But, as proved by the fact that the issue has come up, he cannot actually resolve their legal status. Obama tried resolving their legal status by executive order (after stating repeatedly that he did not have the authority to do so), yet here we are.
Everyone who "takes arms control seriously" thought that a deal where IAEE could only inspect those sites which Iran said it could inspect was a good deal?
That is not very surprising. I have rented several houses. Every time, I just contacted the power company and had them put the electric in my name as of the day my lease started. Between the time the previous tenant left and I moved in, the landlord had the account in his name. The power company asked me some confirming questions then executed the change.
In order for diplomacy to work, you need two things to be true: those you are negotiating with need to fear the failure of negotiations, and they need to be willing to give up something to get something. The Iranians did not appear to do either while Obama was negotiating with them.
Having a government that had difficulty functioning was one of the things the Framers aspired to. They did not wish it to be completely nonfunctional (they had seen how that was a bad idea under the Articles of Confederation), but it appears to me to be working as intended.
I think that the problem is that you dislike what it is doing and/or choosing not to do, rather than failing to get anything done. For the most part, the things it is not doing are things which it is choosing not to do rather than failing to succeed in doing. I wish it was doing less.
We have ALWAYS been in this place. As a matter of fact, the Framers of the Constitution INTENDED for us to be in this place.
If you want to make a lasting deal with the United States, you have to make sure that two thirds of the U.S. Senate is on board. In other words, one man cannot, and never has been able to, commit the U.S. for any longer than he holds office. You should take comfort from the fact that this means that Donald Trump cannot commit the U.S. to anything longer than he holds office unless he can get two thirds of the U.S. Senate on board.
The fact of the matter is that President Obama never wanted to do the heavy lifting of convincing enough Americans that his plans were good ones to force the Republicans to go along with what he wanted. If you look at the results of elections during his time in office it quickly becomes clear that the majority of Americans opposed most of his ideas.
It was a commitment by Obama, not by the United States. The fact of the matter is that it WAS a bad deal. The Iranian government repeatedly stated that it did not actually bind them in any way, both during negotiations and afterwards.
The countries who are fighting to keep this deal were the same countries which it was discovered were helping Saddam Hussein cheat on the "Oil for Food" program and they want to keep this deal for the same reason: their leaders personally profit from business deals with Iran which were illegal under the sanctions which the deal suspended.
A further important point is that technically, Trump did not withdraw from the deal. He decertified that Iran was in compliance with the terms of the agreement.
The thing is America did not give its word, that requires the deal to be ratified by the Senate, and Obama clearly stated while he was negotiating the deal that he was not going to do that.
Ummm, members of the U.S. Senate warned Iran that the "deal" President Obama was making with them was non-binding on future administrations before the deal was made unless it was ratified by the Senate.. This was done very publicly after Obama had declared that he was not going to submit the deal to the Senate for ratification. In other words, America never gave its word on this deal because there is a very specific process which must be followed before America has "given its word." Obama chose not to follow that process. What is funny is that Obama repeatedly gave his word that America would honor his agreements without taking the necessary actions to ensure that it actually would...and people still believe him.
Saying that America has broken its word would be like saying that a company has broken its word after the CEO employee signed a contract with another company which exceeded that employees authority and the other company had received a letter from the first company's Board of Directors stating that the CEO did not have the authority to enter into such a contract. There are limits to the types of contracts that even the CEO of a company cannot commit the company to without the approval of the Board of Directors.
Apparently you missed the fact that Obama rejected negotiating with Republicans as almost the first thing he did after he took office. He wanted to pass a big spending bill in early 2009. The Republicans had some ideas about what they wanted included in that spending bill. Obama's response to their suggestions? "I won"
The suggestions which Obama rejected were along the lines of "We think it would more effectively stimulate the economy if we spent government money this way." As we learned, the ways in which Obama wanted to spend government money were not very effective at stimulating the economy (the ideas the Republicans were suggesting were probably not much, if any, better).
As a random example, the fried rice at Panda Express has almost 40% more calories than steamed rice. So menu calorie info may not push someone away from Panda or from a side of rice, but it could easily make them consider getting steamed rice over fried.
I do not know about other people, but I know that if I was ordering from Panda Express and considering getting a side of rice the information you gave would tell me that the fired rice tastes better than the steamed rice.
Or to put it another way, the only time I can imagine the calorie information influencing my decision on what to order at a restaurant would be when I am having trouble deciding between two items. I would expect the item with more calories to have more flavor than the other and would therefore choose the one with more calories.
Let's see, one of the people "convicted" of lying to the FBI was Michael Flynn, about whom James Comey testified to Congress under oath that the agents who interviewed him believed he was being honest...these were the same agents he was supposed to have lied to. Additionally, the judge who oversaw that plea bargained conviction was involved in granting the FISA warrant under suspect circumstances AND was suddenly recused from the Michael Flynn case (note, the judge did not recuse themselves, they were recused by someone with higher standing in the court system). Finally the judge who took over the case ordered the Mueller team to turn over all evidence they have regarding the case to Flynn's lawyers (the wording suggests that the judge believes that the Mueller team was hiding exculpatory evidence from the defense).
As to the Manafort case, the judge overseeing one part of it asked the Mueller team to explain how the charges fell under Mueller's mandate and the response from Mueller's team was that, in addition to the public statement from Rod Rosenstein they had a secret mandate that expanded their power further. The judge told them to produce that secret mandate for him to judge whether the case fell under their mandate. The reason the judge was questioning their authority to prosecute the crime was because he could see no connection between the charges and the Trump campaign.
As, Mashiki pointed out, those 3 people from trump's campaign who were indicted were not indicted for anything to do with Russia. One of them, Paul Manafort, was indicted for something that happened long before the campaign, which had previously been investigated by the DoJ. In that previous investigation, the DoJ decided there was insufficient evidence to charge him.
However, regarding Hillary's collusion with Russia, are you aware that she paid Perkins Coie to pay Fusion GPS to pay Christopher Steele to obtain information from agents of the Russian government which could be used to smear Trump? That is not conspiracy theory, that is a matter of public record.
Do you really believe that? Or are you trolling? Because after two years of investigation the only evidence of collusion between a presidential candidate and the Russian government is the evidence that the Hillary campaign worked with the Russian government to create the "Steele dossier".
My point still stands, one of the biggest problems with computerized information is that people assume it is accurate without considering how credible its source was.
The "new" thing here is that computers are used, which provides for actual accuracy of the information...
That is the mistake that everyone makes. It does NOT provide anymore for accuracy of the information than previous methods of compiling it. What it does provide for is that the information never goes away, whether it is accurate or not. Or more precisely, it provides for that information to be retrievable. That information is just as likely as before to be accurate or libelous.
The students get a better education because of that.
That is a nice theory, history suggests otherwise.. The most literate army in the history of the U.S. was the one which fought the Civil War and none of them were taught in anything larger than a one room school house.
As to why being exposed to the lessons over and over is a good thing, I take it you have never been in a situation where you had to be retaught something you were taught once, years ago?
Well, that would make sense if it were not for the fact that after every one of those "tax breaks for the wealthiest members of society" get passed, the wealthiest members of society did not end up paying a greater share of federal revenue.
Ummm, Gutenberg would not have helped most people read the Bible if someone had not translated it into the vernacular. While it is true that Gutenberg allowed for vernacular Bibles to become wildly available, the Roman Catholic Church had a history of opposing such translations long before the advent of Gutenberg's printing press. This was a result of the fact that those who promoted translation into the vernacular did so because they believed that some of the Roman Catholic Church's teaching were contradicted by the Bible.
That sounds correct in theory, except that some of the worst school districts in the U.S. spend more per student than many much better districts. Those bad school districts are indeed in poor neighborhoods. The difference is that the parents, and taxpayers, in wealthy school districts hold the school district more accountable for how they spend that money. In wealthy school districts, the parents expect that there will be money available for the important things, and when those things are not there, they raise a ruckus. And enough of them understand finances well enough to recognize when the school budget is spending money on things they consider unimportant. In poor neighborhoods, the parents expect that their school will be underfunded (even when it isn't) and few if any of them have time to go through the school budget to see that the money is there, just being poorly spent. In those neighborhoods, when someone does take that time, they find themselves going up against politically entrenched interests who have more time and money to fight the necessary political battles.
Well, politicians contribute to the real problem, which is bureaucrats. In particular, a proliferation of administrative positions.
Related to that is the failure of consolidated school districts. The theory of consolidated school districts is economy of scale. However, the largest cost of education is personnel and larger schools actually need more personnel per student than smaller schools. If you have a one room school house, you need A teacher. If you scale up so that you have 5 rooms of students, you need 5 teachers AND a principal. As you scale up further you need ever more administrative personnel per student, without ever decreasing the number of teachers you need per student. You may actually need more teachers per student. In that one room school house the older students may aid the teacher in communicating the lessons, lessons they had been taught in previous years, to the younger students. More importantly, the older students are exposed to the basic lessons year after year, resulting in those lessons being reinforced over time.
Since Communism and Fascism are two faces of the same coin, of course they don't work.
What the person you responded to does not understand is that Fascism and Communism do not work for two closely related reasons:
If you had the sort of people you need to run things and make either of them work, you don't need either of them.
The type of people you need running either of those systems to make them work would not do the things necessary to make them work...because those things are evil
Look at some of the current people in our government.
The problem with your idea is that those are the people who would decide what your "social score" is. Do you really think that the people who covered up Teddy Kennedy leaving a woman to die would have counted any of his anti-social behavior against him? Or that the people who are angry about Donald Trump's alleged sexual harassment but were OK with Bill Clinton's alleged rapes would have evenly applied "social scores"?
Basically, the concept only works if you have honest, trustworthy people to implement it, but if you have such people in positions of power, you don't need it.
Slashdot Mirror
But, as proved by the fact that the issue has come up, he cannot actually resolve their legal status. Obama tried resolving their legal status by executive order (after stating repeatedly that he did not have the authority to do so), yet here we are.
Trump does not have the authority to address the legal status of "Dreamers". Only Congress can do that....something which Trump has asked them to do.
Everyone who "takes arms control seriously" thought that a deal where IAEE could only inspect those sites which Iran said it could inspect was a good deal?
That is not very surprising. I have rented several houses. Every time, I just contacted the power company and had them put the electric in my name as of the day my lease started. Between the time the previous tenant left and I moved in, the landlord had the account in his name. The power company asked me some confirming questions then executed the change.
In order for diplomacy to work, you need two things to be true: those you are negotiating with need to fear the failure of negotiations, and they need to be willing to give up something to get something. The Iranians did not appear to do either while Obama was negotiating with them.
Having a government that had difficulty functioning was one of the things the Framers aspired to. They did not wish it to be completely nonfunctional (they had seen how that was a bad idea under the Articles of Confederation), but it appears to me to be working as intended.
I think that the problem is that you dislike what it is doing and/or choosing not to do, rather than failing to get anything done. For the most part, the things it is not doing are things which it is choosing not to do rather than failing to succeed in doing. I wish it was doing less.
We have ALWAYS been in this place. As a matter of fact, the Framers of the Constitution INTENDED for us to be in this place.
If you want to make a lasting deal with the United States, you have to make sure that two thirds of the U.S. Senate is on board. In other words, one man cannot, and never has been able to, commit the U.S. for any longer than he holds office. You should take comfort from the fact that this means that Donald Trump cannot commit the U.S. to anything longer than he holds office unless he can get two thirds of the U.S. Senate on board.
The fact of the matter is that President Obama never wanted to do the heavy lifting of convincing enough Americans that his plans were good ones to force the Republicans to go along with what he wanted. If you look at the results of elections during his time in office it quickly becomes clear that the majority of Americans opposed most of his ideas.
It was a commitment by Obama, not by the United States. The fact of the matter is that it WAS a bad deal. The Iranian government repeatedly stated that it did not actually bind them in any way, both during negotiations and afterwards.
The countries who are fighting to keep this deal were the same countries which it was discovered were helping Saddam Hussein cheat on the "Oil for Food" program and they want to keep this deal for the same reason: their leaders personally profit from business deals with Iran which were illegal under the sanctions which the deal suspended.
A further important point is that technically, Trump did not withdraw from the deal. He decertified that Iran was in compliance with the terms of the agreement.
The thing is America did not give its word, that requires the deal to be ratified by the Senate, and Obama clearly stated while he was negotiating the deal that he was not going to do that.
Ummm, members of the U.S. Senate warned Iran that the "deal" President Obama was making with them was non-binding on future administrations before the deal was made unless it was ratified by the Senate.. This was done very publicly after Obama had declared that he was not going to submit the deal to the Senate for ratification. In other words, America never gave its word on this deal because there is a very specific process which must be followed before America has "given its word." Obama chose not to follow that process. What is funny is that Obama repeatedly gave his word that America would honor his agreements without taking the necessary actions to ensure that it actually would...and people still believe him.
Saying that America has broken its word would be like saying that a company has broken its word after the CEO employee signed a contract with another company which exceeded that employees authority and the other company had received a letter from the first company's Board of Directors stating that the CEO did not have the authority to enter into such a contract. There are limits to the types of contracts that even the CEO of a company cannot commit the company to without the approval of the Board of Directors.
Apparently you missed the fact that Obama rejected negotiating with Republicans as almost the first thing he did after he took office. He wanted to pass a big spending bill in early 2009. The Republicans had some ideas about what they wanted included in that spending bill. Obama's response to their suggestions? "I won"
The suggestions which Obama rejected were along the lines of "We think it would more effectively stimulate the economy if we spent government money this way." As we learned, the ways in which Obama wanted to spend government money were not very effective at stimulating the economy (the ideas the Republicans were suggesting were probably not much, if any, better).
As a random example, the fried rice at Panda Express has almost 40% more calories than steamed rice. So menu calorie info may not push someone away from Panda or from a side of rice, but it could easily make them consider getting steamed rice over fried.
I do not know about other people, but I know that if I was ordering from Panda Express and considering getting a side of rice the information you gave would tell me that the fired rice tastes better than the steamed rice.
Or to put it another way, the only time I can imagine the calorie information influencing my decision on what to order at a restaurant would be when I am having trouble deciding between two items. I would expect the item with more calories to have more flavor than the other and would therefore choose the one with more calories.
Let's see, one of the people "convicted" of lying to the FBI was Michael Flynn, about whom James Comey testified to Congress under oath that the agents who interviewed him believed he was being honest...these were the same agents he was supposed to have lied to. Additionally, the judge who oversaw that plea bargained conviction was involved in granting the FISA warrant under suspect circumstances AND was suddenly recused from the Michael Flynn case (note, the judge did not recuse themselves, they were recused by someone with higher standing in the court system). Finally the judge who took over the case ordered the Mueller team to turn over all evidence they have regarding the case to Flynn's lawyers (the wording suggests that the judge believes that the Mueller team was hiding exculpatory evidence from the defense).
As to the Manafort case, the judge overseeing one part of it asked the Mueller team to explain how the charges fell under Mueller's mandate and the response from Mueller's team was that, in addition to the public statement from Rod Rosenstein they had a secret mandate that expanded their power further. The judge told them to produce that secret mandate for him to judge whether the case fell under their mandate. The reason the judge was questioning their authority to prosecute the crime was because he could see no connection between the charges and the Trump campaign.
As, Mashiki pointed out, those 3 people from trump's campaign who were indicted were not indicted for anything to do with Russia. One of them, Paul Manafort, was indicted for something that happened long before the campaign, which had previously been investigated by the DoJ. In that previous investigation, the DoJ decided there was insufficient evidence to charge him.
However, regarding Hillary's collusion with Russia, are you aware that she paid Perkins Coie to pay Fusion GPS to pay Christopher Steele to obtain information from agents of the Russian government which could be used to smear Trump? That is not conspiracy theory, that is a matter of public record.
Do you really believe that? Or are you trolling? Because after two years of investigation the only evidence of collusion between a presidential candidate and the Russian government is the evidence that the Hillary campaign worked with the Russian government to create the "Steele dossier".
My point still stands, one of the biggest problems with computerized information is that people assume it is accurate without considering how credible its source was.
The "new" thing here is that computers are used, which provides for actual accuracy of the information...
That is the mistake that everyone makes. It does NOT provide anymore for accuracy of the information than previous methods of compiling it. What it does provide for is that the information never goes away, whether it is accurate or not. Or more precisely, it provides for that information to be retrievable. That information is just as likely as before to be accurate or libelous.
The students get a better education because of that.
That is a nice theory, history suggests otherwise.. The most literate army in the history of the U.S. was the one which fought the Civil War and none of them were taught in anything larger than a one room school house.
As to why being exposed to the lessons over and over is a good thing, I take it you have never been in a situation where you had to be retaught something you were taught once, years ago?
Well, that would make sense if it were not for the fact that after every one of those "tax breaks for the wealthiest members of society" get passed, the wealthiest members of society did not end up paying a greater share of federal revenue.
Ummm, Gutenberg would not have helped most people read the Bible if someone had not translated it into the vernacular. While it is true that Gutenberg allowed for vernacular Bibles to become wildly available, the Roman Catholic Church had a history of opposing such translations long before the advent of Gutenberg's printing press. This was a result of the fact that those who promoted translation into the vernacular did so because they believed that some of the Roman Catholic Church's teaching were contradicted by the Bible.
That sounds correct in theory, except that some of the worst school districts in the U.S. spend more per student than many much better districts. Those bad school districts are indeed in poor neighborhoods. The difference is that the parents, and taxpayers, in wealthy school districts hold the school district more accountable for how they spend that money. In wealthy school districts, the parents expect that there will be money available for the important things, and when those things are not there, they raise a ruckus. And enough of them understand finances well enough to recognize when the school budget is spending money on things they consider unimportant. In poor neighborhoods, the parents expect that their school will be underfunded (even when it isn't) and few if any of them have time to go through the school budget to see that the money is there, just being poorly spent. In those neighborhoods, when someone does take that time, they find themselves going up against politically entrenched interests who have more time and money to fight the necessary political battles.
Well, politicians contribute to the real problem, which is bureaucrats. In particular, a proliferation of administrative positions.
Related to that is the failure of consolidated school districts. The theory of consolidated school districts is economy of scale. However, the largest cost of education is personnel and larger schools actually need more personnel per student than smaller schools. If you have a one room school house, you need A teacher. If you scale up so that you have 5 rooms of students, you need 5 teachers AND a principal. As you scale up further you need ever more administrative personnel per student, without ever decreasing the number of teachers you need per student. You may actually need more teachers per student. In that one room school house the older students may aid the teacher in communicating the lessons, lessons they had been taught in previous years, to the younger students. More importantly, the older students are exposed to the basic lessons year after year, resulting in those lessons being reinforced over time.
What the person you responded to does not understand is that Fascism and Communism do not work for two closely related reasons:
And perhaps you missed the politically charged comments made in the post I responded to?
As an example Trump has a terrible record socially. his cheating and crimes are well known.
My politically charged comments were to show that Trump's political opponents had just as well-known, and possibly more serious, cheating and crimes.
Look at some of the current people in our government.
The problem with your idea is that those are the people who would decide what your "social score" is. Do you really think that the people who covered up Teddy Kennedy leaving a woman to die would have counted any of his anti-social behavior against him? Or that the people who are angry about Donald Trump's alleged sexual harassment but were OK with Bill Clinton's alleged rapes would have evenly applied "social scores"?
Basically, the concept only works if you have honest, trustworthy people to implement it, but if you have such people in positions of power, you don't need it.