Politics XXXIV (Politics never changes)

[Bartimaeus]

Speaking of...

 

[ComradeYellow]

Mother Jones is to the right of Trump now, protesting the $1000 checks xD

Edited March 18, 2020 by ComradeMaster

[ComradeYellow]

Wow Twitter is going absolutely insane right now!  Reactionary lunatics and China bashers everywhere!  Not to mention Trump tilting towards the left with government handouts whilst calling COVID-19 the "China Virus" at the same time.

We are SO DOOMED.  I can hear the Goosesteps already.

[Volourn]

China (the country) not Chinese (the people) deserve  ****. It is an evil dictatorship that made this worse than it actually is. I have no empathy for the Chinese gov't.  If you do you are pro nazi? Are you pro nazi?

 

P.S. Why does Obsidian want the word nazi capitalized? LMAO

[ComradeYellow]

7 minutes ago, Volourn said:

China (the country) not Chinese (the people) deserve  ****. It is an evil dictatorship that made this worse than it actually is. I have no empathy for the Chinese gov't.  If you do you are pro nazi? Are you pro nazi?

 

P.S. Why does Obsidian want the word nazi capitalized? LMAO

The United States of America is a 1 party corporate fascist state disguised as a democracy.  If I had to chose I would go left extreme rather than right extreme (The U.S.).

Personally, I'd rather fix American Democracy and devote resources on cleaning this whole thing up globally and let China do it's thing but the feeling of being backed into a corner is strong in this one.

Edited March 19, 2020 by ComradeMaster

[Skarpen]

Angela Merkel:

Coronavirus is Germany biggest challenge since WWII.

Seriously, Angela?

Edited March 19, 2020 by Skarpen

[Gromnir]

gonna state an opinion unrelated to anything current being discussed in the thread:

US sanctions on iran should be eased during the covid-19 crisis.

can reimplement anytime in future, but for the moment am believing this is a right thing to do situation. sure, sanctions is even more effective now than they were before current health crisis in iran, but not only is there a moral component to consider in maintaining sanctions at this time, but have observed previous how the aphorism 'bout power corrupting is more valid when inverted:

power corrupts. powerlessness corrupts absolutely.

am not actual suggesting situation is so bad that iran is being pushed to the point they can do the unthinkable. nevertheless, wouldn't take much for iran problems to spin outta control too fast for there to be meaningful opportunities to react.  and again, more important, am thinking given the nature o' the current crisis (a pandemic) there is a choice which is right.

am not so naive to believe lessening sanctions decreases iranian terror efforts now or in the future. am not saying lessen sanctions buys the US future good will. the us-iran relationship is functional unfixable particular as long as is such a strong non-secular component to the divisions. am recognizing how many will see lessening o' sanctions as little more than an opportunity for iran to direct more money into military and terror efforts directed at the US. probably right.

again, am suggesting a temp easing o' US sanctions on iran. would be the right thing to do.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

gonna state an opinion unrelated to anything current being discussed in the thread:

US sanctions on iran should be eased during the covid-19 crisis.

can reimplement anytime in future, but for the moment am believing this is a right thing to do situation. sure, sanctions is even more effective now than they were before current health crisis in iran, but not only is there a moral component to consider in maintaining sanctions at this time, but have observed previous how the aphorism 'bout power corrupting is more valid when inverted:

power corrupts. powerlessness corrupts absolutely.

am not actual suggesting situation is so bad that iran is being pushed to the point they can do the unthinkable. nevertheless, wouldn't take much for iran problems to spin outta control too fast for there to be meaningful opportunities to react.  and again, more important, am thinking given the nature o' the current crisis (a pandemic) there is a choice which is right.

am not so naive to believe lessening sanctions decreases iranian terror efforts now or in the future. am not saying lessen sanctions buys the US future good will. the us-iran relationship is functional unfixable particular as long as is such a strong non-secular component to the divisions. am recognizing how many will see lessening o' sanctions as little more than an opportunity for iran to direct more money into military and terror efforts directed at the US. probably right.

again, am suggesting a temp easing o' US sanctions on iran. would be the right thing to do.

HA! Good Fun!

 

They should not have been re-instated. Iran is a bad actor. Obama agreed to a deal with a nation that was and would continue to act in bad faith. It was a bad deal that, at the time it was abrogated, they had not openly broken. Trump should not have broken it. Not because Iran isn't faithless, and not because the treaty wasn't a bad deal. They are and it was. But because an agreement made with the United States should be honored by the United States. Presidents are beholden to the promises of their predecessors so long as the other party has held up their end. Otherwise any deal made by the US (apart from ratified treaties which are law by definition) is really just a deal with THAT President. Who would ever enter into such?

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

They should not have been re-instated. Iran is a bad actor. Obama agreed to a deal with a nation that was and would continue to act in bad faith. It was a bad deal that, at the time it was abrogated, they had not openly broken. Trump should not have broken it. Not because Iran isn't faithless, and not because the treaty wasn't a bad deal. They are and it was. But because an agreement made with the United States should be honored by the United States. Presidents are beholden to the promises of their predecessors so long as the other party has held up their end. Otherwise any deal made by the US (apart from ratified treaties which are law by definition) is really just a deal with THAT President. Who would ever enter into such?

am agreeing the iran deal should not have been ended by the current admin. we weren't in favor o' the iran deal. understatement. however, there were every indication that iran were actual following the deal. absolutely nobody were claiming that iran were trying to game the system by sneaky developing nukes while the deal were in place, and is not as if nations weren't looking for such evidence. not a good deal, but it were a deal and it were being adhered to by all parties concerned. as much as we didn't like the deal when it were penned and signed, we were even less in favor o' breaking.

US broke. done. sanctions imposed. past tense.

nevertheless, given realities o' 2020, am favoring easing o' sanctions.

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

Of course Iran followed it. They got billions of dollars and gave nothing up. LMAO

[Gromnir]

19 minutes ago, Volourn said:

Of course Iran followed it. They got billions of dollars and gave nothing up. LMAO

1) the billions was iran's money being returned to them.

2) iran stopped pursuing their nuke weapons development.

sure, iran giving up development o' nukes weren't a huge sacrifice when it were so easy to quick restart such at anytime, but there weren't a way to stop iran regardless. get iran to voluntarily give up their development were deemed significant enough legitimize the return to iran o' their money.

again, am not defending the original deal, but iran were adhering to the deal and the billions they received were their own money which decades past were seized in banks 'cross the globe.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Volourn]

1. Nah. That money was forfeited when Iran attacked US citizens.  It was no longer theirs as far as I'm concerned.

2. I rest my case. They gave up nothing. They (supposedly) had no nukes so they gave up nothing.

 

US gave them billions of dollars that Iran had forfeited and got nothing in return. So, of course, Iran is 'following' a deal.

 

If you and I made a contract and in it I paid you a million dollars plus give you a bunch of other stuff over the years and all you had to is promise not to make a weapon that you likely would never use anyways, of course you are gonna follow through.

 

Doesn't the law (in most countries) have laws to stop contracts that are so lopsided? LMAO

[ComradeYellow]

Iran is only considered "Bad" here in the U.S. because they are the arch enemy of Israel.

The United States is Israel's warhammer and Trump is by far the most pro-Israel POTUS we've ever had since Reagan.

The Zionification of the U.S. government is going well, unfortunately, and apparently there's no shortage of sheep who seem ok with it.

[Boeroer]

10 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Angela Merkel:

Coronavirus is Germany biggest challenge since WWII.

Seriously, Angela?

Yes, seriously. Without a doubt.

Germany doubled its Corvid-19 cases in just two days from roughly 7K to today's 14K. The curve currently looks like this:

 
Given the drastic restrictions Germans do already face and looking at what Italy currently is experiencing (same growth rate) and what will hit us as well if the spreading continues like this: what else had such an impact on the German society since WWII? Nothing. The German Reunification was a big thing - but it wasn't such a big challenge because it was a positive thing.

Of course that's easier to assess if you are actually living in Germany. But go ahead and have better expertise on the matter than the German chanchellor who's dealing with nothing else that Corvid-19 at the moment.

I know for Poland's "conservatives" the biggest challenge still is the fight against the LGBTQ virus, but maybe try to take a different perspective once in a while...

Edited March 19, 2020 by Boeroer

[Boeroer]

9 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

Iran is only considered "Bad" here in the U.S. because they are the arch enemy of Israel.

The United States is Israel's warhammer and Trump is by far the most pro-Israel POTUS we've ever had since Reagan.

The Zionification of the U.S. government is going well, unfortunately, and apparently there's no shortage of sheep who seem ok with it.

We had an Iranian husband (married to a German wife who worked at the Goethe Institut) in our community in Uzbekistan when we were posted there.

A painter, lovely guy - supergood with toddlers, too. Like he had the magic eyes and voice that made them stop crying instantly.... Anyways: he loathed the political system in his home country but he also organized holiday trips to Iran for US citizens. And the vast majority of those tourists said that they loved the trip, the country and the Iranian people they met.

Sanctions can be effective in some cases, but always think about what they do to the (mostly nice) people who live there.  No country is inherently bad. Also don't forget "Operation Ajax" - without it we most likely wouldn't have that particular regime in Iran.

Loosening the sanctions in this time of need would be a grand gesture and the Iranians wouldn't forget that - I think.

[213374U]

I'm not one to agree with Skarpen often, but yeah, that statement made me raise an eyebrow as well.

Though seeing as how she was born in '54, it stands to reason that Angela doesn't remember the Berlin blockade of 1948. Sure, it didn't directly affect the whole of Germany, but indirectly it could have as war with the Soviet Union would have been a thing across all of Europe. And this was before the Sino-Soviet split, so probably a global conflict as well.

I would expect her to have some memory of the wall being built in 1961 and its ramifications, however.

In both cases we're potentially talking about a literal literal nuclear apocalypse with a much bigger death toll than COVID-19.

Edited March 19, 2020 by 213374U

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Volourn said:

1. Nah. That money was forfeited when Iran attacked US citizens.  It was no longer theirs as far as I'm concerned.

 

courts disagree with you. sure, were an international court in hague, but us and iran had agreed to arbitration.

is no suggestion iran commited fraud-- us were aware o' what they were getting and what they were giving. however, K is voidable (not necessarily void) if there is defect or imbalance which prevents basics o' K: offer, acceptance, consideration. lopsided in and of itself is not a defect. dorris may sell her ex-husband's 1966 mustang to peter for $1. is not a bad K 'cause it is so lopsided.

if a contract is made with a minor, the minor (or guardian) may void the K. if doug makes a K with paul for sale of doug's 1966 mustang, paul may have K voided if paul were drunk at time the K were formed. etc.

am thinking is high improbability o' showing a K 'tween the US + EU and iran had US at a fundamental power disadvantage as to make K voidable is. not that we are talking K law anyways.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited March 19, 2020 by Gromnir
ps can't spell "offer"

[ComradeYellow]

If you think Iran's government is bad, check out the horrors of the Saudi government -our #2 ally in the middle east- and report back.

[Boeroer]

6 minutes ago, 213374U said:

I'm not one to agree with Skarpen often, but yeah, that statement made me raise an eyebrow as well.

Though seeing as how she was born in '54, it stands to reason that Angela doesn't remember the Berlin blockade of 1948. Sure, it didn't directly affect the whole of Germany, but indirectly it could have as war with the Soviet Union would have been a thing across all of Europe. And this was before the Sino-Soviet split, so probably a global conflict as well.

I would expect her to have some memory of the wall being built in 1961 and its ramifications, however.

In both cases we're potentially talking about a literal literal nuclear apocalypse with a much bigger death toll than COVID-19.

But nothing happened. Also this wasn't really on everybody's radar back then and so Germans didn't panic. The Berlin blockade can be seen as an aftermath of WWII. Building the wall was ugly, but most western Germans didn't really care much. Life went on without too much disturbance. Currently a LOT is happening in Germany that scares people, disrupts the socienty - and the worst is yet to come. Crematories are working 24/7 in the most affected regions in Europe right now.

This is the biggest challenge we faced as a socienty since WWII.  

[213374U]

Just now, Boeroer said:

But nothing happened.

Thankfully, but that says nothing of the magnitude of the challenge. It merely proves that it was handled well enough that it didn't lead to the Cold War turning hot.

That's the thing with hindsight. If this outbreak is managed so that we're looking at something closer to the best-case scenarios, it won't mean the situation was never any more serious than a bad flu season -- only that the response averted the worst-case scenarios.

I didn't live through the disruptions to daily life in Cold War Germany, so I can't speak to that. But now we're talking about people being scared and subjective impressions, which is several steps removed from crisis planning that was done in megadeaths. I'd expect government officials to stick to cold, hard figures and not add to the hysteria.

[Boeroer]

Problem is that many Germans still don't know what is at stakes - and I don't just mean the health issues but the impact on the economy as well. They continue to go to parties. A bit hysteria is what they need I'd say. 

Also my father in law lived through WWII as a kid and my father was born 1949. Both said today that they never experienced something that has that much impact on our society like the current crisis and do agree with Merkel (on this). But maybe it's also because nowadays there's the internet and information travels instantly. So maybe the challenges just seem to be bigger because you know more. 

[Hurlshort]

It strikes me as a strange comparison because Germany was the aggressor in WW2. It seems rather tone deaf to make the comparison.  

[Guard Dog]

41 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

  No country is inherently bad. 

No people are inherently bad. 95% of the people in the world are nice folks who would otherwise get along with everyone just fine if not for their governments telling them whom they are required to hate.  It's the same argument I've been making since I was old enough to think for myself. People are not inherently evil, governments are. 

[Volourn]

"Iran is only considered "Bad" here in the U.S. because they are the arch enemy of Israel. "

 

I don't give a crap about what the US thinks. Iran is ';bad' because they are a dictatorshiup that mass murder their own citizens for giggles amongst other travesties.

 

"No people are inherently bad. "

 

FAKE NEWS.

 

You also contradict yourself. You claim there are 'no bad people' than you spam a made up % suggesting 5% of people are bad. You can't have it both ways. Then you claim gov't are bad. Last I checked, gov'ts are run by people hence you disprove your own statement in the same post TWICE.

 

L0LZ

 

[Boeroer]

You confuse people with person.

FAKE THOUGHTS

LOLZ

Edited March 19, 2020 by Boeroer