Technically, from a legal point of view, he is *not* a felon.
Now...should be become the President of the NRA? Probably not--damaged goods and all that jazz.
Yeah, fair enough. The only thing we know for sure is that he was running an illegal weapons smuggling ring out of the basement of the White House, and the proceeds were then used to fund the Contras, who used THEIR weapons to slaughter nuns and farmers.
And let's be CRYSTAL clear about this. Oliver North has been a hero of the American right-wing since the moment he shredded those documents. The guy has had a weekend FOX News show for the last 15 years. Saying he is damaged goods is only true if you don't quite understand the depths and depravity of conservative media. To 30% of this country, he is a martyr.
He *should* have been convicted for illegal weapons sales, that is for certain. He was only one of the many people taking advantage of Reagan's diminished capacity during his second term to get away with all sorts of shady and/or illegal operations. The deaths resulting from Iran-Contra have to number in the tens of thousands spread out over several years.
He *should* have been convicted for illegal weapons sales, that is for certain. He was only one of the many people taking advantage of Reagan's diminished capacity during his second term to get away with all sorts of shady and/or illegal operations. The deaths resulting from Iran-Contra have to number in the tens of thousands spread out over several years.
Ben Bradlee, the late editor of the Washington Post, once said that by all rights Iran-Contra SHOULD have taken down the Reagan Administration, but the DC media simply did not have the stomach for bringing about the downfall of the 2nd elected Republican Administration in a row. That being said, I have no trouble believing Reagan had no idea what was happening, because I have read Don Regan's autobiography for reasons that are beyond understanding (I actually picked it up for 75 cents at a used bookstore and read it while "working" at an old job). He was Reagan's Chief of Staff from '85-'87. He makes it fairly clear that Nancy was in charge of his entire schedule, and it's not hard to read between the lines and come to the very simple conclusion that he was already suffering obvious symptoms of his alzheimer's. One only need watch the first debate with Mondale to know it was happening as early as 1984. Regardless, this allowed people like Casper Weinburger and Ed Meese to basically free-lance. I still think George H. W. Bush's pardons of nearly everyone involved are highly suspect and the most blatantly political use of the power that has ever been used, at least up until now.
This is just coming out but, suffice to say, based on reports that are flowing out tonight, New York AG Eric Schneiderman is going to have to resign within the next 24 hours. And if the accounts of the 4 women accusing him are correct, he should probably be charged and prosecuted as well. Andrew Cuomo needs to call for his resignation post-haste. This is bad.
This is honestly another reason I wouldn't even THINK of handing the Presidential nomination to a male candidate in 2020. It seems like there is a 50/50 chance at this point that any one of them has a sexual harassment/assault bomb just waiting to detonate at any moment.
Edit: Cuomo indeed HAS called for his resignation within 90 minutes of the New Yorker article being released.
Edit: Schneiderman was resigned within 3 hours of the story being published, and this is a continuation (and in this case, the most accelerated version of it) of a trend. Democrats engage in immediate excommunication when these scandals come to light, and FORCE resignations of the offending parties (I saw immediate evidence of this on social media). By contrast, the GOP Governor of Missouri has been embroiled in a scandal at least as sordid as this one, and he and the State Party have been trying to ride it out for months.
The Schneiderman resignation has HUGE implications far beyond NY state. This is a guy who has been coordinating with Mueller on investigating Manafort, eyeing a possible indictment of Michael Cohen, and has pending lawsuits against both Trump and Weinstein.
And if the accounts of the 4 women accusing him are correct, he should probably be charged and prosecuted as well. Andrew Cuomo needs to call for his resignation post-haste. This is bad.
Cynthia Nixon will rip Cuomo's admin. a new A-hole if Schneiderman isn't prosecuted. This is exactly the sort of break she's been looking for.
The Schneiderman resignation has HUGE implications far beyond NY state. This is a guy who has been coordinating with Mueller on investigating Manafort, eyeing a possible indictment of Michael Cohen, and has pending lawsuits against both Trump and Weinstein.
Seems allegations have nothing to do with Trump other than he's been accused of similar attacks but hasn't resigned. I have faith that the next guy will pick up the cases and be less grabby about things. There's ample evidence of crimes from the Trumps already.
The Schneiderman resignation has HUGE implications far beyond NY state. This is a guy who has been coordinating with Mueller on investigating Manafort, eyeing a possible indictment of Michael Cohen, and has pending lawsuits against both Trump and Weinstein.
I seriously doubt any of those investigations are going to stop or be put on hold. The Attorney General is the head of the State Justice Department, but everything about Cohen is being done by the District Attorney in the Southern District. The lawsuits will likely both go forward when the new AG is picked. Cuomo has no say on whether he is prosecuted or not, as that will also be up to the District Attorney wherever those potential crimes took place. The new AG is going to be picked by the State Assembly, and since that is solidly in Democratic hands, a Democrat will be the replacement.
I have zero love for Andrew Cuomo in any way, and I would welcome Cynthia Nixon winning that primary (but she probably isn't going to). She has already forced him way to the left on a myriad of issues. That said, calling for the resignation of your key political ally less than 90 minutes after the story breaks is a hell of a lot more than you've seen from any Republican in recent memory. And, as I mentioned earlier, even though it ostensibly COULD hinder efforts against Trump, liberal social media was nearly unanimous in calling for his resignation as soon as the article was released and had time to be read. A far, far cry from what we've seen in regards to both the Missouri Governor and Trump himself from the GOP. Once again, the Republicans will try run with this story, but they will look like hypocritical fools for doing so just like they did when Al Franken resigned as they lined up behind Roy Moore in Alabama.
Republicans are really running some crazy candidates in 2018. I guess they figure if Trump can do it with his baggage and attack federal institutions why then what the heck. Law and order yeah right. There are at least four convicted criminals running as Republicans.
A couple of the more notable ones are Dan Blankenship (Republican candidate Senate in West Virginia) spent time in prison after playing a part in deaths of 29 miners. Joe Arpaio, pardoned by Trump, is a Republican candidate Senate in Arizona.
It's like a race to the bottom among the Republicans to see who can be the most repulsive and who can promise to love Trump the best.
Republicans are really running some crazy candidates in 2018. I guess they figure if Trump can do it with his baggage and attack federal institutions why then what the heck. Law and order yeah right. There are at least four convicted criminals running as Republicans.
A couple of the more notable ones are Dan Blankenship (Republican candidate Senate in West Virginia) spent time in prison after playing a part in deaths of 29 miners. Joe Arpaio, pardoned by Trump, is a Republican candidate Senate in Arizona.
It's like a race to the bottom among the Republicans to see who can be the most repulsive and who can promise to love Trump the best.
He did more than play a part in the deaths of the 29 miners. He was convicted of covering up and WILLFULLY ignoring safety violations related to the accident that killed them. Which means he was well aware of the violations BEFORE the miners were killed. And he ignored them for the only reason someone in his position as the owner of the mine would ignore them, which is because he didn't want to spend the money to fix them. Those 29 men are dead because Don Blankenship is a greedy son of a bitch. He is nothing but a straight-up murderer. And though we'll see what happens tomorrow, he is poised to have a chance to win the primary tomorrow night. And West Virginia is coal mine central in this country. Everyone in West Virginia has to be aware of Don Blankenship. Is this depraved Trump cult taking hold to such a degree that GOP voters are going to knowingly pull the lever for a man who is directly responsible for KILLING almost 30 people because of his own greed?? Having Don Blankenship as your Senate candidate is one step removed from having Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer. He is responsible for the deaths of as many people as the former and twice as many as the later.
And this just adds to the list. A House candidate who assaulted a reporter the night before the election. A child molester. A honest to god Nazi. And now a man whose actions can easily be viewed as homicidal, if not legally, then certainly morally. And GOP voters are pulling the lever for these guys AFTER all this information if readily available. Again, as we saw tonight, Democrats certainly have some horrendous people in their midst as well. But as I stated, the NY AG was out of his position tonight after those sexual assault allegations within 3 hours. He certainly was never going to be able to get Democratic votes or run for that office again. Spitzer, Weiner, Conyers, Franken. Not all of them are on the same level of bad behavior, but the one common denominator is not a single one of them is still in their position, nor will any of them be a Democratic candidate on a ballot again. The pattern is pretty unmistakable at this point. When Democrats find out about these issues, the offending office holders are gone. Sometimes within weeks (Franken, Conyers) sometimes within days (Spitzer, Weiner) and tonight with Schneiderman, within HOURS. Republicans are still going to the polls and actively voting for candidates when similarly heinous actions are brought to light.
I suppose we can go back 20 years to Clinton to find even remote evidence of the response to these things being the same, but even taking that into account, since that time, Republicans have LONG since lapped the Democrats in ignoring scandalous behavior in their midst, many times over. And then we have the degree of the offenses. In the last 12 months we have reached child predator and criminal negligence resulting in the deaths of over 2 dozen people as acts that are NOT disqualifying to Republican voters (though I guess we have to wait and see how tomorrow night plays out). And even tonight, there is ANOTHER juxtaposition to Schneiderman, which is the Missouri GOP Governor, accused of not only sexual blackmail but rape, who has been holding onto his office for months after the allegations. I'm not saying the Democrats don't have these problems. I'm saying that in almost every incident in recent memory, they deal with them by excommunication from the party and power, and the Republicans, frankly, just don't. The amount of times it keeps happening with a direct parallel is becoming pretty damn hard to ignore.
When we discussed political sexual scandals a few weeks or months back, I added up every one of them since 1990 (which seemed a fair starting point for modern politics). And as I mentioned back then, I even counted Clinton as THREE scandals in one simply because of how big of a story it was, just to try see if that would even out the numbers a little bit. The numbers still weren't even close. Nor, in the aggregate, have been the responses.
The Schneiderman resignation has HUGE implications far beyond NY state. This is a guy who has been coordinating with Mueller on investigating Manafort, eyeing a possible indictment of Michael Cohen, and has pending lawsuits against both Trump and Weinstein.
I seriously doubt any of those investigations are going to stop or be put on hold. The Attorney General is the head of the State Justice Department, but everything about Cohen is being done by the District Attorney in the Southern District. The lawsuits will likely both go forward when the new AG is picked. Cuomo has no say on whether he is prosecuted or not, as that will also be up to the District Attorney wherever those potential crimes took place. The new AG is going to be picked by the State Assembly, and since that is solidly in Democratic hands, a Democrat will be the replacement.
I have zero love for Andrew Cuomo in any way, and I would welcome Cynthia Nixon winning that primary (but she probably isn't going to). She has already forced him way to the left on a myriad of issues. That said, calling for the resignation of your key political ally less than 90 minutes after the story breaks is a hell of a lot more than you've seen from any Republican in recent memory. And, as I mentioned earlier, even though it ostensibly COULD hinder efforts against Trump, liberal social media was nearly unanimous in calling for his resignation as soon as the article was released and had time to be read. A far, far cry from what we've seen in regards to both the Missouri Governor and Trump himself from the GOP. Once again, the Republicans will try run with this story, but they will look like hypocritical fools for doing so just like they did when Al Franken resigned as they lined up behind Roy Moore in Alabama.
To be fair, the Republicans are not running on a women's rights platform so calling them hypocritical for pointing out the hypocrisy of some on the left is dubious at best. I'm pretty sure the Dems are ditching these guys because they'd lose too many of their women voters, not because of some moral high ground. Look how they rallied around Bill Clinton, knowing he was popular enough to ride out the storm. Regardless, purging out the hypocrites might make voting Democrat more palatable to me in the future. That hypocrisy is the very reason I don't trust them...
I'm amazed that anyone could say that with any level of seriousness.
The truth is amazing once you take off partisan blinders.
As far as I know there are no convicted criminals, known pedophiles, nazis, or homicide causing candidates either running as Democrats while there are there really are Republicans running who are those things.
I'm amazed that anyone could say that with any level of seriousness.
The truth is amazing once you take off partisan blinders.
As far as I know there are no convicted criminals, known pedophiles, nazis, or homicide causing candidates either running as Democrats while there are there really are Republicans running who are those things.
Anthony Weiner was convicted of sending lewd texts to a minor, but that was LONG after his initial scandal, long after he had been made a joke and a punchline, and as I've mentioned previously, Nancy Pelosi forced him out of the House of Representatives within 48 hours even when it was simply a run of the mill sexting scandal. Again, the issue here is the response. We can't expect voters to know what is in everyone's closet. But what happens to the person exposed AFTER their crimes/bad acts are brought to light is more telling.
Then of course you have Denny Hastert, not some run of the mill politician by any means, but the Speaker of the House (3rd in line to the Presidency) for almost the entire Bush Administration, who it was revealed later was a straight-up pedophile paying hush money payments to one of his victims, though, in this case, no one knew when he was in office. And though I have nothing but suspicions about this next part, I firmly believe Tom DeLay, the real power behind the throne in the House during those years as Majority Whip, absolutely knew about Hastert's skeletons and was using them to leverage his own power.
Trump says he will make known his decision about the Iran deal today. I suspect Iran won't care one way or the other--they already received the money which was part of the plan of action ($400 million which had been seized/frozen back in the late 1970s, along with all the interest on that money, which according to my notes from back in January 2016 amounted to about $1.3 billion; those figures do not count money which was frozen in other countries) and various economic sanctions were lifted. If he does decide to cancel our part of the agreement then Iran clearly wins--they get to keep the money, the sanctions are still lifted, and uranium enrichment is back on the menu. If he decides to keep the agreement in place then Iran still wins--the get to keep the money and the sanctions are still lifted. Either way, they got more out of the agreement than we did.
Whether you agree with the joint plan of action or not, do not forget that Iran is still a country where certain haircut styles for young men are outlawed and while talks were taking place in early-to-mid 2015 they were executing an average of 3 people each day. Iran is neither a friend nor an ally; at best, at this point they are "not an enemy".
If the deal is struck down and Iran begins ramping up its uranium enrichment program, who or what would stop Israel from taking matters into its own hands about it?
Trump says he will make known his decision about the Iran deal today. I suspect Iran won't care one way or the other--they already received the money which was part of the plan of action ($400 million which had been seized/frozen back in the late 1970s, along with all the interest on that money, which according to my notes from back in January 2016 amounted to about $1.3 billion; those figures do not count money which was frozen in other countries) and various economic sanctions were lifted. If he does decide to cancel our part of the agreement then Iran clearly wins--they get to keep the money, the sanctions are still lifted, and uranium enrichment is back on the menu. If he decides to keep the agreement in place then Iran still wins--the get to keep the money and the sanctions are still lifted. Either way, they got more out of the agreement than we did.
Whether you agree with the joint plan of action or not, do not forget that Iran is still a country where certain haircut styles for young men are outlawed and while talks were taking place in early-to-mid 2015 they were executing an average of 3 people each day. Iran is neither a friend nor an ally; at best, at this point they are "not an enemy".
If the deal is struck down and Iran begins ramping up its uranium enrichment program, who or what would stop Israel from taking matters into its own hands about it?
Iran SHOULD start enriching uranium again if we break the deal. Why is it that the only country in the world who has ever used nuclear weapons get to both dictate who else can have them AND just wantonly break our word?? Furthermore, if we back out, why would North Korea believe a word we say in upcoming negotiations?? If Trump backs out, and one day Iran gets a bomb, that is 100% on Donald Trump, and no one else. Because the deal as it is now is working. As for Israel, I swear to god sometimes it seems like the US is nothing but their satellite state. Another country that absolutely has nuclear weapons but won't even acknowledge that fact to the rest of the world.
Trump says he will make known his decision about the Iran deal today. I suspect Iran won't care one way or the other--they already received the money which was part of the plan of action ($400 million which had been seized/frozen back in the late 1970s, along with all the interest on that money, which according to my notes from back in January 2016 amounted to about $1.3 billion; those figures do not count money which was frozen in other countries) and various economic sanctions were lifted. If he does decide to cancel our part of the agreement then Iran clearly wins--they get to keep the money, the sanctions are still lifted, and uranium enrichment is back on the menu. If he decides to keep the agreement in place then Iran still wins--the get to keep the money and the sanctions are still lifted. Either way, they got more out of the agreement than we did.
Whether you agree with the joint plan of action or not, do not forget that Iran is still a country where certain haircut styles for young men are outlawed and while talks were taking place in early-to-mid 2015 they were executing an average of 3 people each day. Iran is neither a friend nor an ally; at best, at this point they are "not an enemy".
If the deal is struck down and Iran begins ramping up its uranium enrichment program, who or what would stop Israel from taking matters into its own hands about it?
Iran SHOULD start enriching uranium again if we break the deal.
Absurd logic. If that happens then we SHOULD take them out (or Israel, who cares at that point?). There is no 'right' to own nuclear weapons that I'm aware of...
Trump says he will make known his decision about the Iran deal today. I suspect Iran won't care one way or the other--they already received the money which was part of the plan of action ($400 million which had been seized/frozen back in the late 1970s, along with all the interest on that money, which according to my notes from back in January 2016 amounted to about $1.3 billion; those figures do not count money which was frozen in other countries) and various economic sanctions were lifted. If he does decide to cancel our part of the agreement then Iran clearly wins--they get to keep the money, the sanctions are still lifted, and uranium enrichment is back on the menu. If he decides to keep the agreement in place then Iran still wins--the get to keep the money and the sanctions are still lifted. Either way, they got more out of the agreement than we did.
Whether you agree with the joint plan of action or not, do not forget that Iran is still a country where certain haircut styles for young men are outlawed and while talks were taking place in early-to-mid 2015 they were executing an average of 3 people each day. Iran is neither a friend nor an ally; at best, at this point they are "not an enemy".
If the deal is struck down and Iran begins ramping up its uranium enrichment program, who or what would stop Israel from taking matters into its own hands about it?
Iran SHOULD start enriching uranium again if we break the deal.
Absurd logic. If that happens then we SHOULD take them out (or Israel, who cares at that point?). There is no 'right' to own nuclear weapons that I'm aware of...
We are apparently reserving the right to both have them, have Israel have them, AND break our word. Is their any end to the arrogance of this alliance we have?? Again, NO ONE besides us has ever used them. Yet we have become the arbiters of who deserves them because we have the moral high ground?? We're the only ones with the body count in this area. Everyone else is at zero.
We made deal to prevent them from making nukes. They have stopped that pursuit because of the deal. Now, if we go and completely go back on our word as a country, we are just supposed to expect the people we broke the deal with to STILL abide by the terms because, hey, we can destroy your country just like we did with Iraq?? Is it any wonder we have a terrorism problem in the recent decades??
Between this and the Paris Climate Deal, the word of the United States won't mean spit to any other country. I suppose we can continue to just swing our big military dick around slapping everyone in the face, but in this new global economy, sooner or later, that is going to come back to bite us in the ass in a big way. And we won't have any friends left at all. Of course, there is always the chance that Trump kicks this down the road again for a few months because often he doesn't even have the courage of his terrible convictions, but with Bolton and Bibi whispering in his ear, I highly doubt it.
Trump says he will make known his decision about the Iran deal today. I suspect Iran won't care one way or the other--they already received the money which was part of the plan of action ($400 million which had been seized/frozen back in the late 1970s, along with all the interest on that money, which according to my notes from back in January 2016 amounted to about $1.3 billion; those figures do not count money which was frozen in other countries) and various economic sanctions were lifted. If he does decide to cancel our part of the agreement then Iran clearly wins--they get to keep the money, the sanctions are still lifted, and uranium enrichment is back on the menu. If he decides to keep the agreement in place then Iran still wins--the get to keep the money and the sanctions are still lifted. Either way, they got more out of the agreement than we did.
Whether you agree with the joint plan of action or not, do not forget that Iran is still a country where certain haircut styles for young men are outlawed and while talks were taking place in early-to-mid 2015 they were executing an average of 3 people each day. Iran is neither a friend nor an ally; at best, at this point they are "not an enemy".
If the deal is struck down and Iran begins ramping up its uranium enrichment program, who or what would stop Israel from taking matters into its own hands about it?
Iran SHOULD start enriching uranium again if we break the deal.
Absurd logic. If that happens then we SHOULD take them out (or Israel, who cares at that point?). There is no 'right' to own nuclear weapons that I'm aware of...
We are apparently reserving the right to both have them, have Israel have them, AND break our word. Is their any end to the arrogance of this alliance we have?? Again, NO ONE besides us has ever used them. Yet we have become the arbiters of who deserves because we have the moral high ground?? We're the only ones with the body count in this area. Everyone else is at zero.
We don't need the 'moral, high ground'. We're the only country (besides perhaps Israel) that has the will to stop other countries from getting nukes. Are you arguing that the world would be safer with Iran and North Korea having nukes. With that logic, we might as well just give nukes to every country then. I'm sure Uganda or South Sudan can be trusted with them. Hell, Congo, Venezuela, El Salvador, Central African Republic, Yemen and Somalia would love to have them too, might as well have everybody on equal footing eh? Don't forget the white folks - ship some over to Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, Serbia, Chechnya and Moldavia - I'm feeling safer just thinking about it!
Are you arguing that the world would be safer with Iran and North Korea having nukes. With that logic, we might as well just give nukes to every country then. I'm sure Uganda or South Sudan can be trusted with them. Hell, Congo, Venezuela, El Salvador, Central African Republic, Yemen and Somalia would love to have them too, might as well have everybody on equal footing eh? Don't forget the white folks - ship some over to Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, Serbia, Chechnya and Moldavia - I'm feeling safer just thinking about it!
This is literally the right wing NRA guns argument. Here goes, no I don't believe this personally :
"Arm the teachers, arm the Congo, arm the mailman, arm the homeless, arm Venezuela, arm North Korea.
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke.
We're safer with everyone armed with weapons of mass destruction. "
/s
To the North Koreans and Iranians we're (Trump) the bad guys - lying, breaking our word, aggressive military posturing, religious zealots, we can't be trusted. Why should they not do all they can to be prepared to stop our war mongering John Boltons, Pompeos, and Trumps?
Trump says he will make known his decision about the Iran deal today. I suspect Iran won't care one way or the other--they already received the money which was part of the plan of action ($400 million which had been seized/frozen back in the late 1970s, along with all the interest on that money, which according to my notes from back in January 2016 amounted to about $1.3 billion; those figures do not count money which was frozen in other countries) and various economic sanctions were lifted. If he does decide to cancel our part of the agreement then Iran clearly wins--they get to keep the money, the sanctions are still lifted, and uranium enrichment is back on the menu. If he decides to keep the agreement in place then Iran still wins--the get to keep the money and the sanctions are still lifted. Either way, they got more out of the agreement than we did.
Whether you agree with the joint plan of action or not, do not forget that Iran is still a country where certain haircut styles for young men are outlawed and while talks were taking place in early-to-mid 2015 they were executing an average of 3 people each day. Iran is neither a friend nor an ally; at best, at this point they are "not an enemy".
If the deal is struck down and Iran begins ramping up its uranium enrichment program, who or what would stop Israel from taking matters into its own hands about it?
Iran SHOULD start enriching uranium again if we break the deal.
Absurd logic. If that happens then we SHOULD take them out (or Israel, who cares at that point?). There is no 'right' to own nuclear weapons that I'm aware of...
We are apparently reserving the right to both have them, have Israel have them, AND break our word. Is their any end to the arrogance of this alliance we have?? Again, NO ONE besides us has ever used them. Yet we have become the arbiters of who deserves because we have the moral high ground?? We're the only ones with the body count in this area. Everyone else is at zero.
We don't need the 'moral, high ground'. We're the only country (besides perhaps Israel) that has the will to stop other countries from getting nukes. Are you arguing that the world would be safer with Iran and North Korea having nukes. With that logic, we might as well just give nukes to every country then. I'm sure Uganda or South Sudan can be trusted with them. Hell, Congo, Venezuela, El Salvador, Central African Republic, Yemen and Somalia would love to have them too, might as well have everybody on equal footing eh? Don't forget the white folks - ship some over to Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, Serbia, Chechnya and Moldavia - I'm feeling safer just thinking about it!
I'm saying it's absurd to think another country can be expected to NOT make nukes when we directly back out of the deal that was implemented to prevent that when they have been abiding by their word in this specific case. And yeah, of course there will be war in Iran gets one. I thought the entire Trump Presidency came about because people thought Hillary Clinton was too hawkish. Trump is basically guaranteeing a future conflict for absolutely no reason if he goes through with this.
Are you arguing that the world would be safer with Iran and North Korea having nukes. With that logic, we might as well just give nukes to every country then. I'm sure Uganda or South Sudan can be trusted with them. Hell, Congo, Venezuela, El Salvador, Central African Republic, Yemen and Somalia would love to have them too, might as well have everybody on equal footing eh? Don't forget the white folks - ship some over to Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, Serbia, Chechnya and Moldavia - I'm feeling safer just thinking about it!
This is literally the right wing NRA guns argument. Here goes, no I don't believe this personally :
"Arm the teachers, arm the Congo, arm the mailman, arm the homeless, arm Venezuela, arm North Korea.
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke.
We're safer with everyone armed with weapons of mass destruction. "
/s
To the North Koreans and Iranians we're (Trump) the bad guys - lying, breaking our word, aggressive military posturing, religious zealots, we can't be trusted. Why should they not do all they can to be prepared to stop our war mongering John Boltons, Pompeos, and Trumps?
I'm not big on the NRA logic either. You can be conservative without being a gun nut...
Either way, they got more out of the agreement than we did.
I think that's very questionable: - the deal cost the US nothing, unless you count the contributions to the cost of monitoring compliance. Iran simply had what was always their money given back to them and various sanctions lifted (and the latter both reduced enforcement costs and opened potential trade opportunities to the US). - the US gained its objective of preventing further nuclear proliferation until at least 2031. You can see from Trump's rhetoric about North Korea that this is still considered a very valuable objective. Treated in a different fashion the Iran deal could also have been used as a model for dealing with other problem nations in the future. - a factor which seems to be being ignored at the moment was that Rouhani's position in Iran was bolstered (and he's significantly more moderate than most of the Iranian leadership). Trump's statements about the future of this deal over the last couple of years have though greatly weakened Rouhani due to the resultant pressure on their economy (the exchange rate has dropped by almost 50% since last September, while the levels of trade and investment expected as part of the deal have not materialized). - the US therefore has gained a lot for no real cost. Iran had some historic assets unfrozen and has made trade gains, particularly in the form of oil exports, but has also given up a lot. They've given up their ability to produce nuclear weapons and sacrificed a lot of infrastructure. In addition they've also said that international inspectors can access anywhere in the country to check on compliance with the deal - that's a major concession in terms of 'face' in addition to the practical implications.
If you consider deals as 'zero-sum' (as Trump does), i.e. there's a winner and a loser, then I think there's a strong argument that the US got the better deal. I prefer though to consider it as possible that both sides gained from the deal (this is after all the basis for all trade).
Comments
Technically, from a legal point of view, he is *not* a felon.
Now...should be become the President of the NRA? Probably not--damaged goods and all that jazz.
And let's be CRYSTAL clear about this. Oliver North has been a hero of the American right-wing since the moment he shredded those documents. The guy has had a weekend FOX News show for the last 15 years. Saying he is damaged goods is only true if you don't quite understand the depths and depravity of conservative media. To 30% of this country, he is a martyr.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/four-women-accuse-new-yorks-attorney-general-of-physical-abuse
This is honestly another reason I wouldn't even THINK of handing the Presidential nomination to a male candidate in 2020. It seems like there is a 50/50 chance at this point that any one of them has a sexual harassment/assault bomb just waiting to detonate at any moment.
Edit: Cuomo indeed HAS called for his resignation within 90 minutes of the New Yorker article being released.
Edit: Schneiderman was resigned within 3 hours of the story being published, and this is a continuation (and in this case, the most accelerated version of it) of a trend. Democrats engage in immediate excommunication when these scandals come to light, and FORCE resignations of the offending parties (I saw immediate evidence of this on social media). By contrast, the GOP Governor of Missouri has been embroiled in a scandal at least as sordid as this one, and he and the State Party have been trying to ride it out for months.
edit: Also, of course:
I have zero love for Andrew Cuomo in any way, and I would welcome Cynthia Nixon winning that primary (but she probably isn't going to). She has already forced him way to the left on a myriad of issues. That said, calling for the resignation of your key political ally less than 90 minutes after the story breaks is a hell of a lot more than you've seen from any Republican in recent memory. And, as I mentioned earlier, even though it ostensibly COULD hinder efforts against Trump, liberal social media was nearly unanimous in calling for his resignation as soon as the article was released and had time to be read. A far, far cry from what we've seen in regards to both the Missouri Governor and Trump himself from the GOP. Once again, the Republicans will try run with this story, but they will look like hypocritical fools for doing so just like they did when Al Franken resigned as they lined up behind Roy Moore in Alabama.
A couple of the more notable ones are Dan Blankenship (Republican candidate Senate in West Virginia) spent time in prison after playing a part in deaths of 29 miners. Joe Arpaio, pardoned by Trump, is a Republican candidate Senate in Arizona.
It's like a race to the bottom among the Republicans to see who can be the most repulsive and who can promise to love Trump the best.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/crimes-are-no-longer-a-disqualification-for-republican-candidates/2018/04/30/c64a40ac-4807-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joe-arpaio-2018-election_us_5a563b5ae4b03417e8743168
And this just adds to the list. A House candidate who assaulted a reporter the night before the election. A child molester. A honest to god Nazi. And now a man whose actions can easily be viewed as homicidal, if not legally, then certainly morally. And GOP voters are pulling the lever for these guys AFTER all this information if readily available. Again, as we saw tonight, Democrats certainly have some horrendous people in their midst as well. But as I stated, the NY AG was out of his position tonight after those sexual assault allegations within 3 hours. He certainly was never going to be able to get Democratic votes or run for that office again. Spitzer, Weiner, Conyers, Franken. Not all of them are on the same level of bad behavior, but the one common denominator is not a single one of them is still in their position, nor will any of them be a Democratic candidate on a ballot again. The pattern is pretty unmistakable at this point. When Democrats find out about these issues, the offending office holders are gone. Sometimes within weeks (Franken, Conyers) sometimes within days (Spitzer, Weiner) and tonight with Schneiderman, within HOURS. Republicans are still going to the polls and actively voting for candidates when similarly heinous actions are brought to light.
I suppose we can go back 20 years to Clinton to find even remote evidence of the response to these things being the same, but even taking that into account, since that time, Republicans have LONG since lapped the Democrats in ignoring scandalous behavior in their midst, many times over. And then we have the degree of the offenses. In the last 12 months we have reached child predator and criminal negligence resulting in the deaths of over 2 dozen people as acts that are NOT disqualifying to Republican voters (though I guess we have to wait and see how tomorrow night plays out). And even tonight, there is ANOTHER juxtaposition to Schneiderman, which is the Missouri GOP Governor, accused of not only sexual blackmail but rape, who has been holding onto his office for months after the allegations. I'm not saying the Democrats don't have these problems. I'm saying that in almost every incident in recent memory, they deal with them by excommunication from the party and power, and the Republicans, frankly, just don't. The amount of times it keeps happening with a direct parallel is becoming pretty damn hard to ignore.
When we discussed political sexual scandals a few weeks or months back, I added up every one of them since 1990 (which seemed a fair starting point for modern politics). And as I mentioned back then, I even counted Clinton as THREE scandals in one simply because of how big of a story it was, just to try see if that would even out the numbers a little bit. The numbers still weren't even close. Nor, in the aggregate, have been the responses.
As far as I know there are no convicted criminals, known pedophiles, nazis, or homicide causing candidates either running as Democrats while there are there really are Republicans running who are those things.
Then of course you have Denny Hastert, not some run of the mill politician by any means, but the Speaker of the House (3rd in line to the Presidency) for almost the entire Bush Administration, who it was revealed later was a straight-up pedophile paying hush money payments to one of his victims, though, in this case, no one knew when he was in office. And though I have nothing but suspicions about this next part, I firmly believe Tom DeLay, the real power behind the throne in the House during those years as Majority Whip, absolutely knew about Hastert's skeletons and was using them to leverage his own power.
Whether you agree with the joint plan of action or not, do not forget that Iran is still a country where certain haircut styles for young men are outlawed and while talks were taking place in early-to-mid 2015 they were executing an average of 3 people each day. Iran is neither a friend nor an ally; at best, at this point they are "not an enemy".
If the deal is struck down and Iran begins ramping up its uranium enrichment program, who or what would stop Israel from taking matters into its own hands about it?
We made deal to prevent them from making nukes. They have stopped that pursuit because of the deal. Now, if we go and completely go back on our word as a country, we are just supposed to expect the people we broke the deal with to STILL abide by the terms because, hey, we can destroy your country just like we did with Iraq?? Is it any wonder we have a terrorism problem in the recent decades??
Between this and the Paris Climate Deal, the word of the United States won't mean spit to any other country. I suppose we can continue to just swing our big military dick around slapping everyone in the face, but in this new global economy, sooner or later, that is going to come back to bite us in the ass in a big way. And we won't have any friends left at all. Of course, there is always the chance that Trump kicks this down the road again for a few months because often he doesn't even have the courage of his terrible convictions, but with Bolton and Bibi whispering in his ear, I highly doubt it.
"Arm the teachers, arm the Congo, arm the mailman, arm the homeless, arm Venezuela, arm North Korea.
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke.
We're safer with everyone armed with weapons of mass destruction. "
/s
To the North Koreans and Iranians we're (Trump) the bad guys - lying, breaking our word, aggressive military posturing, religious zealots, we can't be trusted. Why should they not do all they can to be prepared to stop our war mongering John Boltons, Pompeos, and Trumps?
- the deal cost the US nothing, unless you count the contributions to the cost of monitoring compliance. Iran simply had what was always their money given back to them and various sanctions lifted (and the latter both reduced enforcement costs and opened potential trade opportunities to the US).
- the US gained its objective of preventing further nuclear proliferation until at least 2031. You can see from Trump's rhetoric about North Korea that this is still considered a very valuable objective. Treated in a different fashion the Iran deal could also have been used as a model for dealing with other problem nations in the future.
- a factor which seems to be being ignored at the moment was that Rouhani's position in Iran was bolstered (and he's significantly more moderate than most of the Iranian leadership). Trump's statements about the future of this deal over the last couple of years have though greatly weakened Rouhani due to the resultant pressure on their economy (the exchange rate has dropped by almost 50% since last September, while the levels of trade and investment expected as part of the deal have not materialized).
- the US therefore has gained a lot for no real cost. Iran had some historic assets unfrozen and has made trade gains, particularly in the form of oil exports, but has also given up a lot. They've given up their ability to produce nuclear weapons and sacrificed a lot of infrastructure. In addition they've also said that international inspectors can access anywhere in the country to check on compliance with the deal - that's a major concession in terms of 'face' in addition to the practical implications.
If you consider deals as 'zero-sum' (as Trump does), i.e. there's a winner and a loser, then I think there's a strong argument that the US got the better deal. I prefer though to consider it as possible that both sides gained from the deal (this is after all the basis for all trade).