Roe vs Wade vs SCOTUS legitimacy

[Sled21]

(05-13-2022, 12:28 PM)Nately120 Wrote:
Ok let's also throw the citizens who hire them in prison for treasonously preferring the hiring of dangerous criminals over law abiding Americans so they can save a buck. 

I'm going to start holding by breath.....now. 

This gets a thmbs up from me....

[Sled21]

Trump proved one thing. All those people who whine about career politicians are full of it, because DJT went in to DC and dropped a hand grenade on the political establishment on both sides of the aisle, and the organized attacks by the DNC, RNC, and media to get him out of there shows how entrenched the political elite are. Can't have an outsider come in and expose them. Meanwhile, no one even asks the questions about how politicians making less than 200K a year become multi-millionaires by the time they leave office.

[hollodero]

(05-15-2022, 11:47 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Trump proved one thing. All those people who whine about career politicians are full of it, because DJT went in to DC and dropped a hand grenade on the political establishment on both sides of the aisle, and the organized attacks by the DNC, RNC, and media to get him out of there shows how entrenched the political elite are. Can't have an outsider come in and expose them.

Oh, that seems quite romantic. Also, a bit cheap. Look at them critizising me, they have to feel exposed! What else could possibly be the reason?
I'd assume for the most part, Trump got critizised for saying untrue, indecent or plain stupid things. Which means he also exposed me. Ugh.

(05-15-2022, 11:47 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Meanwhile, no one even asks the questions about how politicians making less than 200K a year become multi-millionaires by the time they leave office.

Well, I ask the question whether it's true and if it's not just these book deals all Americans make.
But sure, we know how Trump got rich. Heritage, betrayal and paying zero taxes while sitting in golden living rooms. Just trustworthy.

[Dill]

(05-15-2022, 11:47 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Trump proved one thing. All those people who whine about career politicians are full of it, because DJT went in to DC and dropped a hand grenade on the political establishment on both sides of the aisle, and the organized attacks by the DNC, RNC, and media to get him out of there shows how entrenched the political elite are. Can't have an outsider come in and expose them. Meanwhile, no one even asks the questions about how politicians making less than 200K a year become multi-millionaires by the time they leave office.

I think Trump proved an altogether different thing--that incompetent people can drop a hand grenade on U.S. foreign and domestic policy. They can destroy trust in government to protect and enhance their own power, while destroying our credibility abroad as foreign dictators cheer them on. They can seize power illegally, if "the establishment" lets them.

If that upsets ordinary retired folks like myself, far from Washington, I THANK GOD it upsets "the entrenched political elite" and motivates them to oppose his return. You listening Kevin McCarthy?  

And actually, many people ask how politicians making less than 200k a year become multimillionaires by the time they leave office. They also ask how politicians use their office to fill their own pockets while obstructing investigations into financial wrongdoing. 

"Leftists" are all about that, have been for centuries, literally, but also "the media" generally. 

Not the best point in defense of a twice-impeached president who never released his tax forms and can no longer get business loans in the U.S.

[*Nately120*]

(05-15-2022, 11:43 AM)Sled21 Wrote: This gets a thmbs up from me....

Well it doesn't get a thumbs up from your political party, so unless you're a jesus freak who is obsessed with gay men I'd suggest you look into libertarianism. 

[Sled21]

(05-15-2022, 01:32 PM)Dill Wrote: I think Trump proved an altogether different thing--that incompetent people can drop a hand grenade on U.S. foreign and domestic policy. They can destroy trust in government to protect and enhance their own power, while destroying our credibility abroad as foreign dictators cheer them on. They can seize power illegally, if "the establishment" lets them.

If that upsets ordinary retired folks like myself, far from Washington, I THANK GOD it upsets "the entrenched political elite" and motivates them to oppose his return. You listening Kevin McCarthy?  

And actually, many people ask how politicians making less than 200k a year become multimillionaires by the time they leave office. They also ask how politicians use their office to fill their own pockets while obstructing investigations into financial wrongdoing. 

"Leftists" are all about that, have been for centuries, literally, but also "the media" generally. 

Not the best point in defense of a twice-impeached president who never released his tax forms and can no longer get business loans in the U.S.

For the Love turn MSDNC off and open your eyes. Hand grenade on foreign policy? He started no new wars during his term of office, was winding down Afghanistan, made European nations abide by their financial commitments to NATO, which is paying off big now. Set record sanctions on Russian. Negotiated more favorable trade deals with China. Brokered 2 historic peace deals in the middle east with Israel and it's historic enemies. Had N. Korea sitting quietly.  And you have zero idea about his tax forms, but you know who does?? The IRS, and they apparently have no problem with them.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-15-2022, 09:43 PM)Sled21 Wrote: For the Love turn MSDNC off and open your eyes. Hand grenade on foreign policy? He started no new wars during his term of office, was winding down Afghanistan, made European nations abide by their financial commitments to NATO, which is paying off big now. Set record sanctions on Russian. Negotiated more favorable trade deals with China. Brokered 2 historic peace deals in the middle east with Israel and it's historic enemies. Had N. Korea sitting quietly.  And you have zero idea about his tax forms, but you know who does?? The IRS, and they apparently have no problem with them.

The media fear mongering of DT getting us into new wars was a fail.

Everyone was certain he would "push the red button"

[*Nately120*]

(05-15-2022, 10:13 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The media fear mongering of DT getting us into new wars was a fail.

Everyone was certain he would "push the red button"

The media thought WAR but they shoulda bet on PLAGUE, eh?  I mean, we lost a million Americans to a single source in the past 5.5  years so the doomsayers are hardly fit to be laughed at.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-15-2022, 10:32 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The media thought WAR but they shoulda bet on PLAGUE, eh?  I mean, we lost a million Americans to a single source in the past 5.5  years so the doomsayers are hardly fit to be laughed at.

Definitely....  

[hollodero]

(05-13-2022, 04:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think both of your are misunderstanding my point a bit.  I don't place the lions share of the blame on the Dems for this, or even a majority of it.  What I am saying is that they are achieving the exact opposite of their stated intent by constantly invoking Trump as the face of the GOP.  You're both certainly correct that he currently is, in most ways.  But the Dems are only further cementing that with their current tactics and calling him King MAGA.  They're literally assisting that which they claim to abhor.  Would Trump go away if they stopped?  No, certainly not right away, but it would be a start.  Instead they're adding fuel to the fire instead of trying to put it out.  I get it, they think it's part of a winning strategy for the mid-terms, but I don't think it's helping and it's definitely hurting.

I understand the point, but I can not fully agree to it. To a part maybe. But then again, it's not only about Trump, but about all those that are backing Trump 100%, and for whom it's their most important message that they do (or has to be, because otherwise Trump would support a primary challenger). I can't fathom an opponent not vehemently underlining that point and let things like not condemning insurrection attempts slide just not to further fuel Trumpism.

(05-13-2022, 04:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, Hollo, you may be correct that I am too hard on the Dems.  It's veyr possible as CA is run by some of the dumbest and most ideological inane asshats I have ever seen in my life.  They make my life miserable and have caused thousands of people to be victimized.  So, yeah, I probably am too hard on them nationally.  But I've been far too tainted by the brand off bullshit they shovel in this state,

I for sure have no idea about the party politics in the state of California. I can try to imagine, for sure, eg. believing that California dems are similar to our own more principled left-wingers, and that picture is grim enough (arrogance, immunity to advice, villification, conviction terror, identity politics etc.), especially when imagining what they could actually do if they were free to do what they want. Especially grim for police, probably, regarding leniency on crime, villification of law enforcement and literal defund police movements alone, but sure also other things... well, maybe I get an idea when thinking about that.

I will say though that I don't really know what the federal Dems could do about that. They can't quite swoop in and clean these people out. In general, they have an increasingly hard task to unite the far left up to the moderate right that cannot bear Trump. They can't really turn against the left to begin with. And also one could always blame the weakness of the opposition, like many people blamed weak candidate Hillary for Trump. I remember there were Republicans in Cal once, the strong Austrian for example, that had success. I just guess that California Republicans have to be more moderate than elsewhere to begin with, and imho this gets difficult when the party is the Trump party. But these are the things that imho are more to blame for the situation in California than the federal Dem party; it's a) your binary party landscape only allowing for an everlasting red vs. blue and b) the extremism of the red team under Trump that's hard to escape.

I, of course, have a whole different perspective on the federal parties, and it might just be tainted as well... simplified, I see the Dems as the sane party that believes in climate change and so on, and the GOP as the populist party that even before Trump had a tradition of sporting religious zealots, extreme right wingers and crazy people like Bachmann or Palin. Clinton or Obama were more stable presidents than Bush or Trump were, both imho disasters of their own. As said, sure tainted, but Trump alone gives me little wiggle room on that one. And from that perspective I probably defend Democrats more than is feasible as well. It's mainly about the dismay regarding the alternative.

[Dill]

(05-15-2022, 09:43 PM)Sled21 Wrote: For the Love turn MSDNC off and open your eyes. Hand grenade on foreign policy? He started no new wars during his term of office, was winding down Afghanistan, made European nations abide by their financial commitments to NATO, which is paying off big now. Set record sanctions on Russian. Negotiated more favorable trade deals with China. Brokered 2 historic peace deals in the middle east with Israel and it's historic enemies. Had N. Korea sitting quietly.  And you have zero idea about his tax forms, but you know who does?? The IRS, and they apparently have no problem with them.

Wow, hardly know where to start here. 
 
The IRS has had a problem with Trump's tax returns for decades. How many investigations into his tax records still ongoing? In any case, the point is presidents have conventionally made their taxes public for reasons of transparency and honesty. Trump said "Sure I'll make them public--when the IRS investigation is over."
 
The "peace" deals Trump "brokered" left out the Palestinians. That means no peace. And those are trumped by his breaking the Iran Deal, de-stabilizing a Gulf which was stabilizing, and destroying American credibility globally along with 2 years of hard won diplomacy. Then there was the disastrous pullback in Syria which left hundreds of our (formerly) most trusted allies in the region dead. As far as Afghanistan goes, he forced the government there to release 5,000 Taliban and ISIS fighters from prison while the U.S. was winding down--and excluded the government from negotiations with the Taliban--the primary reason the regime gave up so quickly. That was after he covered for MBS’s murder of journalist. But that looked ok to dictators around the world, offering hope for U.S. support of authoritarian regimes.
 
Far from keeping NK "quiet," he let Kim out of his box. He had never been anywhere abroad but for a one trip to China. Then Trump’s first summit legitimized him and he was at the Asian Games in Indonesia and visiting some 7 countries within a year--all of which made sanctions and his pariah status more difficult to maintain. The China policies, which may have hurt American farmers as much as China, are pretty much negated by his withdrawal and tanking of the TPP, leaving a vacuum of power in the Far East for China to fill. That was our chance to unionize foreign labor to slow down and stop outsourcing at the root.
 
If you'd been watching "MSDNC" you'd know that Trump's "record" sanctions were the effort of Congress, against his will. His first NSC advisor was jailed for promising the Russians Trump would pull back on Obama's sanctions for interfering in the elections. When Congress finally sent Javelins to Ukraine, his WH stipulated they could not be used against separatists or Russians. And then he withheld aid from Ukraine to strong arm Zelensky, fighting for his country’s life, into announcing a bogus investigation—putting his own re-election campaign ahead of national interest while, again, scoffing at rule of law.
 
NATO was NOT strengthened by Trump declaring it obsolete and insulting its leaders while praising Putin. He didn't "make" NATO members pay up. He has no dictatorial power over the organization. NATO is only "paying off big" now because the U.S. didn't withdraw from it, and we have a president who affirms its value and leads the "West's" support of Ukraine's defense. 
 
Finally, if you'd been watching "MSDNC" you might have heard the portions of Mark Espers interview, in which he describes "the political elite" talking Trump's advisors down from rocketing Mexico and starting wars with Iran and Venezuela, and allowing the military to police our streets and shoot protesters. They were our last line of defense against the crazy.  We dodge these bullets and Trump supporters brag "he started no wars."
 
So you haven’t been watching “MSDNC” and don’t know any of this; I get that. Lots of Americans don’t know much about foreign policy, so the “peace” deals NK summits seem “accomplishments” like any other president’s. And breaking U.S. credibility on the Iran Deal didn’t affect gas prices. Maybe.
 
But everyone OUGHT to know that Trump attempted to block the peaceful transfer of power.  His history of obstruction, impeachment, and reprisal against honest civil servants. That should cancel even the Fox version of Trump’s tax history and foreign policy. Yet for tens of millions of Republicans, groomed to avoid "fake news" and trust Fox/Trump, it does not. That’s why we are no longer in some kind of cycle in which both parties ultimately do the same in office. Assuming “both sides” do it misrepresents the danger posed to democracy by the GOP’s continued submission to Trump.

[Dill]

(05-15-2022, 10:13 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The media fear mongering of DT getting us into new wars was a fail.

Everyone was certain he would "push the red button"

"Everyone"? "Certain"? 

After Trump wanted to buy Greenland, Cruz suggested (humorously?) that the unstable Trump could nuke Denmark, https://gizmodo.com/ted-cruz-predicted-in-2016-that-donald-trump-would-nuke-1837434191
and a mystic predicted WWW3 would start under Trump. 
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4204249/mystic-predicted-donald-trumps-presidency-world-war-3-exact-date/

But were responsible politicians and journalists really "certain" he would push the button? "Predicting" he would?

I think the exaggerated claim comes from the genuine concern that Trump voters were putting someone near the button who knew nothing about the history of nuclear policy and detente, someone who repeatedly asked--"if we have them why can't we use them?" when he couldn't figure it out.

Likely that made sense to millions of Trump supporters, but put it rest of the world on edge. And this ignorance and its possible consequences were the legitimate subject of public discussion. Not "fear mongering."

Then when he didn't nuke anyone, all the other destabilizing foreign policy moves didn't matter. 

SEE HOW WRONG THEY ALWAYS ARE ABOUT TRUMP? That's why you trust his impulses over their expertise. 

[CJD]

(05-13-2022, 04:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, Hollo, you may be correct that I am too hard on the Dems.  It's veyr possible as CA is run by some of the dumbest and most ideological inane asshats I have ever seen in my life.  They make my life miserable and have caused thousands of people to be victimized.  So, yeah, I probably am too hard on them nationally.  But I've been far too tainted by the brand off bullshit they shovel in this state,

I don't know a lot about California politics, but I do think that crazies often get through the electoral process when one party is essentially guaranteed victory once the vote gets to the general election.

Local and state elections are already not greatly attended, but primaries for local and state elections are even less so. 

That means that if you have a person who is insane and they happen to edge out a primary win (for one reason or another), they could win the whole thing with relative ease.

I miss when Ohio was a swing state because it made it so that the person who wins a Senate seat or Ohio's vote in a presidential election had to actually appeal to both sides in some way. Or, at the very least, they felt they couldn't cross certain lines to maintain their narrow majority. Ohio is one of only 7 states that have split representation in the Senate (and one of those is only split because Bernie is not technically a Democrat).

Once that is lost, you can get some pretty nutty people into office.

[Sled21]

(05-16-2022, 04:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Wow, hardly know where to start here. 
 
The IRS has had a problem with Trump's tax returns for decades. How many investigations into his tax records still ongoing? In any case, the point is presidents have conventionally made their taxes public for reasons of transparency and honesty. Trump said "Sure I'll make them public--when the IRS investigation is over."
 
The "peace" deals Trump "brokered" left out the Palestinians. That means no peace. And those are trumped by his breaking the Iran Deal, de-stabilizing a Gulf which was stabilizing, and destroying American credibility globally along with 2 years of hard won diplomacy. Then there was the disastrous pullback in Syria which left hundreds of our (formerly) most trusted allies in the region dead. As far as Afghanistan goes, he forced the government there to release 5,000 Taliban and ISIS fighters from prison while the U.S. was winding down--and excluded the government from negotiations with the Taliban--the primary reason the regime gave up so quickly. That was after he covered for MBS’s murder of journalist. But that looked ok to dictators around the world, offering hope for U.S. support of authoritarian regimes.
 
Far from keeping NK "quiet," he let Kim out of his box. He had never been anywhere abroad but for a one trip to China. Then Trump’s first summit legitimized him and he was at the Asian Games in Indonesia and visiting some 7 countries within a year--all of which made sanctions and his pariah status more difficult to maintain. The China policies, which may have hurt American farmers as much as China, are pretty much negated by his withdrawal and tanking of the TPP, leaving a vacuum of power in the Far East for China to fill. That was our chance to unionize foreign labor to slow down and stop outsourcing at the root.
 
If you'd been watching "MSDNC" you'd know that Trump's "record" sanctions were the effort of Congress, against his will. His first NSC advisor was jailed for promising the Russians Trump would pull back on Obama's sanctions for interfering in the elections. When Congress finally sent Javelins to Ukraine, his WH stipulated they could not be used against separatists or Russians. And then he withheld aid from Ukraine to strong arm Zelensky, fighting for his country’s life, into announcing a bogus investigation—putting his own re-election campaign ahead of national interest while, again, scoffing at rule of law.
 
NATO was NOT strengthened by Trump declaring it obsolete and insulting its leaders while praising Putin. He didn't "make" NATO members pay up. He has no dictatorial power over the organization. NATO is only "paying off big" now because the U.S. didn't withdraw from it, and we have a president who affirms its value and leads the "West's" support of Ukraine's defense. 
 
Finally, if you'd been watching "MSDNC" you might have heard the portions of Mark Espers interview, in which he describes "the political elite" talking Trump's advisors down from rocketing Mexico and starting wars with Iran and Venezuela, and allowing the military to police our streets and shoot protesters. They were our last line of defense against the crazy.  We dodge these bullets and Trump supporters brag "he started no wars."
 
So you haven’t been watching “MSDNC” and don’t know any of this; I get that. Lots of Americans don’t know much about foreign policy, so the “peace” deals NK summits seem “accomplishments” like any other president’s. And breaking U.S. credibility on the Iran Deal didn’t affect gas prices. Maybe.
 
But everyone OUGHT to know that Trump attempted to block the peaceful transfer of power.  His history of obstruction, impeachment, and reprisal against honest civil servants. That should cancel even the Fox version of Trump’s tax history and foreign policy. Yet for tens of millions of Republicans, groomed to avoid "fake news" and trust Fox/Trump, it does not. That’s why we are no longer in some kind of cycle in which both parties ultimately do the same in office. Assuming “both sides” do it misrepresents the danger posed to democracy by the GOP’s continued submission to Trump.

So much BS.....
If they IRS had a problem with Trump's tax returns, he'd be in prison.
The Iran Deal was a farce that allowed Iran to pursue nuclear ambitions
Trump sent Javelins, obama sent only non-lethal aid
NATO WAS strengthened by Trump calling out countries like Gemany who have not been paying their way publicly, and getting them to step up their contributions. 
I'm all for bombing Cartel's in Mexico. They killed over 100,000 people here in America last year alone. They deserve to be bombed. If Mexico doesn't like it, then they need to do something about it. We bombed cocaine labs in Columbia, I would say the cartels in Mexico are even more of a National Threat. 
Who gives a rat's about Kim going to some game or visiting other countries, he wasn't shooting off any missiles towards the Sea of Japan and stopped nuclear testing. Now he's back at it again.
January 6th... gimme a break.

I was actually hoping DeSantis would be at the top of the ticket, but seeing liberal's heads explode when Trump is re-elected will be so fun.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-16-2022, 04:49 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I don't know a lot about California politics, but I do think that crazies often get through the electoral process when one party is essentially guaranteed victory once the vote gets to the general election.

Local and state elections are already not greatly attended, but primaries for local and state elections are even less so. 

That means that if you have a person who is insane and they happen to edge out a primary win (for one reason or another), they could win the whole thing with relative ease.

I miss when Ohio was a swing state because it made it so that the person who wins a Senate seat or Ohio's vote in a presidential election had to actually appeal to both sides in some way. Or, at the very least, they felt they couldn't cross certain lines to maintain their narrow majority. Ohio is one of only 7 states that have split representation in the Senate (and one of those is only split because Bernie is not technically a Democrat).

Once that is lost, you can get some pretty nutty people into office.

I could not agree more.  Once you lean into heavy partisan territory things go south rapidly.

[Dill]

(05-18-2022, 11:25 AM)Sled21 Wrote: So much BS.....
If they IRS had a problem with Trump's tax returns, he'd be in prison.
The Iran Deal was a farce that allowed Iran to pursue nuclear ambitions
Trump sent Javelins, obama sent only non-lethal aid
NATO WAS strengthened by Trump calling out countries like Gemany who have not been paying their way publicly, and getting them to step up their contributions. 
I'm all for bombing Cartel's in Mexico. They killed over 100,000 people here in America last year alone. They deserve to be bombed. If Mexico doesn't like it, then they need to do something about it. We bombed cocaine labs in Columbia, I would say the cartels in Mexico are even more of a National Threat. 
Who gives a rat's about Kim going to some game or visiting other countries, he wasn't shooting off any missiles towards the Sea of Japan and stopped nuclear testing. Now he's back at it again.
January 6th... gimme a break.

I was actually hoping DeSantis would be at the top of the ticket, but seeing liberal's heads explode when Trump is re-elected will be so fun.

Wow!  YOu really have not done your own research on any of these issues. You are repeating what you are told by your favored politicians. Nothing in your posts beyond what they want you to "know." 

The IRS has to go through the courts before it can put people in prison. YOu know that Trump's tax records have been subpoenaed for investigation into criminal activities, right?

The IRan Deal required Iran to give up the weapons grade uranium it had already produced and stop producing it. Then it de-commissioned/dismantled thousands of centrifuges, keeping only the treaty minimum for peace time use. Then it allowed international inspectors to inspect its nuclear sites. Iran immediately went from being 6 weeks away from break out to at least a year, should they choose to make a bomb.  This was a victory for the "leftists" in Iran, the moderates and middle class who argued in favor of it because they want to re-integrate with the international community and end the Ayotollah/military control of policy.

Trump trashed the deal, giving the internal victory to the hard line anti-Americans and discrediting the moderates. Now the hard liners are in power, claiming they were right, that the U.S. cannot be trusted. The IRanians did try to comply with the deal for another two years, as did the other signatories. But now Iran is back to producing weapons grade uranium. That's squarely on Trump.

You've given me the impression you don't really know a lot about the deal, or the consequences for breaking it. But you trust what your politicians tell you about it. You don't have the knowledge to judge whether THEY know what they are talking about. And you don't understand how U.S. credibility--or lack thereof-- is linked to U.S. power. That's why you don't care that the U.S. united the five most powerful countries in the world and the EU to sign a treaty, which required the politicians of each to go out on a limb--and then after the U.S. got these adversaries all working together in mutual benefit-- pulled the rug from under them, embarrassing every government that had trusted the U.S., not just the IRanian. E.g., after the French were finally talked into joining the deal, adding thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to their economy in auto sales, they were skunked by Trump. Cutting deals with the U.S. is very risky now, because who knows when we get another MAGA president.

You are ok with rocketting Mexico, an attack on an ally and a violation of their sovereignty. "We bombed Columbia" only means the U.S. military was working with the Columbian government, with its permission. Espers point was that the Trump team wanted to attack Mexico unilaterally, with no comprehension at all of the international repercussions. That is what "the West" sanctions dictators for doing. Fair to say, here, that Trump's knowledge of foreign policy--international laws and norms--is roughly the same as yours. 

Just nonsensical to claim Trump gave Ukraine Javelins to show him tougher on Putin than Obama. Congress did approve the sale, but Trump stipulated the missiles couldn't actually be used against the Russian backed separatist forces Urkaine was then fighting. Why doesn't that look like a favor to Putin, whom he also helped when he held up aid to Ukraine to get a campaign favor from Zelensky?

Your knowledge of North Korea also seems to go no farther than Trump/Hannity definitions of success; "what no other president had been able to do" disguises what a diplomatic victory the summits were for Kim, while the U.S. got nothing. He announced he would begin testing missiles and nukes again in Dec. 2019. That is long before Biden. So far no president has really been able to control his nuclear program; what is different in Trump's case is not only that he did so much for nothing in return (e.g., canceling joint military exercises with SK because Kim wanted him too), but he allowed Kim to establish multiple diplomatic connections in a manner which will make sanctions all that harder to monitor and enforce. But you think this a "win" because you don't care if Kim "visits" other countries.

"Gimme a break" means, I guess, that a Maga coup is no big deal. People should get over it and get back to supporting the chaos president who trashes rule of law, to make liberal heads explode.  That is really the thread that holds all your points together--rule of law and democratic norms are not goals of governance, but interference with AUTOCRATIC norms and policies which favor dictators. Knowledge of diplomacy and the consequences of bad policy are just so much "BS." 

[SunsetBengal]

(05-18-2022, 12:56 PM)Dill Wrote: The IRan Deal required Iran to give up the weapons grade uranium it had already produced and stop producing it. Then it de-commisioned/dismantled thousands of centrifuges, keeping only the treaty minimum for peace time use. Then it allowed international inspectors to inspect its nuclear sites. Iran immediately went from being 6 weeks away from break out to at least a year, should they choose to make a bomb.  This was a victory for the "leftists" in Iran, the moderates and middle class who argued in favor of it because they want to re-integrate with the international community and end the Ayotollah/military control of policy.

I don't know, but the entire deal seemed rather hollow of any actual authority.  After reading the following, it seemed to me like Iran could just simply veto inspectors that they didn't like, and the "request process" for inspecting suspicious sites seemed to lack any ability to actually catch Iran doing anything wrong, without them being able to buy time to get rid of any evidence.

Quote:How Will Inspections Work in Iran under the Nuclear Deal?

July 14, 2015
Publication Type: 

• Policy Briefs
  

Author: 
Simon Chin and Valerie Lincy

President Barack Obama, speaking this morning from the White House after the successful conclusion of talks in Vienna, declared that the nuclear agreement with Iran “is not built on trust; it is built on verification.”  Addressing an issue that had been a key sticking point in the negotiations, President Obama said that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will “be able to access any suspicious location.  Put simply […] the IAEA will have access where necessary, when necessary.  That arrangement is permanent.”[1]
But what does “where necessary, when necessary” mean in practice?  How will inspections work under the nuclear deal described in today’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action?  And will this inspections regime actually be “permanent”? 
 
IAEA-led Inspections Teams

• The IAEA will have the responsibility of monitoring and verifying the nuclear-related provisions of the agreement.  The Agency will provide regular updates to the IAEA Board of Governors and to the U.N. Security Council.[2]
  

• The IAEA will have a team of 130-150 designated inspectors for Iran.  According to the agreement, Iran “will generally allow the designation of inspectors from nations that have diplomatic relations with Iran”—meaning Iran would bar inspectors from the United States and could also wield veto power over certain inspectors.[3]
  

• IAEA inspectors will have access to “modern technologies,” including automated data collection, electronic seals, on-line enrichment measurement, and other advanced surveillance equipment for real-time monitoring.[4]  Inspectors will no longer have to rely upon older technologies, such as metallic seals, and the manual gathering and transmission of data to IAEA headquarters in Vienna—a process that takes days.[5]
  

• IAEA inspection teams will be able to access “locations of intended use of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology” imported through a dedicated nuclear procurement channel.[6]
  

 
How will routine inspections work in Iran?

• Inspections will be governed by Iran’s standard Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, as well as the Additional Protocol, which Iran has agreed to “provisionally apply.”  Iran is not required to “seek ratification” of the Additional Protocol for up-to 8 years.[7]  The Additional Protocol allows for broader access to nuclear-relevant sites, such as uranium mines and heavy water production plants.
  

• Iran has agreed to fully implement the IAEA’s modified Code 3.1, which requires countries to submit design information for new nuclear facilities as soon as the decision is made to construct or authorize construction of the facility.[8]
  

• Iran has also agreed to further “transparency measures” that go beyond the Additional Protocol, including: IAEA monitoring of uranium ore concentrate produced at  all uranium mills for 25 years and containment and surveillance of centrifuge rotors and bellows for 20 years.  All existing and newly produced rotors and bellows will be inventoried and verified.  In addition, Iran will declare and the IAEA will continuously monitor equipment used for centrifuge production.[9] 
  

 
How will the IAEA access suspicious, undeclared sites in Iran?
One of the most contentious issues in the talks was the authority the IAEA would have to access suspicious sites in Iran not officially declared as part of the country’s nuclear program—including military sites.
In practice, under the terms of deal, inspections “where necessary, when necessary” translates to: inspections where necessary, within 24 days, if five of the parties to the deal agree, for a period of 15 years. 
Here are the steps for the inspections process related to undeclared sites[10]:

• “Request for clarification” (Day 0): If the IAEA has concerns about undeclared nuclear activities or sites, or any potential violations of the agreement, it will first “provide Iran the basis for such concerns and request clarification.”
  

• “Request for access” (Days 1-14): If Iran’s explanations do not satisfy the IAEA, the Agency may submit a request to access the suspicious sites in question.  The IAEA “will provide the reasons for access in writing and make available any relevant information.”  Within 14 days, Iran and the IAEA must either 1) agree on the procedures to inspect the sites in question, or 2) resolve the IAEA’s concerns by alternative arrangements without inspections.
  

• “Dispute resolution” (Days 15-21): If Iran and the IAEA cannot reach a resolution within 14 days of the IAEA’s request for access, the issue will be brought before the Joint Commission established by the agreement for dispute resolution.  A consensus of 5 of the 8 members of the Joint Commission (the P5+1 nations, plus Iran, plus the EU High Representative) would issue a ruling and determine the course of action within 7 days.  This means, Iran, China, and Russia could not block a consensus without the support of one Western country.
  

• “Implementation” (Days 22-24): Following the determination of the Joint Commission, Iran would have 3 additional days to implement the decision.
  

 
Will this inspections regime be permanent?
It appears not.  The section of the agreement summarizing the “transparency measures” that Iran will implement includes: “a reliable mechanism to ensure speedy resolution of IAEA access concerns for 15 years”[11]—the mechanism described above.  In describing IAEA inspections as “permanent,” President Obama could have been referring to the implementation of the IAEA’s Additional Protocol, which is not time-limited by the agreement, but does not include the same dispute resolution mechanism for inspections and provides inspectors with more limited authority to access undeclared sites.
 
What about the IAEA’s investigation of “possible military dimensions” to Iran’s nuclear program?
These questions are meant to be resolved by the IAEA, with Iran’s cooperation, before the end of the year. 
According to a “road map” signed today by the IAEA Director General and the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization:[12]

•  Iran will submit a written explanation to the IAEA by August 15.  This submission will address all 12 allegations of military-nuclear work described by the Agency in its November 2011 report.
  

•  The IAEA will then review Iran’s explanations and submit questions by September 15, after which both sides will meet and discuss ways to resolved remaining “ambiguities.” 
  

• The road map refers to a “separate arrangement” regarding access to the controversial Parchin site, a military complex linked to nuclear explosive testing. 
  

• All questions must be resolved by October 15, after which the IAEA will prepare a “final assessment” of PMD issues, which the Agency’s director will present by December 15. 
  

Iran’s compliance with the IAEA’s investigation, according to the timeframe set forth today’s road map, is listed as one of the “transparency and confidence-building measures” in the nuclear agreement.
Footnotes: 
 
[1] Full text of President Obama’s remarks, July 14, 2015: http://www.iranwatch.org/library/governments/united-states/executive-branch/white-house/statement-president-joint-comprehensive-plan-action
[2] Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Preamble and General Provisions, July 14, 2015:  http://www.iranwatch.org/library/multilateral-organizations/european-union/joint-comprehensive-plan-action
[3] JCPOA, Annex I, Section N, July 14, 2015.
[4] JCPOA, Annex I, Section N, July 14, 2015.
[5] For background on IAEA technology in Iran, see David E. Sanger and William J. Broad, "Awaiting Iran Deal, Nuclear Sleuths Gather Sophisticated Tools," New York Times, July 6, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/07/world/middleeast/nuclear-inspectors-await-chance-to-use-modern-tools-in-iran.html?_r=0
[6] JCPOA , Annex IV, Section 6.7, July 14, 2015.
[7] JCPOA, Annex V, Section D, July 14, 2015.
[8] JCPOA, Annex I, Section L, July 14, 2015.
[9] JCPOA, Annex I, Sections O and R, July 14, 2015.
[10] JCPOA, Annex I, Section Q, July 14, 2015.
[11] JCPOA, Section C.15, July 14, 2015.
[12] IAEA Director General's Statement and Road-map for the Clarification of Past and Present Outstanding Issues regarding Iran's Nuclear Program, July 14, 2015:  http://www.iranwatch.org/library/multilateral-organizations/international-atomic-energy-agency/iaea-director-generals-statement-road-map-clarification-past-present-outstanding.   

[Sled21]

(05-18-2022, 01:18 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I don't know, but the entire deal seemed rather hollow of any actual authority.  After reading the following, it seemed to me like Iran could just simply veto inspectors that they didn't like, and the "request process" for inspecting suspicious sites seemed to lack any ability to actually catch Iran doing anything wrong, without them being able to buy time to get rid of any evidence.

Exactly, we could only inspect what Iran wanted us to, and then only with prior notice. That will sure produce clean inspection reports. Some people are so gullible.

[Sled21]

(05-18-2022, 12:56 PM)Dill Wrote: Wow!  YOu really have not done your own research on any of these issues. You are repeating what you are told by your favored politicians. Nothing in your posts beyond what they want you to "know." 

The IRS has to go through the courts before it can put people in prison. YOu know that Trump's tax records have been subpoenaed for investigation into criminal activities, right?

You realize the IRS has his tax returns already and doesn't need a subpoena because they get them when he files yearly. You know the people who have subpoena'd his returns are Democrat politicians hoping to catch something on a fishing expedition, right? 

As I said, the IRS has accepted his tax returns all this time and seems to have no problem with them. All the rest is wishful thinking on the part of liberals who are scared to death he'll run again.

[Sled21]

(05-18-2022, 12:56 PM)Dill Wrote: You are ok with rocketting Mexico, an attack on an ally and a violation of their sovereignty. "We bombed Columbia" only means the U.S. military was working with the Columbian government, with its permission. Espers point was that the Trump team wanted to attack Mexico unilaterally, with no comprehension at all of the international repercussions. That is what "the West" sanctions dictators for doing. Fair to say, here, that Trump's knowledge of foreign policy--international laws and norms--is roughly the same as yours. 

See, there's your problem, you still see Mexico as an ally. As long as they are letting their cartels kill 100,000 Americans a year and doing nothing to stop them they are not an ally.