Slashdot Mirror

http://www.slate.com/articles/... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

Every source I find on the matter indicates that there existed some white slavery, but not in the US, and that "white slavery" in the US existed, as an illegal sex trafficking, and the theory is the idiot racists confused the two to believe that there were white slaves.

There were not white slaves in the US, so "white slavery" as a response to BLM makes no sense.

Hundreds of people.

The NY Times suggests that Russia spent $100,000 on this campaign.

Meanwhile, Hillary spent $969,100,000, almost a billion dollars, in all, and had something like 800 campaign staff workers.

If Russia actually managed to swing an election by spending something like one percent of what Hillary spent, then her messaging must have been catastrophically, epically bad. How could Russians know their audience so much better than the Democrats' campaign staff that they only needed to spend one percent to change the election?

On the other hand, if Hillary and friends are just looking to blame their failures on someone else, convincing people that evil Russian hackers on Facebook stole the election from her would go a long way towards palliating their own incompetence. Still, anyone with any sense of perspective, when looking at Hillary's campaign spending and the alleged Russian spending, will see the Russians were a tiny gnat buzzing about an elephant. Hillary outspent them 100 to 1, and she still blames them.

There's a difference between "rooting for" a candidate and "illegally hiring hundreds of people to campaign for them online."

This might surpise you, but the President is the EXECUTIVE branch of the government. Guess what the job of an executive is - managing. And it is utterly wrong to say other presidents didn't do it. For instance, here is Obama trying to block to the sale of a GERMAN chipmaker to the Chinese

This article is about Google and Apple, both have comfortable profit margins.

In any case: https://economix.blogs.nytimes...
"Probably most people assume that the corporate income tax is largely paid by consumers of its products or services. That is, they assume that although the tax is nominally levied on the corporation as a whole, in fact the burden of the tax is shifted onto customers in the form of higher prices.
All economists reject that idea. "

From Econ101 at Carnegie Mellon University.:
Myth: Any new corporate taxes will just get passed on to consumers
Often, if taxes are raised (or other costs go up) for businesses, the owners say that they will just raise prices and pass the costs on to their customers.
This claim is often accepted as fact because many people don't know about "elasticity of demand".
Elasticity of demand is perhaps the most important basic idea in economics that many people don't know.

One of the parasites has already disappeared:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

Border Officers Nearly Double Searches of Electronic Devices, U.S. Says

The policy of searching cellphones and other electronic devices at the border started in the George W. Bush administration with a focus on specific individuals, but the searches have recently [as of 11 April 2017] expanded to include broad ranges of people who do not pose a threat.

Well, IMHO the cry of Racism is so over used, that it has lost all meaning, to the point where Charlottesville violence was initially panned by a lot of people (including me).

Well, IMHO, the denial of racism and bigotry is so widespread by people for whom such a defense is blatantly false that it has developed a new meaning, to the point where Donald Trump's response to the Charlottesville incident was mistaken and ill-advised.

Crying wolf works until it doesn't, and we have actually reached that point.

Yes, crying wolf about being called "Nazi" has reached that point of not working.

It especially doesn't work when you remember this.

And you are probably right, that it was sarcastic trolling, but there is a very real chance it wasn't. And that doubt is telling.

Nope, the doubt is not useful for what you want it to be, though your decision that it is, is a telling factor, as you are endorsing a view simply because it supports your position. My estimation is that there is no reason for an informed person to believe it is anything other than the subterfuge of trolls who want to create an atmosphere of dis-credibility. Really, for all we know, you posted it yourself to have your own justification.

Yeah, like China did recently, on top of the investments they've been making already for the last decade at least.

Armed conflicts are an extension of these covert politics. Or what do you think would happen if a foreign nation would start to eliminate NSA and CIA operatives one by one for doing shit like this?

You mean like this ?

Not only is world-wide median income increasing, but real wealth (which isn't the same thing, although correlated) is increasing. How many people in third world countries had mobile computers 20 years ago compared to now? Even global income inequality is falling.

Do you have a citation which says otherwise?

Sadly in the USA, it is might be better to not help the victim. This is due to how their legal system allow victim to sue the helper, and how the victim in the USA mentality willing to sue the helper. (search on google, you'll know 1, 2, 3)

So if you helped someone in the USA, you can be sued even if you are genuinely trying to help to save lives. it might be better to "Let the people die".

When an EU country has a wall to keep poorer people out, it's civilised and advanced, not racist like when the US just talks about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/...

[Warning: Expressing this thought in Europe may be illegal, depending on your current location. Local residents will cheer and defend your censorship.]

Actually, the election evidence shows that the GOP absorbed the Peripheral South and gained in the South primarily from the importing transplants into the region, not by converting Dixiecrats and Democratic Party KKK leaders like Robert Byrd into Republicans. The racist Democrats in the Solid South primarily stayed Democrats. The GOP got more votes from the non-racists, both among the existing population and from immigrants from other States to turn the South into their voting block, beginning with the least (not most) racist States. The details have been written up in many places, but here’s one I found with a quick Google search if you’re looking for more details.

To quote that article in relation to the myth you keep trying to spread:
"Starting in the 1950s, the South attracted millions of Midwesterners, Northeasterners, and other transplants. These "immigrants" identified themselves as Republicans at higher rates than native whites. In the 1980s, up to a quarter of self-declared Republicans in Texas appear to have been such immigrants. Furthermore, research consistently shows that identification with the GOP is stronger among the South's younger rather than older white voters, and that each cohort has also became more Republican with time. Do we really believe immigrants were more racist than native Southerners, and that younger Southerners identified more with white solidarity than did their elders, and that all cohorts did so more by the 1980s and '90s than they had earlier?

In sum, the GOP's Southern electorate was not rural, nativist, less educated, afraid of change, or concentrated in the most stagnant parts of the Deep South. It was disproportionately suburban, middle-class, educated, younger, non-native-Southern, and concentrated in the growth-points that were, so to speak, the least "Southern" parts of the South."

Or as the NY Times put it:
"In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

have rejected the death penalty for all crimes except the very most serious.

And yet murderers, mass murderers, rapists, child rapists, and many others are not executed but instead coddled for decades at the taxpayer expense.

Obviously society doesn't consider any of the above as serious crimes or these criminals would be executed. And before you bring up the tired, "Capital punishment doesn't deter crime", it's not about deterring crime. It's about getting rid of people who have chosen not to live within the bounds of a civilized society and not murder or rape others.

It's really that bad.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0...

By not selling Kaspersky I feel much better now!

2019 is also the stated target date to stop literally half its population from crapping in the streets and all the accompanying health problems. Probably more important to work on that than electric cars.

If they actually sold stock after the breach before it was public information, they will be guilty of insider trading, and the SEC will have a field day with them.

Not necessarily. The trades could be the result of automatic sell orders that have been in place for years.

From: Equifax Says Cyberattack May Have Affected 143 Million in the U.S.

Potentially adding to criticism of the company, three senior executives, including the company’s chief financial officer, John Gamble, sold shares worth almost $1.8 million in the days after the breach was discovered. The shares were not part of a sale planned in advance, Bloomberg reported.

"Ninety Percent of Everything: Inside Shipping, the Invisible Industry That Puts Clothes on Your Back, Gas in Your Car, and Food on Your Plate" by Rose George is a history of container ships. The New York Times gave it a good review when it first came out, mentioning that the author traveled on a Maersk ship to research the book.

One word: deterrent.

It's only a deterrent if the fine exceeds the profit made by the illegal actions.

Otherwise, the fine is just the cost of doing business.

The problem will correct itself because poor people will make less babies? That sounds great until it bumps up against the reality that poor people typically have more kids https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
https://economix.blogs.nytimes...

Meanwhile in the US, the Federal Government was forcing banks to close/freeze accounts of some businesses. Ah, and the taxmen are empowered to confiscate personal accounts on mere suspicion of wrong-doing.

It isn't that I can't. It is that I'm not going too.

It's quite clearly both.

Your illness, TDS, will not let you see anything positive at all about Trump. Trump could end world hunger, bring world peace, and solve the budget by shitting gold bricks and you would still find something to rant "Trump bad ... Trump bad" about.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe I'm a rational person and the bad thing that I pointed out about Trump is a valid point. However, it seems like you are having some kind of childish tantrum because I said that Trump is dishonest.

Nixon got us out of Vietnam and Trump saved us from Hillary.

Well, if that isn't damning Trump with faint praise! It occurs to me that you may have Hillary derangement syndrome, because if the best thing you can say about the president is that he didn't lose the election, you need to have much higher standards.

Plus as a middle aged worker I don't feel like I would be valued by a SV company.

Truly, you're meat for their meat grinder to make sausage with. Because they have so many people clamoring for the SV lifestyle they can treat employees as a disposable commodity. I'm not sure why someone would want to even vacation there.

This is for people who question if matters. it's a must read actually.

This reminds me, how the Swiss city of Davos (yes, that Davos), contributes to the Global Warming/pollution/whatever fight: by banning gas stations... I can't find any references to the ban online to link here — you'll just have to visit it to see for yourself.

Everyone in Davos died when they exploded, after they decided to quit exhaling and quit farting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Finland will introduce legislation next year to phase out coal and increase carbon taxes

This reminds me, how the Swiss city of Davos (yes, that Davos), contributes to the Global Warming/pollution/whatever fight: by banning gas stations... I can't find any references to the ban online to link here — you'll just have to visit it to see for yourself.

Yep, the skiing is great, but to fill up your car, you'll have to drive to a neighboring town.

"Programming talent comes from intelligence...." So you're not a programmer then? Or just an untalented one? Women are systematically driven out of IT jobs. I have borne witness to this over the thirty years that I have been in IT. But rather than relate anecdotes, I direct you to your favorite Internet search engine. Even a casual search will return a multitude of results that show it is a widespread phenomenon:

https://www.theatlantic.com/c...
https://www.theguardian.com/c...
https://www.theguardian.com/c...
https://www.nytimes.com/c...
http://www.latimes.com/c...
And so on.
This is not the case in other high tech fields. I have a cousin that has bben a mathematician for ATT for many years. She has daughter that has been an acoustical engineer for the US Navy for more than ten years. My granddaughter just got her PhD in aeronautical engineering and is working for United Launch Alliance.
And so on.

Google Critic Ousted From Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant and New Think Tank Emails show "How Google Wields its Power" in Washington

Quashing reports, manipulating search results, and throwing its weight around seem par for the course for Google. After all, they want some return on their investment in politicians, the media, and intellectuals.

"Clean Diesel" marketing came out around 2007-2010 when US emissions regulations tightened significantly.

It's important to note that so far the only manufacturer to be proven to cheat on emissions is Volkswagen. There are allegations against other manufacturers, but so far they haven't been proven. Although, the fact Chrysler recalled their vehiclesdoesn't look good for them.

The missed the first comma. Should be "Google executive chairman and former CEO, Eric Schmidt, criticized..." (Although, I think with a public figure like this, you can use the comma or not (without the comma, "Google executive chairman and former CEO" would be his title (a little silly, but valid), rather than an identifier-name (as its called in that NYT article, but I thought there was a better word for that).

before the end came in round TEN .

Many had the bout much closer than a near shutout, especially in the earlier rounds.

https://www.si.com/boxing/2017...

For the first few rounds, Conor McGregor, the UFC fighter, looked like a boxer. A competent boxer. Dare we say, even a good boxer. He looked like he might even do what he had been telling us heâ(TM)d do for the last three months: beat Mayweather at his own sport, outbox one of the best boxers of all time. In the first round Mayweather threw five total punches. McGregor charged forward, looking like he wanted to make good on his promise that heâ(TM)d drop Mayweather in the first round. He put his arms behind his back, taunting Mayweather. He threw jabs and landed them. He countered a Mayweather attack with an uppercut, something that very few professional boxers have ever done. The vastly pro-McGregor crowd broke out in an olé chant, thinking their hero was going to do the impossible, again, just like he told them he would.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... https://www.forbes.com/sites/b...

None of the shots McGregor landed seemed to hurt Mayweather, but the success the Irishman experienced was more than many boxing pundits thought he could enjoy. Mayweather stayed composed throughout the fight and gradually turned up the heat beginning in the fourth round Until you can find a professional analyst who claims McGregor "looked like a joke" we'll just have to agree to disagree.

before the end came in round TEN .

Many had the bout much closer than a near shutout, especially in the earlier rounds.

https://www.si.com/boxing/2017...

For the first few rounds, Conor McGregor, the UFC fighter, looked like a boxer. A competent boxer. Dare we say, even a good boxer. He looked like he might even do what he had been telling us heâ(TM)d do for the last three months: beat Mayweather at his own sport, outbox one of the best boxers of all time. In the first round Mayweather threw five total punches. McGregor charged forward, looking like he wanted to make good on his promise that heâ(TM)d drop Mayweather in the first round. He put his arms behind his back, taunting Mayweather. He threw jabs and landed them. He countered a Mayweather attack with an uppercut, something that very few professional boxers have ever done. The vastly pro-McGregor crowd broke out in an olé chant, thinking their hero was going to do the impossible, again, just like he told them he would.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... https://www.forbes.com/sites/b...

None of the shots McGregor landed seemed to hurt Mayweather, but the success the Irishman experienced was more than many boxing pundits thought he could enjoy. Mayweather stayed composed throughout the fight and gradually turned up the heat beginning in the fourth round Until you can find a professional analyst who claims McGregor "looked like a joke" we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I see that it is not obvious that my first three statements reflect my personal state only. I am a boring, not very controversial, rather transparent person who live in a pretty free country. Other people live under different conditions and they may (or should) fear those issues to a higher degree.

Witness the destruction of Youtube as a free speech platform, the manipulation of search results for the purpose of 'inclusiveness', and Facebook's prior 'experiments' in manipulating users with selective news articles.

I definitely share your concerns there. However, one should not mistake any social media platform for a free speech platform. As I see it, they are all driven by an agenda, and that agenda can change over time. Even the one that starts out with the ambition of free speech tend to digress when the free speech is not free in the right direction.

I am not worried about anyone trying to sell me stuff I don't want.

If the targeted ads reveal sensitive information about you, such as being pregnant, or even having a bad case of hemorrhoids, then there is cause to be concerned.

I am not worried about my employer, insurance company or spouse finding out my browsing history, opinions or habits.

So you don't care about possibly being passed up for advancement because who you voiced political support for. You're not concerned about the insurance cartel's placing you in a high-risk category or preemptively canceling your policy because you may develop a sudden and intense interest in certain types of diseases.

I am mildly worried that my government will use my online behaviour against me.

No offense intended, but perhaps you lack imagination. poor humor on facebook can brand you a felon.

I am very worried that companies will use my behaviour to tint or change my world view by more precisely manipulating and tailoring my news feeds, search hits, education resources etc in order to achieve political or economic interests.

I am terrified by the thought that this manipulation will inevitably be performed by ever smarter algorithms which have extremely egoistic target functions.

There is every reason to expect this. Witness the destruction of Youtube as a free speech platform, the manipulation of search results for the purpose of 'inclusiveness', and Facebook's prior 'experiments' in manipulating users with selective news articles.

Up next are turing-test capable bots that will be used to drive consensus. The efficiency in which new mantras infest the various echo chambers makes me wonder the extent in which this is already utilized.

Everything old is new again: Undiscovered Bach? No, a Computer Wrote It

I know you're joking, and it was good (now I'll take the off-topic hit), but our good intentioned release of the mentally ill in the 60s & 70s has been a long term failure, and we've known that and done next to nothing about it, and yet we wonder how the mentally ill get access to guns. Here's a NYT article from '84.

(not paywalled)
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10...

Lots of Russian net blocks as of late I'm guessing haha, gotta "MAGA" for 'dem rubles.

Left-wing politics won't fix anything. Government housing projects (you know those things people refer to as "the projects" in such an endearing manner) has been an incredible disaster and rent control is something that pretty much every economist agrees is a terrible idea.

Left-wing politics has good intentions, but their implementations of those intentions often have the opposite effects. It's the same thing with post-secondary education where subsidizing it has driven up costs and all manner of rules and regulations have led to administrative bloat. Then they guarantee anyone who can sign their name on the line student loans they can't be defaulted on.

The restaurant industry isn't even in a slump, so your premise is bad as well. Their own figures are indicating that they'll be growing, even adjusted for inflation. They had a dip during the recent recession, when a lot of industries did, but also bounced back quite quickly.

but any evenhanded analysis of

Nice. So, any analysis that disagrees is automatically not evenhanded

I did not make that claim. If you have reference to good analysis that finds otherwise, cite it.

else we'd never have needed the Civil Rights Act and related legislation.

If anything, that legislation has proven itself a remarkable failure 50 years later. For all the "reverse" racist laws and policies, for all the self-flagellation of the Whites, the dissatisfaction among Blacks is still remarkably high — indeed higher now after the first Black President, than it was before.

Should have left it to the market-forces.

Your conclusion does not follow from your observations, mostly because your observations are very shallow. Also, you are engaging in a blindingly blatant false equivalency. I won't attempt to address all of the problems in your statement, but I'll pick just one: the fact that black dissatisfaction appears to be higher after the first black president was elected. Note that I'm not claiming to offer an authoritative explanation of that fact, but just a plausible explanation which suggests a completely different conclusion than the one you're uncritically assuming.

I think the reason that black dissatisfaction has increased is because blacks saw the election of Obama as a turning point in race relations, as evidence that the country really was ready to listen to their concerns about the extensive and systemic oppression under which they live. Prior to that point, they had focused instead on the slow, steady improvement they were seeing, but Obama's election seemed to indicate a step change. In particular, a change that indicated that they were now free to speak out about issues they hadn't previously felt it was safe to speak about.

But the step change didn't actually happen. The system didn't suddenly become fair and evenhanded, and when blacks complained about old injustices what they got was a backlash. Anyone who thought that white supremacy was dying learned that there was a lot more of it than anyone had realized. This backlash resulted in the election of wink-and-nod racist as president, with the full-throated support of lots of open and outspoken white supremacists. The more cynical -- and racist -- blacks took this as confirmation of what they already thought they knew, and the more optimistic blacks felt their hopes crushed.

So I am not in the least bit surprised that blacks are more dissatisfied. They achieved a triumph of progress, only to have their hopes dashed by discovering that it doesn't really mean what they thought it would, and that in fact their situation is even worse than they thought it was. That'll disappoint even the most optimistic.

And how in the world can you possibly equate the dissatisfaction we see today with the open, bald-faced oppression that existed in Jim Crow? That's mind-boggling.

but any evenhanded analysis of

Nice. So, any analysis that disagrees is automatically not evenhanded... One would've thought, this method for pre-emptively disarming a dissenter was mocked out of existence by Hans Christian Andersen in the 19th century, but no, evidently, the "sophisticated" debaters continue to employ it with smug self-satisfaction...

else we'd never have needed the Civil Rights Act and related legislation.

If anything, that legislation has proven itself a remarkable failure 50 years later. For all the "reverse" racist laws and policies, for all the self-flagellation of the Whites, the dissatisfaction among Blacks is still remarkably high — indeed higher now after the first Black President, than it was before.

Should have left it to the market-forces.

They really should stop subsidizing farmers though. The U.S. spends billions of dollars on farm subsidies that keep prices artificially high while at the same time spending billions of dollars on food stamps because some people can't afford food. It's utter madness to be doing both at the same time. The original justifications for having farm subsidies are no longer relevant and most of the subsidies aren't going to small family farms, but to corporations or those who don't need them.

So who would be "the right person"? It clearly didn't accomplish any major policy changes the last two times. Anyone higher than that is even more tightly protected, since a certain famous incident in 1963 showed the need for security over PR.

Anyone successfully targeting top officials is going to have to do a lot of collateral damage, and even then, a result is not guaranteed. One thing both sides agree on is wanting to survive their terms in office.

Except that Iran learnt that lesson and distributed it all over the country.

Except that may be enough of a countermeasure for something to remain after an Israeli attack. But nothing will remain, if America's airforce does it...

they have underground facilities that could even be MOAB resistant. Not an easy thing to do.

It does not have to be "easy", it has to be possible — and we know how.

The recent attack on Syrian airbase (and smaller-scale bombings of Hezbollah by Israel) have shown, that Russian radar and other air-defenses are useless against today planes and missiles we have. We know, where those Iranian facilities are and, after destroying Iranian radars and SAM-installations, we can keep bombing them with impunity — until we either destroy them all, or Iran cries "uncle".

At any rate, the main point was, "giving diplomacy a chance" was wrong — and so obviously wrong, given the fresh example of North Korea, one would be justified suspecting, Obama (who not only lifted sanctions, but gave Iranians nearly two billions in cash) did it deliberately — such as out of some perverse sense of "fairness" to put Israel in check.

For years the fans of Iran have attacked people like myself on two fronts:

• Iranians are peaceful and do not seek nuclear weapons;
• Iranians are fully entitled to nuclear weapons because Israel.

It always made me smile, how the two groups never argued with each other... And now we have the third argument: yeah, they probably are seeking nuclear weapons, but there is nothing we can do about it...

Democrats are slowing down the confirmation process so that at the current rate, congress will get through all of Trump's nominations in 11 years (!).

That's the blowback from refusing to even hold hearings on a replacement for Scalia until "the right person" could make that appointment. Now that they've armed this loose cannon, they're going to be repeatedly shot with it -- and it serves them right. Always assume that your opponents will eventually get possession of the ball, and craft your rule changes accordingly. They didn't, this is what happens.

Also, Democrats are slowing down the confirmation process

Conservatives sure do like being hypocritical little twats.

Republicans engaged in similar procedural combat after Democrats made the 2013 change, tying up the Senate to slow President Barack Obama’s push to fill judicial vacancies.

Here's some light reading for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... with highlights:

The Washington Post has identified 587 key positions requiring U.S. Senate confirmation. Of those key positions, As of August 17, 2017, 117 of Trump's nominees have been confirmed, 106 are awaiting confirmation, and 0 have been announced but not yet formally nominated.

So.... of the 587 key positions, Trump has nominated 223 as of a week ago. Then, there's this other side of things:

http://www.politico.com/story/...

At least 17 of Trump’s nominees took more than a month to be officially sent to the Senate, at which point the vetting by senators and aides can begin in earnest, according to a POLITICO analysis. (One of the 17 nominations, Jim Donovan to be Trump’s deputy Treasury secretary, has since been withdrawn).

I get it... i really do understand; you conservatives are fucking hypocrites who have to play the victim all the time because you can't govern worth a shit. When you do get in power, the only fucking thing you do is to try to stay in power, instead of help the country.... oh... and whine, a lot.

A category 4 hurricane just hit the Texas coast and our President still hasn't appointed anyone to head the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, or any of the agencies that deal with hurricanes.

Today, as he flew off on a golfing trip to Camp David, he was asked if he had a message for the people of Texas. His reply was, "Good luck".

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

If Trump appointed Brock Long to head Fema you'd be lying.

Oh wait... you are!

And wonder of wonders, Brock is not incompetent!.

Also, Democrats are slowing down the confirmation process so that at the current rate, congress will get through all of Trump's nominations in 11 years (!).

Also also, the senate pulled a parliamentary trick to block Trump recess appointments.

Be sure to blame all of that on Trump!

Nominations not getting through? Thank you Democrats. And vindictive, partisan fucks like you, PopeRatzo...

How is Iran a rogue nation? Here's a start:
It's a state sponsor of terrorism.
It has an unaccountable paramilitary force, the Revolutionary Guards, who regularly attack and detain foreigners, among others.
They flirt with nuclear proliferation, to the extent that Israel has unilaterally attacked them in the past.

Any one of these would be enough to label it a rogue nation.

Which is why a previous administration tried to lift sanctions in exchange for Iran stopping it's nuclear program.

The same way two Administrations earlier we tried the same with North Korea? That played out beautifully, didn't it?

Unfortunately this administration doesn't understand how diplomacy and foreign policy work,

Rather, because they do understand it better than you do...

Short of invading (which would be much, much harder than Iraq), there's no way we can stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Israel stopped Iraq's nuclear-weapons program without invading. Iran's is better protected, but our weapons today are much better than Israel's were in 1981.