TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

fruitpork Since: Oct, 2010
#183851: Apr 19th 2017 at 11:03:46 PM

[up] yeah but there's also other topics to discuss, and we're beating a horse's skeleton at this point.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#183852: Apr 19th 2017 at 11:05:48 PM

[up] Except it's one of the undead that won't stay down no matter how often it is beaten.

Seriously, in this case, what Sanders said about Ossof absolutely warrants discussion and criticism, since he might have just screwed over Ossof's chances of winning the June run-off.

And other topics are being brought up too. See: the War on Drugs 2.0 courtesy of Sessions. "Sanders tossing Ossof under the bus" is just ongoing.

edited 19th Apr '17 11:07:45 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#183853: Apr 19th 2017 at 11:06:30 PM

I mean, the most charitable interpretation of Sanders bad-mouthing Ossof is 'he really didn't think that though'.

Like, saying he doesn't know if Ossof is a progressive is a fairly tone-deaf thing to say, but it can be written off as being a poorly-phrased 'I haven't personally looked at him in much detail, so I can't really comment,' but then going as far as to say that he's just not a progressive? That's... enough to officially turn me against the guy.

My position has been a fence-sitting 'this infighting really has to stop', but if Bernie's gonna start undermining the first chance to make any real push back against Trump for no apparent reason like that, well, I just got pushed off the fence.

edited 19th Apr '17 11:07:29 PM by Gilphon

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#183854: Apr 19th 2017 at 11:08:55 PM

[up] When the most charitable interpretation of a career politician is that he's "tone-deaf"...that still casts doubt on how useful and helpful he actually is. Being tone-deaf is a very, very bad flaw in politics.

edited 19th Apr '17 11:09:32 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#183855: Apr 19th 2017 at 11:19:43 PM

Sanders wants to eject the rich from the Democratic Party? Hmm, then I guess it's a good thing he's an Independent after all, otherwise his lakehouse would disqualify him from being in the Democratic Party.

Under that guideline, no Senators can be part of the Democratic Party. I should say the super-rich. Being a senator pays well.

Ah, yes. You can deviate from Sanders on allowing women bodily autonomy. But don't you dare deviate on destroying big banks and single payer health care. What ridiculous hypocrisy. It's really just saying that one's pet issues are more important, and civil rights can go to the back of the line.

I think he was talking about voters not candidates which is true. But I can't find the quote so don't crucify him over something I'm not sure of.tongue

If this is the case then he's either very bad at getting people who agree with his ideology on board, or his ideology is pretty ugly, given some of those he's backing or backed, and those he's refused to do so.

In decrying Ossof as not being progressive he's ensured his fanbase will not go to Georgia for the runoff, and that means one more Republican in the House. If Sanders is putting ideology over stopping the Republicans than he is no good to the party, or anybody else for that matter. Seriously, the possibility that he's trying to install loyalists for a coup would make him a better person than the alternative.

The reason I find it unlikely he's looking to find people loyal to him is that he's a little old and I'm doubtful that he has the will to run again. Seems more like he's trying to create something for the future after he's gone.

But this all speculation. He could just be winging it.

Sanders does not get to determine what you can be while being a Democrat, because he is not a Democrat. I cannot repeat this often enough. That being said, can you be a Democrat and antiabortion? Yes. It's called being a Conservative Democrat, or a Blue Dog Democrat. If Sanders is supporting the election of additional Blue Dogs in what are otherwise traditionally conservative states, then that's great—except he needs to come out and say that's what he's doing, not dress up his Blue Dogs as progressives while letting his fanbase target the likes of Manchin (and denouncing Ossof, who isn't a Blue Dog at all, as not progressive).

I would also add that while you can be a Democrat and be anti-choice, you cannot be a progressive and be anti-choice. That's a fundamentally anti-women stance, and at that point you are not in favour of social justice for anybody.

I have to ask but what's your definition of progressive?

And this is the problem that numerous people in the thread have with him, namely they feel he is advocating the abandonment of social issues to focus on white male workers. His support of an anti-choice candidate is not helping my opinion in this regard. Neither is his refusal to endorse Ossof (whose strongest supporters are women), or all the other tone deaf things he's said over the course of the campaign and since.

A rising tide may lift all boats, but you still have to have a boat. And many minorities do not have boats.

True but remember economic reform lifts every marginalized group's boat.

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#183856: Apr 19th 2017 at 11:24:51 PM

But they don't have boats. And those few that do aren't going to rise with everyone else if there's still a shit ton of people and legislation out there deliberately trying to keep them down.

edited 19th Apr '17 11:25:33 PM by LeGarcon

Oh really when?
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#183857: Apr 19th 2017 at 11:26:55 PM

I'm looking more into the issue and everyone is rightfully criticizing him for it even progressives.

An example:

You know what I hate—passive aggressive, wishy-washy bullshit...even when its said by someone I like.

So Bernie said that he doesn’t know if Ossoff is a progressive or not. That either means Bernie is too lazy to check out Ossoff’s website (or even ask one of his aides to do it) or Bernie’s being a passive-aggressive weenie.

It took me about 3 minutes to find Ossoff’s website, look through his “priorities”, and come to the conclusion that he is a middle of the road, establishment democrat.

Lots of “small business stuff”. A bit of tough on crime bullshit...but solid on civil rights and particularly good on women’s reproductive rights. Defends Obamacare and Supports increasing minimum wage, but balanced for business with no real numbers attached.

But I can't find any information on him saying Jon Ossoff isn't a progressive.

One thing I found curious is that Jon Ossoff is also the CEO of a company.

Now I'm picturing Bernie reading that and hissing.

edited 19th Apr '17 11:32:17 PM by MadSkillz

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#183858: Apr 19th 2017 at 11:29:13 PM

[up][up] They have boats. Boats that are already leaky with rotted wood and chipped (lead) paint. And the people in the rest of the boats are shooting holes into them.

edited 19th Apr '17 11:29:25 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
MorningStar1337 The Encounter that ended the Dogma from 🤔 Since: Nov, 2012
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#183860: Apr 19th 2017 at 11:35:02 PM

[up] Man, Mattis really hates Iran. It is the white whale to his peg-legged seadog.

Disgusted, but not surprised
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#183861: Apr 19th 2017 at 11:37:15 PM

When the most charitable interpretation of a career politician is that he's "tone-deaf"...that still casts doubt on how useful and helpful he actually is. Being tone-deaf is a very, very bad flaw in politics.

Frankly at this point I don't know that we can even write it off as being tone deaf. It's happened too often. There have been too many comments about minorities, women, etc, coming from his camp, for it to be an accident anymore.

Consider the following: we know about those creepy essays he wrote. We know about him voting against a number of bills meant to help women (and children; Amber Alert anyone?). We know about the horrid shit that's been said about women by his online supporters, again and again. We know about him backing an anti-choice candidate. If he were a Republican we'd all write him off as a misogynist and move on with our lives. Yet we give him the benefit of the doubt again and again because he's a so-called socialist, or because he's an Independent, or he's allied with the Democrats. We're told he doesn't mean it, or he's tone deaf, or its out of context. To which I can only say this now—when does it stop? If it's just tone deafness or an intern making a mistake or whatever the excuse of the week is, when will he learn from it and stop?

True but remember economic reform lifts every marginalized group's boat.

Did you miss the part where I said—in the very section you quoted in response to me—that while a rising tide may lift all boats many minorities do not have boats.

To use an extreme example: last time I checked the statistics, the average income for people living on the Great Sioux Reservation, was $8000 a year. Life expectancy was 48 for men, 52 for women. 80% of adults have diabetes. Very few homes have indoor plumbing. Groceries are grotesquely expensive. Drug and alcohol abuse, and the birth defects and mental disorders caused by it are rampant, because in many respects its the only form of relief available. And no matter how well the rest of the country does economically, or how many kids Sanders promises free college too, this will not change without direct, targeted action, at the specific problems on that specific reservation. Problems which are, of course, an integral part of the legacy of colonialism, genocide, and racial oppression that Native Americans have been subject to.

Economic reform is not a panacea for social problems.

But I can't find any information on him saying Jon Ossoff isn't a progressive.

It's in the Washington Post article I linked before. Here it is again.

Here is the relevant quote:

Sanders was less interested in the Ossoff race. “He’s not a progressive,” he said.

edited 19th Apr '17 11:48:34 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#183862: Apr 19th 2017 at 11:38:03 PM

Saying he doesn't know if he is a progressive is basically a dog-whistle for saying he's not a progressive.

Still it seems that Bernie is simply operating on a different definition of progressive to many of us, to him you're a progressive if you're economically progressive, even if you're also socially regressive.

A number of people here are willing to accept economically centerists people with socially progressive views as part of our coalition. Bernie appears to not be okay with such people and instead prefers economically progressive people with socially regressive (note I say regressive, not centrist) views as part of his coalition.

Bernie will take the anti-choice pro-nationalisation guy over the pro-choice anti-nationalisation guy any day of the week, I'll admit that I'm the reverse despite having basically the same views as him.

edited 19th Apr '17 11:39:44 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#183863: Apr 19th 2017 at 11:43:47 PM

[up][up] It's amazing how much leeway Sanders gets for advocating free college and single-payer. Never mind that it was extremely unlikely he'd be able to successfully implement either of them if he had become POTUS, let alone both.

Disgusted, but not surprised
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#183864: Apr 19th 2017 at 11:44:03 PM

[up][up]Not even a dogwhistle. He told the Washington Post that Ossof is "not a progressive".

[up]Don't forget promising to legalize marijuana. With a sizeable portion of his rabid online fandom I think that was the part they actually cared about (especially given that if you trace the post histories of some of his most fanatic Reddit fans, they were previously Ron Paul supporting Randroids in previous elections).

@Mad Skillz

And to answer your question about what I consider a progressive, I don't have a litmus test the way Sanders does. I will accept all sorts of people so long as their positions are mostly progressive. That said, there are lines, and being anti-choice is a goddamn big one to cross.

I'm willing to work with people who have such socially regressive views to get things done. In some places, they may be the only people the Democrats can get elected. But to call them True Progressives while writing off people who do not hold reactionary positions? That's another line crossed.

edited 19th Apr '17 11:47:47 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#183865: Apr 19th 2017 at 11:51:44 PM

[up]

Don't forget promising to legalize marijuana. With a sizeable portion of his rabid online fandom I think that was the part they actually cared about (especially given that if you trace the post histories of some of his most fanatic Reddit fans, they were previously Ron Paul supporting Randroids in previous elections).

Part of me thinks we're taking a Vocal Minority too seriously. Another part of me thinks that given the way information spreads like wildfire on social media, we can't afford not to take them seriously.

edited 19th Apr '17 11:56:39 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#183866: Apr 19th 2017 at 11:56:23 PM

Sanders was less interested in the Ossoff race. “He’s not a progressive,” he said. He was endorsing Democrats based on their economic populism; they could differ from progressives on social issues but not on the threat of the mega-rich to American politics. Soon, he said, the 5-to-4 majority on the Supreme Court was likely to make it legal for the wealthy to give unlimited sums to candidates, and the only way to fight back was grass-roots politicking and small donations.

“If you are running in rural Mississippi, do you hold the same criteria as if you’re running in San Francisco?” he said. “I think you’d be a fool to think that’s all the same.”.

But Perez and Sanders were on the same page about candidate diversity. “I live in the people’s republic of Takoma Park,” Perez said. “If you demand fealty on every single issue, then it’s a challenge. The Democratic Party platform acknowledges that we’re pro-choice, but there are communities, like some in Kansas, where people have a different position.”

I highlighted the two things I found interesting. I guess I was right. Bernie is defining progressives as the ones who fight against corporations and are left on economic issues.

Actually thinking about it that means he would be against Joe Manchin since Manchin is a centrist and socially conservative.

We could see the rise of the Progressive Conservatives. That's an Oxymoron but I'm not sure what to call the Lefty-Righties.

Did you miss the part where I said—in the very section you quoted in response to me—that "A rising tide may lift all boats, but you still have to have a boat. And many minorities do not have boats ?"

If boat means livelihood then we're talking about helping the poor and we need jobs, security, welfare, education and the like for that. Current social issues would be more like huge holes in boats or pirates sinking people. I mean we need to fix that too. Gotta fix both.

Just going to state that I've never advocated for abandoning social issues or going one step back.

To use an extreme example: last time I checked the statistics, the average income for people living on the Great Sioux Reservation, was $8000 a year. Life expectancy was 48 for men, 52 for women. 80% of adults have diabetes. Very few homes have indoor plumbing. Groceries are grotesquely expensive. Drug and alcohol abuse, and the birth defects and mental disorders caused by it are rampant, because in many respects its the only form of relief available. And no matter how well the rest of the country does economically, or how many kids Sanders promises free college too, this will not change without direct, targeted action, at the specific problems on that specific reservation. Problems which are, of course, an integral part of the legacy of colonialism, genocide, and racial oppression that Native Americans have been subject to.

See, I would place this under the umbrella of economic reform. It's a socio-economic issue.

edited 20th Apr '17 12:15:48 AM by MadSkillz

Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#183867: Apr 20th 2017 at 12:06:30 AM

We know about the horrid shit that's been said about women by his online supporters, again and again

I kind of feel this might be a separate issue. Mostly just the unchecked prejudice a lot of liberals (perhaps quotation marks might be appropriate here for some of them) have towards minority groups or women that just happened to come out in an especially nasty way due to their cultlike adoration of Sanders, and which might have well been the case independently of Sanders' questionable voting choices or essays, which tbh I'm not sure how many of them are actually even aware of them since people like Sanders tend to attract a number of supporters who aren't exactly super knowledgeable of politics or participated in them much prior.

I don't disagree with the rest of your assessments, though.

edited 20th Apr '17 12:08:16 AM by Draghinazzo

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#183868: Apr 20th 2017 at 12:15:18 AM

Current social issues would be more like huge holes in boats sinking people

This analogy works, but only as far as it goes, and it doesn't go as far as you may think it does. Some minority groups are in leaky boats, but others simply do not have a boat to start with.

To stick with the example I used in my last post, Native Americans on reserves are trapped in isolated communities, on federal land, miles from their nearest neighbours, and therefore miles from employment, cheaper food, medical care, etc. They're subject to separate forms of political administration from the rest of the nation, and are not integrated into the larger economic life of the country. If you look at the economic reforms backed by pick-your-president or congress, very few of them have any appreciable effect on reserve life, because reserves are America's own little slice of the Third World, tucked away quietly in backwoods regions that nobody has to think about.

To help these people you have to give them a boat. Which means targeted social and economic policies aimed at helping them specifically, not a generic working class. Which means identity politics.

We could see the rise of the Progressive Conservatives. That's an Oxymoron but I'm not sure what to call Lefty-Righties.

In Canada they were the Progressive Conservatives. Fiscally conservative, (ostensibly) socially liberal. I say were because at the federal level they merged with the Alliance Party—previously the Canadian Reform Alliance Party, or CRAP—to become the plain old hard-right Conservatives, while at the provincial level a number of them abandoned the "progressive" part in everything but name. This is particularly notable in Ontario where PC leaders like Mike "The Knife" Harris and Tim Hudak did everything they could to emulate the social and economic conservatism of the United States.

Bernie is defining progressives as the ones who fight against corporations and are left on economic issues.

And that is a dreadful definition. Take it far enough and members of the alt-right become "progressives" if they hate the dreaded (((globalists))) enough. And while Sanders isn't there quite yet, he's yet to denounce Gabbard who is one short step away from being a member of that movement.

[up]Personally, I think that it's hard for a politician to rein in the worst of his online fanbase's misogyny when his own track record is a checkered one.

edited 20th Apr '17 7:51:42 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#183869: Apr 20th 2017 at 12:30:06 AM

This analogy works, but only as far as it goes, and it doesn't go as far as you may think it does. Some minority groups are in leaky boats, but others simply do not have a boat to start with.

To stick with the example I used in my last post, Native Americans on reserves are trapped in isolated communities, on federal land, miles from their nearest neighbours, and therefore miles from employment, cheaper food, etc. They're subject to separate forms of political administration from the rest of the nation, and are not integrated into the larger economic life of the country. If you look at the economic reforms packed by pick-your-president or congress, very few of them have any appreciable effect on reserve life, because reserves are America's own little slice of the Third World, tucked away quietly in backwoods regions that nobody has to think about.

To help these people you have to give them a boat. Which means targeted social and economic policies aimed at helping them specifically, not a generic working class. Which means identity politics.

I didn't know that. It's not an issue that gets brought up. That's fair.

In Canada they were the Progressive Conservatives. Fiscally conservative, (ostensibly) socially liberal. I say were because at the federal level they merged with the Alliance Party—previously the Canadian Reform Alliance Party, or CRAP—to become the plain old Conservatives, while at the provincial level a number of them abandoned the "progressive" part in everything but name. This is particularly notable in Ontario where PC leaders like Mike "The Knife" Harris and Tim Hudak did everything they could to emulate the social and economic conservatism of the United States.

Well I'm looking more for a group name that would be more like a social conservative with a progressive economic platform. Progressive Regressive?

And that is a dreadful definition. Take it far enough and members of the alt-right become "progressives" if they hate the dreaded {globalists} enough. And while Sanders isn't there quite yet, he's yet to denounce Gabbard who is one short step away from being a member of that movement.

I was thinking about just that.

That would be where I would break for Sanders. I mean I'm all for taking over the Democratic Party and pulling it away from economic centrists but I'm not getting into a coalition with people that want to drown me.

And as left as I am, I don't think I could actually support a Progressive Regressive over a milquetoast Democrat if it was between the two in my hometown.

Progressive in all areas > Milquetoast Democrat >> Progressive Regressive >>> Blue Dog Democrat > Most Republicans

edited 20th Apr '17 12:58:43 AM by MadSkillz

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#183870: Apr 20th 2017 at 2:10:11 AM

To change the topic momentarily I wanted to respond to these two things that I missed:

The thing to remember about Wall Street is that they like having a functioning economy and healthy international trade. Yeah, the isolationist "anti-globalist" people hate that, but to be honest, they're dumb. The modern US cannot function at all without international trade. Wall Street is extremely flawed and the banks have done some awful things...but they're also one of the foundations of the American economy. You kind of have to listen to them sometimes.

Also, keep in mind, banks like Goldman Sachs have been spending the past few years periodically issuing warnings about isolationism and anti-middle class practices because they employ smart people, even if they encourage some degree of sociopathy.

Goldman Sachs literally funds Republican candidates. What they may say and what they do are two different things.

A lot of it probably stems from 2008, when all of the financial industry's shenanigans over the years (maybe even decades) finally caught up with them.

But yeah, while I'm not blind to Wall Street and US banking's many faults, I am also sick of the demonization. Partly because I have a beloved relative who works in the industry.

It's more about the people at the very top. And it's more than Wall Street.

We're essentially living in a plutocracy.

You know in a democracy, public policy is derived from public opinion. But in actuality, it's the top that decide policy.

As Malcolm X said "If Democracy means equality then why don't we have equality?"

Wealth and power go hand in hand and political campaigns are reliant on money.

That forces political parties into the pockets of major corporations especially when most elections are decided by who spends the most.

That translates into legislation to rig things for the people at the top which results in an increase in their concentration of wealth. Things like rules of corporate governance, deregulation, tax policy etc, those are measures to increase wealth concentration which in turns increases political power which in turn increases wealth concentration and so on and so forth leading into high income inequality. It's a repeating cycle.

And before anyone says that companies can be nice too, I will point out that many of these same companies are funding Republicans and they are the reason that the Republicans turned into these caricature villains.

It's no accident that Citizens United and the Tea Party were born in the same year. Citizens United along with Republican gerrymandering shenanigans birthed the Tea Party. And what does the Tea Party advocate? Well besides bigotry, it advocates "libertarianism" which to them means the transferral of power from the government to the private sector.

So then who does that benefit? Big corporations. They're two inter-connected links of the same problem.

Who funded Trump's campaign?

Bob Mercer who is the CEO of Renaissance Technologies which is a big investment firm.

See, all it takes now is a couple rich asshole extremists to pervert society.

And if companies were really people, they'd be psychopaths.

Tobacco companies, Nestle, H&M, Apple, Walmart, GAP, Victoria's Secret etc. all use child laborers today in sweatshop-like conditions.

Even freakin' Disney does the same.

CenturyEye Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign? from I don't know where the Yith sent me this time... Since: Jan, 2017 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
#183871: Apr 20th 2017 at 2:29:12 AM

US accuses Iran of 'alarming provocations'
Mostly the same news as before but...

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has accused Iran of "alarming ongoing provocations" aimed at destabilising the Middle East and undermining America's interests in the region.

"An unchecked Iran has the potential to travel the same path as North Korea and to take the world along with it," Mr Tillerson said.

President Donald Trump earlier ordered a review of the Iran nuclear deal.

However, the US admits that Tehran is complying with the 2015 agreement.

Iran has so far made no public comments on the latest developments.

Speaking on Wednesday, Mr Tillerson said the Iran review, which he announced in a letter to Congress a day earlier, would not only look at Tehran's compliance with the nuclear deal but also its actions in the Middle East.

Mr Tillerson accused Iran of undermining US interests in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

"A comprehensive Iran policy requires we address all of the threats posed by Iran, and it is clear there are many," he said.

...Rex Tillerson has come pretty close to saying the agreement is not worth keeping, even though he's had to admit it's working.

In spoken remarks...he talked only of Iran's bad behaviour and linked that to the future of the deal - a message that will resonate far more on Capitol Hill and to which it was probably aimed.

Former President Barack Obama would have agreed with all the charges:..But Mr Obama kept those issues separate from the nuclear agreement, which would have been impossible to achieve without that narrow focus.

Mr Tillerson, on the other hand, called this a mistaken approach and said the review would take a comprehensive look at all of the threats posed by Iran.

Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#183872: Apr 20th 2017 at 2:42:33 AM

Mr Tillerson, on the other hand, called this a mistaken approach and said the review would take a comprehensive look at all of the threats posed by Iran.

Mr. Tillerson doesn't know his ass from his elbow.

Seriously, is this all for show? Mattis trying to fulfill his grudge against Iran? Trump's attempt to one-up Obama by setting up an even biglier deal with Iran?

Disgusted, but not surprised
CenturyEye Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign? from I don't know where the Yith sent me this time... Since: Jan, 2017 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
#183873: Apr 20th 2017 at 3:21:57 AM

Sounds like the usual "strongman"-type bluster and doubly worrying because the Secretary of State is supposed to know basic principles of diplomacy. I feel we're in the odd position of hoping Iran just waits out our hardliners and avoids the whole swagger and saber-rattle contest.

edited 20th Apr '17 3:23:23 AM by CenturyEye

Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#183874: Apr 20th 2017 at 3:26:27 AM

[up] I'm still thinking this is Mattis' influence, with Tillerson being a glorified mouthpiece.

Disgusted, but not surprised
CenturyEye Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign? from I don't know where the Yith sent me this time... Since: Jan, 2017 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
#183875: Apr 20th 2017 at 3:39:17 AM

Well, I'm rather certain (as much as one can be with this administration) that Tillerson didn't make the policy. Tillerson has never been in the loop on anything before, and the State Department is this era's red-headed stepchild.
I couldn't tell you about the SecDef. Although if this is him, one would think he slept through President Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech and the soon to follow quagmire in Iraq. One reason I emphasize Tillerson is that a half-decent SecState should know that tis a rare state that just buckles when someone "talks tough," because said state has its own "we're real men, don't back down" constituency to keep happy.

Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives

Total posts: 417,856
Top