2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
townsend

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Cowboysrock55 said:
It's been a long time since we have seen the African American community burning down buildings and looting to such extreme lengths in protest. I don't think officers are killing black people at any sort of an increased rate. You would think an African American president would have more success at calming the African American as opposed to a white President but it seems like it is worse then ever.
Click to expand...
Once again I think the Internet plays a big part of that. What would we have known about Baltimore or Ferguson without social media? If there's one thing I know Twitter/Facebook/whatever else does is fuel anger and outrage.

Now an angry Baltimore/Ferguson/Cleveland population (plus troublemakers who travel to these hot spots for an opportunity to cause chaos) have a rally point and the ability to quickly dissimenate information.
 
Cowboysrock55

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,617
townsend said:
Once again I think the Internet plays a big part of that. What would we have known about Baltimore or Ferguson without social media? If there's one thing I know Twitter/Facebook/whatever else does is fuel anger and outrage.

Now an angry Baltimore/Ferguson/Cleveland population (plus troublemakers who travel to these hot spots for an opportunity to cause chaos) have a rally point and the ability to quickly dissimenate information.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you so much as the internet and social media has been around much longer then a decade now. Facebook started back in what, like 2004? Before that Myspace was packed with users. Yet we aren't really seeing any of it until now. I don't like to talk about race stuff very often because I think talking about racism and pointing out different groups of people based on race only helps to fuel more problems but I think Obama has a real tendency to add fuel to the fire on those issues.
 
Jiggyfly

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Cowboysrock55 said:
I don't disagree with you so much as the internet and social media has been around much longer then a decade now. Facebook started back in what, like 2004? Before that Myspace was packed with users. Yet we aren't really seeing any of it until now. I don't like to talk about race stuff very often because I think talking about racism and pointing out different groups of people based on race only helps to fuel more problems but I think Obama has a real tendency to add fuel to the fire on those issues.
Click to expand...
Yeah they started then but now everybody can communicate on those by smartphone.

Everybody having a internet phone did not really happen until 2012 or so, yes they were available but it was not easy and cheap to have one.

Also Twitter has blown up since then and Instagram was not around until 2010 , people are much easier to rally now than then.

The advent of the internet and cheap smartphones is very much a reason these things blow up these days.
 
fortsbest

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,741
townsend said:
Absolutely. As a libertarian I'm almost wholly opposed to sanctions. It allows the most corrupt and militant fringes of a country to prosper, while hurting legitimate business. There's no better nuclear deterrent than economic interdependence.

Iran was absolutely on its way to making a nuclear arsenal, while the craziest and most extremist voices, who had nothing to lose from international sanctions, prevailed.

To me, this is the most important moment of Barack's presidency.
Click to expand...
There are few issues that I have a problem with. And it may be my sanction ignorance because I'm not that well informed on it so help me out please. What, if anything, in any portion of that agreement stops or truly slows Iran from getting a bomb? From all I've seen or heard there is a bunch of really not enforceable inspection stuff that could easily be gotten around. Who gets the large quantity of money our government is going to ship them and how do we know what it will be used for? Why send them any money at all. It isn't as if even if they don't build a bomb they aren't still causing people in that area enough trouble. Why not just say give us our people back, quit working on the stuff needed for a bomb and then we will lift or consider lifting sanctions and not give them money? Seems like a hostage negotiation in which we got nothing of substance.
 
L.T. Fan

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,698
fortsbest said:
There are few issues that I have a problem with. And it may be my sanction ignorance because I'm not that well informed on it so help me out please. What, if anything, in any portion of that agreement stops or truly slows Iran from getting a bomb? From all I've seen or heard there is a bunch of really not enforceable inspection stuff that could easily be gotten around. Who gets the large quantity of money our government is going to ship them and how do we know what it will be used for? Why send them any money at all. It isn't as if even if they don't build a bomb they aren't still causing people in that area enough trouble. Why not just say give us our people back, quit working on the stuff needed for a bomb and then we will lift or consider lifting sanctions and not give them money? Seems like a hostage negotiation in which we got nothing of substance.
Click to expand...
Yep I didn't want to get embroiled in a discussion about this but the only reason the Iranian government agreed to a treaty was because they were essentially bankrupt and needed the sanctions removed to sell their oil to the world market. In addition they grabbed off millions of the US money in the deal. The US got squat and enabled them to get revived to continue with their master plan. They even got the rights to control the inspections. It's a disgusting political mess to try to show some accomplishment for the existing administration.
 
Last edited:
townsend

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
fortsbest said:
There are few issues that I have a problem with. And it may be my sanction ignorance because I'm not that well informed on it so help me out please. What, if anything, in any portion of that agreement stops or truly slows Iran from getting a bomb? From all I've seen or heard there is a bunch of really not enforceable inspection stuff that could easily be gotten around. Who gets the large quantity of money our government is going to ship them and how do we know what it will be used for? Why send them any money at all. It isn't as if even if they don't build a bomb they aren't still causing people in that area enough trouble. Why not just say give us our people back, quit working on the stuff needed for a bomb and then we will lift or consider lifting sanctions and not give them money? Seems like a hostage negotiation in which we got nothing of substance.
Click to expand...
I'm going to do some research so I can provide with a complete answer.
 
Jiggyfly

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
fortsbest said:
There are few issues that I have a problem with. And it may be my sanction ignorance because I'm not that well informed on it so help me out please. What, if anything, in any portion of that agreement stops or truly slows Iran from getting a bomb? From all I've seen or heard there is a bunch of really not enforceable inspection stuff that could easily be gotten around. Who gets the large quantity of money our government is going to ship them and how do we know what it will be used for? Why send them any money at all. It isn't as if even if they don't build a bomb they aren't still causing people in that area enough trouble. Why not just say give us our people back, quit working on the stuff needed for a bomb and then we will lift or consider lifting sanctions and not give them money? Seems like a hostage negotiation in which we got nothing of substance.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting this that our government is giving them money?
 
townsend

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
fortsbest said:
There are few issues that I have a problem with. And it may be my sanction ignorance because I'm not that well informed on it so help me out please. What, if anything, in any portion of that agreement stops or truly slows Iran from getting a bomb? From all I've seen or heard there is a bunch of really not enforceable inspection stuff that could easily be gotten around. Who gets the large quantity of money our government is going to ship them and how do we know what it will be used for? Why send them any money at all. It isn't as if even if they don't build a bomb they aren't still causing people in that area enough trouble. Why not just say give us our people back, quit working on the stuff needed for a bomb and then we will lift or consider lifting sanctions and not give them money? Seems like a hostage negotiation in which we got nothing of substance.
Click to expand...
Okay, firstly I don't know how much foreign aid we've agreed to send, as far as I've read that hasn't been discussed, so my assumption is that all money sent to Iran will be in exchange for oil.

Intel suggests Iran has all the materials and plants necessary to build a bomb within a few months if that was their goal. So the first thing I'd say is there is absolutely no benefit to sanctions at this point because it hasn't stopped them.

Now Iran has to dismantle its enrichment facilities, redesign its heavy water reactor, get rid of its enriched fuel, and pretty much undo a decade's worth of progress towards nuclear weapons before the sanctions are ever lifted.

This isn't Saddam kicking inspectors out of the country, and saying "Whaddya gonna do about it?" They don't get a dime of that sweet oil money until inspectors are satisfied.

Now we have the best deterrent of all in place, economics. Would Iran risk losing that cash cow again? Name a country so crazy it'd be willing to shoot itself in the foot like that. This is why all of your North Koreas and USSRs have to practice isolationism. Once dollars and cents are at stake, no one wants a nuclear war.

Could they cheat? I suppose, but the threat of instant sanctions snapping back (a provision of the deal) should at least give them pause.
 
fortsbest

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,741
townsend said:
Okay, firstly I don't know how much foreign aid we've agreed to send, as far as I've read that hasn't been discussed, so my assumption is that all money sent to Iran will be in exchange for oil.

Intel suggests Iran has all the materials and plants necessary to build a bomb within a few months if that was their goal. So the first thing I'd say is there is absolutely no benefit to sanctions at this point because it hasn't stopped them.

Now Iran has to dismantle its enrichment facilities, redesign its heavy water reactor, get rid of its enriched fuel, and pretty much undo a decade's worth of progress towards nuclear weapons before the sanctions are ever lifted.

This isn't Saddam kicking inspectors out of the country, and saying "Whaddya gonna do about it?" They don't get a dime of that sweet oil money until inspectors are satisfied.

Now we have the best deterrent of all in place, economics. Would Iran risk losing that cash cow again? Name a country so crazy it'd be willing to shoot itself in the foot like that. This is why all of your North Koreas and USSRs have to practice isolationism. Once dollars and cents are at stake, no one wants a nuclear war.

Could they cheat? I suppose, but the threat of instant sanctions snapping back (a provision of the deal) should at least give them pause.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the update. I still have tons of concerns and truth is I simply don't trust anything this administration has put together. I'll have to research it myself some more to
 
townsend

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
fortsbest said:
Thanks for the update. I still have tons of concerns and truth is I simply don't trust anything this administration has put together. I'll have to research it myself some more to
Click to expand...
By all means. What I would say that this isn't just Obama. This is something the US, UK, Russia, France, Germany, and China have all agreed on. Getting that many world powers on the same page seems like throwing a football through a moving vehicle's windows and into another.
 
jsmith6919

jsmith6919

Honored Member - RIP
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
28,407
BipolarFuk

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
We should just bomb them back to the stone age, and in the process create and preserve some jobs in the military industrial complex.
 
fortsbest

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,741
Jiggyfly said:
A simple google search would tell this is false, the only people getting offered any foreign aid is Isreal.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/reports-obama-offered-netanyahu-aid-boost-israel-defense-force/

Where you are getting your news from?
Click to expand...
Doesn't really matter since I remembered wrong anyhow does it? I likely misheard that it was foreign aid as well instead of assets being released. Geez dude, why when you write something does it always read so snarky and condescending?
 
Jiggyfly

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
fortsbest said:
Doesn't really matter since I remembered wrong anyhow does it? I likely misheard that it was foreign aid as well instead of assets being released. Geez dude, why when you write something does it always read so snarky and condescending?
Click to expand...
That was snarky and condescending?

It was a legitimate question because I did not know if this was a talking point or not.
 
fortsbest

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,741
I think the part where I admitted to being ill informed regarding the deal would leave out anything I said being a talking point. The part where I said I don't trust anything this administration does while true, could be considered a talking point.

And yes it was. "A simple Google search....." is snarky and condescending.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom