Here Today... Gone To Hell! | Message Board


Guns N Roses
of all the message boards on the internet, this is one...

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 26, 2019, 09:55:06 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
1204832 Posts in 42459 Topics by 8833 Members
Latest Member: Hellpool
* Home Help Calendar Go to HTGTH Login Register
+  Here Today... Gone To Hell!
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

 1 
 on: Today at 08:32:45 AM 
Started by Malcolm - Last post by pilferk
The tired Fox news dig again? None of what I said came from Fox News.

Would obviously be a waste of my time to try to expand on my points & go deeper into this discussion so Ill just stop here. 


They are literally, almost verbatim, exactly the reasons Trump cited and were reported on, kindly, by Fox News.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-killing-deeply-flawed-iran-deal-is-the-right-move

and the 24 day thing has been a fox news trope since day one of the agreements signing:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/iran-world-powers-agree-to-nuclear-deal

 2 
 on: Today at 08:22:20 AM 
Started by Malcolm - Last post by Senator Blutarsky
You know they can't tell you because they can't come up with anything but the Republican talking points that are false.

Typically when I ask a Republican voter who says the "Iran deal was terrible" these questions I get silence and blank looks.  Because their response is, really, "Because Trump(and Fox News) says so". And they can't, obviously, just SAY that.

I've asked the good Senator these exact same questions, during an earlier discussion on the same topic, and got silence.

I don't expect any different this time. But maybe he'll surprise me.



Some reasons why it was terrible -

No constraints on developing ballistic missiles that they could inevitably use to launch any nuclear weapons that they could develop after 13 - 15 years into the deal. 

Issues with verification, inspectors would  have to wait up to 24 days for access to sites suspected of developing nukes.

Nothing in it regarding Iran funding terrorist organizations.

It's nice to see that, when pressed, you can use the Fox News search function.  Because these are a direct parroting of the irrelevant, and largely discredited, Fox News/Trump talking points.  They demonstrate that, whoever came up with them, didn't understand the deal, at all.  Not surprising, coming from Trump.

 

The tired Fox news dig again? None of what I said came from Fox News.

Would obviously be a waste of my time to try to expand on my points & go deeper into this discussion so Ill just stop here. 

 3 
 on: Today at 08:10:50 AM 
Started by Malcolm - Last post by pilferk

The electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. Was about not having New York and Massachusetts always getting to pick who wins a presidential election.  And that logic still is good today. Should  the top 3 population centers of the US get to pick for everyone?

It is Iran who isn't interested in making a more fair deal at this point.

It's "good logic" when you are cheering for the team that benefits from letting the minority elect a leader.

It's not "good logic" if you're talking about a democracy, from an objective point of view.  I mean, we aren't one (Democratic Republic), but maybe it's time....given we're not tallying election results on an abacus and delivering election results on horseback (or, rather, electors).

I mean...do you want every issue in your state decided by who owns the most land mass?  You get a number of votes equivalent to the acreage you own...and if you're not a landowner...pfft...you get one vote. That's it.  You are essentially suggesting that it's "good logic" to penalize voters for living where the majority of industry and opportunity exists and reward those who live in areas of vast, unpopulated, areas.  That's "good logic"? 

The concept of electing electors to then go vote in committee for the President seems a little wonky and archaic, no?

On top of that, if you can't convince the majority of voters to elect you to govern over them....maybe that says something about  you, as a candidate?

Like it or not, we are not really a "states rights" loose consortium of states using the federal government to regulate cross state trade and implement interstate infrastructure anymore.  The federal government has become a much larger, much more far reaching, and much more influential (in terms of day to day) entity than our forefathers wanted (or envisioned) it to be.

On the last bit: Would you want to negotiate with someone who renegged on a signed, sealed, and delivered deal that you were in compliance with?

Iran doesn't want to "make a deal" because they've been burned once, already, and don't trust this administration one bit.  I don't blame them, quite frankly. I don't, either.  We had a deal.

And that ENTIRELY proves the point of why Trump should not have dropped out.  It was a TERRIBLE negotiating tactic.  From a TERRIBLE deal maker.

 4 
 on: Today at 07:49:49 AM 
Started by Malcolm - Last post by pilferk
You know they can't tell you because they can't come up with anything but the Republican talking points that are false.

Typically when I ask a Republican voter who says the "Iran deal was terrible" these questions I get silence and blank looks.  Because their response is, really, "Because Trump(and Fox News) says so". And they can't, obviously, just SAY that.

I've asked the good Senator these exact same questions, during an earlier discussion on the same topic, and got silence.

I don't expect any different this time. But maybe he'll surprise me.



Some reasons why it was terrible -

No constraints on developing ballistic missiles that they could inevitably use to launch any nuclear weapons that they could develop after 13 - 15 years into the deal. 

Issues with verification, inspectors would  have to wait up to 24 days for access to sites suspected of developing nukes.

Nothing in it regarding Iran funding terrorist organizations.

It's nice to see that, when pressed, you can use the Fox News search function.  Because these are a direct parroting of the irrelevant, and largely discredited, Fox News/Trump talking points.  They demonstrate that, whoever came up with them, didn't understand the deal, at all.  Not surprising, coming from Trump/Fox News.

To say a deal is "terrible" because it has certain provisions that expire (and long after Trump would be out of office....even if he got a second term...in the late 2020s) is ridiculous.  Those provisions expire specifically so the deal could be renegotiated down the road.  It worked both ways, incidentally. Our ability to cripple their economy with sanctions expired at the same time. Which is why their presence didn't make the deal terrible.

Verification at CERTAIN SITES (and they were sites that likely weren't conducive to enrichment) might take UP TO 24 days.  These include certain military installations, but also certain religious sites.  The truth is: Every time the inspectors made a request to visit a site (until we dropped out of the deal) that was not specifically designated in the agreement, they were granted access within 5 days, and in most cases within 72 hours.  The 24 day provision was agreed upon because enrichment residue can become undetectable in a minimum of 30 days (but no less, even with "clean up").  Inspections can take up to 6 days.  There's your math.

On TOP of that, inspectors had 24/7-365 access to every identified nuclear enrichment site (including reactors).  AND, if, in the course of inspections another site was identified, it was immediately (as part of the deal) added to the list of 24/7 365 sites. 

The fact is: The biggest foible in the agreement is that "suspicion" didn't grant immediate access to a site.  The inspectors had to present their suspicions to Iran, and request access.  They couldn't just show up. But the way the deal was structured, and given the timelines, the inspectors would have to have been granted access before any detectable enrichment remnants could be "cleaned up".  And detecting high levels of radiation equivalent to those generated during enrichment would have instantly added the site to the inspection list.

Again, provisions that actually make sense don't make a deal terrible.

In terms of funding terrorist activity, its irrelevant.  The Iran deal left in place our sanctions against Iran regarding their sponsoring of terrorism, and treated them entirely separately from their nuclear program.  And they have nothing to do with nuclear proliferation or a nuclear program, which is what the deal was regarding.  Including this provision would, actually, be counterproductive to the deal because, if Iran was found to be in violation (on either front), it would sink the entire deal.  When a deal is focused on a specific subject, including irrelevant provisions is a terrible way to make a deal. A deal isn't terrible because it doesn't address things that are outside the scope of the actual deal.  That's akin to negotiating the purchase of a home, along with a used car, at the used car lot.

As an aside, this administration has made a TON of deals with the Saudis.  You know, the actual country who funded 9-11.  And not ONE of them includes the provision you insist should be included in the Iran deal.  Not. One.  So, to be clear, you think every single deal this administration has made with the Saudis is a terrible one, right?  And thus, they should be held accountable for those terrible deals?

Back on topic: You seem to be equating "we didn't get everything we wanted, on every subject under the sun" with "it was a terrible deal".  I understand this confusion, since that's Trumps exact thinking "No deal is better than a deal that doesn't let me have my way, entirely". It's the petulant child approach to deal making and, so far, it hasn't worked out too well for him.

And, even assuming any one of your points deserved further consideration, NONE of them make the deal horrible.  They might mean further negotiation and tweaking is necessary.  But dropping the deal...one which all objective parties say Iran was in compliance with....for NO DEAL (and an unfettered Iran) is flat out stupid.  NO DEAL is the terrible deal.  And it's one that has led us to the brink of another foreign war (isn't that something you have a real issue with?).

Trumps brinksmanship has, so far, yielded NO appreciable upsides for the US.  Again, THOSE are terrible deals, and terrible deal making.

 5 
 on: Today at 06:10:12 AM 
Started by jarmo - Last post by jarmo
Here Are Hundreds More Artists Whose Tapes Were Destroyed in the UMG Fire

By Jody Rosen

June 25, 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/25/magazine/universal-music-fire-bands-list-umg.html



Among the artists listed is GN'R.



/jarmo

 6 
 on: Yesterday at 10:26:54 PM 
Started by Malcolm - Last post by tim_m
The way Obama handled Iran in my opinion was horrible. Was a lot more to getting out of that deal than out of spite.  A better deal (hopefully) can be made and you can be sure there will be no more cash payments made to Iran.

Ill grant you that the Orlando speech had too much Hillary references in it and in general a retread.  Trump needs to move on from that and the 'Make America Great Again' slogan.  Needs to run on what he has accomplished so far while offering an updated agenda for the next term that resonates. I know its early, but if he has a campaign manager in place at this point that person really needs to up their game.

Yes, Hillary did receive more of the popular vote, but Trump received more electoral votes than Hillary and that is what matters as that is the way we have elected Presidents since 1788. 

Yes, as a way to appease the slave states by treating empty land as equal to human voters. I suppose the three-fifths compromise was also acceptable because "it was the way we did it since 1788"?

And instead of improving the existing deal, it's better to back out and provoke war? It seems pretty clear the Trump admin is not interested in making a better deal.

The electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. Was about not having New York and Massachusetts always getting to pick who wins a presidential election.  And that logic still is good today. Should  the top 3 population centers of the US get to pick for everyone?

It is Iran who isn't interested in making a more fair deal at this point.

The logic is flawed. You are looking at it incorrectly. You can't go by state population. You need to find out how many are registered among the population of those states, then figure out what percentage they are off the overall registered population. Not everyone can vote in these states, either they're indictments, legal resident but not yet citizens, underage or just not registered for wherever reason. New York, Texas and California only account for 26.7% of the overall registered population. There sure over 200 million registered and remember not everyone who is registered votes even in presidential election, so that percentage will vary. To win the popular vote you need slightly above 50%. I'd be willing to bet if you figured how what percentage are registered in the states with the most people, then figure out what percentage they are of the overall registered population, you would probably find 15-20 states would have vote for the same candidate to get to the bare minimum. Obviously no candidate is gonna be on odds like that and will have to go to more states to get a good majority of the people vote. They would have to go to more states then now. Right now they simple focus on the 18 setting states, but if they needed to break at least 50/50 in some states that they normally ignore that would be a good thing.

 7 
 on: Yesterday at 06:02:39 PM 
Started by Malcolm - Last post by jarmo
Should  the top 3 population centers of the US get to pick for everyone?

You mean, should the most amount of votes pick the president?

What a silly idea right?



/jarmo

 8 
 on: Yesterday at 04:14:21 PM 
Started by Malcolm - Last post by Senator Blutarsky
The way Obama handled Iran in my opinion was horrible. Was a lot more to getting out of that deal than out of spite.  A better deal (hopefully) can be made and you can be sure there will be no more cash payments made to Iran.

Ill grant you that the Orlando speech had too much Hillary references in it and in general a retread.  Trump needs to move on from that and the 'Make America Great Again' slogan.  Needs to run on what he has accomplished so far while offering an updated agenda for the next term that resonates. I know its early, but if he has a campaign manager in place at this point that person really needs to up their game.

Yes, Hillary did receive more of the popular vote, but Trump received more electoral votes than Hillary and that is what matters as that is the way we have elected Presidents since 1788. 

Yes, as a way to appease the slave states by treating empty land as equal to human voters. I suppose the three-fifths compromise was also acceptable because "it was the way we did it since 1788"?

And instead of improving the existing deal, it's better to back out and provoke war? It seems pretty clear the Trump admin is not interested in making a better deal.

The electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. Was about not having New York and Massachusetts always getting to pick who wins a presidential election.  And that logic still is good today. Should  the top 3 population centers of the US get to pick for everyone?

It is Iran who isn't interested in making a more fair deal at this point.

 9 
 on: Yesterday at 04:10:07 PM 
Started by Malcolm - Last post by Senator Blutarsky
You know they can't tell you because they can't come up with anything but the Republican talking points that are false.

Typically when I ask a Republican voter who says the "Iran deal was terrible" these questions I get silence and blank looks.  Because their response is, really, "Because Trump(and Fox News) says so". And they can't, obviously, just SAY that.

I've asked the good Senator these exact same questions, during an earlier discussion on the same topic, and got silence.

I don't expect any different this time. But maybe he'll surprise me.



Some reasons why it was terrible -

No constraints on developing ballistic missiles that they could inevitably use to launch any nuclear weapons that they could develop after 13 - 15 years into the deal. 

Issues with verification, inspectors would  have to wait up to 24 days for access to sites suspected of developing nukes.

Nothing in it regarding Iran funding terrorist organizations.

 10 
 on: Yesterday at 07:11:12 AM 
Started by Malcolm - Last post by pilferk
"Chuck, if the Democrats would just give me everything I want...I'd stop torturing children! It's the Democrats fault these kids are being mistreated!!"

- paraphrased Trump

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.06 seconds with 15 queries.