And Putin is probably a lot more manageable if the mid-2000's NATO expansion didn't convince him that the US was out to create a military alliance encircling Russia.
Those countries surrounding Russia had a history of being conquered by Russia. And when Russia decided to "forcefully influence" Georgia, those countries felt they needed more protection from Russia. Annexing Crimea just reinforces this belief.
If Putin doesn't like his neighbors looking for protection, he kinda needed to stop giving them reasons to look for protection.
That is not to say US foreign relations are perfect, but Russia is not a passive entity in this situation.
And that was always the problem with Obama. When voters sent people to Congress to represent their interests, Obama saw those representatives and the voters as an obstacle to his plans. He actively worked around the will of the voters.
so when Trump goes, the rest of the world will breathe a collective sigh and assume things go back to normal
This is assuming Trump actually goes in 2020.
The Democratic party hasn't exactly shown that they've learned anything from 2016. And none of the various "resistance" protests are coming from the Democratic party. The party's just cowering in a corner, occasionally saying "but we're not Trump!" as if that's a guaranteed win.
So Trump stands a decent chance at re-election. If he does win, pretending that it's just Trump's credibility isn't going to fly.
Trump just appointed a guy as his National Security adviser who promised to conquer Iran by 2019. And he's only the most recent neocon to be added to the administration. Just look to W for their track record on convincing morons that war is easy and makes the President great.
The Republican party has demonstrated they have zero interest in restraining Trump. They need Trump's base to be re-elected, so they can't oppose him. Which means Trump will not be impeached, so he'll serve out at least one term.
"Just hold on" is not necessarily and available option.
I'm betting that the real reason is that Obama negotiated the treaty; I don't really understand the USA internals -- nor should I, as a foreigner -- but can a President really get out of treaties without the Congress consent?
Not really. A treaty becomes a law when ratified by the Senate, and a President can't override a law.
However, a President can sabotage the implementation of a treaty, since the Executive branch is the one that implements what Congress passes.
For example: Congress says "Spend $X on food and aid in (country) by (date)". President chooses supplier that charges $X for 3 bags of rice (It can't really be this extreme due to other regulations, but this gets the point across).
The reason Obama did not send a treaty to Congress is the Senate would have rejected it. McConnell (Senate leader) was dead set against giving Obama anything resembling a "win", so he would have never even brought the treaty up for a vote.
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"
Holy revisionist history Batman!!
The spending plan was changed to be about 50% tax cuts in order to comply with Republican demands.
I mean he did kind of throw away that whole post-partisan president thing early when it came to the Obamacare legislation...
Obama proposed the Republican health care reform plan from the 1990s. It uses "free markets", "informed consumers" and all sorts of Republican shibboleths while ensuring medical care remains private, and massively for-profit.
The Republicans, despite drawing up this plan for Bob Dole to present as the alternative to Clinton health care reform and also passing the same plan in Massachusetts, marched in lock-step opposition.
You can't negotiate with a group that responds with nothing but "Fuck you". Obamacare is exactly what Republicans wanted, they just didn't want a Democrat's name on it.
It's not like people are currently going to the Microsoft Store to look for apps they want. SEO on Google is far more important in getting people to your app, even if you use Microsoft Store to distribute it.
The last maxima from this effect was about 200,000 years ago, and the next one will be 200,000 years from now. It can not be causing the climate change we currently see, because that is happening too rapidly for this to be the cause.
I inherit this problem, I own this problem, I must be one of the many that suffer to fix the problem
"Responsible" does not only mean "caused".
As in, adoptive parents become responsible for the children they adopt, despite not causing those children to exist.
You (and I) are responsible for climate change in that we have to fix it or suffer the consequences. Doesn't mean we created it. It means we are taking responsibility from the careless generations before us.
Well, it all depends on how solid the crew compartment is
It's not possible to build a crew compartment strong enough to withstand such an explosion that is still light enough to be launched into space. So they don't.
Instead, the crew capsule has emergency rockets that launch it away from the explosion, and then land the capsule using it's normal parachute landing systems. Just like the 1960's NASA rockets.
Except NASA pumped fuel into the Shuttle's external tank until right before launch. The liquid hydrogen line was the last thing to disconnect before launch because they were pumping fuel into the tank until right before the SRB's lit.
One could argue that this "topping off" was safer than SpaceX's fueling, but we'd have to actually study them to know.
Except NASA also loaded fuel with the crew on-board. They just called it "topping off" - more fuel was pumped into the shuttle's tanks until liftoff, to make up for what was leaking out of the tanks.
The subsequent shuttle flights were after they had studied how ice damages the shuttles. So they had a reasonable idea of what happened and what could happen in a future flight.
That was not something they could do before a rush-launch of Atlantis.
Because when one shuttle was fatally damaged by a not-well-studied-yet issue, the best solution is to rush another shuttle through the same process that caused the first failure.
What's your plan for ice damaging Atlantis's wing?
but I though the shuttle had an abort to europe profile that didn't include a go-around orbit.
Theoretically, the shuttle had 4 abort modes.
Very early in the flight, they could abort back to FL. This was considered insane to actually try and unlikely to actually work.
Shortly after that window, they could theoretically abort to Africa/Europe, but the window for that was extremely small. Something like two minutes (can't be bothered to look it up atm).
Next, they could abort to a sub-orbital trajectory and land in CA or FL.
Then there was ATO, and mission control would decide if they stayed in orbit or landed in CA or FL. IIRC this was used twice and they stayed in orbit both times at a slightly lower-than-intended orbit.
Yes, but doesn't fresh concrete absorb CO2 over the years while hardening?
No.
There's two kinds of cement, hydraulic and non-hydraulic. Non-hydraulic cures by absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. Big disadvantage is it has to be exposed to air for a lengthy curing time. Hydraulic cement cures just with the addition of water and doesn't absorb CO2.
Portland cement is a hydraulic cement, and that's what's in concrete.
The 2016 Clinton campaign is a separate entity from the Clinton Foundation. The claim that this is a "nuance" is to claim that the difference between the American Red Cross and Stormfront is nuance.
So perhaps the headline should be ammended to say, "Technicalities were violated !!"
The law exists so that people can not use their government position to influence elections. The violation is not a technicality. The way to avoid a violation is.
True, but the dems fundraise on bringing it back. It has been brought to Congress several times since 1987.
Your claim was that the Fairness Doctrine is being used to shut down Rush Limbaugh. As in, actively used. Right now. Not "a small number of them want to pass a law bringing it back that probably can't survive a Constitutional challenge which then could possibly be used to shut down Rush Limbaugh.".
In other words, you're spouting bullshit. Just like your other "whatabouts".
So why did Lois Lerner turn herself in over nothing?
So there's this thing called "politics". It is heavily wrapped up in appearances. Quitting was used to help keep up appearances because the Obama administration's primary delusion was that Republicans are rational. Throwing a relatively low-level person under the bus was supposed to be used as a "see! We fixed the problem!" thing. But since Republicans are not rational, it became Obama personally reviewing every application and blocking the Tea Party ones out of spite. Reality be damned.
The internal policy explicitly directed IRS staff to target the tea party affiliated groups
The internal policy explicitly directed IRS staff to target political groups based on certain keywords. Some of those keywords matched with Tea Party groups. And some of those keywords matched with liberal groups.
So no, it was not targeting the Tea Party groups. Those horrible evil liberals also got delayed.
That the NYTimes has an opinion about this absolves nothing... less than 30% of the US thinks that's an unbiased source. Politico has always been news for belt-way types.
Because killing the messenger always changes reality to conform to your beliefs.
Would you prefer the Inspector General that investigated it and blasted the IRS for the targeting of both left-wing and right-wing groups? https://www.washingtonpost.com...
OMG! WASHINGTON POST!! IT MUST BE FAKE NEWS BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT!! Nevermind they're literally quoting the report....
Slashdot Mirror
The US sanctions apply to European entities that try to do business with Iran. So no, the US has plenty of leverage.
And Putin is probably a lot more manageable if the mid-2000's NATO expansion didn't convince him that the US was out to create a military alliance encircling Russia.
Those countries surrounding Russia had a history of being conquered by Russia. And when Russia decided to "forcefully influence" Georgia, those countries felt they needed more protection from Russia. Annexing Crimea just reinforces this belief.
If Putin doesn't like his neighbors looking for protection, he kinda needed to stop giving them reasons to look for protection.
That is not to say US foreign relations are perfect, but Russia is not a passive entity in this situation.
And that was always the problem with Obama. When voters sent people to Congress to represent their interests, Obama saw those representatives and the voters as an obstacle to his plans. He actively worked around the will of the voters.
Uh....you do realize those people sent do Congress explicitly refused to negotiate with Obama, right?
You can't negotiate with someone who only responds with "fuck you".
You can't negotiate with someone who only responds with "fuck you".
so when Trump goes, the rest of the world will breathe a collective sigh and assume things go back to normal
This is assuming Trump actually goes in 2020.
The Democratic party hasn't exactly shown that they've learned anything from 2016. And none of the various "resistance" protests are coming from the Democratic party. The party's just cowering in a corner, occasionally saying "but we're not Trump!" as if that's a guaranteed win.
So Trump stands a decent chance at re-election. If he does win, pretending that it's just Trump's credibility isn't going to fly.
You're assuming Iran has that option.
Trump just appointed a guy as his National Security adviser who promised to conquer Iran by 2019. And he's only the most recent neocon to be added to the administration. Just look to W for their track record on convincing morons that war is easy and makes the President great.
The Republican party has demonstrated they have zero interest in restraining Trump. They need Trump's base to be re-elected, so they can't oppose him. Which means Trump will not be impeached, so he'll serve out at least one term.
"Just hold on" is not necessarily and available option.
I'm betting that the real reason is that Obama negotiated the treaty; I don't really understand the USA internals -- nor should I, as a foreigner -- but can a President really get out of treaties without the Congress consent?
Not really. A treaty becomes a law when ratified by the Senate, and a President can't override a law.
However, a President can sabotage the implementation of a treaty, since the Executive branch is the one that implements what Congress passes.
For example: Congress says "Spend $X on food and aid in (country) by (date)". President chooses supplier that charges $X for 3 bags of rice (It can't really be this extreme due to other regulations, but this gets the point across).
The reason Obama did not send a treaty to Congress is the Senate would have rejected it. McConnell (Senate leader) was dead set against giving Obama anything resembling a "win", so he would have never even brought the treaty up for a vote.
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"
Holy revisionist history Batman!!
The spending plan was changed to be about 50% tax cuts in order to comply with Republican demands.
I mean he did kind of throw away that whole post-partisan president thing early when it came to the Obamacare legislation...
Obama proposed the Republican health care reform plan from the 1990s. It uses "free markets", "informed consumers" and all sorts of Republican shibboleths while ensuring medical care remains private, and massively for-profit.
The Republicans, despite drawing up this plan for Bob Dole to present as the alternative to Clinton health care reform and also passing the same plan in Massachusetts, marched in lock-step opposition.
You can't negotiate with a group that responds with nothing but "Fuck you". Obamacare is exactly what Republicans wanted, they just didn't want a Democrat's name on it.
I rather see them invent a system that makes it easy and inexpensive for any business to receive and confirm appointments online.
There are many of those that already exist. All of them are incompatible with each other, and everyone is pushing their own "standard".
Place-phone-call is about the closest thing we have to a standard.
If your response is "Then Google should push it's own standard", 1) they already do, and 2) https://xkcd.com/927/
Forcing interaction doesn't help either.
It's not like people are currently going to the Microsoft Store to look for apps they want. SEO on Google is far more important in getting people to your app, even if you use Microsoft Store to distribute it.
The last maxima from this effect was about 200,000 years ago, and the next one will be 200,000 years from now. It can not be causing the climate change we currently see, because that is happening too rapidly for this to be the cause.
I inherit this problem, I own this problem, I must be one of the many that suffer to fix the problem
"Responsible" does not only mean "caused".
As in, adoptive parents become responsible for the children they adopt, despite not causing those children to exist.
You (and I) are responsible for climate change in that we have to fix it or suffer the consequences. Doesn't mean we created it. It means we are taking responsibility from the careless generations before us.
Moronic? Your reply was. To disregard the influence of the other planets, surrounding the sun, is moronic
Moronic is attempting to use this research to explain a maxima. Since we're 200,000 years from this effect's maxima.
Well, it all depends on how solid the crew compartment is
It's not possible to build a crew compartment strong enough to withstand such an explosion that is still light enough to be launched into space. So they don't.
Instead, the crew capsule has emergency rockets that launch it away from the explosion, and then land the capsule using it's normal parachute landing systems. Just like the 1960's NASA rockets.
and even the main engines of the Space Shuttle.
Quibble: The SSMEs used liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, not RP1
Except NASA pumped fuel into the Shuttle's external tank until right before launch. The liquid hydrogen line was the last thing to disconnect before launch because they were pumping fuel into the tank until right before the SRB's lit.
One could argue that this "topping off" was safer than SpaceX's fueling, but we'd have to actually study them to know.
Except NASA also loaded fuel with the crew on-board. They just called it "topping off" - more fuel was pumped into the shuttle's tanks until liftoff, to make up for what was leaking out of the tanks.
The subsequent shuttle flights were after they had studied how ice damages the shuttles. So they had a reasonable idea of what happened and what could happen in a future flight.
That was not something they could do before a rush-launch of Atlantis.
Because when one shuttle was fatally damaged by a not-well-studied-yet issue, the best solution is to rush another shuttle through the same process that caused the first failure.
What's your plan for ice damaging Atlantis's wing?
but I though the shuttle had an abort to europe profile that didn't include a go-around orbit.
Theoretically, the shuttle had 4 abort modes.
Very early in the flight, they could abort back to FL. This was considered insane to actually try and unlikely to actually work.
Shortly after that window, they could theoretically abort to Africa/Europe, but the window for that was extremely small. Something like two minutes (can't be bothered to look it up atm).
Next, they could abort to a sub-orbital trajectory and land in CA or FL.
Then there was ATO, and mission control would decide if they stayed in orbit or landed in CA or FL. IIRC this was used twice and they stayed in orbit both times at a slightly lower-than-intended orbit.
Yes, but doesn't fresh concrete absorb CO2 over the years while hardening?
No.
There's two kinds of cement, hydraulic and non-hydraulic. Non-hydraulic cures by absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. Big disadvantage is it has to be exposed to air for a lengthy curing time. Hydraulic cement cures just with the addition of water and doesn't absorb CO2.
Portland cement is a hydraulic cement, and that's what's in concrete.
Way too nuanced. Indicates inconsistency.
Uh...what?
The 2016 Clinton campaign is a separate entity from the Clinton Foundation. The claim that this is a "nuance" is to claim that the difference between the American Red Cross and Stormfront is nuance.
So perhaps the headline should be ammended to say, "Technicalities were violated !!"
The law exists so that people can not use their government position to influence elections. The violation is not a technicality. The way to avoid a violation is.
True, but the dems fundraise on bringing it back. It has been brought to Congress several times since 1987.
Your claim was that the Fairness Doctrine is being used to shut down Rush Limbaugh. As in, actively used. Right now. Not "a small number of them want to pass a law bringing it back that probably can't survive a Constitutional challenge which then could possibly be used to shut down Rush Limbaugh.".
In other words, you're spouting bullshit. Just like your other "whatabouts".
So why did Lois Lerner turn herself in over nothing?
So there's this thing called "politics". It is heavily wrapped up in appearances. Quitting was used to help keep up appearances because the Obama administration's primary delusion was that Republicans are rational. Throwing a relatively low-level person under the bus was supposed to be used as a "see! We fixed the problem!" thing. But since Republicans are not rational, it became Obama personally reviewing every application and blocking the Tea Party ones out of spite. Reality be damned.
The internal policy explicitly directed IRS staff to target the tea party affiliated groups
The internal policy explicitly directed IRS staff to target political groups based on certain keywords. Some of those keywords matched with Tea Party groups. And some of those keywords matched with liberal groups.
So no, it was not targeting the Tea Party groups. Those horrible evil liberals also got delayed.
That the NYTimes has an opinion about this absolves nothing ... less than 30% of the US thinks that's an unbiased source. Politico has always been news for belt-way types.
Because killing the messenger always changes reality to conform to your beliefs.
Would you prefer the Inspector General that investigated it and blasted the IRS for the targeting of both left-wing and right-wing groups?
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
OMG! WASHINGTON POST!! IT MUST BE FAKE NEWS BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT!! Nevermind they're literally quoting the report....
It's not just the energy source. The kiln produces CO2 from limestone as the miracle of chemistry turns it into cement.