A scary thought

[Belsnickel]

So, we are counting down the days until the nominees are officially announced. When that happens, Trump and Clinton will be receiving daily intelligence briefings on national security issues. A man who has shown to have no filter and a woman under investigation for mishandling classified information will be receiving briefings on sensitive information. Thankfully, this is not a mandatory thing and the intelligence community can tailor the briefings to their needs and not give them an open book on everything, but just think about this for a moment and then realize one of them will likely, barring a miraculous third-party win, have access to the most sensitive and compartmentalized information in our country.

[Benton]

The information is already so manipulated, I'm not sure it really matters.

[Rotobeast]

Well.....if anything, it teaches kids that ANYONE can be president.

[StLucieBengal]

Isn't it as scary that we let valerie Jarrett into these meetings? She is the reason we have all these pro Iranian policies.

Glad to see you are finally where I am ..... Welcome to the party. I don't trust any of these people.

[Benton]

(05-15-2016, 12:51 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Well.....if anything, it teaches kids that ANYONE can be president.*

* if they've got enough money.

[GMDino]

(05-15-2016, 12:56 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Isn't it as scary that we let valerie Jarrett into these meetings?  She is the reason we have all these pro Iranian policies.

Glad to see you are finally where I am .....    Welcome to the party.   I don't trust any of these people.

We should just leave it up to individuals and leave the federal govt. out if it.  

[StLucieBengal]

(05-15-2016, 06:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: We should just leave it up to individuals and leave the federal govt. out if it.  

How about just explaining to the public why we are supporting Iran and Saudi Arabia over long time allies such as Egypt, Israel, and others.    

[GMDino]

(05-15-2016, 07:54 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: How about just explaining to the public why we are supporting Iran and Saudi Arabia over long time allies such as Egypt, Israel, and others.    

Every individual in America?

[StLucieBengal]

(05-15-2016, 07:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: Every individual in America?

You can try and explain why we at favouring the Iranians and Saudis if you choose .  

I am sure you can meme us to death on the subject.   

[GMDino]

(05-15-2016, 08:13 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You can try and explain why we at favouring the Iranians and Saudis if you choose .  

I am sure you can meme us to death on the subject.   

Do you want the federal government to handle these thing or should we allow each individual American to handle their own national defense and decide which foreign countries we deal with?

That's not a meme.  It's a direct question.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-15-2016, 08:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: Do you want the federal government to handle these thing or should we allow each individual American to handle their own national defense and decide which foreign countries we deal with?

That's not a meme.  It's a direct question.

We shouldn't be supporting countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia.   Especially at the peril of close friends.   

Why do you think Iran deserves our friendship?  

[GMDino]

(05-15-2016, 08:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We shouldn't be supporting countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia.   Especially at the peril of close friends.   

Why do you think Iran deserves our friendship?  

Maybe its a keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer type thing?

Maybe people smarter than you or I understand how international politics work?

I'll assume we aren't friends with benefits.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-15-2016, 08:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe its a keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer type thing?

Maybe people smarter than you or I understand how international politics work?

I'll assume we aren't friends with benefits.

Evidently, the Clintons see the Saudis as friends with benefits.  Cash benefits..

http://http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/hillarys-latest-scandal-she-and-bill-siphoned-100-mil-from-persian-gulf-leaders/

[StLucieBengal]

(05-15-2016, 08:42 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Evidently, the Clintons see the Saudis as friends with benefits.  Cash benefits..

http://http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/hillarys-latest-scandal-she-and-bill-siphoned-100-mil-from-persian-gulf-leaders/

Saudi's also get preferential treatment for visas as well.   

[JustWinBaby]

I've come to believe foreign policy is mostly determined by career staffers. A POTUS candidate can talk bold ideas and new policy, but then when they become POTUS the staffers who have lived and breath say, Iran, for 20+ years set them straight. As Obama said, it's different when you're actually sitting in the chair.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-15-2016, 08:57 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I've come to believe foreign policy is mostly determined by career staffers.  A POTUS candidate can talk bold ideas and new policy, but then when they become POTUS the staffers who have lived and breath say, Iran, for 20+ years set them straight.  As Obama said, it's different when you're actually sitting in the chair.

I am sure it is.... But it's hard to explain why anyone supports giving the ability to go nuclear to a nation that supports terrorism.   

Also off that of all the dictators we supported to be overthrown ....  We allowed Iran to stay when they had a freedom uprising.    Why did we do nothing?  I'm guessing Valerie Jarrett was the reason.

[JustWinBaby]

(05-15-2016, 09:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I am sure it is.... But it's hard to explain why anyone supports giving the ability to go nuclear to a nation that supports terrorism.   

Also off that of all the dictators we supported to be overthrown ....  We allowed Iran to stay when they had a freedom uprising.    Why did we do nothing?  I'm guessing Valerie Jarrett was the reason.

It's tough to know what we should be doing.  Maybe nothing, maybe what we have done has been far more effective than we realize.  But we've literally tried about everything in the Middle East with, shall we say, less than successful results.

Iran was going nuclear with or without sanctions.  North Korea did it.  Now if they have delayed the inevitable in Iran, or given themselves better visibility to monitor, then you'd have to say it was a good deal.  

The question then becomes when you get to the point requiring military intervention, what then?

[StLucieBengal]

(05-15-2016, 09:12 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's tough to know what we should be doing.  Maybe nothing, maybe what we have done has been far more effective than we realize.  But we've literally tried about everything in the Middle East with, shall we say, less than successful results.

Iran was going nuclear with or without sanctions.  North Korea did it.  Now if they have delayed the inevitable in Iran, or given themselves better visibility to monitor, then you'd have to say it was a good deal.  

The question then becomes when you get to the point requiring military intervention, what then?

Nothing good comes from that region.   Sykes-Picot kept them bottled up and killing each other.    We should freeze the region out via immigration except for Egypt and Israel.   Plus heavy sanctions.  

Let them go back to killing themselves.