A poll by Fox News of registered GOP voters on the nomination; here are the picks of current likely Republican voters:
25% Donald Trump
12% Ben Carson
10% Ted Cruz
9% Jeb Bush
6% Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker
5% Carly Fiorina
4% John Kasich, Marco Rubio
3% Chris Christie, Rand Paul
1% Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum
If you’re a person who says, “I’d vote for Bernie Sanders, but he can’t win," then compare our world today to another time period in American politics.
ReplyDeleteImagine in 1972, shortly after President Richard M. Nixon won re-election in a legendary landslide, that in 2015 a headline in The New York Times would read, "Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide."
Imagine just a decade ago, what you'd think about the son of the late U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond calling for the removal of the Confederate flag from South Carolina Statehouse grounds, or the Supreme Court ruling favorably on a national health care program. Our nation's first African-American president is close to finishing his second term and today even Republicans like U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas are talking about wealth inequality.
Therefore, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont isn't George McGovern and this isn't 1972; Americans are willing to vote for any candidate they feel will make a positive change.
Sanders is down by just 6 points in New Hampshire -- within the margin of error, making it a statistical dead heat -- and gaining tremendous momentum in Iowa. If he wins both the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, the odds will favor him getting the Democratic nomination.
While Sanders has energized his base, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been forced to defend against email and foreign donor scandals. Speaking of emails, Clinton might have to explain during the televised Democratic presidential debates why she deleted 31,830 emails or why the Clinton Foundation received up to $25 million from Saudi Arabia.
Trust will be a big factor in 2016. CNN published an article titled "Poll: Clinton's honesty and trustworthy problem extends to swing states," but Sanders has no such trust dilemmas with voters. He voted against the Iraq War while Clinton called her vote a "mistake" and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush claims he too would have authorized the invasion.
As for the progressive credentials of Sanders compared to Clinton, there's simply no comparison. Clinton has similar positions to Jeb Bush on war, Wall Street, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Keystone XL, and, up until recently, opposed gay marriage. On all those issues, Sanders was on the opposite end of the spectrum from both Clinton and Bush.
Conventional wisdom says money wins elections; however, conventional wisdom was wrong in 2008. Clinton finished third behind Obama and John Edwards in the Iowa Caucus that year and ultimately raised $229.4 million in a losing effort.
Clinton plans to amass $2.5 billion during this election cycle, but momentum and grass-roots donations are on Bernie's side.
The integrity, honesty and bold stances of Sanders make him a real threat to Clinton's campaign, and he's earned something that billions in campaign fundraising can't buy: the trust of the average American. Compared to Republicans and Democrats like Clinton, Sanders has supported the issue of gay marriage since 2000, vehemently opposed the Iraq War, opposes TPP, wants student-loan debt reforms, fights for veterans, and isn't afraid to blast "too big to fail" Wall Street firms.
Regarding the Electoral College in 2016, Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley write for Politico magazine that, "Assuming the lean, likely, and safe Democratic states remain loyal to the party, the nominee need only win 23 of the 85 toss-up electoral votes."
If elected as the Democratic nominee, the Vermont senator won't have to worry about a controversial deleted email popping up just days before people go to the voting booths. In reality, he's the best chance Democrats have and matches up nicely with Jeb Bush, or any other GOP candidate, on a variety of issues. Sanders represents a new era in American politics; one where values trump Citizens United cash.
H.A. Goodman is a journalist, columnist and author in Los Angeles who has written frequently on Bernie Sanders.
.
DeleteSanders has supported the issue of gay marriage since 2000, vehemently opposed the Iraq War, opposes TPP, wants student-loan debt reforms, fights for veterans, and isn't afraid to blast "too big to fail" Wall Street firms.
Other than his gay marriage position, I agree with him. Maybe, I need to take a closer look at the guy.
.
I was looking at the internals of the, I think it was, Marist McClatchie Poll (Clinton/Bush) a few days ago, and they were nearly identical to the Obama/Romney election results.
ReplyDeleteME: The PA JOINED Hamas in a UNITY government…
ReplyDeleteQUIRK: No the PA didn’t join Hamas in a UNITY government. Hamas joined the PA in a UNITY government. And if you don’t understand the difference let me explain.
Hamas was dead in the water. Their popularity in Gaza was at a low point. They were about bankrupt. They were being ignored in the ‘peace process.’ They were on the outs with Iran because of their position on Assad. They were hurting. So they capitulated to the PA leadership. They agreed that PA operatives would take over key positions in the administration of Gaza. They reportedly agreed to abide by the PA’s charter and positions which presumably includes the PA position recognizing Israel’s right to exist.
Semantics.
Bottom Line?
The PA/Hamas are in a Unity Government together.
Spin it any way you wish.
.
DeleteYour statement shows how shallow your thinking is on the subject.
.
My position aint shallow it's specific.
DeleteHamas calls for the genocide of BOTH the Jews and Israel.
It is now a partner with the PA in the Unity Government.
Like to see you make a deal with some sworn to murder your kids and wipe you off the fact of the earth.
Oh yeah, you are.... Iran Deal..
.
DeleteYou just proved my point.
Your understanding of events in Israel go no further than the Cliff Notes on the daily talking points they give you.
.
How health care reform adds to Wal-Mart’s pharmacy woes
ReplyDeleteA footnote in Wal-Mart's second quarter earnings release this week highlighted one of the many effects of more people gaining health insurance under the Affordable Care Act: its pharmacies are no longer as profitable.
The retail giant blamed weak quarterly earnings that underperformed expectations partly on challenges facing its U.S. pharmacy business.
"Let’s talk about pharmacy," Greg Foran, president and chief executive of Wal-Mart U.S., said during the call. The company is seeing lower reimbursement rates from drug insurance plans and a decline in high-margin cash transactions, he said, "reflecting a marketplace shift in which more customers are now benefiting from greater drug insurance coverage."
Wal-Mart reported in the call that its health and wellness business was growing, including an increase in prescriptions filled, but that the profit margins are lower than expected.
The company's struggles are being seen throughout the pharmacy industry, which remains profitable even if the margins are getting thin, said Adam Fein, president of Pembroke Consulting.
DeleteIt's one of the dirty secrets of the pharmacy industry that uninsured people frequently pay more for drugs than those with insurance, Fein said. That's because the prescription drug plans can use their clout and scale to negotiate lower reimbursement rates with the pharmacies, while uninsured people pay more.
In addition, Fein said Wal-Mart, which runs the third largest pharmacy business in the U.S. bringing in an estimated $18.8 billion in revenue, has made strategic decisions that may have made it more vulnerable to this shift.
In 2006, Wal-Mart began offering offering hundreds of generic prescription drugs for $4. That was novel because retail pharmacies haven't traditionally competed on the price of prescription drugs, which are largely hidden from consumers and attracted people who were paying full price for drugs, without insurance.
"They have many more cash-paying customers than the average pharmacies, and as those people got insurance, the insurance companies decided in some cases they would pay less than what Wal-Mart was getting from the cash- paying customers," Fein said.
Washington Post
Well maybe they should cut the wages of the over paid pharmacists, they earn over 100k a year for counting pills.
DeleteRobotic pill filling centers could slash the costs!!!
Fire the worthless pharmacists now....
Quirk, your position is either foolish, naive or evil, which is it?
ReplyDelete.
DeleteI have a lot of positions, you'll have to be more specific.
By the way, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteQuirkThu Aug 20, 11:36:00 AM EDT
Delete.
I have a lot of positions, you'll have to be more specific.
By the way, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
.
Just throwing back at you, your own type of shit…
Glad you finally can see how stupid it is…
Maybe there is hope for you.
I doubt it.
QuirkThu Aug 20, 11:34:00 AM EDT
ReplyDelete.
You just proved my point.
Your understanding of events in Israel go no further than the Cliff Notes on the daily talking points they give you.
.
Quirk you try so hard to be witty.
ANd you come off like a bitter old man…
Cliff Notes? That's so 1970's
Daily Talking Points?
Come on quirk….
I am keeping it simple for morons like you….
What part of Hamas and their advocation of genocide do you not understand?
Really are you a fool, naive or evil.
Same question, specific about the topic.
Can you stay on the specific issue?
(I doubt it)
Hamas.
Would you trust them? Would you make any deal with them for a peace treaty?
Come on ole Quirk,
Check YOUR cliff notes..
what does the "Appeasing Cowards Handbook" say?
.
DeleteHamas.
Would you trust them?
Of course, not. I wouldn't trust them any more than I would trust Abbas and the PA. Heck, I wouldn't trust them anymore than I would trust Bibi and Likud. They all lie. Abbas is corrupt as is the leadership of Hamas. Hamas has divided leadership between the political and military sides and neither seems to agree with the other. Both PA leadership and Hamas have gone back on the promises they made to each other when they formed their 'unity' government. Bibi on the other hand is a schemer and habitual liar. He makes an art form of coming up with new excuses and demands in order to preclude any chance at all of a negotiated 'peace agreement'. Worse, on a relative basis, Bibi is the 'good guy' in the right wing government he has pulled together.
But I assume the question is just one more of your rhetorical hand jobs. You and I both know there will never be a 'peace agreement' reached by the current Israeli government (or given current trends likely future Israeli governments) and the Palestinians. Bibi has told us so and I believe him. Hamas has said so and I believe them.
There is no denying it. Well, that is, at least in terms of a voluntary agreement between the parties. There is still an outside chance that some type of agreement can be forced on the parties from the outside. Who knows?
Would you make any deal with them for a peace treaty?
It would depend whether net/net there was an advantage to me in doing it.
.
You spin more than a top.
Delete.
DeleteReally?
Let me guess the parts you deny.
:o)
.
Bernie Sanders is a good, old man. I like his politics (I am, however, a little queasy about his age, and physical condition - when it comes to the rigors of the office of President, anyway.)
ReplyDeleteBut, he can't get the nomination. Hillary is too popular with the rank and file - especially, the minorities that comprise a very large percentage of the Democratic Base.
Probably, when it all shakes out, it will be something like 60/40, Hillary. If Biden was to come wobbling into the race, it would likely end up in the area of 50/30/20, or thereabouts.
As for the General Election, the Demographics seem pretty much set in stone. Barring the onslaught of a pretty serious recession, or an indictment, I really don't see how Hillary can be beat.
Marquette Univ. Poll - Wisconsin.
DeleteHillary beats Jeb! by 5
Beats Walker by 10
:)
Marquette Poll
Paul Krugman: Debt Is Good
ReplyDeleteWe owe a debt to debt:
Debt Is Good, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: ...Believe it or not..., there’s a reasonable argument to be made that part of what ails the world economy right now is that governments aren’t deep enough in debt.
I know that may sound crazy. After all, we’ve spent much of the past five or six years in a state of fiscal panic, with all the Very Serious People declaring that we must slash deficits and reduce debt now now now or we’ll turn into Greece, Greece I tell you.
But the power of the deficit scolds was always a triumph of ideology over evidence, and a growing number of genuinely serious people ... are making the case that we need more, not less, government debt.
Why?
One answer is that ... the United States suffers from obvious deficiencies in roads, rails, water systems and more; meanwhile, the federal government can borrow at historically low interest rates. So this is a very good time to be borrowing and investing in the future...
Beyond that..., the debt of stable, reliable governments provides “safe assets” that help investors manage risks, make transactions easier and avoid a destructive scramble for cash. ...
And... When interest rates on government debt are very low even when the economy is strong, there’s not much room to cut them when the economy is weak, making it much harder to fight recessions. There may also be consequences for financial stability: Very low returns on safe assets may push investors into too much risk-taking...
DeleteWhat can be done? Simply raising interest rates, as some financial types keep demanding (with an eye on their own bottom lines), would undermine our still-fragile recovery. What we need are policies that would permit higher rates in good times without causing a slump. And one such policy ... would be targeting a higher level of debt.
In other words, the great debt panic ... was even more wrongheaded than those of us in the anti-austerity camp realized.
Not only were governments that listened to the fiscal scolds kicking the economy when it was down, prolonging the slump; not only were they slashing public investment at the very moment bond investors were practically pleading with them to spend more; they may have been setting us up for future crises.
And the ironic thing is that these foolish policies, and all the human suffering they created, were sold with appeals to prudence and fiscal responsibility.
PK
Debt is the rent of money and is a transfer payment from one entity to another. If the borrower can get a higher return over the rent payment, all is happy. No airline owns a plane outright. They rent them.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with government debt is in who collects the rent. Why should it be the banks or foreign governments? If the rent were collected by US workers, US investors or local governments, everyone would be better off.
I would allow all the state to identify revenue producing new projects and authorize the states to issue bonds for the approved projects and sell the bonds to either the Fed or US Treasury. Fuck the banks. Screw Wall Street. Using this structure all benefits of the project and the interest payments would stay local.
The problem is, we've allowed "Wall Street" to suck all the money out of the rest of the country. Thus, if you want to sell a bond, you Have to sell it to a Hedge Fund, or a big bank, because no one else has the money to buy it.
DeleteThis is a failure of "Tax Policy."
I Never paid less than 1/3 of my earnings to the Fed, but Billionaire Hedge Fund Managers pay 15%. That is what is all fucked up.
(and, that is why, if Bernie Sanders doesn't pass out from exhaustion, or have a Heart Attack on the campaign trail, I'll be voting for him in the primary.)
The bone I would pick with Krugman is: While the "debt-clock crazies" overlook the fact that we will only borrow about 2.5% of GDP this year, Krugman overlooks the fact that we WILL borrow a little over $400 Billion this year.
ReplyDeleteDean Baker says that the deficit should be at least as large as the trade deficit. His argument is fairly logical (I think.) :)
QuirkTue Aug 04, 03:19:00 PM EDT
ReplyDelete.Damn, WiO, you have the attention span of a gnat.
This whole discussion started with my taking exception to your claim that Iran demands Israel's destruction 'by any means necessary' and the implications that comment carries. And lest there be any confusion about what you were talking about, you made it clear with this statement,
Iran will try to genocide Israel with many methods including but not limited to: Nuclear weapons, non-nuclear weapons, mass hysteria that provokes another proxy war..
I've made it clear what I was talking about and what I consider your wild accusations. Iran has no plans to launch a direct assault on Israel by either conventional military or nuclear means.
The four rockets fired on Galilee came from the new Iranian terror front on the Golan
Israel’s top government and military went on a high level of preparedness Tuesday, Aug. 18 in expectation of the first terrorist attack to be orchestrated by Iran from Syrian or Lebanese borders.
Iranian Al Qods and Hizballah officers were building a new terrorist network for mounting large-scale terrorist attacks on Israel from the Syrian border opposite the Golan.
The officers had handed out anti-tank and anti-air rockets to the terrorists, raising Israeli suspicions that one of their plans was to seize an Israeli location or part of one and try and hold out against an Israeli counter-offensive of tanks and assault helicopters.
Our counter-terrorism sources disclose that three radical terrorist movements staff the new network:
One is the hard-line rejectionist Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC).
Another is the Golan-based Syrian Druze group known as Liberators of the Golan. It is headed by the notorious Samir Kuntar, a Lebanese Druze who has set up a Golan terror ring based in the Druze village of Al-Khadar opposite the Israeli border fence.
'Iran Behind Terror Attacks Launched Against Israel From Syrian Border'
Islamic Republic provides training and funds to militants in Syrian Golan Heights, IDF officer says.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.671406
Though hundreds of Hezbollah militants are operating in the Golan Heights, Iran is behind recent attempts recent to carry out terror attack against Israel, a senior IDF officer said in a briefing with reporters on Sunday.
The officer, who serves in the Golan division, said an example of Iranian involvement was apparent last April, when explosive devices were planted at three spots near the Su'heita outpost, on the border between Israel and Syria.
An Israel Air Force aircraft in April struck a militant cell that was trying to place the explosives on the border while they were in the process of placing the charges.
It's clear that Iran is behind all of the terror attacks here (in the Golan) in the past two years," the officer said. "The Iranians are using the border – they establish units – whether it's [Imad] Mughniyeh, [Samir] Kuntar, and more – to carry out [the attacks]." He added that the Iranian involvement manifests itself in Iranian advisers, who according to foreign reports are based in Syria, as well as in the transferring of funds, giving instructions and providing training.
Once again, it is proven that quirk is either a moron, naive or evil.
Now take exception to the usage of proxies.
Deletefucking loser.
.
DeleteWhy should I take exception. Its a fact of life in the ME. Reason #13 why the US shouldn't be there.
However, if you are using this story to rebut my statement from August 4 that you posted above, you merely show that you are still having trouble with the English language. My comment was in response and rebuttal of your comment that
Iran will try to genocide Israel with many methods including but not limited to: Nuclear weapons, non-nuclear weapons, mass hysteria that provokes another proxy war..
which is absurd.
The story says nothing about Iran launching a nuclear attack on Israel. It says nothing about Iran launching a conventional military attack on Israel. This was the point of my comment.
As for what the story does say, some IDF officers says all attacks coming from around the Golan heights are orchestrated by Iran. Is anyone surprised that the IDF would say this. Iran could be providing money and support for the various resistance groups mentioned in the story but that hardly qualifies as genocide against Israel by 'any means necessary' and it certainly doesn't speak to a nuclear attack.
All of the groups mentioned in the article have been around for years. Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine was one of the many groups formed to fight Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, Hezbollah was formed in 1982 to resist the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, the Liberators of the Golan is a Hezbollah spin off formed in 2006 to fight the Israeli incursion in Golan. As for the Druze attacks, we have already seen Druze attacks within Israel recently in response to Israel aiding ISIS. All of these groups have at one time or another received support and training from Iran. There is nothing new in that; however, funding proxies hardly qualifies as 'by any means necessary'.
Is it any surprise that an IDF officer would blame every action north of the Israeli lines on Iran, especially now as Israel is fighting the Iranian nuclear deal?
.
You are a denial of reality. You must be either a moron or a fool.
DeleteFor some reason I don't think you are evil.
Maybe you should learn more about the Iranians and how they fight to understand what they advocate.
Maybe it will take an Iranian missile aimed at your grandkids airplane to educate you.
Who knows.
But from me to you?
You are self deluding.
.
DeleteSeems like the last plane shot down was Iranian.
.
QuirkFri Aug 14, 01:05:00 PM EDT
ReplyDelete.
Did obama's own political machine not interfere with the recent elections in Israel?
No.
OBAMA CAMPAIGN TEAM ARRIVES IN ISRAEL TO DEFEAT NETANYAHU IN MARCH ELECTIONS
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/26/obama-campaign-team-arrives-in-israel-to-defeat-netanyahu-in-march-elections/
Just days after the Obama White House accused House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)35%
of “breaking protocol” by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress, a team of up to five Obama campaign operatives has reportedly arrived in Israel to lead a campaign to defeat the Israeli Prime Minister in upcoming national elections scheduled for March 17.
The anti-Netanyahu, left wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports a group called “One Voice,” reportedly funded by American donors, is paying for the Obama campaign team. That group is reportedly being led by Obama’s 2012 field director Jeremy Bird.
Quirk are you a moron, liar or just a fool?
.
DeleteThat group is reportedly being led by Obama’s 2012 field director Jeremy Bird.
What don't you get? We went through this in detail at the time. Bird worked with Obama in 2012. Since then he has opened a successful consulting firm. He works for big names who are willing to pay the price, Democratic or republican. Hell, if you have the bucks, he would work for you. He puts on seminars for companies and the general public and for people interested in getting into politics.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Obama was involved in Bird's contract with "One Voice'. If you have anything more than speculation provide a link.
.
I guess you are just a moron.
DeleteIf you cannot se the connection? Then you are blind.
Denial aint just a river in Egypt.
Obama operatives, political agents, from James Carville to others all worked to have Bibi defeated.
Obama himself with HIS direct behavior made it clear.
Obama and his lackies of COURSE interfered with Israeli internal affairs.
ONLY a fool could argue otherwise.
.
DeleteObama himself with HIS direct behavior made it clear.
I think you are merely misreading Obama's natural dislike for Bibi. But then, Bibi just ain't a likable person.
As for the other charges, I think they are just a result of the persecution complex you display her daily.
.
Deuce ☂Fri Aug 14, 10:57:00 PM EDT
ReplyDeleteAnyone with a brain could see that Iran has no interest in destroying Israel. Why bother? What would it gain for Iran?
Iran supreme leader touts 9-point plan to destroy Israel. Ayatollah Khamenei says West Bank should be armed like Gaza, and Jewish population should return to countries it came from
http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-supreme-leader-touts-9-point-plan-to-destroy-israel/http://nypost.com/2015/08/01/iran-publishes-book-on-how-to-outwit-us-and-destroy-israel/
http://nypost.com/2015/08/01/iran-publishes-book-on-how-to-outwit-us-and-destroy-israel/
Iran publishes book on how to outwit US and destroy Israel
By Amir TaheriAugust 1, 2015
While Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama do their best to paper over the brutality of the Iranian regime and force through a nuclear agreement, Iran’s religious leader has another issue on his mind: The destruction of Israel.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has published a new book called “Palestine,” a 416-page screed against the Jewish state. A blurb on the back cover credits Khamenei as “The flagbearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem.”
So Deuce, are you a liar? A fool? An Iranian firster? Or are you just naive?
Please tell us.
Israel has been screwing the US since it attacked the US Liberty. It a dangerous liability, an apartheid regime and has cost the US thousands of deaths, tens of thousands of wounded, thrillions in financial losses. and is the single largest generating machine of into-semitism
DeleteIt earned the loathing that it has brought upon itself by most every country that knows them. That is a fact.
QuirkThu Aug 13, 05:01:00 PM EDT
ReplyDelete.
Bibi was right.
:o)
Right, and only 20 years late. Reminds me of those bears who keep repeating that there is going to be a market crash soon, repeating it year after year until there finally is a turn in the market and then they gloat, "See, I was right." And remember, what Iran can achieve in a few months is the capability to build a bomb not a bomb something they say they don't want.
Anytime Iran wishes to cheat and build a nuke in an UNDECLARED site it can.
Nonsense. Do you just pull this shit out of your ass or are you just batshit crazy? It's one thing to do undeclared research in a hidden site, its an entirely different matter to build a bomb. This agreement restricts two-thirds of Iran's enrichment capabilities and monitors them. Experts at the IAEA indicate that it would take Iran years to develop a bomb from scratch in some secret site and that long before they got very far their efforts would be detected.
So now that the SECRET SIDE DEALS are public…
What makes you sure that Iran cannot build a bomb without the IAEA knowing SINCE the IAEA will allow Iran to do it's OWN INSPECTIONS?
Come on quirk, a real answer.
No spin….
.
DeleteOnce again, WiO, you just don't get it.
Your 'SECRET SIDE DEALS' apply to the Parchin site only. It deals with activities that took place 10 years ago. The deals do not effect operational sites. If Iran takes samples themselves the process will still be monitored by the IAEA.
As for your specific question,
What makes you sure that Iran cannot build a bomb without the IAEA knowing...
My answer from above still applies,
It's one thing to do undeclared research in a hidden site, its an entirely different matter to build a bomb. This agreement restricts two-thirds of Iran's enrichment capabilities and monitors them. Experts at the IAEA indicate that it would take Iran years to develop a bomb from scratch in some secret site and that long before they got very far their efforts would be detected.
.
who says they don't PURCHASE the bomb from North Korea?
DeleteYou just can't admit you really don't know shit.
.
DeleteTell me why would Iran buy a bomb from North Korea?
What good would on bomb do them?
Why would they put a target on their back?
The proposed nuclear agreement does nothing to affect the terms of the current NPT. The same restrictions apply. Iran would be opening themselves for the whole range of sanctions from economic to military.
I guess you can dream up any hypothetical you want. I just don't see it happening and so it doesn't affect my opinion that the proposed deal is a good one.
.
.
Deletes/b...What good would one bomb do them?
.
These are Quirks own words:
ReplyDeleteME: What makes you so sure they will not lie to cover up illicit programs and sites in the future.
QUIRK: Merely, the words of the experts and their confidence that with the improvements that have been made in surveillance technology and testing they will be able to monitor and detect any illicit activity. Nuclear material just isn't the easiest thing to hide.
IF Iran has secret understandings, you know the ones you said didn't exist?
What makes you so cocksure they cannot lie…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/28/us-officials-how-we-disco_n_301770.html
U.S. Officials: How We Discovered Iran's Secret Nuclear Site
How can we be sure of what we DONT KNOW?
.
DeleteIF Iran has secret understandings, you know the ones you said didn't exist?
I was surprised by the secret agreements. I don't recall saying they didn't exist; however, if I did say that, I'm sure you can put up the link. If it were true, you would have me on that one. Would that mean that your batting average on these matters had now jumped up to around .008
How can we be sure of what we DONT KNOW?
If you require 100% certainty before taking action you might as well curl up in bed and stay there. Can Iran cheat on the deal? Of course, that possibility always exists. Could Iran create a bomb in some secret location without us knowing of it before it happened? Of course, not. You would have to be batshit crazy to think so.
According to the link you put up, the US and other allies were monitoring suspicious activity at QOM years ahead of it reaching an operational stage. With the new agreement we will have the most intrusive inspection regime ever. I may not know what we don't know but I am pretty confident we will find out what we don't know in plenty of time to react to it.
The agreement carries risks but it also puts in a much better position than that we are in right now.
.
Deuce ☂Sun Aug 09, 07:53:00 AM EDT
ReplyDeleteIn private, military commanders and intelligence personnel can’t stand Israel. Why? Because they know them.
Wow, now that is another broad unprovable generalization that we have come to expect from you.
..and, unfortunately for your team, true.
DeleteI can only say I have met HUNDREDS of senior members of our armed forces and what I can say, without any hesitation?
DeleteYou don't speak the truth.
Your full of shit. You never met hundreds of senior members of anything. You have no clue about what senior members of armed forces or security agencies think and say in private. Your very assertion tells anyone with a brain that you don’t even know what a senior member is.
DeleteYour methodology of argument is name calling and insult as is the case of most ignorant dolts. You are incapable of an intelligent argument or cogent thinking. Why would a senior member of anything want to engage with you?
Four Gazans abducted on a bus traveling from Rafah to Cairo airport on Wednesday night were senior Hamas naval commandos who were heading overseas — apparently to Iran — for training, The Times of Israel has learned.
ReplyDeleteGet The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email
and never miss our top stories FREE SIGN UP!
In Gaza, it is believed that the four were intercepted by Egyptian intelligence operatives, and the incident has raised tensions between Hamas and Egypt to new heights.
LOL
Iran + Hamas = shit.
Well, I'm glad this damned week is over. G'night. :)
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteIsrael's Military Intelligence Verdict on the Iran Nuclear Deal: It's Not All That Bad.
Israel’s military intelligence corps has given Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a surprising report assessing the opportunities and threats that the Iran nuclear deal poses for Israel.
What’s startling about the report is not its substance, which is mostly a predictable mix of standard arguments presented for and against the deal: No nukes for 10 years, which gives Israel time to develop new countermeasures, but then a quick path to a nuke after a decade; an accelerated regional arms race, plus new legitimacy for pariah Iran, but also (surprisingly) a reduced likelihood of Iran attacking Israel. The upsides aren’t perfect. The downsides aren’t unmanageable.
No, what’s remarkable about the report is the fact that it exists. Netanyahu has ordered every level of Israeli officialdom to muzzle any discussion of the deal’s possible upsides. Central to his strategy is his insistence that the deal is an unmitigated catastrophe. Orders are to depict it as so ruinous that no outcome is acceptable short of its absolute defeat.
The prime minister and his allies insist Israel is united behind his unequivocal rejection of the deal. The cowering silence of the political opposition has helped him nurture the myth. But it’s a myth.
Now comes word that his intelligence community is defying the gag order and telling him otherwise. The deal offers Israel both advantages and disadvantages, the spooks say. The disadvantages are not too calamitous for anyone to cope with them. For an outside observer, the logical conclusion is that Netanyahu’s fiery confrontation with the Obama administration is unnecessary. And destructive...
Read more: http://forward.com/opinion/319515/the-game-changing-iran-report-that-wasnt/#ixzz3jVNF5uWB
.
.
ReplyDeleteIsrael’s Other Existential Threat Comes From Within
It used to be said by some in Israel that “only the right can bring peace.” But the brave, pragmatic Zionist right of Menachem Begin is gone.
Successive right-wing governments have adopted the mantra “there is no partner for peace.” Of course, the Palestinians have not been the perfect partner — and, of course, there is no such thing. You make peace with your enemies, as Yitzhak Rabin used to say.
In place of negotiations toward a two-state solution, however, the increasingly radicalized Israeli right has developed a strategy of “conflict management.” The results are in: endless operations in Gaza, Israel’s southern residents living under impossible conditions, Jerusalem on the verge of a third intifada, weakened Israeli deterrence and an Israel increasingly isolated in the world.
The only way for Israel now to remain both Jewish and democratic — that is, for Israel to remain a democracy and retain its Jewish majority — is to separate from the Palestinians via a two-state solution. Without such a settlement, Israel is drifting ineluctably toward becoming a binational state. And make no mistake: The logic of the binational state means an end to the Zionist project. This threat to Israel is so grave partly because it is happening at a slow enough pace that our leaders can essentially ignore the problem without facing electoral catastrophe.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu helped scupper Secretary of State John Kerry’s push for peace by insisting on Palestinian recognition of Israel as “the Jewish state” — which is an important and fair demand, but not as a precondition for talks. Because of those fruitless efforts and the bitter wrangling over the Iran deal, the Obama administration probably has little interest in spending more political capital on reviving the peace process. So Israel must take the lead to secure its own interests and its own future.
I recently presented a plan at the Knesset that I hope will eventually become government policy. It is aimed at generating momentum toward a final status accord between us and the Palestinians. The broad parameters are already known, but there is more we should do...
.
.
ReplyDeleteWe have bigger things to worry about than Iran.
Once again, Saudi Arabia screws the world
Consequences of the oil bust.
Major oil-producing countries everywhere are facing a fiscal reckoning like nothing they have seen in decades, perhaps ever. Let’s take a brief tour of the new world...
Do we really want Russia to go bankrupt?
.