Quote:
Originally Posted by xuwillie
:sign-wtf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterofreality
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by xuwillie
:sign-wtf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterofreality
Many have (rightfully) made light of the left 'eating itself' so to speak with the fringe elements of the party gaining more influence and then turning on the more moderate Democrats, but it seems like we are seeing the same thing now within the Republican party with the way some of them are turning on Mitch McConnell. I'm not a fan of Mitch, but I would argue that he has done a lot more than Trump to advance conservative priorities.
Both parties have courted their extremists lately and it seems to be backfiring similarly. I'd love to believe that this would be an eye opening experience that would moves us closer toward an environment that rejects the fringe elements of both sides and embraces compromise, but I don't see any realistic chance of that happening.
Boozehound,
I agree with the above. The problem as I see it is that compromise is looked upon as weakness by both parties. Instead of seeing leadership in compromise, the fringes see giving in and selling out. Those politicians that compromise tend to get primaried and usually the fringes on both sides vote in candidates with extreme right or left viewpoints. I miss the days when working together was seen as good government.
Totally. I look at John McCain as an example of this. I really liked John McCain before he ran. I was a huge fan of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and John McCain used to come on and honestly debate policy. He consistently worked across the aisle while also staying true to his values. I was excited he was running for President. The problem was that he had to tack so far to the right to win the primaries that it was hard for him to get back to rational ground. Then he let the RNC pick Sarah Palin as his running mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by XUBob
Obama then furthered this, particularly when he had the House and Senate. He viewed the progressive agenda as morally correct, and conservatism as a dying philosophy and sought to impose his health care plan on them.
Trump absolutely turbo charged this bullshit partisanism to a degree that is getting very dangerous to the country, IMO. Millions of people are cheering on open sedition by the President and his inner circle. That part has surprised even me.
Suspending his campaign during the Financial Crisis hurt him. Where he lost most on the Right was the Obamacare repeal vote. It seemed out of spite rather than principal. He also wanted war with Iran which crossed him with the Lebertarian wing of the Party.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound
It is also both parties demonizing the position of the other party to make the other look radical. The reality is on most issue that the parties are not that far a part as compared to wide gamut of political positions across the world and history. But it is more politically advantageous to just label every policy of the opponent as socialism or cold hearted greed even before you know what the policy is.Quote:
Originally Posted by XUBob
I’m done with your one trick pony argument Paul, and your continued water carrying for the most dangerous Terrorist State in the world. The same terrorist state and regime-still in power- that took American Citizens hostage, have kidnapped, imprisoned, tortured and killed journalists and fomented violence all over the Middle East through its henchmen. Obama empowered them and they were not, and still are not to be trusted.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
The two links below explain and detail it better than I ever could as to why it was a horrible sell out deal and remained so through it all. This doesn’t even count the current evidence of the recent Arab/Israeli peace deals. The links are from the BI-PARTISAN organization United Against Nuclear Iran.
A description of that Organization follows:
“ United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is a not-for-profit, bi-partisan, educational and advocacy group that seeks to prevent Iran from fulfilling its ambition to obtain nuclear weapons. UANI was founded in 2008 by Ambassador Mark D. Wallace, the late Ambassador Richard Holbrooke (who served in the Obama Administration- my insert)and Middle East expert Ambassador Dennis Ross and is led by a diverse Advisory Board of policy experts and former government officials. UANI works to ensure the economic and diplomatic isolation of the Iranian regime in order to compel Iran to abandon its illegal nuclear weapons program, support for terrorism and human rights violations.”
https://www.unitedagainstnucleariran...RoCFEgQAvD_BwE
https://www.unitedagainstnucleariran...RoCUtoQAvD_BwE
I’m now done on this particular topic. You one tricked on this and still never addressed my other answers as to the benefits and truths of Trumps years.
You should go to debate school Paul. You lose.
MOR I would have to imagine one of the first lessons in "debate school" would be the participants of the debate don't determine who wins and loses!Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterofreality
Sorry, I didn't realize it was a debate. I thought we were exchanging views on the Iranian situation.
I read up on the sites you noted. They seem to be genuine with the right intention of preventing Iran from possessing nuclear weapons.
Their main strategy is forceful support for sanctions on trade. (this alone does not work as evidenced by our sanctions not preventing North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons and now with the apparent systems to deliver them).
The earlier multi-lateral US strategy was a combination of the sanctions and the items from the JCPOA.
The balanced perspective was successful until we pulled out in accomplishing its aims with no evidence of Iranian "cheating."
That's all changed, now that we left. I don't think for the better.
Your group was worried about sunset provisions without regard for further diplomacy at that point could accomplish.
We went 5 years without Iran enriching past the dangerous stage. That's all changed now. I hope they don't get to the nuclear weapon stage, or have some terrorist get a hold of it from them. I think it would have served us well to stay in that agreement.
I also would have thought Kaplan and Alderson (75% of the group's funding) would have wanted the same thing.
Enjoyed the dialogue. Hope you take a moment or 2 to read the Arms Control material. I think it would give you a broader perspective on the issues.
Not in this house when one side is getting “Schooled”.Quote:
Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z