The Next President is...

[Lawman]

The Iran deal wasn't perfect, but that's the Republican mindset right now...everything is a zero sum game.  There is no compromise, and if we want to win, someone else has to lose or "bend the knee".  Many experts agreed that while the JCPOA wasn't great, it at a minimum largely froze their program and significantly extended their breakout timeline.  We aren't going to get a country to voluntarily give up nukes, be it Iran or North Korea.

We've trashed the JCPOA for what?  Nothing.  If you had a better deal then great, but so far there is nothing.  You feign concern that Iran could possibly circumvent the JCPOA, so you invalidate it entirely and start aggressively posturing and expect things to get better.  Iran saw what happened to Lybia, and Iran saw what happened to North Korea...what path do you think they will choose?  At least with the JCPOA we had 10 years worth of negotiations and culture change in the country to possibly produce a different outcome.  We just took the 50m target and moved it up to the 5m mark.

For North Korea they already have the bomb, and a means to deliver.  They have made no real concessions of substance, and for some reason despite North Korea stating numerous times in the past that they want to denuclearize, THIS time we believe them, and it's a total win even though there are zero specifics.

In the end I honestly don't care if lil Kim keeps the bomb, as long as we don't get dragged into a bloody war and he keeps his nukes secured.  Opening up relations with a dictator sucks, but the best you can hope for is to pipe in some K-pop, NBA and ISP blockers and go for the long-term cultural victory.  If Trump can convince his base this is the "best deal ever" then so be it.  My concern is that Trump believes himself that lil Kim will actually denuclearize.  When Trump finds out that's not the case, he will likely feel like his loyalty was betrayed and push us closer to war.

Remember perfect is the enemy of good.  Trump says he wants perfect.

 

Trump didn’t show up day 1 in office and flip over the damn desk on the deal.

 

He went a year, certifying, threatening, and finally making good on his promise to either move this crap deal that was nothing more than a bunch of concessions in blood money to keep the Iranian backed militias collocated with us in Iraq to not start shooting at us. Ever hang out around the PMF guys at Q-West? Remember the 24 hour stop supports we had for particular groups in Mosul because of overt threats they gave to the accompanying Americans?

 

Iran continued to do plenty of nasty crap and the insinuation their program was stopped when we deliberately weren’t allowed to check military sites is a wishful hope at best.

 

 

Turn the sanctions back on and hit them repeatedly in the stomach until they come to the table. But instead now because everybody has to #resist they are more interested in empowering the mullahs and saying we should be nice to them than recognizing that his form of hardball diplomacy where you actually back up threats (as apposed to Obama’s redlines) has actually made headway where the “smart people” said it was impossible.

[drewpey]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

Hard to then take you seriously when you say you care about people less fortunate than yourself.  But I appreciate your honesty!

So you can only be taken seriously on causes you donate money to?  There is a lot of organizations out there that need help, and I donate to those that hit closer to home than ones that provide healthcare to the unfortunate.

[drewpey]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

 

Trump didn’t show up day 1 in office and flip over the damn desk on the deal.

 

He went a year, certifying, threatening, and finally making good on his promise to either move this crap deal that was nothing more than a bunch of concessions in blood money to keep the Iranian backed militias collocated with us in Iraq to not start shooting at us. Ever hang out around the PMF guys at Q-West? Remember the 24 hour stop supports we had for particular groups in Mosul because of overt threats they gave to the accompanying Americans?

 

Iran continued to do plenty of nasty crap and the insinuation their program was stopped when we deliberately weren’t allowed to check military sites is a wishful hope at best.

 

 

Turn the sanctions back on and hit them repeatedly in the stomach until they come to the table. But instead now because everybody has to #resist they are more interested in empowering the mullahs and saying we should be nice to them than recognizing that his form of hardball diplomacy where you actually back up threats (as apposed to Obama’s redlines) has actually made headway where the “smart people” said it was impossible.

I hope you are right, but Obama tried the sanctions routine as well and you can see where that got us.  Sanctions are great against countries with few resources, but economies adjust, and Iran still has lots of oil, and plenty of connections with bad actors to get what they want.

Here's my prediction: Trump starts tough talk with Iran, similar to North Korea...brings us close to a crisis, similar to North Korea, then defuses the situation he created with a fancy piece of paper saying "we'll work towards something", similar to North Korea, and we can pat ourselves on the back, and claim that "these things take time, please keep electing us" similar to North Korea.  Meanwhile Iran sees the writing on the wall, and restarts their nuke program.

Also comical that you wedge the resist thing in there.  Republicans love to whine about not being in lock-step with the president until the other team gets in power, then they lock things up.  How can the democrats not play the obstruction card?  There have been no attempts to cross the aisle, and repeated attempts to bargain in bad faith by creating hostage-like situations (DACA).  Plus it paid out in spades for you over the past 6+ years, and we didn't get anything from our efforts to cross the aisle.  It's your recipe...don't act like you've never tasted it before.

[drewpey]

On a tangent...lots of snowflakes melting down online about Sarah Huckster-Sanders being booted from a restaurant.  Lots of twitter rage, and completely nuking any review website for the restaurant...very comical.  Seems like you regressives have a bit of cognitive dissonance problem with what powers private businesses should be allowed to do.

[HeloDude]

42 minutes ago, drewpey said:

So you can only be taken seriously on causes you donate money to?  There is a lot of organizations out there that need help, and I donate to those that hit closer to home than ones that provide healthcare to the unfortunate.

I just don't believe you when you say that you want to help those people...because if you did, then you would it voluntarily.  Most progressives I know are you like you:  Tell people they're heartless if they don't want their taxes raised to help people but then refuse to voluntarily help those same people. 

[waveshaper]

17 hours ago, drewpey said:

  Iran saw what happened to Lybia, and Iran saw what happened to North Korea...what path do you think they will choose?  At least with the JCPOA we had 10 years worth of negotiations and culture change in the country to possibly produce a different outcome. 

• The Libya situation was a little different then the Iran JCPOA deal (See NPT below). It seems that getting the Senate to ratify these US Nuke agreements helps the overall success rate of said treaties/agreements; Here's a list of most of the US Nuke Treaties/agreements since we started negotiating this stuff with the main focus on Senate ratification;   
•  
• Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (prohibited Nuke detonations in these environments - space/atmosphere/underwater ); Ratified by the Senate in Sept 1963. 
• Seabed Arms Control Treaty (No emplacement of Nukes on Sea-Bed/Ocean Floor and in the subsoil); Ratified by the Senate in 1972. 
• Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); Ratified by the Senate and went into effect in 1970. In 2003 Libya agreed to the NPT protocols and dismantled its Nuke program with US/UK/IAEA assistance and verification.
• ABM Treaty (US/USSR); Ratified by the Senate in 1972.
•  SALT 1  (US/USSR) Ratified by the Senate in 1972.
• Threshold Test Ban Treaty; Interesting, it was signed by the President in 1974 but didn't go into effect until the Senate finally ratified the TTBT in 1990.
• SALT 11 was never officially ratified by the Senate but it was signed by President Carter in 1979.  The Senate didn't ratify SALT 11 because of the Soviet/Afghan War. In 1982, President Reagan abandoned/CNXed SALT 11 and undertook a new path by initiating the START talks/negotiations with the USSR.
• START-1; Ratified by the Senate.
• START-11; Ratified by the Senate.
• Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty; The Senate still hasn't ratified this UN Treaty. 
• SORT; Ratified by the Senate.
• NEW START; Ratified by the Senate.
• JPCOA; "Never ratified by Senate". See SALT 11/President Reagans actions.
•  
•  

Edited June 25, 2018 by waveshaper

[MooseAg03]

On a tangent...lots of snowflakes melting down online about Sarah Huckster-Sanders being booted from a restaurant.  Lots of twitter rage, and completely nuking any review website for the restaurant...very comical.  Seems like you regressives have a bit of cognitive dissonance problem with what powers private businesses should be allowed to do.

But bankrupting small business owners because they have a religious objection to baking a cake for a gay wedding is ok?

Private businesses either can refuse service or they can’t, which is it?

[Azimuth]

14 hours ago, brickhistory said:

And you forgot to mention the Senate's advise and consent role in this process.

Which is not my point.

Regardless of political leanings, one's eyebrow should at least raise when finding evidence of a NSC staffer contacting the campaign manager of a candidate, never mind about sensitive senior personnel matters.

That sounds almost almost as bad as a former campaign manager currently sitting in pretrial confinement being charged with countless federal felonies.

[di1630]

On a tangent...lots of snowflakes melting down online about Sarah Huckster-Sanders being booted from a restaurant.  Lots of twitter rage, and completely nuking any review website for the restaurant...very comical.  Seems like you regressives have a bit of cognitive dissonance problem with what powers private businesses should be allowed to do.

Geezus, just more hypocritical stuff from the left. I guess “tolerance and compassion” in 2018 aren’t what I thought they were.

And as far as the cake thing. The guy doesn’t bake Halloween cakes or any other thing his conscience doesn’t allow him to glorify in art per his religion. He happily serves anyone cupcakes etc. Who comes to his business. I thought he sounded like an A—hole too reading CNN til I saw his interview and heard his beliefs.

I’m quasi left in my social views but I can’t stand the left being a—holes then playing the “we are doing it on the name of tolerance!”

The progressive left are the hateful, bigot racists in reality if you examine the raw data. Look what happens when a black or woman speaks out of turn. Look how they treat people who don’t hold their views. 2016 really exposed the true character of progressives.

[drewpey]

8 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

 

But bankrupting small business owners because they have a religious objection to baking a cake for a gay wedding is ok?

Private businesses either can refuse service or they can’t, which is it?

 

They can as long as you arent being prejudiced against a  protected class...it's called the rule of law...aren't republicans supposed to be the party of law and order? Only pay attention to the laws you like.

[snoopyeast]

The left is beating the "just because it's legal, doesn't make it right" drum right now.  So can we selectively apply that phase too?

[drewpey]

29 minutes ago, di1630 said:

I’m quasi left in my social views but...

...you still support illegal treatment of protected classes?

[drewpey]

1 minute ago, snoopyeast said:

The left is beating the "just because it's legal, doesn't make it right" drum right now.  So can we selectively apply that phase too?

Legality vs ethics. The left is due for a big wake up call when the Mueller report comes...I've been saying this all along. There will likely be a lot of uncomfortable things in there that are perfectly legal. Hopefully at some point in the near future Congress can sit down and have a civilized discussion of where we want those boundaries of acceptable behaviour to fall for candidates and pass laws to clearly define that.

[tac airlifter]

22 minutes ago, drewpey said:

They can as long as you arent being prejudiced against a  protected class...it's called the rule of law...aren't republicans supposed to be the party of law and order? Only pay attention to the laws you like.

Homosexuals are a protected class and people with seriously held religious convictions aren’t?  Do we get to vote on who is a protected class?  Do I have a say in who is allowed more equality than me?  And can anyone reconcile the idea of a “protected class” with a society of equals?  The hypocrisy in your viewpoint is staggering.  Business owners either can or can’t dictate who they serve.  In my opinion, they can and I’m fine with Sanders being tossed out.  But your opinion apparently is that rules can change to enable outcomes you like.

i enjoy listening to the debates in this thread, and I think the group here does it with more civility than anywhere else.  So it’s interesting to cut to the heart of these debates on both sides, it allows us to understand the logic driving other viewpoints.  That’s cool.  But without standards applied equally this whole form of government falls apart.  

[BashiChuni]

She’s a press secretary. Not a policy maker. Her job literally is to say the things her boss tells her to say. 

Hilarious they kicked her out. Big babies. But by all means continue to “resist” lol. 

Lotta dangerous talk coming out of the left these days. I assume y’all still claim Maxine Waters? JFC 

[brickhistory]

2 hours ago, Azimuth said:

That sounds almost almost as bad as a former campaign manager currently sitting in pretrial confinement being charged with countless federal felonies.

Except A) only one campaign manager is being confined and B) an NSC staffer was providing senior defense personnel information to a campaign manager.  

If/when a current Administration person does similar shenanigans (and they will), will you be as tolerant and accepting?

I'm not a liberal (current meaning = progressive).  I don't support most liberal causes.  One rule of law for all is supposed to be a classic liberal cause which is one I support

Misusing the federal government for partisan gain is, or should be, non-partisan.

I assure you, if it's not considered so and people aren't punished for shady actions, it will get worse with both sides misusing the powers.  All fun and political games until it's used against you.

[waveshaper]

7 hours ago, drewpey said:

Legality vs ethics. The left is due for a big wake up call when the Mueller report comes...I've been saying this all along. There will likely be a lot of uncomfortable things in there that are perfectly legal. Hopefully at some point in the near future Congress can sit down and have a civilized discussion of where we want those boundaries of acceptable behaviour to fall for candidates and pass laws to clearly define that.

IMHO:<)  it might be time to finally legalize all this political opposition research crap and let the DNC/RNC run their own show. They should put a opposition branch of zealot Democrats and a opposition branch of  zealot Republicans in the: FBI, Justice Department, Intel Community, State Department, Media, DoD, FISA Court, etc, etc. These folks would be legally authorized to; collude/conspire with whomever they want, hire and embed spies (both foreign and domestic) in each others campaigns, get automatic approval for FISA warrants/phone taps/email thefts etc, conduct cyber attacks, pay for play, etc, etc.

 

The kicker; No programs/materials can be classified, no redactions, and all material/info must be publically released by the opposition media branch NLT 7 days after its been collected. Also, "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" will become a new law and violators of this law will be prosecuted. If the violator spills the beans and hires a lawyer it will be treated similar to how we penalize hate crimes, with triple the jail time/fines for the violator and the shyster lawyer. Key point; Fully informed voters = diligent judge, jury, executioners during our election cycles.

 

Downside; The DNC has an advantage over the RNC when it comes to filling their FBI branch billets with tested/experienced folks because all they have to do is rehire all the top dogs that just got fired:<)

 

Sent from Outlook

Edited June 25, 2018 by waveshaper

[di1630]

...you still support illegal treatment of protected classes?

What are you referring to?

[Azimuth]

2 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Except A) only one campaign manager is being confined and B) an NSC staffer was providing senior defense personnel information to a campaign manager.  

If/when a current Administration person does similar shenanigans (and they will), will you be as tolerant and accepting?

I'm not a liberal (current meaning = progressive).  I don't support most liberal causes.  One rule of law for all is supposed to be a classic liberal cause which is one I support

Misusing the federal government for partisan gain is, or should be, non-partisan.

I assure you, if it's not considered so and people aren't punished for shady actions, it will get worse with both sides misusing the powers.  All fun and political games until it's used against you.

Accepting of what? Is said shenanigans against the law? Actual law, not the law of public opinion. To be punished for something means he broke the law, correct?

Edited June 25, 2018 by Azimuth

[Azimuth]

3 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Homosexuals are a protected class and people with seriously held religious convictions aren’t?  Do we get to vote on who is a protected class?  Do I have a say in who is allowed more equality than me?  And can anyone reconcile the idea of a “protected class” with a society of equals?  The hypocrisy in your viewpoint is staggering.  Business owners either can or can’t dictate who they serve.  In my opinion, they can and I’m fine with Sanders being tossed out.  But your opinion apparently is that rules can change to enable outcomes you like.

i enjoy listening to the debates in this thread, and I think the group here does it with more civility than anywhere else.  So it’s interesting to cut to the heart of these debates on both sides, it allows us to understand the logic driving other viewpoints.  That’s cool.  But without standards applied equally this whole form of government falls apart.  

Rules can change to enable outcomes you like? That happens all the time, reference the current military justice system with the Article 120 assembly line because of Sen Gillibrand and Sen McCaskill getting pissed about the U.S. v. Wilkerson case being overturned by the NAF/CC. Just change the UCMJ to stomp on the rights of the accused via things like Military Rule of Evidence changes, SVC’s whom try to act like little assistance trial counsels for the the Goverment, and Commanders scared shitless of getting their careers tanked not applying the “reasonable person” standard when determining if something should go to trial or not. The 5th and 14th Amendment guarantee an accused due process, however instead of making sure justice is administered, lawyers and commanders are too busy trying to circumvent around those rights to get those convictions.

But hey, the branches look tough on sexual assault now, right?

People try and succeed at changing the rules to try to get future outcomes they’d like to see.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Azimuth

[di1630]

...you still support illegal treatment of protected classes?

The guy doesn’t make specialty art items he doesn’t endorse. He serves everyone that comes in.

There is a HUGE difference but then again this is the same crowd that confuses legal immigration with illegal immigration and doesn’t understand having a d-ck makes you a male.

[nsplayr]

5 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Homosexuals are a protected class and people with seriously held religious convictions aren’t?

Yes. Religion is a protected class in that you can't say, "I don't serve Christians/Jews/Muslims here," but not in the sense that any specific religious beliefs are protected, nor can those beliefs allow you to discriminate against another protected class, e.g. I'm a Jew and therefore I won't serve Muslims, etc.

5 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Do we get to vote on who is a protected class?

Since the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary interpret the laws passed by Congress, and the executive branch writes most of the rules that federal agencies adhere to...yes, vote for elected officials who promise to change or adhere to the set of beliefs you share.

It is however a feature, not a bug, that there isn't direct democracy to determine the civil rights of others, i.e. tyranny of the majority. California's Proposition 8 and it's eventual nullification in the form of court rulings is a good recent example of the courts basically saying no, even a popular majority of voters can't decide certain issues.

5 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Business owners either can or can’t dictate who they serve.

Like most things, it's not black or white. Standard WIC answer applies: it depends.

Edited June 25, 2018 by nsplayr

[nsplayr]

5 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Lotta dangerous talk coming out of the left these days. I assume y’all still claim Maxine Waters? JFC 

Maxine Waters is not great and I would not vote for her. Our political discourse is not in a good place right now and I'm a fan of people keeping it civil whenever possible.

That being said...making threats is not something any elected official should be doing, so I'm assuming you'd like the President to turn down the heat on this situation right?

What do you think he means when he says, "Be careful what you wish for Max!" to his very large audience of followers?

Edited June 25, 2018 by nsplayr

[nsplayr]

5 hours ago, brickhistory said:

I assure you, if it's not considered so and people aren't punished for shady actions, it will get worse with both sides misusing the powers.  All fun and political games until it's used against you.

I am not a fan of the revolving door of top administration officials moving seamlessly between those positions and positions lobbying, sitting on corporate boards, etc. So ok, a NSC official emailed a very recently-departed admin official who was working on a political campaign and discussed what should probably have been privileged analysis of that official's view on who should be the next CJCS, let's file that under, "That's not great."

Meanwhile, Paul Manafort is in jail for witness tampering while out on $10m bail, and was originally indicted for unregistered lobbying for a foreign power, money laundering, bank fraud, and conspiracy to defraud the United States, among other charges.

So in the grand scale of things that are shady...you be the judge. No one is above the law, you and I can agree on that, but let's differentiate between things that are untoward privileges of an elite class of power brokers, and things that are actually, no-shitter federal felonies.

Edited June 25, 2018 by nsplayr

[nsplayr]

4 hours ago, waveshaper said:

They should put a opposition branch of zealot Democrats and a opposition branch of  zealot Republicans in the: FBI, Justice Department, Intel Community, State Department, Media, DoD, FISA Court, etc, etc. These folks would be legally authorized to; collude/conspire with whomever they want, hire and embed spies (both foreign and domestic) in each others campaigns, get automatic approval for FISA warrants/phone taps/email thefts emails etc, conduct cyber attacks, pay for play, etc, etc.

I know it was probably said tongue-in-cheek, but this is an incredibly terrible idea that flies in the face of everything our institutions and the rule of law stand for. When you swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, it's this kind of stuff that you should be standing against, not advocating for.