The Political Discussion Thread

[jelgate]

Their is no such thing as a school without an online component these days.

[Falcon Horus]

Smartboard, Toledo .... those are platforms to keep track of homework, marks, assignments, exams... So, it's good to have regular access to the interwebs.

[Womble]

I did some research into this whole Obama phone thing.

Apparently phones being given out are feature phones, not smartphones.

It's one phone per household.

The service is not free but costs $9.25 monthly. Which is much cheaper than the non-subsidized plans but that's because USA telecommunications market is a nightmare. It's only slightly cheaper than what I currently pay in Israel for a plan that includes unlimited national calls and texts, unlimited international calls and texts to 37 countries and 40mbps home internet (without the infrastructure cost).

Also, it's EITHER a subsidized phone service OR subsidized broadband, not both. One service per household.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/28/tech...one-broadband/

[Womble]

Regarding the Iran deal: Obama is using the UN to bypass the need to get the Congress to approve the deal:

In a diplomatic blitzkrieg, the Obama Administration has set this coming Monday at 9 a.m. EST for a vote at the UN Security Council (UNSC) in New York on the adoption of the Iran nuclear deal, which was announced by the world’s leading powers and the Islamic Republic of Iran in Vienna on Tuesday.

A terse announcement by the New Zealand delegation which assumed the monthly rotating UNSC’s Presidency for July revealed the vote session.

“The Iran JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) resolution is now under silence and its adoption has been scheduled for Monday 20 July at 9 a.m.,” read the announcement on the Iran deal vote.

From the New Zealand statement’s use of the diplomatic jargon of “under silence,” it appears the UNSC may employ a rarely used “under silence” procedure in such an important vote at the UNSC.

In an “under silence” adoption procedure, instead of the UNSC holding a normal positive vote, the motion that is set for adoption “under silence” is deemed automatically adopted unless a party specifically objects to the motion. This “under silence” procedure would put the onus on Israel to be the first, and possibly the only, objector to the UNSC’s adoption of the Iran deal.

In the established handbook on diplomacy, G. R. Berridge’s “Diplomacy: Theory and Practice,” the “under silence” procedure is described as being used by the majority where “a proposal with strong support is deemed to have been agreed unless any member raises an objection to it before a precise deadline: silence signifies assent – or, at least, acquiescence. This procedure relies on a member in a minority fearing that raising an objection will expose it to the charge of obstructiveness and, thereby, the perils of isolation.”

So, applying Berridge’s analysis to the “under silence” adoption of the JCPOA at the UNSC, the Obama Administration’s use of the “under silence” procedure would appear to be an attempt to scare Israel into “fearing that raising an objection [to the Iranian nuclear deal] will expose it [Israel] to the charge of obstructiveness and perils of isolation.”

Contrariwise, Israel’s failure to raise an objection would be seen as “assent - or, at least, acquiescence.” To make matters worse for Israel, with Israel’s objection, the UN Security Council would likely then unanimously vote 15-0 for the Iranian deal.

Basically, it's a voting procedure rigged to marginalize anyone who dares object, and leaves no room for abstaining.

UN approval of the deal will irretrievably destroy the legal foundation for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear activities. "Snapback" of sanctions would require restoring from scratch the decade of work that was put into building the sanctions regime in the first place. Even if US Congress rejects the deal, it would not bring sanctions back as being binding upon China, Russia or Europe; it would simply leave the USA as the only country in the world refusing to do business with Iran.

The Corker bill requiring the Congress vote was designed specifically to prevent Obama from immediately taking the agreement to the UN (the idea that was brought about by Iranian foreign minister who sought to prevent the next US administration from undoing Obama-caused damage). Obama is going ahead with Zarif's scheme and effectively neuters the Congress vote on the deal that will not happen till September. If Congress does not approve the deal after the UN Security Council gives it the force of an international law, USA will be seen as violating international law.

Obama as shrewd a politician as he is malicious.

[Annoyed]

The LSoS disregards the Constitution he is sworn to defend whenever is suits him.

The oath of office the President is required to give:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Me, I think there have been grounds for impeachment many times over on this basis alone, but no one dares challenge the LSoS for fear of being painted as a racist. If this was a Republican president, the media would have been pushing for impeachment long ago, when he chose to selectively enforce the laws of the land.
But they go right along with whatever this guy wants.

[SoulReaver]

speaking of LSOS' betraying the constitution, Bush junior is one fine example (with his Patriot Act & Homeland Security Act). an LLSOS in fact

[Annoyed]

speaking of LSOS' betraying the constitution, Bush junior is one fine example (with his Patriot Act & Homeland Security Act). an LLSOS in fact

Have you ever seen me write praise for Bush II?

[SoulReaver]

Have you ever seen me write praise for Bush II?

no but that PPOP never got nearly as much hate as he deserved (especially since he held much more power as president than Obama did)

[Annoyed]

no but that POS never got nearly as much hate as he deserved (especially since he held much more power as president than Obama did)

He didn't come close to getting what he deserved. He should have been impeached for ignoring the Constitution.

Everyone likes to blame the LSoS for the TARP bailouts of GM, Chrysler and some of the banks, such as Bank of America? I think it was. But those were pretty much done deals, negotiated and agreed to by Bush II's administration before the LSoS even won the election in '08. All he did was sign the documents that Bush left on the desk as he left.

The Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority or ability to bail out a failing private business. Doing so violates the Constitution, so you have grounds right there.

And I don't even want to discuss the Patriot Act or other losses of constitutional protections he championed. He shouldn't even have still been in office to bail out GM,Chrysler & the banks.

[SoulReaver]

The Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority or ability to bail out a failing private business. Doing so violates the Constitution, so you have grounds right there.

hey I'm the first to oppose anything remotely approaching corporate welfare

[Annoyed]

I tend not to discriminate. I dislike all welfare, corporate, personal or otherwise. In the long run, it does more harm than good in most cases.

[garhkal]

Regarding the Iran deal: Obama is using the UN to bypass the need to get the Congress to approve the deal:

..snip..


Obama as shrewd a politician as he is malicious.

How in gods green earth is that legal?

WTF? So he not only has badgered the Scotus, but is now removing the need for congress.

speaking of LSOS' betraying the constitution, Bush junior is one fine example (with his Patriot Act & Homeland Security Act). an LLSOS in fact

But at least the media called him out on it, unlike they are doing with Obama.

I tend not to discriminate. I dislike all welfare, corporate, personal or otherwise. In the long run, it does more harm than good in most cases.

I used to be ok with it, helping the helpless. BUT these days i am so sick of all they get, that i no longer support ANY Government welfare.

[Womble]

ISIS deploys poison gas against Kurds in Syria, Iraq, say NGOs

[Annoyed]

Originally Posted by Annoyed
I tend not to discriminate. I dislike all welfare, corporate, personal or otherwise. In the long run, it does more harm than good in most cases.

I used to be ok with it, helping the helpless. BUT these days i am so sick of all they get, that i no longer support ANY Government welfare.

That's pretty much where I am too. I have no problem whatsoever giving someone who has fallen on hard luck a hand up. I myself have taken advantage of such programs. But there are so many professional leeches gaming the system for their permanent livelihoods and the livelihoods of their offspring as well that I'd be happy to stop all of it.

But that help is to provide the basics so someone can keep their existence going while they take whatever corrective action is required, on a temporary basis. It should not include cell phones, smart phones, internet access, computers, tablets and whatnot. These are not "the basics". They are luxuries. Granted many tasks are easier with these tools, but too freaking bad.
Temporary help should also not include increases for having additional children while unable to support ones self, or any other luxuries, either. The cause of pregnancy is well documented these days. Having a child while being unable to support yourself, let alone the child is one of the most irresponsible behaviors I can imagine., and should not be encouraged or tolerated.

[Coco Pops]

ISIS deploys poison gas against Kurds in Syria, Iraq, say NGOs

Who the hell is handing them all this stuff to use?