Coronavirus - are we all doomed?

[AccessBlaster]

Fox tells Trumpians

Its the characterizing of people that truly fuels these debates.

If Tera's still listening!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Given the radical nature of Iranian Islamists, giving them billions of dollars is probably not a good idea. Even if it was originally theirs. Legally, good idea. When considering potential consequences, maybe not so good.

 

[deletedT]

@The_Doc_Man Talking about President Reagan, I remember he always had a joke about Soviet and make fun of them.

Doc, it's an honor to be called a friend. A while back, I decided not to post anything about ourselves here, because there was a misunderstanding I caused. It seemed that I wanted to prove We are Better than you.

Since then I decided not tell anything about ourselves, but because you had a very well explained answer to me, I talk a little. It doesn't mean I want to compare politic between us and you. It's just how we think. And please don't misunderstand me. It's not a comparison by any means and I don't want to say one is better than the other.

We have two major parties here. Liberal Democratic Party(LDP) & Democratic party.
Almost %80 of voters are LDP supporters. But when it comes to voting, they don't vote for LDP. They vote to the left wing. They don't like a one-sided congress. Our congress seats are almost 70-30 or something near that. There's been a lot of times that the opposite party won more seats than the government.
It's because they don't want to make it easy for the government to pass bills one after the other. They want to make a wall for the government and make them talk and discuss each and every bill or law that's going to pass the congress. They vote to the opposite party to make it harder for them and let the nation having a chance to hear both sides. My wife loves our Prime Minister. They have been in the same school a long time ago. But she never votes to him. She says giving him enemies, makes him stronger. He has too many friends. Several more enemy doesn't hurt.

They also are not afraid of criticizing the prime minister, even those who have supported him and voted for him. They believe criticizing the government makes them stay awake and on the watch. It's very common that the Prime minister apologizes for what he has said or done. It doesn't make him small. When he accepts a mistake, and apologizes to the nation via a TV conference or in the congress, he'll be given another chance. As @Jon says, everyone has his own mistakes. Sure. We are human and do mistakes. But accepting our mistakes is another part of our nature too.

So I believe, Maybe Trump supporters better show him that he's been wrong in several cases. It makes him a better politician.
We have a saying The father who loves his son, scolds his son. So sometimes telling someone he's been wrong is the best support.

Reading your answer above, shows we are in the same boat. So it wasn't necessary to be told.
Take the above just as my monologue. Nothing serious was meant.

 

[deletedT]

Its the characterizing of people that truly fuels these debates.

If Tera's still listening!

I'm listening. But if you read above, you know what I think. I think both sides are on the wrong sides. They simply heat up. They have forgotten everything is for the nation. I really can't understand why never CNN accepts a part of what FOX broadcasts and never FOX admits Trump is on the wrong boat.

 

[deletedT]

But I don't think you believe its a good idea to give the Iranian Revolutionary Army billions.

I really don't know about Iran, but your comment brought a question to me.
Why supporting Israel is OK but not Iran. Both of them are killing each others and making a lot of trouble in the area. If US think they are really international police, why supporting Israel? Any pressure from wealthy Jews in US?

 

[AccessBlaster]

If US think they are really international police, why supporting Israel? Any pressure from wealthy Jews in US?

Wow, were really going there?

 

[deletedT]

Wow, were really going there?

No, I retreat. As I said I know nothing about it. It was just a question that flashed. Forget it please.

 

[Deleted member 147267]

But I don't think you believe its a good idea to give the Iranian Revolutionary Army billions.

That depends. If it buys a non nuclear proliferation agreement AND that agreement comes with unfettered inspector access AND that agreement is subject to some sort of group (e.g. G7, G20 although G7 is more likely) coalition sanctions for non-compliance then why not? It is their money after all. Before you pooh-pooh sanctions, consider that if you put enough people deep enough in poverty for long enough, they will overthrow the government - it has happened before.

Which is worse, the situation that existed as a result of that deal (which AFAIK was being complied with) or the freedom that Iran has now to develop nuclear fissionable material thanks to DT and his shoot from the lip diplomacy? In one scenario, you think the money was going to the Iranian military (as if you really had to worry about their capability compared to yours) yet you have no concrete reason to assume as much. In the current scenario, it probably now goes to uranium enrichment and you can thank only one person for that.

 

[AccessBlaster]

There is a reason we froze those assets. Unless you think we did it just to be pricks.

 

[Steve R.]

As I was getting ready to post, I saw your comment below.

No, I retreat. As I said I know nothing about it. It was just a question that flashed. Forget it please.

Prior to your response above, you wrote:

If US think they are really international police, why supporting Israel? Any pressure from wealthy Jews in US?

We live (in the US) in a world of identity politics, where statements such as racism and xenophobia are tossed out like candy. I suspect that you do not realize this, but had you made that sort of statement as a US politician (Trump) you would now be vilified by the media for making an appalling anti-Jewish remark. It is unfortunate, that here in the US, we have word vultures ready to descend on anyone whose words can be purposely misconstrued in a negative manner to denigrate them.

 

[Deleted member 147267]

There is a reason we froze those assets. Unless you think we did it just to be pricks.

No, I don't. Care to enlighten me/us as to why they were? I thought it was to get them to the bargaining table and to achieve a non-proliferation agreement, which suggests that once signed, they should be released if the US was going to hold up their end of the deal. Was there a different reason that you know of?

 

[Steve R.]

There is a reason we froze those assets. Unless you think we did it just to be pricks.

I don't think that I will have time to fully review this topic. Bed Time. The US had an excellent reason for freezing the Iran assets. It was because the Iranian Revolutionary Guard violated international law by holding US diplomats hostage. Additionally, if I remember correctly, that money was being held hostage by the US government pending resolution of how the hostages would be compensated. I do not know what happened in that regard. However, it would appear that Iran was not interested in resolving those issues as the US still held the money.

A question that needs to be asked. Did Obama even have any authority to return that money to Iran?
Let me digress into Trump's impeachment. At the impeachment hearings Trump was accused of "violating" long standing US policies. Well Obama in returning the money to Iran and even establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba "violated" long standing US policies. Funny how the press did not care about Obama's actions. (PS: Trump could not actually be accused of violating US policy, because as President he makes US Policy. His accusers were wrong.)

The nuclear agreement was a "private" agreement between Obama and Iran. The nuclear agreement was never ratified by the Senate. Once Trump took office, the agreement "died". Trump was under no obligation to maintain it.

The nuclear agreement also had a sunset provision in it. When the agreement expired (had Trump kept it), Iran would have been free to construct a nuclear device. The agreement did NOT stop Iran from eventually constructing a nuclear device.

The nuclear agreement in a sense was incomplete, as it allowed Iran to continue it missile testing plus some other points that I forget. But my point is that this agreement was not crafted from a holistic perspective, but from a very narrow point of view.

 

[AccessBlaster]

No, I don't. Care to enlighten me/us as to why they were?

It originally started during Jimmy Carter, in response to the Iran hostage crisis.

Edit: What Steve R said...lol

 

[Deleted member 147267]

It originally started during Jimmy Carter, in response to the Iran hostage crisis.

I remember that well. The recent movie about that sure took a lot of credit on the part of the US thanks to Ben Affleck. IIRC, Ken Taylor was the architect of that rescue plan, but you'd never know it by watching the Hollywood version. Well, I suppose us Canuks should be happy that Ken got an honourable mention.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I remember that well. The recent movie about that sure took a lot of credit on the part of the US thanks to Ben Affleck. IIRC, Ken Taylor was the architect of that rescue plan, but you'd never know it by watching the Hollywood version. Well, I suppose us Canuks should be happy that Ken got an honourable mention.

Not surprising, Hollywood is a town of liberals and debauchery. You got the same treatment Bernie got....

 

[deletedT]

If I remember correctly, Canada was not content with that movie, because they weren't given the correct credit. I read somewhere that Canada's embassy had the main role in that plan. But according to the movie, it was only used as a place to hide them for several days.

I may be wrong. I watch too many movies and read a lot about them. Mostly they get mixed. I may be wrong there.

 

[Minty]

Once again, Trump has made an inopportune remark.

My point is that if this was a one-off occurrence you might cut him some slack, but you could literally write a book or even two of these clever "musings".
Anyone with a brain would engage it before uttering such fuckwittery.

The press conferences are funny because if anyone questions him he just talks all over then shouting "your fake and it's all fake news."
It's the most dignified display of considered intellectual response I've ever seen.

And I agree Biden isn't much better, but he's not currently actually in charge.

@The_Doc_Man I do sympathise with your choices of 2 rubbish options.
We had the same in the UK, Boris whom I don't think is trustworthy, and Corbyn who has a dubious record on a lot of things and was surrounded by yet more idiots,

 

[deletedT]

The press conferences are funny because if anyone questions him he just talks all over then shouting "your fake and it's all fake news."
It's the most dignified display of considered intellectual response I've ever seen.

At last somebody talks my language.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'm not 100% sure of whether some of what gets published is "fake" news. But I am absolutely sure it is NOT news. It is opinion surrounding a news event, reported in a way to be heavily slanted according to the editorial opinions of the media owners. So many reporters do not offer the news any more despite the title of their show including the word "news."

 

[moke123]

Apparently it finally occurred to him that his press rallies are making him look bad and he announced that he is not going to participate in them so much.
Although that was yesterday and its been almost 24 hours so who knows.