Quote from: diane 2606 on January 09, 2016, 01:45:05 PM
@Autumn08: Are you trying to prompt a discussion of the Obama administration foreign policy? Here's my take:

My intention was for individuals to respond to my initial post and I would then facilitate conversation on various domestic and foreign policy issues. It seems there is too much of a consensus at the moment though (except for Stephanie. ), and Iran has sparked the most interest, but I still invite everyone to respond to my initial post.

Also, I would be happy to discuss Guantanamo, Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'll first see where the Iran conversation goes.

Quote from: Tysilio on January 09, 2016, 11:54:47 AM
Your list doesn't hold up very well against even a cursory examination.

Diane makes an excellent point about British and French meddling in the Middle East having, in a broad sense, led directly to the current state of affairs in there. The worst of this meddling took place from the last years of WWI to about 1922, and was based on an astonishing level of ignorance of the region and its people. (For an excellent account of this, read A Peace to End All Peace, by David Fromkin.)

The reality behind the Iranian activities you mention in your points is that much of the current turmoil in the Middle East is essentially religious warfare between two branches of Islam, Sunni and Shiite; Iran is basically a Shiite theocracy, and as such supports other Shiite countries and movements. Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, that country was run by its Sunni minority, which invaded Iran in 1980, causing a war which lasted for 8 years. When the US invaded Iraq and overthrew its government (destroying its infrastructure and civil society in the process), the remnants of the (Sunni-led) Iraqi army went on to form the core of ISIS.

Reasonably enough, in light of that history, Iran views the political/military aspects of Sunni Islam as a threat, hence its support of Shiite factions elsewhere in the Middle East. Also reasonably enough, Iran feels threatened by the US, which has invaded, bombed, or otherwise attacked 14 Muslim countries since 1980. Its diplomatic and other activities in Latin America are directed at reducing US influence, and at strengthening other countries which don't accept US regional hegemony.

As to the claims of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), at this point they've been fairly well refuted.The desire of the IAEA to save face following that refutation is among the reasons a nuclear agreement was signed this summer by Iran and the P5+1 nations.

Iran is a sovereign nation, with the right, guaranteed by the United Nations charter, to defend itself. There's support for the defensive nature of its actions in the fact that Iran has not invaded another country for over 200 years. Note that this record is in stark contrast to that of the US, which has invaded roughly 50 countries just in the years since the end of WWII. (You'll find a list here.)

Quote from: diane 2606 on January 09, 2016, 10:22:17 AM
The US, which didn't understand the difference between Sunni and Shia, invaded Iraq. Vice President Cheney and President Bush disbanded the (Sunni-led) Iraqi Army and sent them home with their weapons. Meanwhile, the Shi'ites, who didn't have access to military-grade weapons relied on Iran to provide them with a means to defend themselves from Sunnis and the common enemy, us.

It would be more appropriate to blame the English and French for drawing arbitrary lines on a map, creating countries without considering culture and religion. That is the root of turmoil in the Middle East. I have no answer for that, but blaming one country or another isn't a solution.

For the record, Iran is the one country in the Middle East that could have been a strong ally for Western countries if not for Eisenhower's CIA who overthrew a democratically elected, left-leaning government and installed a dictatorial Shah.

I think I did a poor job conveying the point I was making with my list. I was not debating the impetus, or justifiability of Iran's actions, but rather Tysilio's proposition that "Iran is not a threat." Iran continues to support and partake in terrorism, and incite sectarian animosity. These actions combined with its nuclear program and ballistic missile program, I contend make Iran a threat.

As to the justifiability of Iran's actions, I think the terrorist actions of Iran and its proxies, and their contribution to sectarianism, speak for themselves. I contend they are indefensible. Iran's actions are not equivalent to U.S. actions, but even if they were equivalent, they should viewed irrespective of U.S. actions, as they are primarily malevolent and counterproductive.

As to Scott Ritter's article, on December 15, 2015, the IAEA concluded that Iran conducted nuclear weapons-related research until 2009, but this conclusion is contingent on samples that Iran collected from the Parchin Military Site (which Iran had repeatedly denied access to), before the IAEA arrived. Also, when inspectors arrived there was evidence of recent renovations, and there no equipment inside the building. This information, combined with Iran's decision to build a heavy water reactor in Arak, I contend gives credence to skepticism of Iran's nuclear program.

Quote from: diane 2606 on January 10, 2016, 12:15:38 AM
Who edits posts here? Someone changed what I wrote. Is this what happens at Susan's? It's inappropriate.

I have sent you a pm re the post change. I shall also remind people of the Terms of Service

2. Any attempts to stage protests, dispute the site policies, the TOS/rules, or actions of the staff; in the public areas of this site will not be tolerated and will result in your removal. If you have any issues, contact Susan by email, or forum private message, and not bring these types of issues into the public spaces on this website. For the proper way to handle problems of this nature see item #20 below.

3. Posting is a privilege, not a right. We have the inherent right to block access to our services to anyone for any reason. We also have the right to disable or remove from any account features and/or functionality of this website, and to edit or remove any posting from any forum for any reason.

1. Rand Paul
Pretty simply he is the closest to a libertarian as they get . I know that he will govern by the constitution and up hold the laws of the land.
2.  Hillary
I believe it has been proving time and time against that she is dishonest and not trust worthy enough to hold the seat as the president of the United States.

Quote from: Britney79 on January 11, 2016, 12:30:08 PM
1. Rand Paul
Pretty simply he is the closest to a libertarian as they get . I know that he will govern by the constitution and up hold the laws of the land.
2.  Hillary
I believe it has been proving time and time against that she is dishonest and not trust worthy enough to hold the seat as the president of the United States.

Even though exports constitute only 13 percent of U.S. GDP, many fear that the dramatic declines in China's stock market and currency could portend to a global recession. If this were to happen, the U.S. Federal Reserve would have a limited ability to mitigate the losses to demand, as interest rates are near zero.

In this type of situation, fiscal policy could still mitigate the losses to demand, but would President Rand Paul use his veto, if somehow a stimulus bill were to be passed by Congress? If so, what do you think would be the more appropriate response?

The united States is in a financial crisis currently due to failed policies of not only Obama but president's dating back to Richard Nixon. If we want to fix out economy currently stimulus packages would not be the answer. We can not as a nation continue to print money we don't have. First we need to get rid of the federal reserve bank, that is the root of most of our problems. We need to tie the dollar to the gold standard as it was before 1975. Abolish the IRS and have a flat tax on goods and services. This would allow us to lower the tax on businesses, so that we could again begin to manufacture our own goods instead of shipping the jobs overseas. That being said that wouldn't cure the national debt. Eventually the debt will burst when we are unable to pay back out liabilities. Which may need to occur to solve our financial crisis. So, to answer your question I would hope Rand would veto any stimulus package.

Quote from: Britney79 on January 12, 2016, 11:03:54 AM
The united States is in a financial crisis currently due to failed policies of not only Obama but president's dating back to Richard Nixon. If we want to fix out economy currently stimulus packages would not be the answer. We can not as a nation continue to print money we don't have. First we need to get rid of the federal reserve bank, that is the root of most of our problems. We need to tie the dollar to the gold standard as it was before 1975. Abolish the IRS and have a flat tax on goods and services. This would allow us to lower the tax on businesses, so that we could again begin to manufacture our own goods instead of shipping the jobs overseas. That being said that wouldn't cure the national debt. Eventually the debt will burst when we are unable to pay back out liabilities. Which may need to occur to solve our financial crisis. So, to answer your question I would hope Rand would veto any stimulus package.

I'm going to have to admit that the gold standard was one of several deal-breakers Ron had with me, and it's high on the list of deal-breakers with Rand.  As best I can make out, current U.S. M2 is ~$12.3 trillion.  At current market prices, the Treasury says it has ~$300-450 billion in gold, depending on which numbers you believe.  The entire world's supply of gold is worth a little under $10 trillion.  In round numbers, that means there's not enough gold mined in all the world since the dawn of civilization just to back the current U.S. money supply, never mind pay off any debts.  And that assumes none is used as jewelry, somebody else's bullion, or for industrial uses.

Now, I don't mind somebody making the argument that fiat currency has been part of how we created this problem.  It's a fair argument and some of the facts do support it.  I do wonder about the math of suggesting that going back on the gold standard is a viable solution at this point, though.   

           

Not to devolve this into a gold bug conversation I think that going back to the gold standard would be quite a big conversion not like flicking a switch. Debt based currency as we have here is a severe issue, we are being taxed via inflation. It's crippling the middle class, while the upper class (think 1%ers) are generally immune as they are benefitting since they have created the rules.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote from: Britney79 on January 12, 2016, 11:03:54 AM
The united States is in a financial crisis currently due to failed policies of not only Obama but president's dating back to Richard Nixon. If we want to fix out economy currently stimulus packages would not be the answer. We can not as a nation continue to print money we don't have. First we need to get rid of the federal reserve bank, that is the root of most of our problems. We need to tie the dollar to the gold standard as it was before 1975. Abolish the IRS and have a flat tax on goods and services. This would allow us to lower the tax on businesses, so that we could again begin to manufacture our own goods instead of shipping the jobs overseas. That being said that wouldn't cure the national debt. Eventually the debt will burst when we are unable to pay back out liabilities. Which may need to occur to solve our financial crisis. So, to answer your question I would hope Rand would veto any stimulus package.

Quote from: ImSuziG on January 12, 2016, 05:24:40 PM
Not to devolve this into a gold bug conversation I think that going back to the gold standard would be quite a big conversion not like flicking a switch. Debt based currency as we have here is a severe issue, we are being taxed via inflation. It's crippling the middle class, while the upper class (think 1%ers) are generally immune as they are benefitting since they have created the rules.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

How would you describe Austrian Business Cycle Theory, or if you prefer to approach the subject from a different perspective, what is your critique of the Federal Reserve?

1. Donald Trump

2. He has stated he wants to amend the Civil Rights Act to protect LGB persons. While, he didn't mention the T, I take that as a sign he is somewhat accepting while not also being completely wrong on immigration, taxation, and the second amendment (Sanders, Clinton).

3. A Tie between Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee.

4. Do I really need to give a reason? They are both zealots who would have all LGBT persons imprisoned or worse if they could get the votes in Congress.

Quote from: lisarenee on January 15, 2016, 11:46:35 PM
1. Donald Trump

2. He has stated he wants to amend the Civil Rights Act to protect LGB persons. While, he didn't mention the T, I take that as a sign he is somewhat accepting while not also being completely wrong on immigration, taxation, and the second amendment (Sanders, Clinton).

I would like to remind you that he is at best very unclear about anything LGBT. He has made transphobic statements and he is against same-sex marriage. I'm not sure how that fits in with his pro-civil rights statements. It conflicts too much for me to even consider him.

Quote from: lisarenee on January 15, 2016, 11:46:35 PM
1. Donald Trump

. . .

3. A Tie between Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee.

Do you think Trump is different from Huckabee and Cruz?  Think again:

http://www.capitolbeatok.com/reports/trump-endorses-protect-life-and-marriage-marriage-oklahoma-drive

CapitolBeatOK Staff Report
Published: 13-Jan-2016

EDMOND, Oklahoma -- Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, has endorsed an Oklahoma-based petition in what state allies said was his "first hard-line conservative stand on abortion and same sex marriage." Trump made the announcement, via email, to the group Protect Life and Marriage Oklahoma.

"I think Donald Trump saw the rationale behind our movement and agreed with the logic," says Pastor Paul Blair, President of Protect Life and Marriage Oklahoma.

"The Supreme Court egregiously overstepped its authority with both Roe v Wade and the Obergefell decision which mandates that states must approve marriage licenses for anyone and everyone. I think Trump agrees we can not allow the Supreme Court to grant itself powers that go vastly beyond the authority clearly spelled out in the Constitution."

In an email to Protect Life and Marriage Oklahoma, Blair said Donald Trump expressed both his support for the group's online petition and the principles behind it, Blair said.

Trump said in his communication: "I support the thousands of Oklahomans who are standing up and protecting life and marriage in their state."

1. Bernie Sanders

2. He is honest and authentic. An "honest politician" is an oxymoron,yes, but it applies to him. Even better, his proposals, once you understand them, actually make sense.  And this is coming from someone that considers herself to be a fiscally conservative Independant, that has voted for "R"s for most of my life, has an MBA, and works in the treasury of one of the biggest companies in the world. I don't just like Bernie "because I want free stuff".  His proposals won't help me, except in the sense that they help the entire country.

3. HRC, Trump, Cruz, or any of the other "R"s

4. HRC and Trump want to be president for their own personal power trips.  They will lie, cheat, and flip-flop on any issue if they think it will get them elected  (HRC: against marriage equality, now for it; for the TPP, now against it) (Trump: "I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering." -- yeah, whatever, donald.  It CLEARLY never happened).  Trump's racist, misogynist, narcissistic rantings are simply unbelievable. 

Cruz and the other "R"s are probably more honest than HRC and Trump, but what they want to do to this country, and the world, is just down right scary. Every one of them one-ups the other on wanting to send our kids to war in the Middle-East.  Because, you know, it worked so well when bush did it. And, BTW, spent $3 trillion TRILLION(!) dollars of our money in the process.

I don't know they all have there problems

Lyndsey

1. Bernie Sanders
2. Because I know he will work and fight to change and put his policies in place while other candidates don't have this type of record that he has.
3. Huckabee, trump, or Carson.
4. They all do not appreciate LTBTQIA Americans and openly joke about things that should not be joked about. Carson is also anti choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can I just say that, as someone new to this forum I am remarkably impressed by how civil and respectful this thread is, considering opinions are diametrically opposed? Good on everyone *claps*

For myself, I will be voting for Bernie Sanders if he is able to make it to the primaries *fingers crossed*

He has a sterling record of holding to his opinions, which he has been saying for decades and is something that can be difficult to find among candidates. He's also in support of LGBT rights (and has been since at least 1983) which applies to both myself, my fiancee, and a lot of my friends so that's a no-brainer.

Hillary Clinton is a...decent second choice.

For all the financial inequality we have going on in the United States right now I am simply stunned that there is support for a 1% businessman like Trump who has no previous experience as a politician.

Among the other Republicans, Jeb Bush seems the most benign although I have notable concerns.

So basically, I'm feelin' the Bern 

 

Quote from: autumn08 on January 06, 2016, 04:20:03 AM
1) For which candidate are you voting?

2) Why?

3) Which candidate would you least like to see as the U.S. president?

4) Why?

1) Hillary Clinton

2) Someone can argue that even though tax and spending cuts will exacerbate inequality, growth should be prioritized, but since the unemployment rate is already low, and because wages have not been rising with productivity since 1979, tax cuts, as they theoretically should, will not increase wage growth. Thus, I think a larger focus on upward mobility and equality, rather than growth would have greater social utility.

Why not Bernie Sanders? As callous as the argument would be, if Russian aggression and Middle Eastern turmoil remained regional issues, you could argue against increased U.S. involvement. These issues are metastasizing though, so the overall cost of doing less, will be greater than the overall cost of doing more.

3) Donald Trump

4) He is a racist and a chauvinist, but he is also dishonest, so it is difficult to assess how fascistic he really is. Even if he does not intend to pursue some of his most perverse ideas though, in order to keep his legitimacy, he will need to provide the more hateful parts of his constituency with some substance.

Quote from: WallabyWallop on January 24, 2016, 01:34:12 PM
Can I just say that, as someone new to this forum I am remarkably impressed by how civil and respectful this thread is, considering opinions are diametrically opposed? Good on everyone *claps*

For myself, I will be voting for Bernie Sanders if he is able to make it to the primaries *fingers crossed*

He has a sterling record of holding to his opinions, which he has been saying for decades and is something that can be difficult to find among candidates. He's also in support of LGBT rights (and has been since at least 1983) which applies to both myself, my fiancee, and a lot of my friends so that's a no-brainer.

Hillary Clinton is a...decent second choice.

For all the financial inequality we have going on in the United States right now I am simply stunned that there is support for a 1% businessman like Trump who has no previous experience as a politician.

Among the other Republicans, Jeb Bush seems the most benign although I have notable concerns.

So basically, I'm feelin' the Bern 

I just want to let you and everyone else know that the Moderators are the reason everything looks so calm and peaceful here. In actuality, the forum records show that this thread has seen moderation five times........so far.   

So give a shout out to the busiest bunch of under appreciated volunteers you ever met: The Mod team. 

Hugs, Devlyn

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on January 25, 2016, 02:41:57 PM
I just want to let you and everyone else know that the Moderators are the reason everything looks so calm and peaceful here. In actuality, the forum records show that this thread has seen moderation five times........so far.   

So give a shout out to the busiest bunch of under appreciated volunteers you ever met: The Mod team. 

Hugs, Devlyn

Oh, well in that case go mods 

I always appreciate a well-moderated forum. Which it apparently is here since I clearly didn't notice 

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on January 25, 2016, 02:41:57 PM
I just want to let you and everyone else know that the Moderators are the reason everything looks so calm and peaceful here. In actuality, the forum records show that this thread has seen moderation five times........so far.   

So give a shout out to the busiest bunch of under appreciated volunteers you ever met: The Mod team. 

Hugs, Devlyn

Thank you Mod team!