Here's one for you, Liz..

Iran plans to buy 114 Airbus jets on Rouhani’s Europe visit
Italy also lining up €17bn in deals as Iran nuclear accord bears commercial fruit
https://next.ft.com/content/cdcc295c-c290-11e5-b3b1-7b2481276e45

Do you HONESTLY believe that countries like France and China and Russia will support sanctions if Iran is found cheating on the JCPOA??

Those countries stand to make BILLIONS of $$$ off a sanction-free Iran..

No way are they going to re-impose sanctions and shoot themselves in the foot...

The threat of snap-back sanctions is a toothless farce...

Michale

https://next.ft.com/content/e25f28d6-c0f8-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2

No one wants to talk about a Bloomberg 3rd Party candidacy???

I can see why.. It must be very depressing for ya'all.. :D

Michale

Put another way... Can you comprehend and acknowledge that Republicans feel as strongly and as passionately about their beliefs as you do about yours??

Can you understand that they believe, as much as YOU do, that THEY are right about things and YOU are wrong??

Think about it.. What other social dynamic is in play whereas different groups of people living in the same exact reality perceive things in diametrically opposite ways...

Change Democrat and Republican to Catholic and Protestant and you'll see where I am going with this.. :D

Michale

More accurately, didn't send OR RECEIVE anything classified...

Michale

2 followup questions...

Hillary was the US Secretary of State for 4 years. During that time, she used a private home-brewed unsecure email server.. EXCLUSIVELY...

Do you believe her when she says she didn't send anything classified??

Question number 2...

The vast majority of Weigantians and ALL of the Left Wingery believe that this email server issue is just a faux-scandal contrived and pushed by the VWRC, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (TM, Hillary Clinton)...

Do you agree??

Michale

Damn! Ya got me!! :D

We will need to wait until the adults in the Republican Party get their wing nuts under control - and I see no way that is going to happen.

Once again, by "adults" you mean Republicans that will do everything the Democrats want them to do.. D:

Michale

Once upon a time, I voted Democrat on the off chance that said Democrat "MIGHT" actually do some good for this country..

Look at the mess we're in now..

The risk that Iran will develop nuclear weapons far FAR outweighs the benefits that MIGHT come to pass...

Can't you at least support the deal until such time as Iran seriously violates it

No, I cannot. And it's very simple as to why...

The indication that Iran has seriously violated the JCPOA could be a Hamas nuclear attack...

Would YOU want that on your conscience??

I wouldn't...

Michale

First off, I think she has brought all of this on herself by choosing to set up her own private server to use for both personal and State Department business. That, to me, was a disaster waiting to happen.

Couldn't agree more...

Hillary is to blame.. Funny how NO ONE here gets that...

Secondly, I am no Hillary fan but, I'm going to wait until the investigation concludes and see what the result is.

While it makes sense that YOU would have that attitude, the ONLY reason the rest of the Left Wingery has that attitude is because Hillary is a Democrat and too big to jail... I recall the recent similar issues with General Patreaus and I also recall that the Left Wingery in general and the majority of Weigantians in particular wanted Patreaus's blood, even at just the accusation...

That galls me to know end..

Because he is the one who, if I recall correctly, as Attorney General of the United States of America, testified before Congress that waterboarding wasn't torture and therefore there could be no criminal charge for the authorization of and use of torture against anyone in the Bush/Cheney administration, himself included.

So, the source of the criticism makes a difference... The CREDIBILITY of the source makes a difference.. OK, I can agree with that.. :D

For me, the use of torture by American officials rises far higher on the criminal intent ladder than does use of a private email server by an American secretary of state.

When you consider that the ENTIRE computer system that was used by the US Secretary Of State was an OPEN BOOK to Russia and China and North Korea???

I would have to disagree with you there...

Hillary's actions are MUCH more serious and MUCH more detrimental to the safety and security of this country...

By far....

Michale

This. Exactly this. The whole thing. Excellent comment, Elizabeth.

And I'd be more excited about Bernie if he was running on more than just inequality (and thought his ideas had a hope of becoming law).

I also think your point in comment [#1] was interesting. Let them clean it up -- can't just dig in and be obstructionist when it's your own party, right? Except of course, the Freedom Caucus can. And the risk is too high for such a four-year experiment: SCOTUS!

The real fight to make American great again (you know, cuz we're not right now!) though is not the presidential race. It's the state races. If, as Chris aptly points out, little that is meaningful can happen in federal law making, then the real action is statehouses: women's reproductive rights, voting rights, law enforcement, corporate citizenry, sensible tax policy, developing federal leaders for 10 years from now, ...

I think CW's premise means that other than (1) ensuring a Democrat is in the White House as a counterbalance, (2) SCOTUS, and (3) the proverbial 3am phone call, there is less reason than usual to care who gets elected president. But governors and state legislators matter -- it ain't sexy, but it's time to pay attention to those races.

They will use their statements against them (Trump is particularly full of nonsense that is impossible and/or unconstitutional) but nobody expects them to get any of this past the stalemate that is DC at the moment.

The partisanship is such that unless one party get the White House, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and the House, nothing is going to get done.

We will need to wait until the adults in the Republican Party get their wing nuts under control - and I see no way that is going to happen.

Another worry is that by the time the Republicans grow up, the Democrats will have fractured and we will have the same story only be screwed by some left wing nuts instead.

What I don't understand, Michale, is how you can just discard the entire JCPOA on the basis of how Iran MIGHT violate the agreement and how the rest of the world might react.

Can't you at least support the deal until such time as Iran seriously violates it and the rest of the world fails to enforce more sanctions, especially in view of the fact of what Iran has already done to restrict its nuclear program under this deal?

Most of the Republican candidates for president have railed against the JCPOA - some would "rip it up", others would re-negotiate. Well, that's what they say now, anyway.

In any case, I think either of those options is a very dangerous course of action for the United States to take (or even talk about during a presidential campaign) and it is a deal breaker for me in terms of any of them being worthy of the title of POTUS.

They DO have veto power over whether or not THEY will abide by the sanctions...

And if they choose not to, which they have already made plans to that effect, then the sanctions will be toothless...

That's my point.. Without China's or Russia's support, the sanctions are worthless...

Michale

Russia and China do not have veto power over the re-imposition of UN sanctions or EU sanction or US sanctions. These sanctions can hardly be defined as toothless.

And, if Iran seriously violates the agreement, then I don't think you can be so sure that Russia and China would be so eager to avoid their own sanctions against Iran, of one sort or another. After all, the Russians invested quite a lot into the P5+1 negotiations.

Are there unknown unknowns about this agreement with Iran. Probably. We'd have to ask Secretary Rumsfeld about that. Heh. Sorry, couldn't resist - I'm not that strong.

For me, those kinds of unknowns about how Iran might violate the agreement at some point and how the international community might respond are overwhelming eclipsed by the key points of the JCPOA - from the obligations of Iran to the verification capability of the IAEA - which I believe offer the best chance the world has to ensure that Iran's nuclear program remains for peaceful purposes only.

Hillary's email situation ...

First off, I think she has brought all of this on herself by choosing to set up her own private server to use for both personal and State Department business. That, to me, was a disaster waiting to happen.

Secondly, I am no Hillary fan but, I'm going to wait until the investigation concludes and see what the result is. Of course, if she is charged with criminal behavior then I think we can assume that her presidential aspirations will come to an abrupt and untimely end. Having said that, I am aware that if charges are not laid against her then there will be an unending chorus of " the system is corrupt", "Hillary is above the law", etc. which we will all make of what we will.

Thirdly, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the author of this WSJ article (which I had to subscribe to in order to read - I was meaning to do it anyway, so I did!) has more crust than Christie has bread to suggest that Hillary Clinton should be charged with - how did he put it ... a crime of one sort or another. Because he is the one who, if I recall correctly, as Attorney General of the United States of America, testified before Congress that waterboarding wasn't torture and therefore there could be no criminal charge for the authorization of and use of torture against anyone in the Bush/Cheney administration, himself included.

For me, the use of torture by American officials rises far higher on the criminal intent ladder than does use of a private email server by an American secretary of state.

Take yer time.. I'll be here all year.. :D

Michale

And I really can't find much fault with it. It's a logical and rational assessment of the situation and it DOES make a lot of sense..

But it ignores two very salient points.

1. It does not address the weakness of the sanctions that, if snapped back, would NOT include Russia or China..

2. It does not specifically address what happens after 10 years when Iran is released from all obligations.. Yes, it can be said that the entire thrust of the article is that Iran has changed it's THINKING about acquiring nuclear weapons.. But we only have the word of the Iranians on that... Remember, we are talking about a regime that USES TERRORISM to further it's agenda... Is it too much of a stretch to think that a regime that uses terrorism to further it's regional agenda would have NO QUALMS about lying to further it's nuclear weapons agenda??

So, with the toothless snapped back sanctions, the ONLY thing we can do is trust Iran...

And I really think that THAT is a bridge too far..

Having said all that, I have to be honest and admit that the article did answer a LOT of my concerns...

Michale

I'm busy for the next few hours, though ...

I'll read that article and give it my honest and objective assessment..

If you will do this same with this article...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-emails-a-criminal-charge-is-justified-1453419158

Deal??

Michale

Michale, I just got an email alerting me to a very interesting article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:
http://thebulletin.org/iran-nuclear-option-more-trouble-it-was-worth9064

It kind of sums up why I remain hopeful about the success of the JCPOA. I hope you will find the read worth your time.

Both the Dem and the GOP convention will be jam packed with excitement.....

"Oooo I like jam!"
-Vala, STARGATE SG1

:D

Michale

We might...

It's unlikely Clinton will survive the primary or the general...

It's probably going to be a SANDERS/TRUMP election..

Michale

Maybe not..

But it IS an indication of being a successful businessman..

Whether a successful businessman can translate into a successful POTUS, that is arguable, I grant you...

Michale

http://drudgereport.com/nosp.htm

Michale

Assuming such a great leader also has a fundamental appreciation and understanding of the issues he or she will be dealing with (in other words, assuming that they do indeed have the requisite strengths of a great leader), then yes, I would wholly agree with that statement.

But one doesn't get to be as successful and richer than god by the latter...

Michale

Just the opposite..

A great leader is a man who recognizes his own limitations and surrounds himself with people who will compensate for what the leader lacks...

A bad leader is a man who thinks he knows it all and surrounds himself with sycophants who just tells the leader what he wants to hear...

Michale

Indubitably.

Wouldn't you agree that a presidential candidate would have to have the requisite knowledge of these issues before they can make an intelligent, informed decision about who to hire? After all, these presidential appointees must follow the overarching strategy offered up by the POTUS.

This is Trump's greatest weakness, in my opinion. He thinks that all he has to do as president is surround himself with good people and the rest will take care of itself. That, I believe, is a recipe for a failed, if not truncated, presidency.

I am not disagreeing with you....

I am just saying that would disqualify a lot of people on both the Right AND the Left...

Michale

But, they do need to demonstrate a fundamental understanding of economic issues and other domestic policy issues, as well as of foreign policy challenges and how to use diplomacy and military strategy effectively.

If they don't know the basics, then they have no business running for public office, let alone for the POTUS or Congress.

"There is no dishonor in not knowing everything."
-Subcommander T'al, STAR TREK, The Enterprise Incident

Michale

I disagree.. It's not possible for any one person to be the required expert in every possible field..

Does each candidate know military strategy?? Of course not.. But he can HIRE people who do know...

But there is a candidate who is an expert at business and economics....

So if the economy is the parameter, one candidate shines about all others...

Hillary Clinton... Heh

Michale

I don't know enough about the field to comment intelligently on how to prevent it...

The next president and Congress should know enough about the field to be commenting about it, endlessly, on the campaign trail.

Silence on these issues is evidence of ignorance!

Would we have done as well on Dodd-Frank under a Republican administration, for example? (I still say that what it left undone is huge, but what it did include is all to the good.)

Dodd-Frank was a very good piece of legislation which would probably never have happened under a Republican administration. In fact, I really shudder to think what might have happened to the US economy under Republican executive leadership in 2009.

But, that direst of situations might have resulting in full Democratic control of the US government in 2012, assuming the majority of the electorate would have suffered enough under the Republican economic policies that were actually espoused during the Great Recession and which would surely have made things worse.

Given the current trends, I would say the answer to this is a very very likely yes...

I don't know enough about the field to comment intelligently on how to prevent it...

I'll leave that to the experts.. :D

All I can apply is a little common sense.. If one is in a financial hole, the VERY first thing one must do is STOP DIGGING!!

That's my contribution... :D

Michale

And, I'm not talking about elections.

What are the presidential candidates saying about how to avoid the next great recession? What is Congress doing about it? Will President Obama end up handing over to the next president a situation not too dissimilar to what awaited him in 2009?

Is anybody in the political process talking about the real issues facing the US and global economy?

Hmmmmm Who was it that said the Left Wingery's idea of "compromise" is OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY....

Oh... I think it was me!!! :D

Michale

Ohhh snap! :D

Michale

The funny thing is, the impetus for these investigations is coming from a solid and undeniable Left Wing source...

There is absolutely NO "vast right wing conspiracy" here...

This is pure LEFT on LEFT activities...

Which is why it's so damning to the Clinton campaign...

Michale

Complicating those efforts is the news that broke midweek: The intelligence community’s inspector general confirmed that dozens of emails on the private server Clinton used while she was at the State Department contained extremely highly classified information.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-had-the-worst-week-in-washington-hillary-clinton/2016/01/21/8bc5d816-c05e-11e5-9443-7074c3645405_story.html

It's a safe bet that Hillary will be indicted before the end of the Primary... Any indictment (or non-indictment) handed down AFTER the Primary will totally decimate the Democrat Party up and down the ticket.. A Democrat will be lucky if they can win the County Dog Catcher seat..

You heard it here first...

Michale

And, of course, by "mature" Republicans, you mean Republicans that will do everything the Democrats want them to do, eh? :D

The nekkid partisanship is so transparent.. About the ONLY thing that is transparent these days... :D

Michale

Exactly!!!

Race had (and has) absolutely NOTHING to do with ANYTHING...

Racism is just an excuse to cover up Obama and the Democrats incompetence in governing..

I think it's a safe bet that Clinton won't be POTUS.. Her indictment by Obama's DOJ will prevent that.

Even if Obama's DOJ *DOESN'T* indict, then the GOP will tear Hillary to pieces with the TOO BIG TO JAIL moniker...

Either way, Hillary is toast...

Bernie as POTUS is just an impossibility.. It simply won't happen...

About the only chance the Democrat Party has is if Biden or Warren step in after Hillary is indicted...

Michale

I doubt this would hold true nationally, but it is a fact that Bernie got 25% of Repub votes in his last election in Vermont.

If we were to consider the rosiest scenario, I'm not sure even gerrymandered Repub seats could be guaranteed... particularly if Trump or Cruz is their candidate, as many Repubs have little stomach for either.

Obviously, turnout would be key.
All indications are that Clinton's Big Money, low inspiration campaign would depress turnout for Dems (and motivate Repubs) while Bernie could potentially boost it.

In any case, I greatly appreciate you detailing the fallacy the Clinton camp has been pushing.
Their nonsense gets annoying.

As far as Bernie's agenda goes, I think it's safe to say that single payer will be a rallying point, not a hole he will dump his political capital into... unless Dems retake both houses of Congress.

But, many of the other items on his agenda have potential for causing Repubs grief.
Too Big To Fail banks are not popular with Repub voters.
A large percentage of Repubs support raising the minimum wage.
Same deal with campaign finance reform, and reducing the cost of higher education.
I'm sure that list could be longer too.

It's a shame Obama abandoned his coalition and didn't even try the "People power" approach using the bully pulpit. His attempt to work with the Repubs was clearly a failure, and we'll never know if he could have succeeded with the other approach.
If Bernie wins and tries it, he may succeed where Obama may have failed, or he may fail where Obama may have succeeded.
Regardless, with hindsight, it's clear that not trying was a mistake.

A

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace

However what is missed is the impact of the 2% every four years going from old/white to young/non-white, and the subsequent Republican to Democratic impact. The next generation, according to an article in the latest Economist, are getting shafted (they didn't put it quite like that). Bernie and/or future Bernies are going to be sounding better and better to a larger percentage of the populous and they will also have some of their own coming up - for example check out Gavin Newsome in California (plus the ladies I know LOVE him).

Win in 2016.

Win better in 2020.

Split the Republican party into the adults and the children, and more of the adult independents will swing to the mature Republicans and we will have a working system again.

Read Chris Ladd at http://www.goplifer.com if you are an adult right winger. He understands.

The GOP says that government is the problem and they work overtime to make sure that's true. In Flint, everyone was receiving Small Government lead poisoning and Legionaire's right from the tap. Apparently, it'll have to get much, much worse than that because here's what Ben Carson had to say about it:

"regulations aren’t effective in protecting our citizens"

Republicans used to argue that regulations are job killers. Now the argument seems to be that regulations are no match for GOP criminals so we needn't bother with them.

Settling for a Repub might be the way to go?

Could you explain your reasoning and what it was that CW wrote that elicited your response?

He wrote about potential compromises by either Dem.

How would complete Repub control be preferable?

A

--

Making things worse doesn't make them better. Even if things are getting worse, and will continue to do so before they get better, making them worse makes them get worse longer. To make things better, make things better.

Would we have done as well on Dodd-Frank under a Republican administration, for example? (I still say that what it left undone is huge, but what it did include is all to the good.)

Besides, haven't you had your fill of incremental change?

And, if things do get entirely out of hand, your system can remedy that, right?