hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 2385 of 2414 FirstFirst ... 1385188522852335237523822383238423852386238723882395 ... LastLast
Results 47,681 to 47,700 of 48276

Thread: USA Politics Thread

  1. #47681
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    1/10 (for effort)
    Yes, that's about what I would rate your comment about Republican drugs and gayness. Maybe 0.5/10 if I'm being honest.


  2. #47682
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by vDJ View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Schneiderman has also been a vocal proponent of the #MeToo movement, bringing legal action in New York against film producer Harvey Weinstein, who has been accused of sexually assaulting women.
    Haha... The biggest virtue signallers turn out to be the biggest perverts. Really makes you think.
    The Democrats dumped him within 3 hours

    Meanwhile the Pussygrabber is still president
    Both sides are the same.
    Yes, both sides have individuals who engage in illegal sexual abuse/harassment.

    Dems and Pro-Dem media types just do it more often.
    [citation needed]
    If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means post it.
    I don't really have a good source, but let's go with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E...exual_scandals

    Republican: 32
    Democrat: 26

    Your move, good sir.
    The Wiki list does not include Pro-Dem media types, which I did include in my statement.

    The Wiki list also includes "payed for a call girl" type issues, which are not sexual assault/sexual harassment issues.

    And now Barth is muddying the waters/compounding the issue of sexual assault/harassment by trying to include doing drugs and being a closeted and/or hypocritical homosexual as equivalent issues.

    Pretty clear though that "both sides do it" is the case with this issue. Only one side are hypocrites who don't adhere to their stated values, and as we know from other debates, being a hypocrite who doesn't adhere to their stated values is almost as bad as the original crime itself!
    IDK. How many of them are shielded from public view by a sordid web of NDA and general dirty lawyer tricks not rightly associated with good, God-fearing folk.

    Like man pig and his viagra fuels Caribbean sex binge.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rush-li...d-with-viagra/

    Maybe we'll find out what paragon of virtue, Hannity, has been up to soon.
    meh

  3. #47683
    Timaios's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    916
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by vDJ View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Schneiderman has also been a vocal proponent of the #MeToo movement, bringing legal action in New York against film producer Harvey Weinstein, who has been accused of sexually assaulting women.
    Haha... The biggest virtue signallers turn out to be the biggest perverts. Really makes you think.
    The Democrats dumped him within 3 hours

    Meanwhile the Pussygrabber is still president
    Both sides are the same.
    Yes, both sides have individuals who engage in illegal sexual abuse/harassment.

    Dems and Pro-Dem media types just do it more often.
    [citation needed]
    If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means post it.
    I don't really have a good source, but let's go with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E...exual_scandals

    Republican: 32
    Democrat: 26

    Your move, good sir.
    The Wiki list does not include Pro-Dem media types, which I did include in my statement.

    The Wiki list also includes "payed for a call girl" type issues, which are not sexual assault/sexual harassment issues.
    Okay, I'll bite some more.

    Your argument is sort of flawed. Assuming that the media is more left-leaning in general (based on this, don't know if it's accurate) then even if the sexual misconduct is not associated with Dem/Rep spectrum, you'd expect more sexual misconduct from left-leaning media personalities because that's how statistics work.

    If we work on basis of the link above, then you'd look at 24 vs 9 -distribution on left vs right leaning media, and you'd expect something like 3-1 distribution in sexual misconduct with more cases from the Pro-Dem media than from the Pro-Rep media.

    If you'd see more than that, then you'd have an argument, in my opinion. You wouldn't argue that whites are more prone to be convicted of a crime than African-americans even though the absolute number of whites in prisons is larger than the number of African-americans (afaik)?

    And a general comment, how do you classify people into Pro-Dem and Pro-Rep? Is everyone working on the MSNBC automatically Pro-Dem, for example? Weinstein was probably pro-dem, for example, as he literally gave them money, but he could have just been buying influence? Charlie Rose seems to be quite centric and has been called both liberal and conservative. What is Roy Price's affiliation or leaning? Or Michael Oreskes'?

    Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. - Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 277

  4. #47684
    vDJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Location
    �� out there
    Posts
    1,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Your argument is sort of flawed.
    Calling that an argument is too nice.

  5. #47685
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,679
    Quote Originally Posted by vDJ View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Your argument is sort of flawed.
    Calling that an argument is too nice.
    Quite right, it was an opinion based on observation, as I thought was clear with the whole not citing a source thing.

    Frankly, it was just to get the predictable response when our resident lefties get all in a huff over R/D comparisons and and then try to find some way to make the argument that both sides really don't do it and Republicans are way worse.


  6. #47686
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,679
    In FAR more interesting news, Trump just withdrew from the Iran Nuclear deal.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...D=ansmsnnews11

    Maybe now folks will finally agree that doing this deal as a presidential action, instead of a ratified treaty, was not the right route to go.


  7. #47687
    Movember 2011Movember 2012 Nordstern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    8,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    In FAR more interesting news, Trump just withdrew from the Iran Nuclear deal.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...D=ansmsnnews11

    Maybe now folks will finally agree that doing this deal as a presidential action, instead of a ratified treaty, was not the right route to go.
    I am of the opinion that had we waited for a "always say NO" Congress to approve it, it never would have happened. I am also of the opinion that:

    - Republicans didn't want this plan, not because it didn't go far enough, but because it makes Iran less of a bogeyman.
    - Trump didn't want it because it was one of Obama's achievements, and Trump acts out of spite and jealousy.
    - Iran is not going to be strong-armed into renegotiating, and will become a more dangerous entity.
    - Trump and the republicans know this, expected this, and counted on this as a way of furthering their bellicose agenda.
    "Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    WTF I hate white people now...

  8. #47688
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordstern View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    In FAR more interesting news, Trump just withdrew from the Iran Nuclear deal.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...D=ansmsnnews11

    Maybe now folks will finally agree that doing this deal as a presidential action, instead of a ratified treaty, was not the right route to go.
    I am of the opinion that had we waited for a "always say NO" Congress to approve it, it never would have happened. I am also of the opinion that:

    - Republicans didn't want this plan, not because it didn't go far enough, but because it makes Iran less of a bogeyman.
    - Trump didn't want it because it was one of Obama's achievements, and Trump acts out of spite and jealousy.
    - Iran is not going to be strong-armed into renogotiating, and will become a more dangerous entity.
    - Trump and the republicans know this, expected this, and counted on this as a way of furthering their bellicose agenda.
    You're quite right, it never would have passed the Senate.

    You're quite right, Republicans hated the plan from day 1. I would disagree with your characterization of their reasons. I think Republicans legit see Iran as a legit threat and the deal as backboneless (which it is tbqh).

    I have no idea why Trump does anything, this is no exception. Feel free to assign any motive you like, there is even a chance you might be right.

    Iran will be a nuclear power. Iran would have been a nuclear power even with the deal in place. Nothing of value seems to be lost, except perhaps the amount of time between now and when Iran becomes a nuclear power.......well, that, and American prestige (a common theme under Trump).

    So you think War between the U.S. and Iran led by Republicans is imminent then? Tbqh I don't. Trump is bluster and hot air, not action. Even his Syrian military actions have been milquetoast at best tbqh.

    I think he (or his advisers) really think they can get a better deal. Of course, with all of our allies against us and for Iran that's as pipedream a pipedream that has ever been pipedreamed.


  9. #47689
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    1,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    In FAR more interesting news, Trump just withdrew from the Iran Nuclear deal.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...D=ansmsnnews11

    Maybe now folks will finally agree that doing this deal as a presidential action, instead of a ratified treaty, was not the right route to go.
    Its almost like the party with a majority in Congress wasn't interested in a non-violent solution to the problem...

  10. #47690
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,679
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    In FAR more interesting news, Trump just withdrew from the Iran Nuclear deal.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...D=ansmsnnews11

    Maybe now folks will finally agree that doing this deal as a presidential action, instead of a ratified treaty, was not the right route to go.
    Its almost like the party with a majority in Congress wasn't interested in a non-violent solution to the problem...
    Do you believe the treaty "solves the problem" of Iran becoming a Nuclear Power?


  11. #47691
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    1,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    In FAR more interesting news, Trump just withdrew from the Iran Nuclear deal.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...D=ansmsnnews11

    Maybe now folks will finally agree that doing this deal as a presidential action, instead of a ratified treaty, was not the right route to go.
    Its almost like the party with a majority in Congress wasn't interested in a non-violent solution to the problem...
    Do you believe the treaty "solves the problem" of Iran becoming a Nuclear Power?
    Yes it does. All shit about them not following their end is BS and RT class propaganda. And thats why everyone that matters in Europe tried to tell Trump not to do this.

  12. #47692
    Varcaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 15, 2011
    Posts
    20,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    In FAR more interesting news, Trump just withdrew from the Iran Nuclear deal.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...D=ansmsnnews11

    Maybe now folks will finally agree that doing this deal as a presidential action, instead of a ratified treaty, was not the right route to go.
    Its almost like the party with a majority in Congress wasn't interested in a non-violent solution to the problem...
    Do you believe the treaty "solves the problem" of Iran becoming a Nuclear Power?
    Yes it does. All shit about them not following their end is BS and RT class propaganda. And thats why everyone that matters in Europe tried to tell Trump not to do this.
    Liberal media lies

  13. #47693
    Dorvil Barranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,782
    I think it means there is little reason for NK to negotiate regarding their nukes, as the US can't be trusted to keep to any agreements.

    Sure, ratifying the treaty would be great, too bad our government is too ineffective for Congress to do anything like that.

    International agreements getting thrown out the window with every regime change is no way to maintain a global rule of law.
    "Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang


  14. #47694
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    In FAR more interesting news, Trump just withdrew from the Iran Nuclear deal.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...D=ansmsnnews11

    Maybe now folks will finally agree that doing this deal as a presidential action, instead of a ratified treaty, was not the right route to go.
    Its almost like the party with a majority in Congress wasn't interested in a non-violent solution to the problem...
    Do you believe the treaty "solves the problem" of Iran becoming a Nuclear Power?
    Yes it does. All shit about them not following their end is BS and RT class propaganda. And thats why everyone that matters in Europe tried to tell Trump not to do this.
    So I've heard it reported that the inspectors are not permitted to inspect certain military sites, is that accurate?

    If that is accurate, is it legitimate to ask if that is a loophole that would/could allow Iran to continue to work towards a bomb while also complying in full with the terms of the deal?


  15. #47695
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorvil Barranis View Post
    I think it means there is little reason for NK to negotiate regarding their nukes, as the US can't be trusted to keep to any agreements.

    Sure, ratifying the treaty would be great, too bad our government is too ineffective for Congress to do anything like that.

    International agreements getting thrown out the window with every regime change is no way to maintain a global rule of law.
    If you want an agreement, it has to be one the other side will agree to pass.

    I know, racist Republcians won't pass anything because black President, and hero Dems are good hero's for revenging Trump and not passing anything under him. I get it.

    Looks like Presidential Decree is the rule now and will continue to be for a while....


  16. #47696

    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Posts
    2,590
    List your source because it's shit.

    He also has said that inspectors need a reason to request access to undeclared sites, and the JCPOA section on access states that "if the IAEA has concerns [emphasis added] regarding undeclared nuclear materials or activities," then it can request to see undeclared — i.e., military — sites. It's unclear what kind of reason or evidence the IAEA would consider sufficient.


    "The IAEA has never had better access to Iran's military sites," says Vaez. "If the Trump administration loses this unprecedented access ... it will soon wish for it."
    https://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...military-sites

    Literally less than two minutes of googling.

  17. #47697
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    1,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    In FAR more interesting news, Trump just withdrew from the Iran Nuclear deal.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...D=ansmsnnews11

    Maybe now folks will finally agree that doing this deal as a presidential action, instead of a ratified treaty, was not the right route to go.
    Its almost like the party with a majority in Congress wasn't interested in a non-violent solution to the problem...
    Do you believe the treaty "solves the problem" of Iran becoming a Nuclear Power?
    Yes it does. All shit about them not following their end is BS and RT class propaganda. And thats why everyone that matters in Europe tried to tell Trump not to do this.
    So I've heard it reported that the inspectors are not permitted to inspect certain military sites, is that accurate?

    If that is accurate, is it legitimate to ask if that is a loophole that would/could allow Iran to continue to work towards a bomb while also complying in full with the terms of the deal?
    Inspectors "aka alot of them intelligence officials" are not permitted into non nuclear related sites. This is normal and the IAEA can request to be sent to new sites if they can explain why to the UN or the P5+Germany.

    Its not normal to complain about ballistic missiles in a deal that doesn't cover them. It is not normal to think you have a carté blance to look where ever you want for no reason. This is a fantasy in Trumps head.

  18. #47698
    Varcaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 15, 2011
    Posts
    20,467
    Alistair caught in the fox news bullishit again.

  19. #47699
    Movember 2011Movember 2012 Nordstern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    8,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    So you think War between the U.S. and Iran led by Republicans is imminent then? Tbqh I don't.
    Hardly. By "bellicose agenda", I'm referring to the act of deliberately engaging in actions making the world less safe, then using that insecurity as fuel/justification for fearmongering and beating the wardrum, screaming about "we must be vigilant against America's enemies", which is used as a pretext for increasing defense spending.
    Trump is bluster and hot air, not action. Even his Syrian military actions have been milquetoast at best tbqh.

    I think he (or his advisers) really think they can get a better deal. Of course, with all of our allies against us and for Iran that's as pipedream a pipedream that has ever been pipedreamed.
    Trump may have been a tough negotiator in the private sector, but we never hear about all the negotiations he failed to win. This is statecraft: the rules and stakes are different, and it's much more public. I don't think Trump even wants a deal, unless it's overwhelmingly in his favor (notice I didn't say the US's favor). That requires serious work and maneuvering, which is very hard. It's far easier to pretend Iran is an enemy and do nothing.
    Last edited by Nordstern; May 8 2018 at 08:55:21 PM.
    "Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    WTF I hate white people now...

  20. #47700
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,679
    So to be clear, Inspectors are unable to look at other "non-nuclear" or otherwise undeclared sites without the IAEA supporting it and proof/cause as to why to look.

    I.e. they could be working on them at Military sites and no one could know so no proof so no one inspecting.

    And the treaty sunsets in, if I recall, 2023 is it? So as of 2023 they can have Nukes because no deal.

    And because Ballistic Missiles aren't part of the treaty, they're perfectly ok for Iran to work on and have.

    Some days I really do wish you guys would apply one one-hundredth of the well deserved cynicism and doubt and distrust you cast at everything Republican/American, and wield that when thinking about countries like Iran.

    Pipedream, I know. Iran > America anyway, right?


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •