Support NeoGAF

[Tamanon]

They Kay Hagan quotes were funny and all but this race isn't trending well. We need something to spark dems in the state they need to vote. Are the voter ID laws going into effect by November?

Money should be flooded not to produce ads but to register and get people to the polls. This is a huge race for the dems as I think Landrieu has got a good shot. But if they win NC they don't need LA.

Well, most people I talk to in the state hate the Governor and the legislature(especially recent cuts and such they've done), so I'd think that running with a strong crop of local Dems would help her.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Fuckin' hell.

We finally make progress with Iran and it's going to be scuttled because a bunch of people are hell bent on carrying a dead man's battle flag.

Honestly, if Iran tells the West to go fuck itself if these sanctions go through, I wouldn't blame them not one bit.

Hell, even building a bomb out of pure spite, wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Wilsongt]

Even some GOP constituents are tired of their shit.

Republican Members' Constituents Also Depend On Unemployment Insurance

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) — When federal emergency unemployment benefits expired last month, the effects ran deep in a Colorado county marked by two exit ramps off Interstate 25 — one leading to the conservative religious group Focus on the Family, the other to the Fort Carson Army post.

Hardly a liberal bastion, El Paso County has the largest number of people in the state who lost unemployment benefits, and many aren't happy about it. Plenty of Republicans, too, depend on jobless aid that Republicans in Congress are hesitant to prolong. The ideological argument for standing against an extension of benefits — that the aid can ultimately make it harder to find work — meets a more complex reality where people live.

The standoff infuriates people such as Lita Ness, who lost her job as a civilian contractor at Peterson Air Force Base in August 2012 and just received her final check from the unemployment office.

"I'm registered as a Republican, but if they continue to use this not extending our (aid) I'm probably changing to Democrat," Ness, 58, said as she took a break from a computer training class at the Pikes Peak Workforce Center. "People in our district who vote 'No' on this, I'm not going to support them."

One Army veteran who has been unemployed since his discharge last year rushed into the center after hearing his benefits may expire shortly. "If it gets cut off, it's nothing I'm ready for," said the man, who refused to give his name, fearing people would learn he's getting jobless aid. "I understand, you can't keep people on it forever. It's important to get people working."

Others feel that after having contributed to society, they are now being abandoned by the government. "I paid my taxes. I've helped people my whole life," said Barbara Greene, 59, who lost her job as a medical secretary in a hospital last year and expects her jobless benefits to end in March, "and now they're just throwing me to the side."

Ness started working as a maid at age 16. She spent her last 17 years in the labor force working in logistics and acquisitions at the Air Force base. For the past 17 months she's been unable to find a job that comes close to what she had. The only positions she's been offered interviews for are in call centers and pay about $9 an hour — less than she made three decades ago. She's been stunned at how "incredibly competitive" the job market is now.

"I find it very offensive when they say people on unemployment are just milking it," Ness said. "I'm not a big fan of rejection and I get rejected every day."

 

[WayneMorse]

Oh wow according the NY Times the bill has 59 cosponsors now. I hate this world sometimes.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Oh wow according the NY Times the bill has 59 cosponsors now. I hate this world sometimes.

You guys need to relax. The bill will not end the talks unless Iran backs out. Its doesn't implement sanctions right away and the president can suspend them. It would be on Iran if the talks fail because of them. Remember Iran doesn't like the sanctions so its not just gonna be happy to leave the talks and have them put right back on. Why did they enter the agreement in the first place if not to get rid of them?

That is not to say the bill is a stupid idea which makes it harder to find an agreement but its not the end of the world, it makes the job harder and shouldn't be implemented but if Iran backs out of it what would that have said about the possibility of an agreement in the first place?

Iran is not ignorant of US politics, they know whats going on and they know the meaningless of it. What's more worrying to them are statements that a deal would need to be conditional on the complete elimination of Iranian enrichment and things saying there needs to be regime change. That hurts worse than this bill.

Edit: Co-sponsors aren't pushing for a vote
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/14/us-iran-nuclear-congress-idUSBREA0D02T20140114

 

[Sirpopopop]

You guys need to relax. The bill will not end the talks unless Iran backs out. Its doesn't implement sanctions right away and the president can suspend them. It would be on Iran if the talks fail because of them. Remember Iran doesn't like the sanctions so its not just gonna be happy to leave the talks and have them put right back on. Why did they enter the agreement in the first place if not to get rid of them?

That is not to say the bill is a stupid idea which makes it harder to find an agreement but its not the end of the world, it makes the job harder and shouldn't be implemented but if Iran backs out of it what would that have said about the possibility of an agreement in the first place?

Iran is not ignorant of US politics, they know whats going on and they know the meaningless of it. What's more worrying to them are statements that a deal would need to be conditional on the complete elimination of Iranian enrichment and things saying there needs to be regime change. That hurts worse than this bill.

The bill would show Iran that we're not serious about working with them. That nothing short of a regime change would do.

Thus, the only option left to them is to stave off any attempts to force a regime change on them. Hence, building nukes.

 

[Wilsongt]

Fucking South Carolina.

South Carolina lawmakers take aim at healthcare law

CHARLESTON, South Carolina (Reuters) - South Carolina lawmakers say they have found a way to stop implementation of the U.S. Affordable Care Act in their state, an effort that could provide a template for other Republican-led legislatures looking to derail the federal program.

The proposed measure would ban state agencies from helping carry out President Barack Obama's signature healthcare reform law and prevent federal money flowing through state coffers from being spent on it, said Republican state Senator Tom Davis.

The legislation would give South Carolina oversight of insurance rates offered through its federal exchange and require healthcare navigators, which help people sign up for the healthcare benefits, to be licensed by the state, said Davis, who chairs the committee drafting the measure.

The state's 2014 legislative session opens on Tuesday.

"Even though the federal government may pass a law, and even though that law may be constitutional, that doesn't mean that the federal government can direct the state to spend state dollars to implement it," he said. "States aren't simply political subdivisions of the federal government."

Six states have barred their employees from helping implement the law known as Obamacare, said Richard Cauchi, healthcare program director for the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures.

At least eight states, including two that support the healthcare reforms, have regulated navigators, he added.

The new laws are mostly legally untested, Cauchi said.

"Florida and Ohio have said: 'We will have nothing to do with this law; we won't make it workable,'" he said. "At what point does state inaction constitute interference with a federal law?"

Last fall, a federal judge blocked Tennessee's "emergency rule," which would have fined healthcare navigators for helping people find insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

In December, Georgia lawmakers said they would follow South Carolina's lead this year in trying to prevent state agencies from taking part in Obamacare. With many legislatures convening this month, it is too soon to tell what other states will consider new obstacles to the law, Cauchi said.

Last year, South Carolina's House of Representatives passed legislation to nullify Obamacare, but Davis said that effort clearly would not have passed legal muster.

The state senator said he believed the rewritten bill, which he expects to be taken up for debate in a few weeks, would have teeth.

Opponents of the federal law are looking to South Carolina for a "template, something that other states can follow," Davis said. "It's like we're holding the fort until we can get people in Congress that can repeal or replace it."

He said he expected Democratic opposition and would need almost every Senate Republican's vote to stop a filibuster.

Critics of the South Carolina measure said the new attack on the Affordable Care Act was political theater.

"It is going to hurt people being able to access the marketplace because some of the navigator teams will pull out," said Brett Bursey, director of the South Carolina Progressive Network, a nonprofit coalition of liberal groups.

If the measure becomes law, it probably will face legal challenges from opponents, said Gibbs Knotts, chairman of the political science department at the College of Charleston.

"It's blocking access to something provided by the federal government," Knotts said. "There's all sorts of unfunded (federal) mandates that the states have to play a role in."

I blame everyone who voted Republican for this goddamn nonsense.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Ugh why won't my state stop embarrassing me!

Jesus fucking christ.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The bill would show Iran that we're not serious about working with them. That nothing short of a regime change would do.

Thus, the only option left to them is to stave off any attempts to force a regime change on them. Hence, building nukes.

No it doesn't. It might mean that to the hard liners but they aren't idiots. They know there isn't going to be a war. And if they start building a nuke. Hello Israel.

Fucking South Carolina.

South Carolina lawmakers take aim at healthcare law

I blame everyone who voted Republican for this goddamn nonsense.

Yeah that's not going to pass constitutional muster.

 

[Sirpopopop]

No it doesn't. It might mean that to the hard liners but they aren't idiots. They know there isn't going to be a war. And if they start building a nuke. Hello Israel.


Yeah that's not going to pass constitutional muster.

Just because there isn't going to be a war, doesn't mean that this sends a message to Iran that we're not negotiating in good faith. What incentive would there be to continue negotiations if it's clear that any attempt to remove sanctions by drawing down your nuclear activities will merely incite other factions within the U.S. to punish your regime harder? That the only thing these people want is a pro-Israel government. I honestly can't fathom any reason why anyone would: A. Be against this deal. B. Want to punish Iran harder, except for the reasoning I posited in my previous sentence.

As for Israel jumping on them if they build a nuke - easier said than done. Gotta find out where it's being built first...

 

[Aaron Strife]

Kay Hagan trailing 1-2 points behind all challengers in new PPP poll

PD vindicated everyone scream and run

 

[ivysaur12]

New poll shows Utahns (that's a word) evenly split 48/48 on gay marriage. That's a huge, huge turn around from 12% support a decade ago.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Just because there isn't going to be a war, doesn't mean that this sends a message to Iran that we're not negotiating in good faith. What incentive would there be to continue negotiations if it's clear that any attempt to remove sanctions will merely incite other factions within the U.S. to punish your regime harder? That the only thing these people want is a pro-Israel government.

Doesn't the world want a government that isn't openly hostile to another?

And it doesn't show were not negotiating in good faith, not to anyone who understands the politics and reasons behind it. A vote for this isn't a vote against a final deal or the interm deal Iran knows this. And what incentive is there? What is their other option, withdraw from negotiations and get the sanctions put on you and your economic life even more miserable. Europe isn't going to take kindly too it either.

I don't think its smart and it makes it harder because Iran would feel the need to save face but I don't see it actually harming negotiations as it has no material effects

A. Be against this deal. B. Want to punish Iran harder, except for the reasoning I posited in my previous sentence.

I think your jumping to conclusions on A.

They want to look tough with the bill not actually passing or the tougher sanctions not happening

 

[789shadow]

New poll shows Utahns (that's a word) evenly split 48/48 on gay marriage. That's a huge, huge turn around from 12% support a decade ago.

Saw thousands of gay marriages and the world didn't explode, I guess.

 

[ivysaur12]

Saw thousands of gay marriages and the world didn't explode, I guess.

Didn't explode yet.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Jeez, I have empathy towards Ailes?

 

[Joe Molotov]

Fucking South Carolina.

South Carolina lawmakers take aim at healthcare law

I blame everyone who voted Republican for this goddamn nonsense.

Have they considering seceding from the Union? That may work.

 

[empty vessel]

"States aren't simply political subdivisions of the federal government."

They ought to be.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Doesn't the world want a government that isn't openly hostile to another?

Certainly. However, the folks in the U.S. pushing this bill don't care about how the Iranian government treats its own people, democracy, or all of that good stuff. They just want something that's pro-Israel. It can be a brutal dictatorship, but as long as it is pro-Israel, it's good.

And it doesn't show were not negotiating in good faith, not to anyone who understands the politics and reasons behind it. A vote for this isn't a vote against a final deal or the interm deal Iran knows this. And what incentive is there? What is their other option, withdraw from negotiations and get the sanctions put on you and your economic life even more miserable. Europe isn't going to take kindly too it either.

The other option is to develop a nuke. Increased sanctions would mean there is nothing you can do to convince the Americans to work with you. If you are Iran, you will learn that working with the U.S. merely means that the pro-AIPAC faction in the U.S. will push harder to punish you. You are already working with Russia & China. You will still be working with Russia & China after you develop the nuke. Thus, you guarantee your regime internal stability by developing the nuke. There won't be any threat of outside interventions after that (for rogue international actors, this is a big concern).

I don't think its smart and it makes it harder because Iran would feel the need to save face but I don't see it actually harming negotiations as it has no material effects

If "it makes it harder by making Iran feel the need to save face" then wouldn't that imply it's actually harming negotiations?

I think your jumping to conclusions on A.

They want to look tough with the bill not actually passing or the tougher sanctions not happening

I'm sure some Senators feel that way. However, I'm sure a significant number of them certainly do want to pass the bill. After all, a lot of them will do what they can to ensure that Obama can't have good news.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Certainly. However, the folks in the U.S. pushing this bill don't care about how the Iranian government treats its own people, democracy, or all of that good stuff. They just want something that's pro-Israel. It can be a brutal dictatorship, but as long as it is pro-Israel, it's good.

I think that's a rather presumptuous assessment about every cosponsor.

The other option is to develop a nuke. Then there's no longer any point to negotiations, since there is nothing you can do to convince the Americans to work with you. You are already working with Russia & China. You will still be working with Russia & China after you develop the nuke. Thus, you guarantee your regime internal stability by developing the nuke. There won't be any threat of outside interventions after that (for rogue international actors, this is a big concern).

Build a nuke and then be an international pariah even more?
There's also the problem with this theory that Iran says it doesn't want a nuke but at the same time if talks fail its going to build a nuke. They don't match up.

If "it makes it harder by making Iran feel the need to save face" then wouldn't that imply it's actually harming negotiations?

If Iran feels its reputation is more important than sanction relief. What I'm saying is that it is up to Iran to respond. The deal does nothing to materially harm negotiations. I do think Iran is likely to retaliate, though I don't think they will go far and end negotiations. And I think it makes it harder.

What I'm saying is that Iran has to respond a certain way for it to harm. Rather than just being and insulting gesture

I'm sure some Senators feel that way. However, I'm sure a significant number of them certainly do want to pass the bill. After all, a lot of them will do what they can to ensure that Obama can't have good news.

I think your overselling the political posturing for actual beliefs. If push comes to shove you'll see Republicans like buckle they've even said their support is for sanctions if negotiations fail.

 

[AntoneM]

Fucking South Carolina.

South Carolina lawmakers take aim at healthcare law



I blame everyone who voted Republican for this goddamn nonsense.

And the federal government isn't obligated to provide states with funding for education, roads, and welfare.

 

[Wilsongt]

And the federal government isn't obligated to provide states with funding for education, roads, and welfare.

It's not like SC spends a whole lot on education as is...

K.

"The answer is the Department of Agriculture should go away at the federal level," Brannon said in an interview with the North Carolina Tea Party highlighted by Mother Jones on Tuesday. "And now 80% of the farm bill is food stamps. That enslaves people. What you want to do — it's crazy but it's true — is teach people to fish so they can fish. When you're at the behest of someone else, you are actually a slavery to them [sic]."

 

[Wilsongt]

Oh look. Right during the high of Bridgegate, Christie pulls a dick move. How characteristic.

In what some LGBT advocates are calling a “vindictive move,” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie vetoed legislation Monday that would allow for easier changes to gender markers on state birth certificates.

The legislation would have allowed transgender people to amend the gender marker on their birth certificate to be in accord with their gender identity and to match other vital documents, such as driver’s licenses and passports without having to undergo sex reassignment surgery.

 

[theprodigy]

Oh look. Right during the high of Bridgegate, Christie pulls a dick move. How characteristic.

Christie is an asshole? I'm shocked! /s

 

[Aylinato]

Why is it when I read about FCC rulings, against net neutrality, that people will defend the mega corporations just because they refuse to believe that corporations, if given the ability, will favor certain websites over others? Like I don't understand, their intentions are not even masked by anything they just say "o it costs a lot so we don't want to" yet they make massive profits. Are people really that defensive of corporation so that they will sacrifice their rights so corporations can make a slightly bigger profit while delivering shit service?

 

[Sibylus]

Honestly, if Iran tells the West to go fuck itself if these sanctions go through, I wouldn't blame them not one bit.

Hell, even building a bomb out of pure spite, wouldn't surprise me.

Ayup. If Congress chooses to be more inflexible and dogmatic than the fucking Ayatollah, you're going to get a nuclear Iran, the drumbeats for another senseless war in the Middle East, and then Iran being given every rational reason in existence to seek a nuclear arsenal on top of civilian usage... and you're going to be told to like it by a lot of idiot cooks with a lot of little spoons.

Hopefully the sliver of sanity on display in the reuters piece (barring John "War, what isn't it good for?" McCain) holds for a goddamned epoch, on top of Reid not suddenly losing his mind at a critical juncture. Kinda goes without saying that this souffle has more than just the US and Iran invested in its success.

 

[B-Dubs]

Oh look. Right during the high of Bridgegate, Christie pulls a dick move. How characteristic.

I, for one, am shocked. Shocked I say.

Why is it when I read about FCC rulings, against net neutrality, that people will defend the mega corporations just because they refuse to believe that corporations, if given the ability, will favor certain websites over others? Like I don't understand, their intentions are not even masked by anything they just say "o it costs a lot so we don't want to" yet they make massive profits. Are people really that defensive of corporation so that they will sacrifice their rights so corporations can make a slightly bigger profit while delivering shit service?

That's how it goes in the US. People will believe that if you're rich you deserve that money, it doesn't matter if all you're doing to earn it is raping them.

 

[empty vessel]

Why is it when I read about FCC rulings, against net neutrality, that people will defend the mega corporations just because they refuse to believe that corporations, if given the ability, will favor certain websites over others? Like I don't understand, their intentions are not even masked by anything they just say "o it costs a lot so we don't want to" yet they make massive profits. Are people really that defensive of corporation so that they will sacrifice their rights so corporations can make a slightly bigger profit while delivering shit service?

Truth be told, Americans make really good Communists. The best, even.

 

[speculawyer]

Fuckin' hell.

We finally make progress with Iran and it's going to be scuttled because a bunch of people are hell bent on carrying a dead man's battle flag.

If a holes scuttle this I will be furious. It has been 35 years since the hostage thing. Fucking get past it. Every one benefits.

 

[zero shift]

Why is it when I read about FCC rulings, against net neutrality, that people will defend the mega corporations just because they refuse to believe that corporations, if given the ability, will favor certain websites over others? Like I don't understand, their intentions are not even masked by anything they just say "o it costs a lot so we don't want to" yet they make massive profits. Are people really that defensive of corporation so that they will sacrifice their rights so corporations can make a slightly bigger profit while delivering shit service?

Again I was absolutely blown away in college to see how many idiotic people there were. There were people in there arguing that billionaires deserve their money because they worked hard for it. That its people who have received a doctorate's degree and can't find a job (in this economy) that it isn't the economy's fault but theirs. This was a college in the north to. Though it WAS criminal justice.

 

[The Technomancer]

Even some GOP constituents are tired of their shit.

Republican Members' Constituents Also Depend On Unemployment Insurance

Ness started working as a maid at age 16. She spent her last 17 years in the labor force working in logistics and acquisitions at the Air Force base. For the past 17 months she's been unable to find a job that comes close to what she had. The only positions she's been offered interviews for are in call centers and pay about $9 an hour — less than she made three decades ago. She's been stunned at how "incredibly competitive" the job market is now.

I hate to say it like this, but if this is how we have to wake people up to just how fucked our current job market is, so be it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Bengahzi?

Despite concerns for embassy security following the Sept. 11-12, 2012, attacks on two U.S. outposts in Benghazi, Libya, the bill provides $224 million less for embassy security, maintenance and construction costs than in fiscal 2013. The bill bans the construction of a new embassy in London and bars the State Department from closing the chancery at the U.S. Embassy in the Holy See and merging it with the one at the U.S. Embassy in Rome for security reasons, a project first pushed by George W. Bush's administration.

Other highlights to remind people that this is where a lot of 'laws' come from [the omnibus spending bill]

The legislation prohibits any funding to require that contractors bidding for federal contracts disclose campaign contributions. The Obama administration has openly flirted with issuing executive orders that would require contractors to provide campaign disclosures.

In a blow to one of the coolest perks of serving in the Cabinet, the legislation bars the use of federal money "for painting portraits."

First, there's a $1 billion reduction in the Prevention and Public Health Fund, a move Republicans say will keep administration officials from using the money to pay for elements of the health law. The bill also slashes $10 million for the Independent Payment Advisory Board, often referred to by Republicans as the "unelected bureaucrats" or "death panels" that are set to advise government officials on health-care issues.

The measure bars funding to enforce new light bulb standards that would ban the use of incandescent bulbs. The proposal was first introduced and set in motion by the bush administration, but the Obama White House seized on the issue and allowed the change to continue, despite the sustained consumer demand for older bulbs.

 

[Sirpopopop]

I think that's a rather presumptuous assessment about every cosponsor.

Not really. U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East can be boiled down to, "What's good for Israel" for the majority of folks on the Hill.

Build a nuke and then be an international pariah even more?
There's also the problem with this theory that Iran says it doesn't want a nuke but at the same time if talks fail its going to build a nuke. They don't match up.

A. They are already an international pariah. The folks who deal with them now will still deal with them after they build a nuke.
B. If talks fail, it shows Iran that the West wasn't serious about helping them with their energy problems. Iran is offering us what we want. The U.S. Senate is unwilling to accept it. As a rogue actor, Iran can only presume that history dictates the next course of action - insulate one self from encroachment by the U.S. That means build a nuke. It perfectly adds up.

The Obama administration is absolutely correct that Senators who are for the bill should just say they are gunning for war. Because, if I'm in Iran's shoes, that would be my take out of this. The Obama administration sees this. I see it. Everyone else in this thread sees it.

If Iran feels its reputation is more important than sanction relief. What I'm saying is that it is up to Iran to respond. The deal does nothing to materially harm negotiations. I do think Iran is likely to retaliate, though I don't think they will go far and end negotiations. And I think it makes it harder.

What I'm saying is that Iran has to respond a certain way for it to harm. Rather than just being and insulting gesture

Again - if something is going to make negotiations harder, that means it is harming negotiations. An insulting gesture would certainly qualify as harming negotiations. We've got two actors who are extremely distrustful of each other. Anything can set either side off. Both sides are dealing with a fair amount of irrationality (See: The U.S. Senate proposing this bill. Hardliners in Iran).

I think your overselling the political posturing for actual beliefs. If push comes to shove you'll see Republicans like buckle they've even said their support is for sanctions if negotiations fail.

If the bill comes to the floor, we'll see...

 

[RustyNails]

My monthly premium went up by $62. Thanks Obama.

Still in open enrollment period might get into a cheaper private insurance.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Not really. U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East can be boiled down to, "What's good for Israel" for the majority of folks on the Hill.

Gonna say this isn't true.

A. They are already an international pariah. The folks who deal with them now will still deal with them after they build a nuke.
B. If talks fail, it shows Iran that the West wasn't serious about helping them with their energy problems. Iran is offering us what we want. The U.S. Senate is unwilling to accept it. As a rogue actor, Iran can only presume that history dictates the next course of action - insulate one self from encroachment by the U.S. That means build a nuke. It perfectly adds up.

Good luck not having an economy and facing even stricter sanctions. The US is in the position of power and can make things even more painful to Iran without resorting to war. Iran wants out as much as this and the U.S. senate isn't saying no to a deal. They're showing off and passing laws which have NO EFFECT ON IRAN unless the talks fail. Trust me the people in power in Iran know how politics works in America and if that is their reason for calling off talks then they weren't interested in a deal because they know the law won't effect them if they reach a deal.

The Obama administration is absolutely correct that Senators who are for the bill should just say they are gunning for war. Because, if I'm in Iran's shoes, that would be my take out of this. The Obama administration sees this. I see it. Everyone else in this thread sees it.

If you really think voting for sanctions (not war) that only go in to effect if a deal isn't reached or terms are broken is equivalent to voting for war I don't know what to say as the president doesn't even have the authority to go to war against Iran. If something like this(and AUMF) was being discussed I can see where your coming from.

And pray tell me how does this lead to war? There are 5000 other things the need to happen after talks fail for war to even be considered. Otherwise I think that its more fear mongering about a imminent war in Iran that's been going on for over 10 years. All talks failing would do would revert us back to the per-November status quo.

Again - if something is going to make negotiations harder, that means it is harming negotiations. An insulting gesture would certainly qualify as harming negotiations. We've got two actors who are extremely distrustful of each other. Anything can set either side off. Both sides are dealing with a fair amount of irrationality (See: The U.S. Senate proposing this bill. Hardliners in Iran).

Again it all depends on Iran's reaction. Nothing the bill does should effect Iran unless further things happen. I'm not aware of it imposing new restrictions on the final outcome (if this were in there and didn't have an out I would change my tune on it harming negotiations). I tend to think that Iran is prone to react negatively and it creates stress and changes the air of negotiations but I'm not a big believer in personal feelings really effecting state behavior too too much. I think structural factors are far more likely to blow up then a light slap in the face.

If the bill comes to the floor, we'll see...

We shall, but I would imagine that would come on a veto attempt. There would be more time and progress for which there would be cover to back out.

Again, I don't like the bill and think its unnecessary. I just fine the whole sky-is-falling, we're-going-to-war posts tiresome.

 

[Sibylus]

APK, it isn't necessarily a given that Iran will eat shit for the sake of good faith. If they perceive they're being double-dipped on, that is, having to provide two concessions to receive one... don't expect them to be satisfied with that. A significant undercurrent amongst the group backing the bill have already made it clear in terms implicit and explicit that they don't give a shit about dealing with Iran in a manner of equivalent tit-for-tat, so it isn't a given either that they'll do the responsible thing in the end.

The sky may not have fallen, but I think exhausted patience might best be directed at those who seem to think causing it is a good idea.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Sooo Wendy Davis raised 12mil last quarter. Crazy.

 

[Giant Panda]

I am personally dumbfounded as to why Israel doesn't support a deal with Iran anyway. Without this deal, Iran could make nukes whenever they wanted, and Israel doesn't have the military power to stop them. In fact the only military option that could stop Iran from making nukes is a full, United States led, boots on the ground invasion. The scary thing is, that is probably what Israel wants. At this point I would consider Israel as a greater threat to stability that Iran.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

APK, it isn't necessarily a given that Iran will eat shit for the sake of good faith. If they perceive they're being double-dipped on, that is, having to provide two concessions to receive one... don't expect them to be satisfied with that. A significant undercurrent amongst the group backing the bill have already made it clear in terms implicit and explicit that they don't give a shit about dealing with Iran in a manner of equivalent tit-for-tat, so it isn't a given either that they'll do the responsible thing in the end.

The sky may not have fallen, but I think exhausted patience might best be directed at those who seem to think causing it is a good idea.

I don't think it is and its why I think the bill is a horrible idea. But its on Iran if it backs out of the talks because of what amounts to a chest pound. I'm not saying the bill wouldn't have played a part, just that running home is on Iran if they were to do something like that. And I'm not sure what group your referring to. If its John McCain, his side isn't a majority. There is no appetite for war, nobody wants it. There is a clear majority that wouldn't torpedo real progress if it came down to it.

There should be pressure directed at the congress not to pass the bill, I just think also doomsday predictions are something to put in check, you can do both.

 

[Sibylus]

I am personally dumbfounded as to why Israel doesn't support a deal with Iran anyway. Without this deal, Iran could make nukes whenever they wanted, and Israel doesn't have the military power to stop them. In fact the only military option that could stop Iran from making nukes is a full, United States led, boots on the ground invasion. The scary thing is, that is probably what Israel wants. At this point I would consider Israel as a greater threat to stability that Iran.

And you would be right, because thus far Israel has preferred ratcheting up the tension and lobbying for war over reevaluating its strategic arithmetic. After a couple of decades of overwhelming support from the world's superpower, they haven't (until recently) been put in that position. The Iranians, particularly in the wake of the Syrian civil war and their loss of that primary ally, haven't been similarly insulated against turbulence.

It makes complete sense that they pick the present time to try to move inside the United States' circle and neuter the threat from Israel that way, or if failing, ride out the eventual reprisal and protect themselves with a nuclear weapons program. That Israel isn't waiting before attempting to run the talks off the rails should tell you everything you need to know: Iran wants to outflank it diplomatically and peacefully, and Israel at present fears that it may succeed.

I don't think it is and its why I think the bill is a horrible idea. But its on Iran if it backs out of the talks because of what amounts to a chest pound. I'm not saying the bill wouldn't have played a part, just that running home is on Iran if they were to do something like that. And I'm not sure what group your referring to. If its John McCain, his side isn't a majority. There is no appetite for war, nobody wants it. There is a clear majority that wouldn't torpedo real progress if it came down to it.

There should be pressure directed at the congress not to pass the bill, I just think also doomsday predictions are something to put in check, you can do both.

I agree in part, running home is on Iran if they're extended a fair deal and reject it. If a deal continues to turn the screws on Iran after concessions have been made, they're fully entitled to walk away from it having given a good faith investment. The John McCains aren't the majority, but they and the lobbies in their corner getting a little giddy-eyed about employing gangster diplomacy, as though they're negotiating with bloodied wild animals, it's lunacy that deserves as vehement political opposition as can be mustered. Give a deal to Iran that it can say yes to and odds are that it will.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Sooo Wendy Davis raised 12mil last quarter. Crazy.

Sweet Jesus!

Maybe she has a chance?

 

[RustyNails]

Sooo Wendy Davis raised 12mil last quarter. Crazy.

Rick Perry 17 mil

Democrats need to lead an insurgency here.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I am personally dumbfounded as to why Israel doesn't support a deal with Iran anyway. Without this deal, Iran could make nukes whenever they wanted, and Israel doesn't have the military power to stop them. In fact the only military option that could stop Iran from making nukes is a full, United States led, boots on the ground invasion. The scary thing is, that is probably what Israel wants. At this point I would consider Israel as a greater threat to stability that Iran.

'Israel' isn't a single object. Opinions very. But I imagine the major line of thinking that drives the Prime Minister (who I think is acting rationally) is:

The fear of their use than regional hegemony and Iran's impunity to project power in the form of Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel with impunity with a bomb. Israel's goal is to say to Iran its costly to develop nukes and its not in your interest to, Iran having a nuke breaks the balance which allows Israel a relatively peaceful existence (obviously all those living under its control do not share in this)

It's easy to say "Iran presents no threat to Israel" when there are no Iranian funded rockets being fired at you and rhetoric aimed at you which at best is bellicose and at worst genocidal. And while yes the occupation is often a cause of this resentment and hostility towards the country, Israel feels reluctant to act because where are its negotiations in good faith and promises that the solution is better than the status quo or much more marginal changes? Does it have to have different deals with Hamas, Hezbollah, the Official Government of Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc? Which is its first move? It can't do everything at once, and how does it decide what's most important? Israel has neutered the PLO/PA and Hamas due to military superiority so its major focus was Iran which it, especially if Iran develops a nuke, it doesn't clearly have.

Iran was seen as something which could upset the balance until Kerry seemed to steep in and git both the PA and Israeli government to sit down by starting these 5 powers-Iranian negotiations which have gotten Iran to calm down and allowed breathing room for both issues to hopefully make some progress. The US isn't just a force which causes problems in the Middle East, it can play a productive part if it seeks to understand and talk with the actors.

I don't mean to portray Israel as without flaws or someone who cannot be an instigator of problems and conflict (lord knows I have problems with many in its government as well as its past and current actions) but rather as an actor which its acting in its perceived self interest self-interest and can't just wave a magic wand and solve the middle east peace process by ending an occupation and with the creation of a Palestinian state. Its not the boggy man or war mongering caricature that others describe and you hint at in the bolded

And you would be right, because thus far Israel has preferred ratcheting up the tension and lobbying for war over reevaluating its strategic arithmetic. After a couple of decades of overwhelming support from the world's superpower, they haven't (until recently) been put in that position. The Iranians, particularly in the wake of the Syrian civil war and their loss of that primary ally, haven't been similarly insulated against turbulence.

It makes complete sense that they pick the present time to try to move inside the United States' circle and neuter the threat from Israel that way, or if failing, ride out the eventual reprisal and protect themselves with a nuclear weapons program. That Israel isn't waiting before attempting to run the talks off the rails should tell you everything you need to know: Iran wants to outflank it diplomatically and peacefully, and Israel at present fears that it may succeed.

Why must Israel be seen as someone who doesn't want peace snatching defeat from victory? Why can it not be that they just don't trust the other party?

Have they launched an attack I missed? It takes two to party and Iran isn't force for good who just as been bullied by Israel. They financed attacks on Israel.

I agree in part, running home is on Iran if they're extended a fair deal and reject it. If a deal continues to turn the screws on Iran after concessions have been made, they're fully entitled to walk away from it having given a good faith investment. The John McCains aren't the majority, but they and the lobbies in their corner getting a little giddy-eyed about employing gangster diplomacy, as though they're negotiating with bloodied wild animals, it's lunacy that deserves as vehement political opposition as can be mustered. Give a deal to Iran that it can say yes to and odds are that it will.

What I'm saying is nobody is proposing 'tightening the screws' unless Iran says no. These sanctions don't actually happen unless Iran says no. I don't think threatening to is the same as doing something. And that's certainly more true on the international stage where threats are more often bluster than not.

And the rhetoric about lobbies is so overblown, and sometimes skirts into language and descriptions which have a not so nice history and portray thinks like AIPAC as the evil jewish financiers of antisemitic slurs rather than just an effective lobby that faces relatively little counterforce.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I am personally dumbfounded as to why Israel doesn't support a deal with Iran anyway. Without this deal, Iran could make nukes whenever they wanted, and Israel doesn't have the military power to stop them. In fact the only military option that could stop Iran from making nukes is a full, United States led, boots on the ground invasion. The scary thing is, that is probably what Israel wants. At this point I would consider Israel as a greater threat to stability that Iran.

Well if Israel attacked Iran, the US would be forced to help. I get the impression that is more attractive to Israel than the potential of peace.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Rick Perry 17 mil

Democrats need to lead an insurgency here.

Imagine Texas going blue on election night. Along with Florida that nets a buttload of new Medicaid patients.

Also Georgia and Kentucky will elect Dem senators.

 

[Oblivion]

NpR had a good little piece on it. And the patchwork of regulation on storage tanks, depending on what's in there. I find it incredible that this place was not inspected since the early 90's.

Really? You're surprised about that? If anything, in a state like WV, that seems too recent.

Judging by Boehner's words, it doesn't seem like anyone's too interested in trying to prevent another situation like that. If those yokels in WV decide that this little accident isn't worth infuriating the ghost of Ronald Reagan, then they deserve every bit of misery they're currently getting.

 

[Piecake]

Well if Israel attacked Iran, the US would be forced to help. I get the impression that is more attractive to Israel than the potential of peace.

Lets hope that Obama has the balls to tell them that they are on their own if they do something so stupid. Fuck the treaty. I'd be totally in favor of helping Israel defend itself, but it just seems so absurd that we would go to war and attack Iran with the nation that wants to scuttle Obama's peace treaty

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Lets hope that Obama has the balls to tell them that they are on their own if they do something so stupid. Fuck the treaty. I'd be totally in favor of helping Israel defend itself, but it just seems so absurd that we would go to war and attack Iran with the nation that wants to scuttle Obama's peace treaty

Where are they scuttling the treaty?

 

[Oblivion]

Also, Boner's question is retarded. Why weren't there any inspections since the 90s? Really? If the free market is so wonderful and perfect, what would be the reason for inspections? Shouldn't Freedom Industries (good god, this is too perfect) have made sure things were working properly all by themselves?

 

[Piecake]

Where are they scuttling the treaty?

I said they want, not that they are taking any actions to do that besides saying how horrible the treaty will be.