And yet, there he is, sitting in the Oval Office, by the design of our system of representative democracy.
My point here was that a LOT of people don't agree that Trump is unfit for the presidency and a lot of folks support what he's doing. I'm saying that it's not a given that Trump is "completely wrong" and a bunch of people think the same way. You do know that he's got a job approval rating of nearly 44% right? In some polls he's over 50%. A lot of folks STILL think he's doing well...
I think the partisans who keep trying to bad mouth Trump's EVERY move, regardless of what it is, need to be mindful that a lot of people still support him, and the reason for this is partially because of such unfair and ridiculous nonsense as you just posted... Why not go after him on policy instead of breaking out the Nazi reference? Because, you got nothing else..;)
Shesh.. TDS is running deep... He can do nothing you like, regardless of what he does.
We where going to war with NK because of Trump, but now we are talking peace. Trump was applying pressure on Kim and China both in rhetoric and projecting force, ramping up sanctions.... But Kim suing for peace doesn't have anything to do with Trump?
I think the evidence points to the contrary. You can argue that South Korea and China are MORE responsible for this, but you simply cannot say Trump has no responsibility for this. Surely you see that he's at lest been a catalyst for this? That his rhetoric and force projection in the region didn't prompt somebody to do something? Sure looks like Trump had SOMETHING to do with this to me....
But no, Trump derangement Syndrome says we cannot say Trump did anything that got us closer to any desirable outcome. Oh no, Trump is all bad all the time with you folks.
Israel's evidence clearly show Iran's pattern of lying, and Iran's statements clearly indicate they where still actively developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, despite the "deal".
You mean the papers that CIA has known about for a decade? And which were the precursor to the agreement that was made? What Israel brought to the table is nothing new. It was known before, which is why an agreement was needed to curb the Iranians' effort to make a nuclear bomb. The agreement did just that. IAEA has certified over and over that Iran is in compliance with the terms of the agreement.
Right.. the IAEA is to be trusted and Iran let them see everything? (not as far as you can throw them and not on your life.)
The Iranians are lying to the IAEA, just like they did before the agreement was made (as the evidence proves). The problem here is the IAEA didn't have unrestricted inspection rights, even to the locations we KNEW where being used (as the evidence shows). The agreement didn't specify these locations. The IAEA's view of the situation was thus limited. Iran was/is lying that they are in compliance, like they've lied about this for decades. Nothing is new...
So you think the IAEA's opinion counts and is valid? Cute..
Why should I trust US intelligence agencies, particularly after 2003 (or, for that matter, 1963)? And what makes you think that US-only sanctions would prevent Iran from making nukes? They were working on them before the deal was made, and making some progress.
2003? Oh, THAT... Shesh sir. You got to go with the best information you got sometimes, and they were not totally wrong in 2003, WMD's had existed in Iraq, Sadam was saying he still had them and the will to use them, AND we actually detected some in combat, they just where not tactically significant or released when we destroyed Sadam's ammo dumps. This when the UN supposedly removed all of them too...
So... Because they where wrong a couple of times you don't believe them now? Who's never been wrong?
But you don't have to take US intelligence at face value, just listen to the Iranians. They are clearly claiming that they never really stopped their efforts as agreed and you admit that they are working on them still. What value is this agreement if the Iranians don't follow it and we do?
US only sanctions may not stop them, but short of using force, what can the US do beyond that? I say we try sanctions and ask the UN and our allies to participate in them. Couldn't be any worse this way...
Seems to me that Trump's assertive foreign policy is working out fairly well, despite all the dire predictions being made.
Where's that trade war with China?
Seems to me that Chia could poke a stick in Trump's eye by helping out Kim if they wanted too, not sure what their motives are for helping Trump with the thumb screws. Avoid a refugee crisis on their border? Avoid a nuclearized Korea? You cannot tell me China cared about Kim having nuclear weapons and just now decided to crack down on the crack pot. I think it's a reaction to Trump's policy here...
If it weren't for calmer heads in OTHER countries war would have broken out.
So we have you saying that although the same folks who where claiming the sky was falling where wrong, they are somehow right this time?
I distinctly remember hearing all the dire consequences what where sure to come should we go to war with NK, yet what's happening now? China may be partially responsible for this softening of Kim behind the curtain, but can you not admit that Trump isn't also with his in your face brashness? I'm sure North Korea wasn't sure if Trump would shoot first, yet here we go, likely to the table to sign a peace treaty long over due? We have NK on record saying they are dismantling their nuclear test facilities?
How's being a bit more assertive with Iran and other countries a bad thing? Seems to have worked with China / NK fairly well so far.
What I'm seeing is a much more assertive foreign policy from the USA, but I'm not seeing a headlong rush into a war.
There really was no "deal" here. It was a one sided promise by an ex-president who didn't have the authority to make a "deal" and who was fully aware that he was powerless to make any "deal" because Congress wouldn't ratify it as required by the Constitution.
The question about if Iran was abiding by the agreement or not has a pretty clear answer, despite all the fog being generated by Trump's detractors, they obviously where not. Israel's evidence clearly show Iran's pattern of lying, and Iran's statements clearly indicate they where still actively developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, despite the "deal".
All Trump is really doing here is re-applying economic sanctions on Iran. He's not threatening war or the use of force,but he's wisely not taking that off the table either. IF the rest of the world doesn't like this, Trump is willing to go it alone and enact US sanctions on Iran, but how's that some huge harry deal?
North Korea.... What where you saying about that a year ago and How's that working out? Didn't they just release three US prisoners today and are they not discussing a peace treaty and nuclear disarmament after all this time?
I don't think I'd be making confident predictions about the effects of Trump's actions if I where you.
That is opinion, not fact. I don't agree that this move is wrong, which is my opinion.
Nearly Half of the voters in the country agree with me. Trump ran on this action, said he was going to do this during the campaign. A lot of folks thought this idea was a good one.
So, we don't know who's wrong here. We won't know that until history has a chance to judge the action.
From my perspective it's Israel's opponents in the region who are out routinely killing journalists but you are not allowed to say such things.
Israel may not be totally without fault, but the press's continued condemnation of them is without basis. Israel is surrounded on three sides by mortal foes who routinely express their desire to wipe them from the map. Israel is routinely attacked by rockets and suicide bombers yet remains accused of atrocities for doing what it can to naturalize such threats because its neighbors won't control their own territory.
I believe you are correct. Like it or not, we are involved in the middle east and our national interests are in keeping things stable as best we can.
However, the policies that best accomplish stability in the region may not be exactly intuitive or clear given the complexities of government, religion and economics of the place. Where I'd prefer to take a hands off approach, concentrating on providing transportation security while staying disengaged in local issues, this may not be possible all the time.
I think there will be times when we won't really have a choice but to intervene with force. Iran clearly is the biggest risk here, and although it could be argued we caused this problem by eliminating Iraq and ending the economic sanctions, we may need to step in. I sure hope not, it could be a bloody mess, but somehow I think our two forays into Iraq tells me it would be quick and decisive should it be necessary.
Ok, Ok.. You knew what I mean.. But in the future I will try to phrase it this way: "Trump got nearly half the vote." OR "Trump clearly took the majority of the electoral college vote." Just so I won't get such posts from folks like you.
I can answer the question of "why"... Obama was powerless to attract 2/3rds of ANY Senate vote, either way, and he and Kerry needed a LEGACY to show for that 8 years.
Obama put it this way... "I have a pen and a phone" so that's what he used. Unfortunately, Obama's pen and phone doesn't make a treaty with anybody.
Even if he has to destroy the United States to do it.
Who will trust a treaty with the US after this?
This wasn't a treaty... It never got ratified in the senate.. Obama/Kerry were making promises on behalf of the USA that they was powerless to keep.
You could argue that Obama was the one who changed the status quo by relaxing the economic sanctions on Iran BEFORE actually securing and verifying their compliance with the agreement and before getting the agreement ratified by the Senate.
Trump clearly ran on this issue and nearly half the people in the USA still voted for him. He did what he promised in this case, for better or worse, so you've got to admit he's at least trying to do what he promised.
If you realize that this is a complex issue then why would you suggest such a simplistic and short-sighted action? Also, we don't produce anywhere near the amount of oil needed to match our consumption.
Um.... Well, to though a few bombs into the fray...
I think we have enough fossil fuels to survive over in our hemisphere. We might have to alter a few things like using more NG than we do now, but we could make a go of it.
That's not to say I'm for letting the middle east just self destruct nor should we arm a couple of proxies over there and let them do it.
I never said it would never happen, I'm saying Uber won't be the company that does it.
I'm also going to say that nobody who does this will use it for a taxi service because there isn't enough money in it.
Total automation of a human rated flying system is going to be very expensive to develop and use. This is because of how much risk management will be required by the regulatory authority (the FAA). Proving the technology will take decades of work to make possible, both with the regulatory authority, the air traffic control systems, navigation aids and the aircraft and it's systems that can operate safely without a pilot.
So please understand.. This "flying car" thing has been a cool pipe dream since the 40's, we've had a number of prototypes that flew even, but you cannot go buy an airworthy flying car today can you? There are economic and engineering reasons for this. These reasons are the very same reasons a totally antonymous version of a flying car won't be available in what remains of my lifetime or yours. It will be too expensive to develop, to hard to get certified, and won't be able to compete economically as a mode of transportation.
That doesn't mean Trump didn't obstruct justice or hire him to be his campaign manager anyway, lol. Bend over, comrade. Prison time.
How's this relevant or related? Muller can only investigate certain things, specifically Russian involvement in the presidential campaign and "any crimes uncovered in the investigation."
Muller wasn't tasked with looking for obstruction of justice so it has to be somehow related to his investigation or he has to trip over the "crime" in the natural course of his primary investigative work.
Firing Comey wasn't obstruction, it was firing the FBI director who serves at the pleasure of the president. So unless you have some other series of events that amount to obstruction, I'm going to tell you it's a pipe dream you have there. Comey's departure didn't obstruct or effect any FBI investigations. And if you are taking Comey's word for the "I hope you can let this Flynn thing go" conversation, I've got to ask you, did it obstruct anything? Flynn got charged still. AND Trump can argue he wasn't ordering anything, just expressing his preference, and clearly Comey didn't obey.
Muller doesn't have a wide open scope to investigate anything he wants there are limits. He's got to stick to the admittedly vaguely defined set of things or he's outside his authority. Manafort's alleged crimes happened in 2005, well before any election efforts by Trump and Muller was pointed at the Trump campaign and transition to investigate any possible Russian involvement/coordination in the 2016 campaign. You've got to admit this is a stretch to go back to 2005, a full decade before the campaign and charge somebody for something that has nothing to do with the campaign or involves Russians....
But... You obviously are surprised here and haven't though this through. The judge may dismiss, but all Muller has to do is change venues by convening another Grand Jury in another jurisdiction and charge again... Assuming the statute of limitations hasn't run out. Of course Manafort will have the same argument, but Muller is free to venue shop and get this to trial if he wants.
Slashdot Mirror
If that's how they think they can win votes, by holding useless votes, then power to them. Even if it passes, it won't be signed by Trump.
I'm afraid though, if this is their wedge issue this go around, they got problems bigger than Trump.
Nearly half the voters in the country agree with me, and you choose to try to insult us all?
Real Clear Politics shows Trumps job approval rating at 43.2% https://www.realclearpolitics....
That's a lot of people who don't agree with you out there..
I guess I know why you posted as an AC then...
And yet, there he is, sitting in the Oval Office, by the design of our system of representative democracy.
My point here was that a LOT of people don't agree that Trump is unfit for the presidency and a lot of folks support what he's doing. I'm saying that it's not a given that Trump is "completely wrong" and a bunch of people think the same way. You do know that he's got a job approval rating of nearly 44% right? In some polls he's over 50%. A lot of folks STILL think he's doing well...
I think the partisans who keep trying to bad mouth Trump's EVERY move, regardless of what it is, need to be mindful that a lot of people still support him, and the reason for this is partially because of such unfair and ridiculous nonsense as you just posted... Why not go after him on policy instead of breaking out the Nazi reference? Because, you got nothing else.. ;)
Shesh.. TDS is running deep... He can do nothing you like, regardless of what he does.
We where going to war with NK because of Trump, but now we are talking peace. Trump was applying pressure on Kim and China both in rhetoric and projecting force, ramping up sanctions.... But Kim suing for peace doesn't have anything to do with Trump?
I think the evidence points to the contrary. You can argue that South Korea and China are MORE responsible for this, but you simply cannot say Trump has no responsibility for this. Surely you see that he's at lest been a catalyst for this? That his rhetoric and force projection in the region didn't prompt somebody to do something? Sure looks like Trump had SOMETHING to do with this to me....
But no, Trump derangement Syndrome says we cannot say Trump did anything that got us closer to any desirable outcome. Oh no, Trump is all bad all the time with you folks.
Israel's evidence clearly show Iran's pattern of lying, and Iran's statements clearly indicate they where still actively developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, despite the "deal".
You mean the papers that CIA has known about for a decade? And which were the precursor to the agreement that was made? What Israel brought to the table is nothing new. It was known before, which is why an agreement was needed to curb the Iranians' effort to make a nuclear bomb. The agreement did just that. IAEA has certified over and over that Iran is in compliance with the terms of the agreement.
Right.. the IAEA is to be trusted and Iran let them see everything? (not as far as you can throw them and not on your life.)
The Iranians are lying to the IAEA, just like they did before the agreement was made (as the evidence proves). The problem here is the IAEA didn't have unrestricted inspection rights, even to the locations we KNEW where being used (as the evidence shows). The agreement didn't specify these locations. The IAEA's view of the situation was thus limited. Iran was/is lying that they are in compliance, like they've lied about this for decades. Nothing is new...
So you think the IAEA's opinion counts and is valid? Cute..
Why should I trust US intelligence agencies, particularly after 2003 (or, for that matter, 1963)? And what makes you think that US-only sanctions would prevent Iran from making nukes? They were working on them before the deal was made, and making some progress.
2003? Oh, THAT... Shesh sir. You got to go with the best information you got sometimes, and they were not totally wrong in 2003, WMD's had existed in Iraq, Sadam was saying he still had them and the will to use them, AND we actually detected some in combat, they just where not tactically significant or released when we destroyed Sadam's ammo dumps. This when the UN supposedly removed all of them too...
So... Because they where wrong a couple of times you don't believe them now? Who's never been wrong?
But you don't have to take US intelligence at face value, just listen to the Iranians. They are clearly claiming that they never really stopped their efforts as agreed and you admit that they are working on them still. What value is this agreement if the Iranians don't follow it and we do?
US only sanctions may not stop them, but short of using force, what can the US do beyond that? I say we try sanctions and ask the UN and our allies to participate in them. Couldn't be any worse this way...
Who's ignoring China?
Seems to me that Trump's assertive foreign policy is working out fairly well, despite all the dire predictions being made.
Where's that trade war with China?
Seems to me that Chia could poke a stick in Trump's eye by helping out Kim if they wanted too, not sure what their motives are for helping Trump with the thumb screws. Avoid a refugee crisis on their border? Avoid a nuclearized Korea? You cannot tell me China cared about Kim having nuclear weapons and just now decided to crack down on the crack pot. I think it's a reaction to Trump's policy here...
If it weren't for calmer heads in OTHER countries war would have broken out.
So we have you saying that although the same folks who where claiming the sky was falling where wrong, they are somehow right this time?
I distinctly remember hearing all the dire consequences what where sure to come should we go to war with NK, yet what's happening now? China may be partially responsible for this softening of Kim behind the curtain, but can you not admit that Trump isn't also with his in your face brashness? I'm sure North Korea wasn't sure if Trump would shoot first, yet here we go, likely to the table to sign a peace treaty long over due? We have NK on record saying they are dismantling their nuclear test facilities?
How's being a bit more assertive with Iran and other countries a bad thing? Seems to have worked with China / NK fairly well so far.
What I'm seeing is a much more assertive foreign policy from the USA, but I'm not seeing a headlong rush into a war.
There really was no "deal" here. It was a one sided promise by an ex-president who didn't have the authority to make a "deal" and who was fully aware that he was powerless to make any "deal" because Congress wouldn't ratify it as required by the Constitution.
The question about if Iran was abiding by the agreement or not has a pretty clear answer, despite all the fog being generated by Trump's detractors, they obviously where not. Israel's evidence clearly show Iran's pattern of lying, and Iran's statements clearly indicate they where still actively developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, despite the "deal".
All Trump is really doing here is re-applying economic sanctions on Iran. He's not threatening war or the use of force,but he's wisely not taking that off the table either. IF the rest of the world doesn't like this, Trump is willing to go it alone and enact US sanctions on Iran, but how's that some huge harry deal?
North Korea.... What where you saying about that a year ago and How's that working out? Didn't they just release three US prisoners today and are they not discussing a peace treaty and nuclear disarmament after all this time?
I don't think I'd be making confident predictions about the effects of Trump's actions if I where you.
Am I the only one who keeps hearing the same claim with different countries from the opponents of Trump?
Haven't' we heard the same thing about North Korea, Syria and now Iran? Where are those wars?
It's like a broken record...
He, of course, is completely wrong.
That is opinion, not fact. I don't agree that this move is wrong, which is my opinion.
Nearly Half of the voters in the country agree with me. Trump ran on this action, said he was going to do this during the campaign. A lot of folks thought this idea was a good one.
So, we don't know who's wrong here. We won't know that until history has a chance to judge the action.
(Crickets)
From my perspective it's Israel's opponents in the region who are out routinely killing journalists but you are not allowed to say such things.
Israel may not be totally without fault, but the press's continued condemnation of them is without basis. Israel is surrounded on three sides by mortal foes who routinely express their desire to wipe them from the map. Israel is routinely attacked by rockets and suicide bombers yet remains accused of atrocities for doing what it can to naturalize such threats because its neighbors won't control their own territory.
What would *you* do in that situation?
I believe you are correct. Like it or not, we are involved in the middle east and our national interests are in keeping things stable as best we can.
However, the policies that best accomplish stability in the region may not be exactly intuitive or clear given the complexities of government, religion and economics of the place. Where I'd prefer to take a hands off approach, concentrating on providing transportation security while staying disengaged in local issues, this may not be possible all the time.
I think there will be times when we won't really have a choice but to intervene with force. Iran clearly is the biggest risk here, and although it could be argued we caused this problem by eliminating Iraq and ending the economic sanctions, we may need to step in. I sure hope not, it could be a bloody mess, but somehow I think our two forays into Iraq tells me it would be quick and decisive should it be necessary.
Ok, Ok.. You knew what I mean.. But in the future I will try to phrase it this way: "Trump got nearly half the vote." OR "Trump clearly took the majority of the electoral college vote." Just so I won't get such posts from folks like you.
And Trump took the majority in the electoral college...
In the interest of accuracy, I will in the future say.... "Trump got nearly half the vote." Does that work for you?
I can answer the question of "why"... Obama was powerless to attract 2/3rds of ANY Senate vote, either way, and he and Kerry needed a LEGACY to show for that 8 years.
Obama put it this way... "I have a pen and a phone" so that's what he used. Unfortunately, Obama's pen and phone doesn't make a treaty with anybody.
Israel claims they have a bunch of evidence and the US intelligence services have confirmed the information. Is that not enough for you?
You want to see a mushroom cloud before you believe the Iranians are building the bomb? Isn't that a bit too late?
Even if he has to destroy the United States to do it. Who will trust a treaty with the US after this?
This wasn't a treaty... It never got ratified in the senate.. Obama/Kerry were making promises on behalf of the USA that they was powerless to keep.
You could argue that Obama was the one who changed the status quo by relaxing the economic sanctions on Iran BEFORE actually securing and verifying their compliance with the agreement and before getting the agreement ratified by the Senate.
Trump clearly ran on this issue and nearly half the people in the USA still voted for him. He did what he promised in this case, for better or worse, so you've got to admit he's at least trying to do what he promised.
If you realize that this is a complex issue then why would you suggest such a simplistic and short-sighted action? Also, we don't produce anywhere near the amount of oil needed to match our consumption.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexpl...
Um.... Well, to though a few bombs into the fray...
I think we have enough fossil fuels to survive over in our hemisphere. We might have to alter a few things like using more NG than we do now, but we could make a go of it.
That's not to say I'm for letting the middle east just self destruct nor should we arm a couple of proxies over there and let them do it.
That's not how John Kerry who brokered the deal was selling it. I'm curious if you just made that up or what.
I never said it would never happen, I'm saying Uber won't be the company that does it.
I'm also going to say that nobody who does this will use it for a taxi service because there isn't enough money in it.
Total automation of a human rated flying system is going to be very expensive to develop and use. This is because of how much risk management will be required by the regulatory authority (the FAA). Proving the technology will take decades of work to make possible, both with the regulatory authority, the air traffic control systems, navigation aids and the aircraft and it's systems that can operate safely without a pilot.
So please understand.. This "flying car" thing has been a cool pipe dream since the 40's, we've had a number of prototypes that flew even, but you cannot go buy an airworthy flying car today can you? There are economic and engineering reasons for this. These reasons are the very same reasons a totally antonymous version of a flying car won't be available in what remains of my lifetime or yours. It will be too expensive to develop, to hard to get certified, and won't be able to compete economically as a mode of transportation.
That doesn't mean Trump didn't obstruct justice or hire him to be his campaign manager anyway, lol. Bend over, comrade. Prison time.
How's this relevant or related? Muller can only investigate certain things, specifically Russian involvement in the presidential campaign and "any crimes uncovered in the investigation."
Muller wasn't tasked with looking for obstruction of justice so it has to be somehow related to his investigation or he has to trip over the "crime" in the natural course of his primary investigative work.
Firing Comey wasn't obstruction, it was firing the FBI director who serves at the pleasure of the president. So unless you have some other series of events that amount to obstruction, I'm going to tell you it's a pipe dream you have there. Comey's departure didn't obstruct or effect any FBI investigations. And if you are taking Comey's word for the "I hope you can let this Flynn thing go" conversation, I've got to ask you, did it obstruct anything? Flynn got charged still. AND Trump can argue he wasn't ordering anything, just expressing his preference, and clearly Comey didn't obey.
Naw.. Muller will just change venues and recharge in a more favorable place.
All the ruling will accomplish is firing a warning shot across Muller's bow, but I doubt he would pay attention to it.
Muller doesn't have a wide open scope to investigate anything he wants there are limits. He's got to stick to the admittedly vaguely defined set of things or he's outside his authority. Manafort's alleged crimes happened in 2005, well before any election efforts by Trump and Muller was pointed at the Trump campaign and transition to investigate any possible Russian involvement/coordination in the 2016 campaign. You've got to admit this is a stretch to go back to 2005, a full decade before the campaign and charge somebody for something that has nothing to do with the campaign or involves Russians....
But... You obviously are surprised here and haven't though this through. The judge may dismiss, but all Muller has to do is change venues by convening another Grand Jury in another jurisdiction and charge again... Assuming the statute of limitations hasn't run out. Of course Manafort will have the same argument, but Muller is free to venue shop and get this to trial if he wants.