In regards to Iran, expecting to hand things off to the Republican Congress and have THEM take care of it is the definition of insanity at this point. You might stand a 50/50 shot of having the Senate go for the status quo, but the House?? Forget about it. They'll sit on their hands and hand it back to Trump in another 60 days. Keep in mind that Trump is going AGAINST most of his advisers on all this stuff. He was told not to decertify by his Generals and was advised not to end the healthcare payments that are subsidizing the system, and he went ahead with them anyway.
More importantly about Iran. IF this ends up nixing the deal down the road, and Congress goes back to sanctions, or it gets thrown back to Trump, then I think Iran has every right to pursue a nuclear weapon. After all, we will have proven that our word is absolute horseshit. All of Europe already realizes this. The only people in the world right now against the Iran deal are Trump, Netanyahu, and possibly the Saudis. But here is the rub: Besides his nuclear brinksmanship with North Korea, lets say he is actually bluffing and not just puffing his chest out at any given opportunity. Let's say we engage in some sort of diplomatic negotiations with the North Koreans. What possible reason, at this juncture, would they have to take ANYTHING the United States says seriously?? There is no credibility left on the world stage. Obama ATTEMPTED to restore some of that credibility that Bush destroyed, and now within 10 months Trump has simply blown up all bridges. No one in Europe or Canada trusts us. Iran now has no reason to trust us. North Korea has no reason to think we won't make a deal with them and them bomb them 3 months later. The word of the United States means nothing.
Iran is not violating the agreement. Even Trump, a person who lies almost on an hourly basis, says they are violating the "spirit of the deal" which could mean literally anything (or nothing). No serious analysis of the situation has found Iran in violation of the agreement. It is the United States, who went before the world with lies about Iraq, and has now backed out of agreements in regards to the Paris Climate Accords and this Iran deal, who isn't to be trusted. We are the pariahs here. Our track record speaks for itself.
For those who might not know, Iran has so far complied with all the conditions of the nuclear deal, as have we. What Iran has not complied with are UN resolutions against non-nuclear missile testing.
We don't like them doing that, either, but that was not part of the deal we reached with Iran.
For those who might not know, Iran has so far complied with all the conditions of the nuclear deal, as have we. What Iran has not complied with are UN resolutions against non-nuclear missile testing.
We don't like them doing that, either, but that was not part of the deal we reached with Iran.
What Trump is also trying to insinuate to the public is that Obama somehow gave Iran a bunch of American tax dollars. Not what happened. It was Iranian money, and we had frozen the assets. The only thing the deal did was give their money back to them.
Virtually every time a shooter is taken down, it is the police who are able to get him, not a random citizen with no training and no preparation. The "good guy with a gun" is a police officer.
How many mass shootings have there been when any of the victims were similarly armed.
I don't recall any situation where a shooter targeted people who had guns. But I don't see the logical policy here--are we supposed to put guns in the hands of everyone, so there exist no unarmed populations to target in the first place?
We can apparently fund the largest military industry on the planet by orders of magnitude, how some basic security for our schools?
Posse comitatus. Military is not for protecting us, it's for attacking foreigners....
Virtually every time a shooter is taken down, it is the police who are able to get him, not a random citizen with no training and no preparation. The "good guy with a gun" is a police officer.
How many mass shootings have there been when any of the victims were similarly armed.
I don't recall any situation where a shooter targeted people who had guns. But I don't see the logical policy here--are we supposed to put guns in the hands of everyone, so there exist no unarmed populations to target in the first place?
Sure, not everyone on a military base has a gun but most people will be trained with one and maybe have experience being shot at. And unlike most mass shooters, this guy lived.
In relation to Iran it's perhaps worth remembering that one particular reason for Obama to do a deal in the first place was that the Israelis were strongly threatening to launch their own military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities - see this piece for instance. Given Israel's past actions that was a very serious threat and I think Obama was right to help head it off.
There were unusual features to the Iran deal. It was a UN backed agreement, but unlike most such was negotiated rather than being imposed as a 'peacekeeping mission'. The level of access available for monitors was also unprecedented - inspectors can ask to go anywhere in the country at short notice, rather than being restricted to specific sites. Therefore when the IAEA say that Iran is keeping to its agreement that is a very credible statement. When Trump says they are breaching it that is an incredible statement.
Trump says that Iran is breaching the spirit of the agreement, whatever that means - unlike the laws of cricket there was no 'spirit of the game' clause written into the agreement in the first place. He goes on to say that he wishes to deny Iran 'all paths to a nuclear weapon'. The problem is that there is an existing agreement that does this very well. Breaking that agreement, even if sanctions replace it, will not guarantee Iran does not develop nuclear weapons. In fact I would suggest it pretty well guarantees they will try to do so and the North Korea experiment shows how likely sanctions are to prevent that.
The countries that support Trump in this action are Israel and Saudi Arabia, i.e. Iran's competitors in the region. It's possible they consider it would be simpler to deal with an actively hostile Iran in a war situation rather than the current power games being played in the region. While I can see some attraction to that idea it seems incredibly dangerous, with a real prospect of leading to the use of nuclear weapons - and where that would lead to should worry everyone.
In relation to Iran it's perhaps worth remembering that one particular reason for Obama to do a deal in the first place was that the Israelis were strongly threatening to launch their own military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities - see this piece for instance. Given Israel's past actions that was a very serious threat and I think Obama was right to help head it off.
There were unusual features to the Iran deal. It was a UN backed agreement, but unlike most such was negotiated rather than being imposed as a 'peacekeeping mission'. The level of access available for monitors was also unprecedented - inspectors can ask to go anywhere in the country at short notice, rather than being restricted to specific sites. Therefore when the IAEA say that Iran is keeping to its agreement that is a very credible statement. When Trump says they are breaching it that is an incredible statement.
Trump says that Iran is breaching the spirit of the agreement, whatever that means - unlike the laws of cricket there was no 'spirit of the game' clause written into the agreement in the first place. He goes on to say that he wishes to deny Iran 'all paths to a nuclear weapon'. The problem is that there is an existing agreement that does this very well. Breaking that agreement, even if sanctions replace it, will not guarantee Iran does not develop nuclear weapons. In fact I would suggest it pretty well guarantees they will try to do so and the North Korea experiment shows how likely sanctions are to prevent that.
The countries that support Trump in this action are Israel and Saudi Arabia, i.e. Iran's competitors in the region. It's possible they consider it would be simpler to deal with an actively hostile Iran in a war situation rather than the current power games being played in the region. While I can see some attraction to that idea it seems incredibly dangerous, with a real prospect of leading to the use of nuclear weapons - and where that would lead to should worry everyone.
#1. It's not just an incredible statement from Trump, it's a flat-out lie, because, as you mentioned, the IAEA has inspected their sites on multiple occasions since this deal went into place.
#2. Even if someone is inclined to believe that Iran is violating the terms of the agreement (which they aren't), the United States has absolutely ZERO credibility when it comes to their opinion of what inspectors are finding in a Middle-Eastern country. All inspectors in Iraq before the war said without question there were no weapons of mass destruction. The Bush Administration insisted that there were. They, like Trump, lied. And over the course of an entire war, nothing turned up. Point being, the inspectors were correct in regards to Iraq, and they are correct now. The United States played this card in 2003. The world won't fall for it again.
This brings back to mind the American media smear-job the Bush Administration did on the weapons inspectors in the lead-up to the war, essentially portraying them as shadow agents of Saddam himself. While Trump is probably worse, no one should ever forget the piles upon piles of lies the Bush Administration pushed to get into the Iraq War.
To be quite honest, part of the reason liberals are so apoplectic about Trump is because those of us who were politically aware during the Bush years have been through this movie before. We were running around with our hair on fire explaining why Iraq would turn into a disaster, and it took the rest of the country almost 3 years to even start to realize what we saw from the beginning. And Trump is turning out to be no different. That if you elect this man, the entire system is going to be teetering on the brink from the moment he takes office. Which is clearly happening.
Incidentally (but not at all surprisingly), the lowest level of support I found for the Iraq War doing a cursory Google search was 34%, which is (within 3 or 4 points) pretty much exactly what Trump's support is. The Trump base is nothing much more than the Bush dead-enders. Bush would eventually fall to 25%, but only because people saw their retirement funds disappearing. If it doesn't affect them financially in a dramatic fashion, Trump's base will never move.
The countries that support Trump in this action are Israel and Saudi Arabia, i.e. Iran's competitors in the region. It's possible they consider it would be simpler to deal with an actively hostile Iran in a war situation rather than the current power games being played in the region. While I can see some attraction to that idea it seems incredibly dangerous, with a real prospect of leading to the use of nuclear weapons - and where that would lead to should worry everyone.
Israel is not a competitor of Iran in the region, unlike Saudi Arabia, which has political and religous (Shia vs Sunna) rivalry with Iran, Israel never had any buff with Iran or the Iranian people. It even had good relations with Iran prior the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Yet Iran is constantly and consistently openly calls for the annihilation of Israel (They even revealed in last June a 25 years clock for the destruction of Israel).
Now its not just "words" and showing off calling "death to Israel", Iran is openly waging a proxy war against Israel by arming, funding and directing Hezbollah in Lebanon, which right now already having an estimated stockpile of over 100,000 rockets directed towards Israel.
In the same manner, they wage proxy was against Saudi Arabia, by also arming and funding the Houthis in Yemen.
Iran is expending its reach in Iraq and Syria, and are establishing a front base in Syria at the borders of North Israel, helping Hezbollah establishing rockets factories in Syria, continue to develop their Ballistic Missiles Capabilities (against the UNSC resolutions)
All this, without any nuclear weapon. What would they do when they will have a nuclear weapons? It will serve them as a nuclear umbrella and will secure the radical theoretical ayatollah regime.
As for the agreement, it is nothing but a way of sweeping things under the rug. It's not a matter of if they will have nuclear weapons, its when. Even Obama admits that the deal will give 'near zero' breakout when it expires. So what essentially the agreement gives? just postpone the inevitable end. If you think that with this deal Iran will be more open to the west, 'trust' the west, will be more liberal and less aggressive, think again. Iran actions in the region proves otherwise.
patience is a virtue.
For USA and Europe maybe the Iran deal is good, It doesn't opposes direct threat to them, and it might give some financial opportunities, but for Israel, Iran opposes a real and actual EXISTENTIAL THREAT. So you are correct, it is probably be simpler with an actively hostile Iran, than the current power games and deceptions that are going on now. Either way, the results will be the same, at some point a confrontation will happen. The only question is if Iran will already will be with nuclear capabilities (and ballistic) or not.
Yeah....the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It's almost as if the West shouldn't have participated in the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Iran in 1953. Whoops.
@mch202 I agree that the nuclear deal does not give a permanent resolution, but what international agreement ever does? Different elements of the deal have different timescales, with periods of 10-25 years. Even at the bottom end of that timescale though that seems like a worthwhile achievement to me and provides sufficient time to be able to negotiate a successor deal.
As your own post makes clear, whatever the relations of Israel and Iran prior to 1979 they are indeed competitors in the region now - even if you believe the only reason for that is the aggressive attitude of Iran.
If Trump is successful in destroying the agreement it seems to me that Iran would pretty much be forced into developing nuclear weapons. However, Israel has previously said they would go to war before allowing a nuclear-armed Iran. Hence there is a clear path to conflict in the region. Ehud Barak, who led Israeli plans to intervene in Iran's nuclear programme up to 2013, believes that the agreement has postponed the existential threat Israel faces - and that breaking the agreement will bring that threat to the fore. While it's not impossible that a short war could clarify positions and actually improve regional stability, it seems much more likely that a conflict will do the reverse as well as causing a worldwide increase in international tension. That's why the vast majority of countries wish to see the US implement the agreement they signed up to. Even in the US and Israel the defence and intelligent establishments support the agreement, though leading politicians do not.
Hustler’s Larry Flynt ran an ad offering $10 million for ‘smoking gun’ leading to Trump impeachment.
Flynt says there “The attempt to impeach Donald Trump will strike many as a sour-grapes plot by Democrats to overturn a legitimate election. But there is a strong case to be made that the last election was illegitimate in many ways —and that after nine tumultuous months in office, Trump has proven he’s dangerously unfit to exercise the extreme power accrued by our new 'unitary executive'."
Flynt then hits all the usual points to show that Trump is unfit for office. The firing of James Comey, the constant threat of nuclear war against North Korea, pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, and his “unconscionable defense of the KKK and neo-Nazis after the Charlottesville riots,” all get a mention.
“I do not expect any of Trump’s billionaire cronies to rat him out, but I am confident that there are many people in the now for whom $10 million is a lot of money,” he added. “Sure I could use that $10 million to buy luxuries or further my businesses, but what good would that do me in a world devastated by the most powerful moron in history?”
Hustler’s Larry Flynt ran an ad offering $10 million for ‘smoking gun’ leading to Trump impeachment.
Flynt says there “The attempt to impeach Donald Trump will strike many as a sour-grapes plot by Democrats to overturn a legitimate election. But there is a strong case to be made that the last election was illegitimate in many ways —and that after nine tumultuous months in office, Trump has proven he’s dangerously unfit to exercise the extreme power accrued by our new 'unitary executive'."
Flynt then hits all the usual points to show that Trump is unfit for office. The firing of James Comey, the constant threat of nuclear war against North Korea, pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, and his “unconscionable defense of the KKK and neo-Nazis after the Charlottesville riots,” all get a mention.
“I do not expect any of Trump’s billionaire cronies to rat him out, but I am confident that there are many people in the now for whom $10 million is a lot of money,” he added. “Sure I could use that $10 million to buy luxuries or further my businesses, but what good would that do me in a world devastated by the most powerful moron in history?”
There was a story just last week where someone familiar with his time on "The Apprentice" says there is absolutely audio out there that has Trump saying stuff that is far worse than what we had on the Access Hollywood tape. But someone is sitting on it. I'll remind you that not only did NBC not go with Ronan Farrow's recent Harvey Weinstein bombshell, but they also had the Access Hollywood tape and didn't release it. The only reason that story came to light is because it got leaked to the Washington Post. Someone (or multiple people) in the hierarchy of NBC seem to have a vested interest in protecting rich, powerful sexual predators.
Mark Burnett, the reality-show producer who invented the TV series that made Trump a reality star, said this about the Apprentice tapes - audio and video.
“Given all of the false media reports, I feel compelled to clarify a few points," Burnett said in the statement emailed to USA TODAY. "I am not now and have never been a supporter of Donald Trump’s candidacy. I am NOT 'Pro-Trump.' Further, my wife (actress Roma Downey) and I reject the hatred, division and misogyny that has been a very unfortunate part of his campaign.”
"MGM has agreements with artists across a wide spectrum of creative properties, including The Apprentice,” Putnam said. "These agreements typically contain provisions related to confidentiality and artist’s (Trump's) rights. MGM has every intention of complying with its agreements with artists and honoring their rights, including with respect to The Apprentice."
“MGM owns Mark Burnett’s production company and The Apprentice is one of its properties,” a joint statement by Burnett and MGM says. “Despite reports to the contrary, Mark Burnett does not have the ability nor the right to release footage or other material from The Apprentice. Various contractual and legal requirements also restrict MGM’s ability to release such material.” Burnett’s office did not return messages from POLITICO seeking further comment.
So they aren't getting released because Trump had a clause in his contract to control his image within those tapes. So Trump himself could release the tapes. But Mark Burnet and MGM don't feel like getting sued for a billion dollars, as Trump is wont to threaten to do, those tapes won't be released if they haven't been destroyed already.
Trump controls his image and makes people sign non-disclosure agreements often for life. This is more of the same. He did it to his campaign people too and everyone he can. He says you can work for me but can't say anything bad about me ever if you do I'll sue you, sign here.
There are cases where NDAs have been found to be unenforceable due to being unconscionable or because the information is of substantial public concern. While it would take a brave or desperate person to try that route, someone at some time may feel sufficiently aggrieved at Trump to try it ...
I'm going to piggyback on that Buzzfeed article about the Alt-right that came awhile back, and @semiticgod having the response that the crux of the article seemed to be about a movement based purely in spite. Well, let's take a look at two of Trump's recently departed, but very close White House advisers, speaking at, of all things, a "Value Voters Summit":
I mean.....where do you even begin?? This is a government and movement that's main purpose seems to be to PUNISH the people who didn't vote for them. This is a Christian conference?? Can anyone here imagine Christ advocating this kind of vindictive bullshit?? Every President up to this point has at least made SOME pretense of being the President for everyone living in this country. Donald Trump and those closest to him truly believe that the only people worthy of being represented are those who agree and voted for him.
Meanwhile, the man Trump and these two bastards are supporting for Senate in Alabama not only thinks homosexuality is inherently illegal, but also now seems to believe that kneeling during the national anthem is against the law:
In relation to NDAs and Trump I see Larry Flynt is offering $10m for information leading to Trump's impeachment - that might add to the temptation for anyone contemplating a potential breach of contract ...
You could always "get hacked" by WikiLeaks or Russia.
Yeah but those guys are on Team Trump.
In other news a Whataburger worker in Texas was fired for refusing to serve police officers. This is BIG news on Fox News, some rando fast food person being fired, big news!
But Don't conservatives and Trump want to defend her sincerely held moral objection to serving police officers?
And in all the mass shooting of the past 10-20, almost none of them have involved a "good guy with a gun" saving the day. Not Columbine, not Virginia Tech, not the Pulse Nightclub, not Vegas. Indeed, in the nightclub, any good guy with a gun would have likely killed MORE people in a dark, crowded room. In Vegas, it would have had to have been a good guy with an RPG-launcher, firing up to a 31st floor hotel room window.
Actually, I will, grudgingly, admit that there are some less well known mass-shootings where the perpetrator was shot by "good guy with a gun".
As part of a YT post last week, I spent about 45 minutes tallying up most of the mass shootings listed on WIkipedia, counting ones with 4+ dead (because the person I was arguing with was saying they're not common because a talking point that "they're not common" is that the FBI only defines mass murder as 4+ people dead, regardless of how many are shot), and hey, the FBI only reports about 62 of them from 1982-2012.
I only got to 1984-2008 I think before I had to leave for RL activities and posted it. Out of over 50, I know at least a couple had the perpetrator shot by someone else who was carrying a gun.
But, it is definitely not common to mass shootings. People might OWN guns, but for some reason or another they are not directly on hand.
Take 1991 Luby's. One of the people on the scene had a gun, in their car. In the LV shooting just recently, people in the bands' support staff had guns near to hand but didn't get them for various reasons.
With regard to stopping mass shooters. I'd say after a quick overview of what I've covered, I'd say it's probably 80% likely the shooter is stopped by just suiciding. Columbine, VTA, LV, all suicides. If they don't suicide it's probably 50-50 they get shot dead by LEOs or arrested.
Quoting myself: "1982-2008 466 dead in 48 incidents of 4+ people dead from firearms. An average 29.1 dead per year, an average of 9.7 dead per incident."
"You know what I see when I read about almost every one of these? People either mentally ill, recently fired, or ex-husbands/boyfriends who decided to blow away the wife/GF and anyone around her. This shit needed to be dealt with decades ago."
Actually, I would add "Or never got stable employment at all" to "recently fired".
It's frightening to read discussions about Puerto Rico on Facebook. There's an almost colonial vibe to how people talk about Puerto Ricans as second class citizens that don't deserve any help. The fact that people are even discussing if certain kinds of U.S. citizens should be helped or not after a devastating natural disaster is baffling.
But I also think that many people just aren't able to fully grasp the situation. I mean, I saw someone who without sarcasm said that if the phones aren't working those lazy Puerto Ricans could just walk to whoever they want to call. "Let them eat cake" I guess.
Facebook is the *worst* place to try and have any sort of legitimate discussion of any topic more serious than how to cook a certain meal or craft ideas for the holidays. The only thing you will find there is fluff and noise.
Facebook is the *worst* place to try and have any sort of legitimate discussion of any topic more serious than how to cook a certain meal or craft ideas for the holidays. The only thing you will find there is fluff and noise.
Well, yeah. Though I'd be more inclined to agree with you if these views weren't so close to those of the White house. As I've said before, this is the only political discussion that I feel like participating in. Others are more like that car crash that you just can't look away from.
There are worse comments sections than on Facebook. News sites often allow anonymous comments, those are worse than Facebook which at least some of the time the comments are not anonymous. Still yeah Facebook comments can be awful.
I have relatives that post awful stuff, don't they realize their neices, nephews, cousins, neighbors, friends, fathers, mother's, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles are serving their bigotry?
I certainly have complaints and grievances about certain people but I don't go wishing them dead or whatever like some people do on Facebook. Because why say something that other people will see your lowest behavior?
In that case, if we are discussing Puerto Rico...Congress should have gotten off its lazy rear end and made Puerto Rico a full-fledged State years ago. This would have prevented, or at least completely mitigated, the economic problems Puerto Rico was facing even before the hurricanes hit; it would also have made the Maritime Act of 1920 obsolete (at least for PR) and would have opened the doors for FEMA to remain as long as necessary. Currently, about 1/3 of the island still has no reliable access to clean water and Gov. Rosello hopes to have the grid back to 95% capacity by December.
Back in August, astronomers observed two neutron stars colliding; the collision produced both visible light and gravitational waves and lasted for 100 seconds, allowing them to collect more data than the previous experiment where gravitational waves were fist detected. The first papers based on those observations are being published this week and should make for fascinating reading, if you are interested in that sort of thing. (Science news is still news.)
There are worse comments sections than on Facebook. News sites often allow anonymous comments, those are worse than Facebook which at least some of the time the comments are not anonymous. Still yeah Facebook comments can be awful.
I have relatives that post awful stuff, don't they realize their neices, nephews, cousins, neighbors, friends, fathers, mother's, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles are serving their bigotry?
I certainly have complaints and grievances about certain people but I don't go wishing them dead or whatever like some people do on Facebook. Because why say something that other people will see your lowest behavior?
Read the comment section for nearly any video regarding anything remotely political (and oftentimes not political at all) on Youtube. Liberals will certainly call people stupid in any number of ways, but the comments from the Alt-right, Pepe avatar brigade are what really stick out. Comments in favor of rape and sexual assault. Comments that are straight up eliminationist and basically calling for genocide against anyone who isn't a straight, white male. Hundreds upon thousands of them.
There are worse comments sections than on Facebook. News sites often allow anonymous comments, those are worse than Facebook which at least some of the time the comments are not anonymous. Still yeah Facebook comments can be awful.
I have relatives that post awful stuff, don't they realize their neices, nephews, cousins, neighbors, friends, fathers, mother's, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles are serving their bigotry?
I certainly have complaints and grievances about certain people but I don't go wishing them dead or whatever like some people do on Facebook. Because why say something that other people will see your lowest behavior?
Read the comment section for nearly any comment section regarding anything remotely political (and oftentimes not political at all) on Youtube. Liberals will certainly call people stupid in any number of ways, but the comments from the Alt-right, Pepe avatar brigade are what really stick out. Comments in favor of rape and sexual assault. Comments that are straight up eliminationist and basically calling for genocide against anyone who isn't a straight, white male. Hundreds upon thousands of them.
Good thing people in this country are too lazy, by-and-large, to actually 'do' anything. It's easy to kick back in your lounge chair, suck on some gin & juice and type away on your I-phone. I won't worry overmuch until people start grabbing the pitchforks...
Read the comment section for nearly any comment section regarding anything remotely political (and oftentimes not political at all) on Youtube.
There is no such thing as "not political at all" anymore. *Every* topic is political (or at least ripe for being politicized). Example: when WotC banned Reflector Mage in Standard, some people thought the mage in the art was a black man and so the question was asked why they were banning a black man. Also, some people thought Kaya was made a black woman because most planeswalkers are white, non-humanoid ones such as Vraksa (she's a gorgon) and Ugin notwithstanding. We aren't even going to begin to discuss Ashiok (who is non-binary) and Alesha (who is trans). See? Even card games are politicized.
Read the comment section for nearly any comment section regarding anything remotely political (and oftentimes not political at all) on Youtube.
There is no such thing as "not political at all" anymore. *Every* topic is political (or at least ripe for being politicized). Example: when WotC banned Reflector Mage in Standard, some people thought the mage in the art was a black man and so the question was asked why they were banning a black man. Also, some people thought Kaya was made a black woman because most planeswalkers are white, non-humanoid ones such as Vraksa (she's a gorgon) and Ugin notwithstanding. We aren't even going to begin to discuss Ashiok (who is non-binary) and Alesha (who is trans). See? Even card games are politicized.
Race, gender, sexual orientation and anything else individualistic is not political.
People like to hide their bigotry behind a political tag, but how someone self identifies has nothing to do with politics.
Comments
More importantly about Iran. IF this ends up nixing the deal down the road, and Congress goes back to sanctions, or it gets thrown back to Trump, then I think Iran has every right to pursue a nuclear weapon. After all, we will have proven that our word is absolute horseshit. All of Europe already realizes this. The only people in the world right now against the Iran deal are Trump, Netanyahu, and possibly the Saudis. But here is the rub: Besides his nuclear brinksmanship with North Korea, lets say he is actually bluffing and not just puffing his chest out at any given opportunity. Let's say we engage in some sort of diplomatic negotiations with the North Koreans. What possible reason, at this juncture, would they have to take ANYTHING the United States says seriously?? There is no credibility left on the world stage. Obama ATTEMPTED to restore some of that credibility that Bush destroyed, and now within 10 months Trump has simply blown up all bridges. No one in Europe or Canada trusts us. Iran now has no reason to trust us. North Korea has no reason to think we won't make a deal with them and them bomb them 3 months later. The word of the United States means nothing.
Iran is not violating the agreement. Even Trump, a person who lies almost on an hourly basis, says they are violating the "spirit of the deal" which could mean literally anything (or nothing). No serious analysis of the situation has found Iran in violation of the agreement. It is the United States, who went before the world with lies about Iraq, and has now backed out of agreements in regards to the Paris Climate Accords and this Iran deal, who isn't to be trusted. We are the pariahs here. Our track record speaks for itself.
We don't like them doing that, either, but that was not part of the deal we reached with Iran.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting
Sure, not everyone on a military base has a gun but most people will be trained with one and maybe have experience being shot at. And unlike most mass shooters, this guy lived.
There were unusual features to the Iran deal. It was a UN backed agreement, but unlike most such was negotiated rather than being imposed as a 'peacekeeping mission'. The level of access available for monitors was also unprecedented - inspectors can ask to go anywhere in the country at short notice, rather than being restricted to specific sites. Therefore when the IAEA say that Iran is keeping to its agreement that is a very credible statement. When Trump says they are breaching it that is an incredible statement.
Trump says that Iran is breaching the spirit of the agreement, whatever that means - unlike the laws of cricket there was no 'spirit of the game' clause written into the agreement in the first place. He goes on to say that he wishes to deny Iran 'all paths to a nuclear weapon'. The problem is that there is an existing agreement that does this very well. Breaking that agreement, even if sanctions replace it, will not guarantee Iran does not develop nuclear weapons. In fact I would suggest it pretty well guarantees they will try to do so and the North Korea experiment shows how likely sanctions are to prevent that.
The countries that support Trump in this action are Israel and Saudi Arabia, i.e. Iran's competitors in the region. It's possible they consider it would be simpler to deal with an actively hostile Iran in a war situation rather than the current power games being played in the region. While I can see some attraction to that idea it seems incredibly dangerous, with a real prospect of leading to the use of nuclear weapons - and where that would lead to should worry everyone.
#2. Even if someone is inclined to believe that Iran is violating the terms of the agreement (which they aren't), the United States has absolutely ZERO credibility when it comes to their opinion of what inspectors are finding in a Middle-Eastern country. All inspectors in Iraq before the war said without question there were no weapons of mass destruction. The Bush Administration insisted that there were. They, like Trump, lied. And over the course of an entire war, nothing turned up. Point being, the inspectors were correct in regards to Iraq, and they are correct now. The United States played this card in 2003. The world won't fall for it again.
This brings back to mind the American media smear-job the Bush Administration did on the weapons inspectors in the lead-up to the war, essentially portraying them as shadow agents of Saddam himself. While Trump is probably worse, no one should ever forget the piles upon piles of lies the Bush Administration pushed to get into the Iraq War.
To be quite honest, part of the reason liberals are so apoplectic about Trump is because those of us who were politically aware during the Bush years have been through this movie before. We were running around with our hair on fire explaining why Iraq would turn into a disaster, and it took the rest of the country almost 3 years to even start to realize what we saw from the beginning. And Trump is turning out to be no different. That if you elect this man, the entire system is going to be teetering on the brink from the moment he takes office. Which is clearly happening.
Incidentally (but not at all surprisingly), the lowest level of support I found for the Iraq War doing a cursory Google search was 34%, which is (within 3 or 4 points) pretty much exactly what Trump's support is. The Trump base is nothing much more than the Bush dead-enders. Bush would eventually fall to 25%, but only because people saw their retirement funds disappearing. If it doesn't affect them financially in a dramatic fashion, Trump's base will never move.
This pretty much sums it up. Laws change for everything else but guns....
Now its not just "words" and showing off calling "death to Israel", Iran is openly waging a proxy war against Israel by arming, funding and directing Hezbollah in Lebanon, which right now already having an estimated stockpile of over 100,000 rockets directed towards Israel.
In the same manner, they wage proxy was against Saudi Arabia, by also arming and funding the Houthis in Yemen.
Iran is expending its reach in Iraq and Syria, and are establishing a front base in Syria at the borders of North Israel, helping Hezbollah establishing rockets factories in Syria, continue to develop their Ballistic Missiles Capabilities (against the UNSC resolutions)
All this, without any nuclear weapon. What would they do when they will have a nuclear weapons? It will serve them as a nuclear umbrella and will secure the radical theoretical ayatollah regime.
As for the agreement, it is nothing but a way of sweeping things under the rug. It's not a matter of if they will have nuclear weapons, its when. Even Obama admits that the deal will give 'near zero' breakout when it expires. So what essentially the agreement gives? just postpone the inevitable end. If you think that with this deal Iran will be more open to the west, 'trust' the west, will be more liberal and less aggressive, think again. Iran actions in the region proves otherwise.
patience is a virtue.
For USA and Europe maybe the Iran deal is good, It doesn't opposes direct threat to them, and it might give some financial opportunities, but for Israel, Iran opposes a real and actual EXISTENTIAL THREAT. So you are correct, it is probably be simpler with an actively hostile Iran, than the current power games and deceptions that are going on now. Either way, the results will be the same, at some point a confrontation will happen. The only question is if Iran will already will be with nuclear capabilities (and ballistic) or not.
As your own post makes clear, whatever the relations of Israel and Iran prior to 1979 they are indeed competitors in the region now - even if you believe the only reason for that is the aggressive attitude of Iran.
If Trump is successful in destroying the agreement it seems to me that Iran would pretty much be forced into developing nuclear weapons. However, Israel has previously said they would go to war before allowing a nuclear-armed Iran. Hence there is a clear path to conflict in the region. Ehud Barak, who led Israeli plans to intervene in Iran's nuclear programme up to 2013, believes that the agreement has postponed the existential threat Israel faces - and that breaking the agreement will bring that threat to the fore. While it's not impossible that a short war could clarify positions and actually improve regional stability, it seems much more likely that a conflict will do the reverse as well as causing a worldwide increase in international tension. That's why the vast majority of countries wish to see the US implement the agreement they signed up to. Even in the US and Israel the defence and intelligent establishments support the agreement, though leading politicians do not.
Hustler’s Larry Flynt ran an ad offering $10 million for ‘smoking gun’ leading to Trump impeachment.
Flynt says there “The attempt to impeach Donald Trump will strike many as a sour-grapes plot by Democrats to overturn a legitimate election. But there is a strong case to be made that the last election was illegitimate in many ways —and that after nine tumultuous months in office, Trump has proven he’s dangerously unfit to exercise the extreme power accrued by our new 'unitary executive'."
Flynt then hits all the usual points to show that Trump is unfit for office. The firing of James Comey, the constant threat of nuclear war against North Korea, pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, and his “unconscionable defense of the KKK and neo-Nazis after the Charlottesville riots,” all get a mention.
“I do not expect any of Trump’s billionaire cronies to rat him out, but I am confident that there are many people in the now for whom $10 million is a lot of money,” he added. “Sure I could use that $10 million to buy luxuries or further my businesses, but what good would that do me in a world devastated by the most powerful moron in history?”
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/355436-hustler-magazine-founder-offers-10-million-for-info-to-help
“Given all of the false media reports, I feel compelled to clarify a few points," Burnett said in the statement emailed to USA TODAY. "I am not now and have never been a supporter of Donald Trump’s candidacy. I am NOT 'Pro-Trump.' Further, my wife (actress Roma Downey) and I reject the hatred, division and misogyny that has been a very unfortunate part of his campaign.”
"MGM has agreements with artists across a wide spectrum of creative properties, including The Apprentice,” Putnam said. "These agreements typically contain provisions related to confidentiality and artist’s (Trump's) rights. MGM has every intention of complying with its agreements with artists and honoring their rights, including with respect to The Apprentice."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2016/10/12/mark-burnett-reiterates-hes-not-giving-up-trump-tapes/91975652/
“MGM owns Mark Burnett’s production company and The Apprentice is one of its properties,” a joint statement by Burnett and MGM says. “Despite reports to the contrary, Mark Burnett does not have the ability nor the right to release footage or other material from The Apprentice. Various contractual and legal requirements also restrict MGM’s ability to release such material.” Burnett’s office did not return messages from POLITICO seeking further comment.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-mark-burnett-the-apprentice-2016-214349
So they aren't getting released because Trump had a clause in his contract to control his image within those tapes. So Trump himself could release the tapes. But Mark Burnet and MGM don't feel like getting sued for a billion dollars, as Trump is wont to threaten to do, those tapes won't be released if they haven't been destroyed already.
Trump controls his image and makes people sign non-disclosure agreements often for life. This is more of the same. He did it to his campaign people too and everyone he can. He says you can work for me but can't say anything bad about me ever if you do I'll sue you, sign here.
I mean.....where do you even begin?? This is a government and movement that's main purpose seems to be to PUNISH the people who didn't vote for them. This is a Christian conference?? Can anyone here imagine Christ advocating this kind of vindictive bullshit?? Every President up to this point has at least made SOME pretense of being the President for everyone living in this country. Donald Trump and those closest to him truly believe that the only people worthy of being represented are those who agree and voted for him.
Meanwhile, the man Trump and these two bastards are supporting for Senate in Alabama not only thinks homosexuality is inherently illegal, but also now seems to believe that kneeling during the national anthem is against the law:
Sinclair Lewis is doing something in his grave right now. It IS happening here.
In other news a Whataburger worker in Texas was fired for refusing to serve police officers. This is BIG news on Fox News, some rando fast food person being fired, big news!
But
Don't conservatives and Trump want to defend her sincerely held moral objection to serving police officers?
Helps that I have a strong interest in history. Actually, I will, grudgingly, admit that there are some less well known mass-shootings where the perpetrator was shot by "good guy with a gun".
As part of a YT post last week, I spent about 45 minutes tallying up most of the mass shootings listed on WIkipedia, counting ones with 4+ dead (because the person I was arguing with was saying they're not common because a talking point that "they're not common" is that the FBI only defines mass murder as 4+ people dead, regardless of how many are shot), and hey, the FBI only reports about 62 of them from 1982-2012.
I only got to 1984-2008 I think before I had to leave for RL activities and posted it. Out of over 50, I know at least a couple had the perpetrator shot by someone else who was carrying a gun.
Some where the person was stopped by non-LEO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Robert_Brown
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Los_Angeles_International_Airport_shooting (sort of, it was the airline security guards, so, private security?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting (Someone already mentioned it)
I know there's another but couldn't find it, as I recall it wasn't that the perpetrator was shot but was shot AT, driving him off to another building where he shot more people.
But, it is definitely not common to mass shootings. People might OWN guns, but for some reason or another they are not directly on hand.
Take 1991 Luby's. One of the people on the scene had a gun, in their car. In the LV shooting just recently, people in the bands' support staff had guns near to hand but didn't get them for various reasons.
With regard to stopping mass shooters. I'd say after a quick overview of what I've covered, I'd say it's probably 80% likely the shooter is stopped by just suiciding. Columbine, VTA, LV, all suicides. If they don't suicide it's probably 50-50 they get shot dead by LEOs or arrested.
Quoting myself: "1982-2008 466 dead in 48 incidents of 4+ people dead from firearms. An average 29.1 dead per year, an average of 9.7 dead per incident."
"You know what I see when I read about almost every one of these? People either mentally ill, recently fired, or ex-husbands/boyfriends who decided to blow away the wife/GF and anyone around her. This shit needed to be dealt with decades ago."
Actually, I would add "Or never got stable employment at all" to "recently fired".
But I also think that many people just aren't able to fully grasp the situation. I mean, I saw someone who without sarcasm said that if the phones aren't working those lazy Puerto Ricans could just walk to whoever they want to call. "Let them eat cake" I guess.
I have relatives that post awful stuff, don't they realize their neices, nephews, cousins, neighbors, friends, fathers, mother's, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles are serving their bigotry?
I certainly have complaints and grievances about certain people but I don't go wishing them dead or whatever like some people do on Facebook. Because why say something that other people will see your lowest behavior?
Back in August, astronomers observed two neutron stars colliding; the collision produced both visible light and gravitational waves and lasted for 100 seconds, allowing them to collect more data than the previous experiment where gravitational waves were fist detected. The first papers based on those observations are being published this week and should make for fascinating reading, if you are interested in that sort of thing. (Science news is still news.)
People like to hide their bigotry behind a political tag, but how someone self identifies has nothing to do with politics.