Iran Deal

[Opoponax]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/08/politics/donald-trump-iran-deal-announcement-decision/index.html

Haven't seen this posted anywhere here yet. If it has been, I apologize.

My two bits: the Iran deal was a great Obama success. The only downside to it was that it wasn't permanent. But the word "renegotiate" exists for a reason. Trump reneged on the deal because it was an Obama success. That was Trump's reason. Nothing more, nothing less. Razor blade deep reasoning.

GOP'ers just fucking hate Iran, end of story. They hate that Obama did it too, but Iran remains one of the monsters they can place under the beds of their voters in order to whip them up when needed.

It's also similar to Castro in Cuba; keep inflicting harm to self and Other for past misdeeds. Never acknowledge the role the U.S. placed in the misdeed ever occurring. America Good; Other Bad.

The other nations involved in the deal are honoring it, thereby rendering the U.S.'s role in the world less relevant today than it was yesterday. Due to America's relative instability in conducting itself around the world, it has become clear it cannot be relied on in the longterm anymore. Sure, the next POTUS, assuming there is one, can come along and join right back up, but for how long?

It would help if a Dem POTUS and Dem congress made this an official treaty though. But that's a "wouldn't it be wonderful if" type of scenario and not the pig-ugly reality that exists.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Trausti]

 

[Underseer]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/08/politics/donald-trump-iran-deal-announcement-decision/index.html

Haven't seen this posted anywhere here yet. If it has been, I apologize.

My two bits: the Iran deal was a great Obama success. The only downside to it was that it wasn't permanent. But the word "renegotiate" exists for a reason. Trump reneged on the deal because it was an Obama success. That was Trump's reason. Nothing more, nothing less. Razor blade deep reasoning.

GOP'ers just fucking hate Iran, end of story. They hate that Obama did it too, but Iran remains one of the monsters they can place under the beds of their voters in order to whip them up when needed.

It's also similar to Castro in Cuba; keep inflicting harm to self and Other for past misdeeds. Never acknowledge the role the U.S. placed in the misdeed ever occurring. America Good; Other Bad.

The other nations involved in the deal are honoring it, thereby rendering the U.S.'s role in the world less relevant today than it was yesterday. Due to America's relative instability in conducting itself around the world, it has become clear it cannot be relied on in the longterm anymore. Sure, the next POTUS, assuming there is one, can come along and join right back up, but for how long?

It would help if a Dem POTUS and Dem congress made this an official treaty though. But that's a "wouldn't it be wonderful if" type of scenario and not the pig-ugly reality that exists.

Yup.

And if the deal is scuttled, there will be nothing stopping Iran from working on a nuke.

But that's OK, because conservolibertarians will just blame Obama for how things turn out. When you can always blame the other guy for your own mistakes, why put in the effort to make good decisions at all?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh look, an appeal to authority fallacy!

Are you presenting this as evidence that Obama's deal with Iran was a bad one?

 

[Worldtraveller]

What's the point of this exactly? Are you trying to point out how this particular senator (let me guess (R) - Idiot) doesn't actually understand the constitution? Or are you pointing how hypocritical it is to claim that a president doesn't have the power to make treaties, but does have the power to unilaterally break them?

Which is it?

 

[Underseer]

What's the point of this exactly? Are you trying to point out how this particular senator (let me guess (R) - Idiot) doesn't actually understand the constitution? Or are you pointing how hypocritical it is to claim that a president doesn't have the power to make treaties, but does have the power to unilaterally break them?

Which is it?

Fake news! No collusion! Benghazi! [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Trausti]

What's the point of this exactly? Are you trying to point out how this particular senator (let me guess (R) - Idiot) doesn't actually understand the constitution? Or are you pointing how hypocritical it is to claim that a president doesn't have the power to make treaties, but does have the power to unilaterally break them?

Which is it?

Are you not aware that for the US to be bound by a treaty, the Senate has to ratify the treaty? The Iran deal was never ratified by the Senate. That's what the Senator was pointing out. The president cannot unilaterally bind the United States. Duh.

 

[Patooka]

From the other thread discussing this

 

[Ford]

What's the point of this exactly? Are you trying to point out how this particular senator (let me guess (R) - Idiot) doesn't actually understand the constitution? Or are you pointing how hypocritical it is to claim that a president doesn't have the power to make treaties, but does have the power to unilaterally break them?

Which is it?

Fake news! No collusion! Benghazi! [/conservolibertarian]

And then of course there's the fact that this wasn't a multi-lateral agreement between Iran, the UN, the EU, China, Russia, Germany, etc.

Nope. It was just a handshake between Obama and the Ayatollah, because they're both Mooslims.

 

[Jayjay]

What's the point of this exactly? Are you trying to point out how this particular senator (let me guess (R) - Idiot) doesn't actually understand the constitution? Or are you pointing how hypocritical it is to claim that a president doesn't have the power to make treaties, but does have the power to unilaterally break them?

Which is it?

Are you not aware that for the US to be bound by a treaty, the Senate has to ratify the treaty? The Iran deal was never ratified by the Senate. That's what the Senator was pointing out. The president cannot unilaterally bind the United States. Duh.

I suppose from now on, anyone wanting to sign any agreement with the United States should stipulate ratification, not simply a presidential signature.

 

[Derec]

What's the point of this exactly? Are you trying to point out how this particular senator (let me guess (R) - Idiot) doesn't actually understand the constitution? Or are you pointing how hypocritical it is to claim that a president doesn't have the power to make treaties, but does have the power to unilaterally break them?

Do you understand the constitution? It was not a treaty, which requires 2/3 of Senate to vote for it. That's what Sasse is pointing out. This was just a personal pledge by one president and can be undone by the next one.

 

[Opoponax]

It was not a treaty, which requires 2/3 of Senate to vote for it. That's what Sasse is pointing out. This was just a personal pledge by one president and can be undone by the next one.

True. And that's the problem with Executive Orders. They can be easily undone by the next guy that gets elected. On the other hand, if they couldn't be undone, it would violate the Constitution.

Going forward, as someone else said, most nations are going to require that any agreement on a longterm matter (more than say, 2 years) must be ratified as a treaty rather than an EO. Obama took this risk, but at the time it was a good risk. He likely thought that if the agreement worked, it would show people that cooperation and reconciliation were more productive methods than warfare and decades of animosity.

Silly Obama: peace is for pussies.

This is both a national and international humiliation.

Trump could have manifested his awesome deal-making prowess by adding something to the deal, or by correcting flaws. That's what not-fake negotiators know how to do. They can observe a situation, see where it can be improved, and come out with a better situation than existed before. Trump? Well...

It's easy to break things. An artists can work for months to make a nice sculpture. A shit headed kid can grab a rock and destroy it in seconds. But the kid gets in trouble. He doesn't have tens of millions of people calling his vandalism a great accomplishment. Just think of how fucked up that kid would be if that happened. Well, that's who we have as POTUS. A spiteful, destructive juvenile egged on by the praise of nitwits.

 

[Ford]

A shit headed kid can grab a rock and destroy it in seconds.

In Derec's view, Obama is the shit headed kid. Because he's black. He smashed the order of the way things "should be."

Obama - the pesky black man - made a deal with the brown people. In the view of racists that's an upending of the order of things. Trump is - in their opinion - setting the world aright because he's putting "those people" back in their place. Muslims. Mexicans. Blacks. Women. Gays.

That's why folks like Derec have such a hard on for Trump.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I have to agree, this was just Trump desperate for a win of some sort, and in need of a distraction. A lot of people accuse Trump of constructing distractions, rather constantly in fact. I do not. I rather just view the chaos as just a result of his haphazard stream of conciousness. But, by all reports, Trump was stoked to make this announcement yesterday and in high spirits. It's a shame he simply views pulling us out of Obama led initiatives as the end of his job, when in reality it should be just the beginning.

 

[Derec]

In Derec's view, Obama is the shit headed kid. Because he's black. He smashed the order of the way things "should be."

It must be very exhausting to be you, always twisting what other people say to make it all about race.
In any case, I voted for Obama, but I will not pretend that every decision he made was good.

Obama - the pesky black man - made a deal with the brown people.

Obama himself is biracial and Iranians are not particularly brown. Look for example at Rouhani:

Looks pretty white to me. The only brown I see is the wood paneling.

In the view of racists that's an upending of the order of things.

In the view of racists like you everything must be made about race, even when it doesn't fit.

That's why folks like Derec have such a hard on for Trump.

Yet another wrong statement. I do not particularly like Trump. I did not even vote for him. But just because he is acting like an elephant in a china shop on the international stage doesn't mean that the china in question is not cheaply made and kitschy.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Ok, Derec, then kindly explain in detail what exactly you think is "cheaply made and kitschy" about Obama's deal with Iran that would justify such a stupid move by Trump. Let's see if you can actually make a legitimate argument (that isn't just GOP regurgitation) that accounts for the fact that Trump just destroyed an existing agreement with nothing to replace it, so even if you managed to come up with anything remotely salient, you'd still have to account for destruction instead of replacement or renegotiation.

 

[Underseer]

Conservatives: this deal is a bad idea because Iran could start working on nuclear weapons again in 10 years!

Also conservatives: therefore, let's destroy the deal so that Iran can start working on nukes right away!

No one rational makes arguments this bad. It's obvious they don't want to talk about the real reason they don't like the deal. Party before country!

 

[Elixir]

Ok, Derec, then kindly explain in detail what exactly you think is "cheaply made and kitschy" about Obama's deal with Iran that would justify such a stupid move by Trump.

Bold added... because that is the ONLY reason Trump and his sycophants have a hard on for the Iran deal. Turning Iran loose to develop a nuclear program is in no way the threat to or the insult against America trumpsuckers that would be represented by leaving stand something done by da nigga president.

 

[Ford]

And let's not forget that this helps Putin.

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/993970473032650752

Russia's state TV is having a panel discussion as to where to find 8 trillion rubles needed to implement Putin’s domestic policy goals. Female host says: "Looks like we found it. Trump is withdrawing US from the #Iran nuclear deal. Oil prices should go up, which is good for us."

So when you grouse about the pain at the pump over the next year (prices are already on the rise) remember that it's just another favor from Donnie to Vlad.

 

[ZiprHead]

And let's not forget that this helps Putin.

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/993970473032650752

Russia's state TV is having a panel discussion as to where to find 8 trillion rubles needed to implement Putin’s domestic policy goals. Female host says: "Looks like we found it. Trump is withdrawing US from the #Iran nuclear deal. Oil prices should go up, which is good for us."

So when you grouse about the pain at the pump over the next year (prices are already on the rise) remember that it's just another favor from Donnie to Vlad.

This is a sweet gift to Russia and uncle Vlad.

Russia gets higher oil prices, sells more war toys to Iran, and almost destroys NATO. Bone spurs just gave Russia the trifecta.