Originally posted by psmith81992
You just said the US got what it wanted, now Iran got what it wanted too? Iran got 160 billion dollars regardless of if they keep their word. What did the US get? Just getting to the table? Wow! Iran won, deal with facts.
We got to the table, and then once at the table, got them to, (1) destroy most of their centrifuges for enrichment of nuclear fuel, (2) get rid of most of their nuclear fuel stockpile, (3) agree to multi-national inspections for a decade and ha half, and tie all of this to an international auto-snap back of sanctions.
You're still confusing whether you wanted it to happen, with whether the initial desired result was achieved.
Those were major concessions. You don't think it's worth it? Fine. It's still more than what happened prior, and it still happened.
That's the facts of the matter, and the opinion of value of that is something we can debate, but just denying what happened is silly.
Now you're going to appeal to the majority as a desperation argument?
Specifically, I'm trying to draw out your opinion on the other countries involved.
In that case, the majority of the American public dislike the deal, so it sucks.
Conversely, the majority of the world like the deal, so it rules ^^
Also note, one of the major factions opposed to it is.... the anti-US Iranian hardliners.
Russia (mainly Putin), China and Germany have their own motivations for the deal. They don't have to think it's a good deal for the US to sign off on it.
They threw their weight behind it and are also involved in the sanctions, they weren't just on the sidelines. They thought it was a worthwhile deal for them to join in an effort to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
Indeed, the fact is any of them could've relieved pressure on Iran by dealing with them and ignoring our sanctions, which would have been a way to gain Iranian oil, but Obama managed to convince them to join hands instead.
You are coming off more and more biased by each subsequent post.
You are coming off more and more as using 'biased' to mean 'disagrees with psmith on whether something is worthwhile, or points out that something happened that he doesn't want to acknowledge.'
I am pointing out "Obama wanted this, it got done, in the purely 'did this happen as Obama wanted' sense, it was a success whether or not you think it was a worthwhile pursuit in the first place." If someone digs a hole in the ground, they're still successful in digging a hole even if you think it's pointless to dig a hole. Accusing acknowledging things that happened as happening as evidence of 'bias' is absurd. Accusing someone who has different priorities than you of being 'biased' because they simply value something that happened more or less than you without misrepresenting what happened is silly.
It's a semantic game of yours, it's a more weasel-wordy version of Time's absolute support, but I do think I prefer Time's way, it's at least more honest.
Reagan was different, nations all over the world knew he would act. Remember how many American hostages Iran released when Reagan became president? Completely different case.
Way to dodge acknowledging that Republicans usee talky diplomacy often too, in some of their greatest successes. Reagan's nuclear treaties with the USSR- where there was zero chance of the US invading the USSR over non-compliance, as we all know. Nixon opening relations with China, and not under threat of force. Those were smart, highly successful moves using methods you don't like to acknowledge.
Countries over the world know how Obama will act... and they're still willing to make concessions in deals that their own hardliners don't like. They're still willing to sign on with him on multi-country talks to accomplish something he wants. Whether or not you like or agree with the objectives, whether or not you outright think they're dumbass objectives and he should have never pursued them in the first place, those are things that happened.
We got to the table, and then once at the table, got them to, (1) destroy most of their centrifuges for enrichment of nuclear fuel, (2) get rid of most of their nuclear fuel stockpile, (3) agree to multi-national inspections for a decade and ha half, and tie all of this to an international auto-snap back of sanctions.You're still confusing whether you wanted it to happen, with whether the initial desired result was achieved.
You don't think it's worth it?
Conversely, the majority of the world like the deal, so it rules ^^
Also, you don't actually have a poll for the "majority" of the world, but good try 👆
They threw their weight behind it and are also involved in the sanctions, they weren't just on the sidelines. They thought it was a worthwhile deal for them to join in an effort to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.Indeed, the fact is any of them could've relieved pressure on Iran by dealing with them and ignoring our sanctions, which would have been a way to gain Iranian oil, but Obama managed to convince them to join hands instead.
You are coming off more and more as using 'biased' to mean 'disagrees with psmith on whether something is worthwhile, or points out that something happened that he doesn't want to acknowledge.'
I am pointing out "Obama wanted this, it got done, in the purely 'did this happen as Obama wanted' sense, it was a success whether or not you think it was a worthwhile pursuit in the first place." If someone digs a hole in the ground, they're still successful in digging a hole even if you think it's pointless to dig a hole. Accusing acknowledging things that happened as happening as evidence of 'bias' is absurd. Accusing someone who has different priorities than you of being 'biased' because they simply value something that happened more or less than you without misrepresenting what happened is silly.
It's a semantic game of yours, it's a more weasel-wordy version of Time's absolute support, but I do think I prefer Time's way, it's at least more honest.
Way to dodge acknowledging that Republicans usee talky diplomacy often too, in some of their greatest successes. Reagan's nuclear treaties with the USSR- where there was zero chance of the US invading the USSR over non-compliance, as we all know. Nixon opening relations with China, and not under threat of force. Those were smart, highly successful moves using methods you don't like to acknowledge.
Countries over the world know how Obama will act... and they're still willing to make concessions in deals that their own hardliners don't like. They're still willing to sign on with him on multi-country talks to accomplish something he wants. Whether or not you like or agree with the objectives, whether or not you outright think they're dumbass objectives and he should have never pursued them in the first place, those are things that happened.
Originally posted by psmith81992
We got merky "we promise" nonsense, and gave up 160 billion dollars, even if they mess up. I think you're confused about what "success" is.
And the destruction of the very valuable centrafuges, nuclear stockpiles, and inspections. The first two on their own increases the lead-time to nukes multiple times over.
Also, we didn't give up any of our money. Their money in their own accounts was freed.
You're still trying to conflate 'you didn't think the results were worth it/worth doing' with 'Obama didn't succeed at what he was doing.'
How did you go from "we got what we wanted" to "also Iran got what we wanted" to "you don't think it was worth it"? You're grasping at straws. I didn't say it wasn't worth it or even that it was a terrible deal (it wasn't good but not terrible). I simply refuted your belief that it was a raging success for Obama and the US.
There's three ways I can interpret that.
One, you're refuting that the Obama administration got what it was aiming for.
That's factually incorrect.
Two, you think that concluding such a deal does not constitute a 'success'. That's playing a semantic game to define away 'success'.
Or three, "I simply refuted your belief that it was a raging success for Obama and the US." - you're acknowledging it was a success but now characterizing me as saying it's a 'raging' success, goalpost shifting that the problem was not that I noted it was a success, but obviously that I must be viewing it as too big a degree of success, which is an addition condition you're just now adding on (and also takes in additional context when you ignore the two physical aspects of the nuclear program that Iran is physically giving up for the deal).
It's a deal that Bush would've considered a success if he'd done it, because he was aiming for a nigh-identical one. And I think it'd have been a succeed if he had pulled it off.
I think you proved my point about your bias. I was being sarcastic, using your "appeal to the majority" against you. So you're a biased apologist at this point, got it. Now we can move on.
I think you're greatly misusing 'bias' to the point of worthlessness.
You're trying to dismiss my arguments rather than refute them.
They gained nothing and lost nothing on this deal so Obama didn't have to "convince" them of anything really. Everyone knows Putin is up to something.
You do realize they're a country that has bought oil from Iran in the past, and could've been dealing with Iran this whole time if they wanted, right? They agreed to sanctions when they did not have to, and would have actually materially profited from breaking them.
So yea, Putin's up to something, but he worked in agreement with Obama to the benefit of Obama's diplomatic goals, which were concluded to Obama and Putin's satisfaction in this matter.
Nope, I only do that when you begin to twist facts and then start grasping at straws when I call you out on it.
"Twisting facts," being stating what happened without dismissing stuff that doesn't agree with me.
It also seems to often include you adding in late in debates that the problem isn't what I'm saying, but how much I'm saying it.
If you've gotta keep adding stuff in order to 'prove' I'm twisting facts, you're the one doing the twisting.
I'm calling you biased because you appear to belief anything is a success when Obama does something. You're also claiming that said "success" is a fact, and not just your opinion, which is also silly.
When someone does something they set out to do, then that is a factual success in a very literal meaning of the word, yes. That is not a value judgement.
See, what this statement of yours here is saying is that you are using the word 'success' in the value judgement term, not the 'did someone accomplish what they set out for' term.
Yet in other parts of your post, you specifically say that you are not using success in the 'value judgement' way.
Which is it? The non-value "did someone accomplish which they set out to" way, in which case, objectively, yes, Obama did it, or the "value judgement, is the result positive enough," way, in which case, the value judgement is an opinion to begin with and thus crying bias is silly.
"You like X results too much, you're bias!" is not a useful accusation. I weigh values different than you,
Now, misrepresenting the facts due to bias is a more serious accusation... but like you're being clear here and emphasize here several times*, the problem isn't what I am saying happened, but that you think I think it is too much of a success.
I.e. your problem with me is my POV diverges too far from yours.
Excuse me for not finding accusations of bias for weighing things differently a particularly serious accusation.
*and where all your refutations are focused, as you do not actually bring up factual counter examples of events not happening as I say, but instead you bring up judgement-based counter arguments, where you insist something is not as valuable as I claim.
There are zero semantics here, and zero support for TI. I don't even read his posts. This is your way of running away from my claim. You frequently twist facts to support your conclusion, make excuses for politicians you like, and pass your opinions off as facts. So wait, maybe more like TI than I thought.
No, I frequently judge the value of the facts differently, and find some things you find damning to be not that damning.
You, notably, do not bring up counter-facts- You don't post numbers that contradict mine, you don't post events that show the events I posted happened different, or so on.
I present my opinions as opinions, but the facts that I post in support of them are independantly verifiable sources of information. When you deviate from the facts, I call you on it.
Other times, I simply disagree with the interpretations. "Talky diplomacy is as good or better as a more forceful approach," -Opinion.
"George W. Bush sought a very similar deal to the one Obama got, used a more forceful approach with more threats, and did not get a deal." - Fact.
I'm sure one can come up with counter-examples, or make arguments about how it's Bush's threatening that made Iran decide to take a deal now rather wait least a more hard-line president take his place- in fact, that's the counter argument I expected, and it's one that I can disagree with but is much more opinion based.
Ultimately, though, stating things that happened that are inconvenient to you isn't twisting the facts, and stating opinions based on them that you highly disagree with is definitely also not twisting the facts.
You need to stop trying to shut down disagreement with calls of bias when your opinions are threatened, it doesn't make a convincing argument.
Uh, that wasn't a dodge, that was a simple fact. They were afraid of Reagan but Reagan used diplomacy when necessary and force when necessary. Again, different things altogether but I appreciate you ignoring the point and claim I dodged something.
Why would they be afraid of Reagan if they knew full well he wasn't using force, and was approaching them with words?
That's exactly the situation Obama's in.
Some countries acknowledged them, some did not. Stop saying "countries all over the world", because you're intentionally trying to give more praise than necessary.
Now there's an attempt to give it less praise than it's received. There's only one country officially against the deal in the entire world, after all.
Countries in support include Vatican City, the US, Iran, Russia, China, Germany, England, France, Saudi Arabia (you know, Iran's big local enemy)... major players literally from around the world (Note again how you're trying to say my commonly used phrase is 'too much' praise, goalshifting that rather than what I said, it's how I said it that is supposedly now the problem).
And, importantly, The US, who polled 59% in favor at the time.
Now, some nations are nervous about it but tentatively in support, it's not like everyone's enthusiastic, but the majority of the population even in the countries that are Iran's direct enemies and rivals are in favor save for one, and heck, the same 'not enthusiastic' can be said for the one nation that's leadership is against it, they have a large segment in support.
Now this is a matter that we can argue back and forth on and provide evidence and counter-evidence. Support has shifted on it since the deal has made- I can argue that's because of media campaigns against it, you can argue that's just people being more informed, I can argue the past history of support of said deals and how partisan the opposition is.... there's room for
But simply dismissing my point of view as 'bias' is, frankly, laziness on your part and doesn't demonstrate bias, but just your willingness to call bias rather than actually debate facts and accept that people can have different opinions on them.
Especially when so often you like to leave out the material facts posted when trying to present my povs as 'biased.'
Ooh, medical flub by two people, including the doctor:
"Trump and Carson both said we give too many vaccines, too close together. The Institute of Medicine took a look at whether the immunization schedule is safe and found that there was no evidence of safety concerns. But it went further, saying “rather than exposing children to harm, following the complete childhood immunization schedule is strongly associated with reducing vaccine-preventable diseases.” (from this liveblog with factchecking)
Now Trump can be excused, that's not his area, but Carson? Tut tut, bad form.
It's always stunning how certain otherwise intelligent people have been completely hoodwinked by the spurious vaccine-autism link.
And even if vaccines did lead to a higher incidence of autism, how the **** is a certain percentage of vaccinated kids developing a very manageable disorder/condition worse than having an entire generation of kids susceptible to diseases our parents didn't even have to worry about?
Originally posted by psmith81992You sound like there's something you want to get off your chest.
I played this game in 2000 when the Democrats were embarrassing themselves. It's the same game, just substitute "Democrats" for "republicans".
Anyway, we ended up getting shit-faced so fast that I didn't really pay attention to the debate, tbh. I think the Trump got stumped, but polls seem to be showing that he's a badass?
He got her back though. She kinda ruined two companies.
Compaq is gone and look at HP now..