Post New

When and if the "deal" is finally done.....


I wonder how many would like the duty of having to write an essay on :


"Why Trumps Iran deal is better than Obama's Iran Deal, and why said improvement was worth 13 dead American soldiers, and untold costs from high gas prices to stickier inflation"


I love to write.

I used to love writing about politics.


But with what little we currently low----I wouldn't take that challenge if you fronted me money for it.

How many more wars?

how many more Americans need to get.....BI-BI Q'd?

"Why Trumps Iran deal is better than Obama's Iran Deal, and why said improvement was worth 13 dead American soldiers, and untold costs from high gas prices to stickier inflation"

That's easy. "The Trump deal is better than the Obama deal, because Trump is the most perfect and brilliant leader the world has ever seen. Therefore, everything he does is more brilliant and perfect than anything done by anyone else, ever, by definition. And Trump is entitled to a Nobel Peace Prize for ending the war he started too."

See? I have experience working for "JCs" like Trump. It's easy to suck up to them, if you don't mind the taste or smell.

Steve

"Why Trumps Iran deal is better than Obama's Iran Deal, and why said improvement was worth 13 dead American soldiers, and untold costs from high gas prices to stickier inflation"


IN THE CULT!

Why Trumps Iran deal is better than Obama's Iran Deal, and why said improvement was worth 13 dead American soldiers, and untold costs from high gas prices to stickier inflation"

We obviously need to see the deal. That said:

-Obama’s deal was indefensibly ass. There’s literally nothing positive that can be said for it because it was dumb.

-So far word is leaking out that in this deal, Iran surrenders their nuclear material, and they only get paid if the strait reopens.

As opposed to the geniuses who just sent over pallets of cash before.

No serious observer of foreign policy thought that the Obama administration had 2 brain cells to rub together.

-Obama’s deal was indefensibly ass. There’s literally nothing positive that can be said for it because it was dumb.

The deal was sound, and there's lots of positive things to be said about it. Iran agreed to restrict their uranium enrichment. They agreed to monitoring and inspection. The result of those agreements was that Iran did not have any uranium enriched to weapons grade at any time that the deal was in effect. IOW, the agreement effectively neutralized the nuclear threat of Iran as much as any agreement can.

The main criticisms of the agreement were: i) no agreement provides legitimate protection against Iran's nuclear ambitions because they can cheat; ii) it was time limited; and iii) it didn't address non-nuclear issues like supporting terrorist proxies in the region or their missile programs.

We can be fairly confident, though, that if this agreement is signed it will suffer the same failures. By definition, you can't solve the first objection through any deal; the only way to solve it is by not having a deal at all and destroying the regime, which would (of course) not be achieved by an agreement with Iran. The second doesn't get solved through any deal either, because Iran can always break the deal at any time in the future - all international agreements and treaties lack a binding term because there's no enforcement mechanism. And there's been absolutely no indication that proxies or missiles are even on the menu for these agreements - and without that, it is (at best) again a deal that exists to try to prevent Iran from moving towards a nuke and not to eliminate Iran as having any regional power.

So, no - the JCPOA was a pretty sold deal which worked to induce Iran away from taking affirmative steps towards getting a nuclear weapon: a combination of economic "carrots" and very formalized enforcement processes to make sure that the terms for getting those "carrots" were abided by. The inherent assumption behind criticism of the deal is the idea that only "sticks" were necessary - that we could achieve the same goals simply by sufficiently threatening Iran rather than offering them economic incentives. Which Trump's Iranian misadventure has proven was completely false: his threats before the war (in February) were unable to get Iran to offer anything better than the JCPOA, and his use of sticks and threats during the war didn't work either. He's back to offering asset releases and sanctions relief in an effort to get some movement on the nuclear program.

The deal was sound, Only if one redefines "sound" to "indefensibly ass".

The result of those agreements was that Iran did not have any uranium enriched to weapons grade at any time that the deal was in effect. IOW, the agreement effectively neutralized the nuclear threat of Iran as much as any agreement can.


Except that it didn't. You only need a few percentage points of enrichment to make uranium go boom. Every additional point just means the weapon gets smaller.

Obama's deal left them with fairly highly enriched uranium. Ergo, the deal sucked. For that and many other reasons.

So, no - the JCPOA was a pretty sold deal which worked to induce Iran away from taking affirmative steps towards getting a nuclear weapon: a combination of economic "carrots" and very formalized enforcement processes to make sure that the terms for getting those "carrots" were abided by.

Sorry, but it did no such thing. It let Iran off the hook entirely and even paid them to do it.

Obama's deal left them with fairly highly enriched uranium.

You are misinformed. The deal left them with no "fairly highly enriched uranium." It imposed a cap of 3.67% enrichment, which was monitored and enforced by the IAEA. That is not enriched enough to be weapons grade. They did not develop "highly enriched uranium" until Trump abrogated the JCPOA. Trump, not Obama, caused them to have highly enriched uranium.

Sorry, but it did no such thing. It let Iran off the hook entirely and even paid them to do it.

Again, you are misinformed about the provisions of the JCPOA. It committed Iran to only possessing low-enrichment uranium, well below the levels sufficient to make any kind of weapon - and subjected them to compliance and inspection regimes to make sure they stayed below that level. They weren't let off the hook until Trump abrogated the JCPOA. That's when they started enriching uranium to 60%.

You are misinformed.

You’re wishcasting.

The deal left them with no "fairly highly enriched uranium." It imposed a cap of 3.67% enrichment, which was monitored and enforced by the IAEA. That is not enriched enough to be weapons grade. They did not develop "highly enriched uranium" until Trump abrogated the JCPOA. Trump, not Obama, caused them to have highly enriched uranium.

Speaking of misinformed.

https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/stolen-nuclear...

Consisting of half a ton of information from Iran, including 55,000 pages and 183 CDs, the stolen documents contained detailed information on dozens of nuclear weapons-related projects, some previously unknown outside of Iran. The documents indicated Iran’s nuclear weapons program was far more advanced than it had admitted to the IAEA, that Iran had misled and lied to the IAEA and the international community about its nuclear program in disclosures required by the 2015 nuclear deal, the JCPOA, and that the Iranian government had taken steps to deceive IAEA inspectors after the JCPOA was implemented. The documents also suggested some covert Iranian nuclear weapons activities were still under way.

yeah, they were never going to follow any deal.

Again, you are misinformed about the provisions of the JCPOA. It committed Iran to only possessing low-enrichment uranium, well below the levels sufficient to make any kind of weapon - and subjected them to compliance and inspection regimes to make sure they stayed below that level. They weren't let off the hook until Trump abrogated the JCPOA. That's when they started enriching uranium to 60%.

This is what the left needs to believe, that the Iranians - the most outlaw of outlaw regimes - suddenly started playing nice.

They weren’t.

https://www.hudson.org/national-security-defense/t...

For the last several days, State Department spokesperson Marie Harf has been at pains to explain why Iran is not violating the interim nuclear agreement, or Joint Plan of Action. For the last few days, the Obama administration has been pushing back against a New York Times article published Monday that quoted an IAEA report documenting how Iran’s “stockpile of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months.”

Hidden sites, dodging the IAEA and upping their uranium. That sounds more like the Iranians.

https://www.cfr.org/articles/iran-cheating-nuclear...

Germany’s domestic intelligence agency said in its annual report that Iran has a “clandestine” effort to seek illicit nuclear technology and equipment from German companies “at what is, even by international standards, a quantitatively high level.” The findings by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany’s equivalent of the FBI, were issued in a 317-page report last week.

Never mind the deal also gave the Iranians cash up front and was silent about all the other things they get up to.

https://smallwarsjournal.com/2016/08/18/explaining...

The German intelligence body in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, added that during 2015, Iran had made 141 attempts on purchasing nuclear and missile technologies; “Ninety” of which were attempts to “procure technology that could be used for the development of nuclear weapons and launchers.” German intelligence states that they succeeded in thwarting about 90 percent of Iran’s attempts. In 2014, Iran had made 83 similar attempts, which the BfV states indicates a major increase in Iran’s illegal activities after the nuclear agreement was reached. The German intelligence further states that these illegal procurements were usually made “by Iranian strawmen and shell companies through China, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.” The above revelations are what the German intelligence discovered. There might be many more that it did not.

-Obama’s deal was indefensibly ass. There’s literally nothing positive that can be said for it because it was dumb.

Thank you for your incisive analysis, you DOPE.

This is what the left needs to believe, that the Iranians - the most outlaw of outlaw regimes - suddenly started playing nice.

They weren’t.

If that's the case, though, it would apply just as equally to any deal that Trump is able to strike. Why is he even talking about an agreement, if an agreement with Iran isn't worth anything? If you believe this is true, then the fact that we're pursuing an agreement as the goal of this war - rather than eliminating the regime altogether - means we've already lost. Because nothing in the agreement can be relied upon.

Right? Why even wait to see what's in the agreement, if we know that they'll breach it?

Of course, we know why Trump is pursuing an agreement - because on the whole it was successful in restraining Iran's nuclear program. Iran increased their nuclear stockpile leading into the JCPOA, but once the JCPOA was signed, falling from 8,000 kg before the JCPOA went into effect (which is what your article was citing) down to one or two hundred kilos:

https://www.statista.com/chart/23528/irans-stockpi...

....of very-low-enrichment uranium. Which is vastly better than the massive store of highly enriched uranium they didn't have while the JCPOA was in place, but they created as soon as it was gone.

The whole point of the JCPOA was not merely the agreed-upon targets, but the enforcement and monitoring regimes that enabled us to more easily detect Iran's activities. So that the efforts to evade the unilateral sanctions and import controls that you identify above (the second German report detailing efforts from before the JCPOA) would be less successful.

But again - if you believe that Iran will cheat in any deal because of the nature of the regime - doesn't that mean any deal Trump enters into will be "indefensibly ass," as you put it? Isn't entering into a deal of any kind an "indefensibly ass" outcome?

The deal was sound, and there's lots of positive things to be said about it.

That's not true at all, there were so many things wrong with it. Well, actually just one thing: Obama's signature

Pete

I wouldn't take that challenge if you fronted me money for it.

Have Spankee pay you $5B (non-refundable) for your future post. We can wait....

“ But again - if you believe that Iran will cheat in any deal because of the nature of the regime - doesn't that mean any deal Trump enters into will be "indefensibly ass," as you put it? Isn't entering into a deal of any kind an "indefensibly ass" outcome?”

Game, set and match to albaby!

Except that it didn't. You only need a few percentage points of enrichment to make uranium go boom. Every additional point just means the weapon gets smaller.

Obama's deal left them with fairly highly enriched uranium. Ergo, the deal sucked. For that and many other reasons.

Yes it did. The lowest boom so far has been 80%, and it's only theoretical that you can go lower. Going lower causes huge problems, vastly more explosives, and the ability to focus is easily lost, making a uranium dust explosion highly likely - not an atomic explosion.

What you're saying is that if Trump makes a modified JCPOA, it's brilliant, but if anyone else does the same thing, it's the most horrible agreement ever made.

Of course, we know why Trump is pursuing an agreement - because on the whole it was successful in restraining Iran's nuclear program

Except that it wasn’t, and multiple sources confirm that fact.

The JCPOA was ass. Indefensibly so.

Game, set and match to albaby!

Lulz. What debate was there?

There wasn’t one. You folks rely on wishcasting too much.

Except that it wasn’t, and multiple sources confirm that fact.

Except that it was, and multiple sources confirm that fact. Iran's enriched uranium supplies collapsed, and they kept enrichment below the 3.67% levels during the entire time the deal was in effect.

But Dope - you never answered the main point. If the JCPOA was a bad deal because Iran, by its very nature, cannot ever be constrained by a deal.....then won't the same be true of any deal that Trump agrees to?

Won't any deal that the U.S. agrees to as part of this war be "indefensibly ass" - because it's still a deal with Iran, and Iran will never abide by a deal?

What debate was there?

He's referring to the point that if the JCPOA was indefensibly ass because Iran is Iran and thus can never be constrained by a deal, then that means that the deal that Trump is currently trying to negotiate will also be indefensibly ass, no matter what the terms are. Because Iran will still be Iran. So any deal that relies on Iran agreeing to constraints is indefensibly ass, because Iran will always have the desire and capability to cheat, no matter the terms or the inspection/enforcement protocol.

If this war ends in Iranian promises, rather than the overthrow of the regime, I assume we can count on you to attack whatever that deal is as "indefensibly ass" on the same grounds that Iran has a history of noncompliance and therefore it is wishcasting to believe they would ever comply with this new agreement?

Taking you off of ignore to respond to this:

What you're saying is that if Trump makes a modified JCPOA, it's brilliant, but if anyone else does the same thing, it's the most horrible agreement ever made.

Yet another example of leftist wishcasting. You people are all the same: you *want* something to be true, so you write x and wish it to existence because it makes you feel good about yourself. And a part of larger leftist “community” here that feels power in putting down others.

Grow up. Get out of the 10th grade.

I’ve taken little position on any Iran deal other than “wait and see what’s supposed to be in it”. But to the moron brigade here, that equates to full fledged support.

That’s true on any issue. You people are so broken mentally that you see any disagreement with your rampant TDS as someone being a sycophant for the other side. That’s why you people immediately devolve into the insult festivals this board generally exists for.

Y’all (<—- see what I did there) can’t process the fact that…normal people don’t share your emotional problems. So the lashing out happens.

And with that…back on Ignore you go. <click>

He's referring to really nothing at all, except trying to jump into a contest that he never participated in.

You made the assumption that I’m in full throated support of a deal we’ve never seen and now you expect me to defend the thing I’ve never seen. Yeah, that’s not a debate. That’s sophistry.

We’ve actually never really explored what I’ve thought about this entire thing, hilariously.

You made the assumption that I’m in full throated support of a deal we’ve never seen and now you expect me to defend the thing I’ve never seen.

I don't expect you to support it. Quite the contrary. I expect you to criticize it as indefensible ass, because it is a deal with Iran. No matter what the terms, no matter what the contents - all of the criticisms you've levied against the JCPOA will apply equally to this deal, because those criticisms were based on the regime's nature and duplicity.

There's no need to wait for the terms. It can't possibly be a good deal, because it will be a deal with Iran. Right?

Except that it was, and multiple sources confirm that fact. Iran's enriched uranium supplies collapsed, and they kept enrichment below the 3.67% levels during the entire time the deal was in effect.


And never mind the multiple posted links that say the Iranians were cheating/hiding.

If you won’t ever acknowledge what others post, there is no exchange of ideas.

terms. It can't possibly be a good deal, because it will be a deal with Iran. Right?

So if the IRGC immediately surrenders power, hands over the uranium, immediately stops production of ballistic missiles/drone and turns the country over to a council of citizens then immediately disbands the Basij that’s indefensible ass in your mind?

And never mind the multiple posted links that say the Iranians were cheating/hiding.

If you won’t ever acknowledge what others post, there is no exchange of ideas.

But you didn't post links that said they were cheating/hiding. You posted links that said they were cheating before the JCPOA was entered into. That they had increased their uranium holdings before the JCPOA went into effect, and that they were trying to avoid the import controls that existed in 2012 and 2013 before the JCPOA. The only link you provided that related to the term of the JCPOA itself was their effort to acquire carbon fibres that were permitted under the JCPOA, but for which they were required to notify - a relatively minor breach, and one that would have been easily detectable if they had actually acquired the fibers and tried to use them, since the facilities were monitored.

IOW, there's no evidence that the Iranians ever cheated in the primary objective of the JCPOA - to keep Iran's available uranium stores limited to only a few hundred kilos and that it not be enriched to weapons level.

Like you said, there's no exchange of ideas if you don't acknowledge what others post. All of the available information is that Iran maintained their uranium at levels below the thresholds in the JCPOA, and only after the JCPOA was abrogated by Trump did they spring to heavy enrichment of large quantities. The JCPOA worked while it was in effect.

So if the IRGC immediately surrenders power, hands over the uranium, immediately stops production of ballistic missiles/drone and turns the country over to a council of citizens then immediately disbands the Basij that’s indefensible ass in your mind?

Nope. But that's not an agreement - that's them taking action. If they agreed to do that at some point in the future, I would fully expect that you would regard such a deal as being indefensible ass, because they could not be trusted to comply with it. If they just take unilateral action, there's no need for an agreement; if there's an agreement, it means that the parties contemplate future actions.

Plus, I think you know that there's absolutely no chance of that being the agreement that's being negotiated. Reports conflict, of course - and the Administration has a practice of announcing that they're close to a deal when none later materialize. But even the very most favorable version of the agreement that's been floating around provides for Iran to follow future commitments regarding the substantive issues. I mean, by definition - they can't promise not to have nukes in the future without that being a commitment that has to be implemented in the future, because even if they got rid of everything today they could (secretly) restart their nuclear program in the future.

It's fine if you want to wait until the terms of the agreement are released (should one materiallize) to declare it indefensible ass.

Nope. But that's not an agreement - that's them taking action. If they agreed to do that at some point in the future, I would fully expect that you would regard such a deal as being indefensible ass, because they could not be trusted to comply with it.

Who’s “they”? In the deal I outlined Reza Pahlavi is likely the interim President of Iran.

How about we deal in facts rather than Fox News talking points. Let's start here:

You only need a few percentage points of enrichment to make uranium go boom.

No. You need to get to 80% enrichment to make a viable weapon. In theory, as little as 20% can work, but I don't believe it has ever been proven to work.

Every additional point just means the weapon gets smaller.

That's true. The higher the enrichment level, the less uranium you need, so the bomb can get smaller.

Obama's deal left them with fairly highly enriched uranium.

No, it didn't. It capped enrichment at about 3.67%. That's enough to power a nuclear reactor, but not enough for a bomb. Nuclear reactors used to generate electricity generally need between 3% and 5% enrichment.

--Peter

Why are you retorting a disingenuous troll of a poster boy for cognitive dissonance and willful thumb-to-the-eyeing type?

Who’s “they”? In the deal I outlined Reza Pahlavi is likely the interim President of Iran.

You believe that Reza Pahlavi is going to become the interim President of Iran before we enter into a deal with the Iranians? Like, within the next few days?

Wow, that's a bit of....well, I'd call it wishcasting, but that's really. Although it's worth noting that in Iran, like many other countries, the office of "President" is largely a ceremonial one, and wields very little actual power - roughly analogous to the King of England, who serves as head of state but not head of government. Iran is unusual in that the President is nominally the head of government, but in actual practice it is the Supreme Leader who holds that role. I suppose it is theoretically possible that Iran might agree to sideline Pezeshkian (who holds no power) and replace him with Pahlavi (who would similarly hold no power) in order to give Trump a completely irrelevant "win" that his supporters might mistakenly think is relevant, just to help him with his politics. However, I suspect that Trump realizes that eventually his supporters would realize that it doesn't matter at all who the President is (especially after the Iran war hawks lay into the arrangement) and not bother.

Since that's not the least bit likely to happen, I fully expect that any actual agreement that is entered into between the U.S. and Iran will be criticized by you as "indefensible ass" for the same reasons as you levy that claim against the JCPOA: Iran by its very nature will cheat and evade, and therefore no commitments from the regime can be relied on.

Why are you retorting a disingenuous troll of a poster boy for cognitive dissonance and willful thumb-to-the-eyeing type?

Because it's a good way to find out what arguments are circulating among the right-wing supporters of the Administration. If the Administration ends up cutting a deal with Iran - and it looks like they're really focusing on that as an exit ramp out of the war rather than unconditional surrender - it will present a real dilemma for Trump's base. The cognitive dissonance you noted. They believe that the JCPOA was a terrible deal because even though its terms were great, Iran could never be trusted to honor them. But now they'll have to support a deal that regardless of its terms will have the same problem, namely that Iran will have to be trusted to follow future commitments.

I'm very curious to understand how (or whether) Trump's base is going to square that circle. If they can't, it's kind of bad news for us all. Trump likes to make decisions (in part) by floating trial balloons and proposals and seeing how they are received by his base (and how they plan on television). So if his base is able to decide that we've always been at war with Eastasia, and that while Iran could not be trusted to honor the JCPOA they can be relied on to follow this new deal, then it means we've got a possible path out of this morass. But if there isn't an argument circulating out there that lets them get there, we're in real trouble.

That's why I'm curious whether Dope's got a response to this point - apart from assuming something fanciful like the existing regime abdicating in favor of Pahlavi (not as President, they'd have to make him Supreme Leader for it to matter). I was slightly hopeful when he was mentioning the "It's the traitorous Democrats' fault" argument, because that was a sign that maybe the base was trying that out as a way of coming to terms with a bad deal without blaming Trump. But that doesn't seem to be getting much traction....

What you're saying is that if Trump makes a modified JCPOA, it's brilliant, but if anyone else does the same thing, it's the most horrible agreement ever made.

Cut them a little slack, they only know how to repeat what they've been told to believe by FOX 'news', et al.

Why are you retorting a disingenuous troll of a poster boy for cognitive dissonance and willful thumb-to-the-eyeing type?

If you are talking about Dope... He serves a purpose. He delivers right wing talking points, which are very often false, misleading or exaggerated, and it gives others a chance to expose the errors. It is useful for the discussions here.

And besides, he's not always wrong. : )

LM and that other guy...that's a different matter. I had to put them on ignore. No value whatsoever.

I'm curious whether Dope's got a response to this point

We will have to wait for the response (if any) provided for public consumption by his master/mistress of (mal)communication.

Because it's a good way to find out what arguments are circulating among the right-wing supporters of the Administration.

While I do not agree with everything you write, I find your posts illuminating and educational.

And the way you forced your opponent to be hoist by his own petard was quite enjoyable.

Post on, brother!

While I do not agree with everything you write, I find your posts illuminating and educational.

I also appreciate the replies with cogent arguments while at the same time recognizing that albaby's comment that he is "very curious to understand how (or whether) Trump's base is going to square that circle" will never truly be answered. No MAGAt will "square that circle" and the "cognitive dissonance you noted" will never be quieted. The MAGAts will engage in cognitive cacophony, if anything. It does not matter what the dear leader says or does, it will always be the correct path.

Pete

No MAGAt will "square that circle" and the "cognitive dissonance you noted" will never be quieted. The MAGAts will engage in cognitive cacophony, if anything. It does not matter what the dear leader says or does, it will always be the correct path.

Yes, at the end of the day the base will probably get to a spot where dear leader is correct. However, they'll get there by adopting some argument that "squares the circle" between the positions they took on the JCPOA and the position they'll end up taking on the Trump deal. We saw this even with the J6 riot. For the base to get to a point where they didn't feel bad about the riot, they came up with a whole bunch of theories and arguments about what happened that day in order to get themselves comfortable deciding the riot was not the fault of MAGA.

With Iran, things are a bit more complicated, because we're not talking about rationalizing a past event. Trump has to give his blessing to any deal. He doesn't want to bless a deal that his supporters won't go along with. So he would like to see his supporters start to line up behind some theory of why it's okay to have an agreement with Iran, despite all the prior criticisms that Iran always has the desire and ability to cheat on any agreement without getting caught. He might cut a deal anyway, since the politics are bad on this: high gas prices and a Congress that's unlikely to give him the money he needs to keep fighting indefinitely. But if his base finds a story they can tell themselves to support "Trump deal good, Obama deal bad" it will get much easier for him to get there.

I was cautiously optimistic when the "It's all the Democrats' fault" line started to briefly pop up. That's a way of excusing a bad deal without it being anything negative about Trump, and it might have provided him an off-ramp. If MAGA blamed this on Democrats, somehow, then the outcomes don't reflect badly on Trump - this was a winnable war, but Trump was betrayed by the horrible Democrats. I suppose it never got traction because Trump probably can't abide his Iran deal being thought of as a loss, as something that was forced on him by Democratic conniving.

So I'm interested if there's any arguments out there explaining why we have a ceasefire and why we're engaging in diplomacy at all, if Iran will never comply with an agreement and has the ability to cheat without detection. Because if such an argument - whatever its merits - starts to emerge from MAGA and Trump's supporters, it means that a deal becomes more probable.

...they'll get there by adopting some argument that "squares the circle" between the positions they took on the JCPOA and the position they'll end up taking on the Trump deal.

That assumes there ever is a "Trump deal". "Bibi" made it clear, a couple weeks ago. As far as he is concerned, the war is not over. Israeli water carriers in Congress, like Ted Cruz, say any deal that allows the Iranian regime to survive is not acceptable. Now Trump has a new ask: the Arab states all make kissy face with Israel.

You know my take: closing the strait, to tighten oil supplies, to drive up prices, is the objective. So far, in spite of Trump's announcing "peace is at hand" weekly, for more than two months now, I don't see anything that really points to the "negotiations" being anything more than a kabuki dance.

Steve

Yes, at the end of the day the base will probably get to a spot where dear leader is correct. However, they'll get there by adopting some argument that "squares the circle" between the positions they took on the JCPOA and the position they'll end up taking on the Trump deal.

And they better find it quick because we're getting a "whiff of stagflation" as the future forecasts say it will be 2032 before we see $3 gas again, and the foreshadowing is we're headed for a steady higher inflation.

He serves a purpose

I have no purpose for anyone who supports and defends a no talent felon, serial cheater, con man.

I have no purpose for anyone who supports and defends a no talent felon, serial cheater, con man.

GREAT public sacrifice on PPV. I claim the rights !!!

I have no purpose for anyone who supports and defends a no talent felon…

According to Sun Tzu:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.

The purpose of conversing with Dope, LM, Jedi, and others similarly minded is to know the opposition. To understand what motivates them, why they take the positions they do.

—Peter

The purpose of conversing with Dope, LM, Jedi, and others similarly minded is to know the opposition. To understand what motivates them, why they take the positions they do.

Funny. That's why I'm here. To understand why you people think the way you do.

Funny. That's why I'm here. To understand why you people think the way you do.

Certainly a good reason. When I had cable TV, I watched Hannity and O'Reilly regularly, to hear the counterfactual nonsense they spewed, that induced viewers to consistently vote against their own best interests. I even got myself on some right wing e-mail lists, to see what was being sent out to the goobers...tho I don't expect being on those e-mail lists is enough to keep me out of the Gulag.

Steve

Post New

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.