPR just reported that congressional Democrats do not support Trump backing out of the deal and wanted it to remain in place. No confusion. Schumer is the leader of the Senate Democrats (and the things you mention as well), and Democrats don't support Trump pulling out of the deal. That's posturing. It's wasn't just Schumer btw, it was also Manchin ( Senate Select Committee on Intelligence), Menendez (Top Dem on the Foreign Relations committee), and Cardin (Foreign Relations committee) . Plus about 20 in the house, including popular resistance champion Ted Lieu. Of course they oppose getting in the deal and getting out of it, that's how posturing works. They never had a plan, but Obama and his team did. But you need 67 votes in the senate to pass it as a treaty. The thing likely would have never gotten a floor vote, in my opinion. Mitch is to much of a coward to blow up a deal with all of our allies. Democrats voiced their concerns with the agreement, but they were never given the chance to vote on it either.
And this deal was the first step in ending half a century of hostile behaviors towards Iran. It is real disheartening to see its end being used as a way to take shots at Democrats. My point is it wasn't going to pass a vote if it got to the floor anyway. So the Democratic alternative to this was essentially no deal, and no plan. Basically the same thing Trump's got and Democrats are now deriding him for, despite them having basically been in the same position or worse with never having a deal in the first place. You didnt address his point though, just because they were opposed to it then doesn't mean they cant be mature enough to say today "well we are here now, and it would be a terrible idea to repeal it without reasonable alternatives", Given the dearth of credibility within the administration and the legislature. Its almost like you believe because they had no alternative then, them being opposed to changing the status quo now (and making U.S policy look like a wild yo-yo) must be hypocrisy because we are in a vacuum where circumstances are always constant. They well may just be posturing and you are likelier to be right, but the fact that you so flippantly dismissed as impossible what he suggested by echoing the sentiment you already hold is an example of why extremist liberals are starting to scare me. I mean I did, it's posturing. Leaving the deal is a bad idea, but so was opposing it and there was never anything better than the deal on the table. They didn't want in, had they got what they wanted there would be no deal for Trump to withdraw from, but since they didn't get what they wanted, now they get to oppose Trump leaving the deal that wouldn't exist if they had their way. It's all a big game to them and the absurdity of it a joke. I disagree with this characterization. Many Democrats in the Senate were unwilling to voice support the deal, but accepted it as the deal Obama and our allies worked out. There was no push within the Democratic party to end the Iran Deal since it was implemented and were willing to see if the deal worked out. They oppose the way the Trump administration ended, forcing our allies choose between keeping their word or backing the US. Also, Obama and all the people who worked out the deal with Iran were Democrats.
Fair enough, there was a divide between the foreign policy leaders of the party and the rank and file members and senate leadership was overruled (by way of not making it a treaty and existing at the discretion of the next president), I can't be sure off the top of my head but I think I tried to make that distinction clear.
|
Another piece:
This Iran deal does look like hot news to bury other news coming out on Michael Cohen. I’m going to check now, but I wonder if during Nixon time, Nixon was also producing counter stories and having publishers push those narratives.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/us/politics/michael-cohen-shell-company-payments.html
A shell company that Michael D. Cohen used to pay hush money to a pornographic film actress received payments totaling more than $1 million from an American company linked to a Russian oligarch and several corporations with business before the Trump administration, according to documents and interviews.
Financial records reviewed by The New York Times show that Mr. Cohen, President Trump’s personal lawyer and longtime fixer, used the shell company, Essential Consultants L.L.C., for an array of business activities that went far beyond what was publicly known. Transactions totaling at least $4.4 million flowed through Essential Consultants starting shortly before Mr. Trump was elected president and continuing to this January, the records show.
And this is the president that visits his golf course almost every weekend on the tax payers dime. If he truly is in debt as a lot of these left media states, I’m curious if that money is truly going back to his “investors” at this point.
|
The farce about the Iran deal pullout is that the allies aren't in on it, so they will continue to trade with Iran. The only thing that is getting pulled out are the inspectors. There is no appetite for aggressive war against Iran. So in two months we will have resumed warhead production and Iran still trading with Europe/Russia/China under zombified JCPOA.
|
At what point does Trump’s actions serve as circumstantial evidence that he is attempting to undermine the country (presumably for personal gain)? This question applies equally to members of Congress.
|
On May 09 2018 08:14 KwarK wrote:
America destroying its own diplomatic credibility over Iran. They’re leaving their own coalition for literally no benefit.
The way you put it, I woulda thought the US-European coalition was some kind of of global military-economic junta. I was always under the impression they were united by a common belief in democracy, human rights, and global prosperity. They're allowed to disagree on the best way to achieve that goal, no?
You're all going to have a hard time arguing the the deal was working as intended when Iranians recently held their largest protest in a decade and it was literally about the sanction funds going to military adventurism rather than the public good. That's hardly part of the common interests above, and Iran was allowed to pursue nuclear weapons again in 7 years.
Considering the internal divisions that the EU itself faces, I struggle to understand why the Europeans are flabbergasted when they have tactical divisions with their partners across the Atlantic as well. It's the nature of managing a coalition. To say that the US is leaving the coalition is silly hyperbole.
------------------
On a side note, I'm utterly baffled how (other than media attention) the US leaving the Iran deal is a bigger affront to the US-European coalition than multiple European countries trying to lift sanctions on a major shared geopolitical adversary that just tried to interfere in the US's election (Russia).... in the name of cheaper oil?
I'm not trying to start a trans-Atlantic internet battle (I think the US-Euro relationship is positive and important and I'm ambivalent about the Iran deal withdrawal), but more interested in incredible power of media attention and the apparent dysfunction of democracies in general.
|
On May 09 2018 10:26 Ryzel wrote:
At what point does Trump’s actions serve as circumstantial evidence that he is attempting to undermine the country (presumably for personal gain)? This question applies equally to members of Congress.
from a legal/court standpoint? or a more generalized one? (and if so which perspective, cuz there's a lot of options).
or is this rhetorical?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
