Aussie news: Leader of the free world is cognitively compromised

[Beetlegeuse]

That was the whole point of running Chairman Xiden. He was the stalking horse the democrats needed to get Kommiemala Harris (25th Amendmented) into the White House

Never before has the leader of the free world been so cognitively compromised



Ain't it funny how they can see this from the other side of the world when so many here can't see what's under their noses?

[Hughinn]

The newscaster said it correctly. The rage and vapid hatred of the orange man preceded any type of reason these people ever had. They've been brainwashed and have become completely delusional. They fear bizzare notions of boogeymen they've never seen, while supporting the very people who've brought about the system they hate, in order to be protected from what? Themselves? It's truly bizarre

Joe Biden has now opened the border during a pandemic, with no plan or precautions, he's killed more jobs with the stroke of a pen than most presidential candidates have in whole terms. Nobody can support such Ludacris policy. And yet, nobody can be surprised he did these things.


So far, Joe has done nothing meaningful to deal with covid. He's deliberately killed tens of thousands of jobs with no contingency, opened the border with no precautions, rejoined the corrupt W.H.O , reinstated the Iran nuclear deal, while ignoring Iranian and Chinese aggression toward allies, filled his cabinet with lobbyist , special interests and big tech moguls, declared American citizens with opposition views as enemies, censored his opposition party, silenced his critics forcefully and still hasn't answered a single question about his conflics of interest in his family business or his cabinet members.

All while the media fawns and dotes over he and kammi. Hiding the fact as best they can, that the guy is obviously senile and suffering dementia.

[tarmyg]

reinstated the Iran nuclear deal

Link to when he did that?

[almostgone]

Link to when he did that?

I think it's on Pres. Biden's agenda, but hadn't been accomplished yet.

Pres. Biden wants to crank JCPOA back up, but Iran wants all sanctions lifted prior to engaging in a dialogue.

It's basically Iran's typical response. They get an inkling that talks are back on the table, so they demand sanctions to be lifted prior to talks, then threaten to block inspection of it's known nuclear sites. (The italics are my thoughts, nothing publicly posted as official).

Honestly, I grieve for the Iranian citizens and I despise their leadership.

[tarmyg]

Pres. Biden wants to crank JCPOA back up, but Iran wants all sanctions lifted prior to engaging in a dialogue..

This was my understanding also. I listened to the super bowl interview and when asked if he would lift sanctions before they stop enrichment the answer was: No.

[Hughinn]

Link to when he did that?

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/02/19/...ng-harder.html

It's the same way it was when obama sent them pallets of cash.

Iran enriches uranium, obama says they have to stop, gives them money and lifts sanctions as incentives to stop, and they take the money and keep right on doing it.

That's the Iran nuclear deal of the biden regime.

He's willing to pacify and compromise with a murderous islamic regime, because like joe says, his real enemies are american citizens who don't agree with his policies. Not murderous regime's working towards world and regional domination

Not Communist chinese stealing intellectual and technological property. He sends them our jobs, and iran our money.

He said it himself, his enemies are american citizens who disagree with his policies.

[tarmyg]

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/02/19/...ng-harder.html

It's the same way it was when obama sent them pallets of cash.

Iran enriches uranium, obama says they have to stop, gives them money and lifts sanctions as incentives to stop, and they take the money and keep right on doing it.

That's the Iran nuclear deal of the biden regime.

He's willing to pacify and compromise with a murderous islamic regime, because like joe says, his real enemies are american citizens who don't agree with his policies. Not murderous regime's working towards word and regional domination

But he has not reinstated as you stated not even based on that article. Not sure I understand what you are saying?

[Honkey_Kong]

Getting weapons inspectors in Iran's nuclear facilities is a good thing.

[almostgone]

Getting weapons inspectors in Iran's nuclear facilities is a good thing.

Yep. All of their storage and testing facilities.

[The Deadlifting Dog]

But he has not reinstated as you stated not even based on that article. Not sure I understand what you are saying?

He is saying a lie.

Or a mistruth.

Personally I think he knows it's a lie because the article he linked to prove his point directly disproves his point.

Moral of the story: Always consider the source of info...

[wango]

I personally don’t think that we should be the world’s police. In our constitution, we have the right to bear arms.

So we can have arms, but you can’t? Should they have access to our facilities?

Have your arms, we’ll just have ours right across from you and ours are better and in greater volume.

China wants a better armed force? Go at it, we’ll do you one better.

Same with human rights imo. Do as you please, it’s your country, not ours. We just don’t have to do business with you, stay the f out of our country and we’ll stay out of yours. Oh, you left cause you no longer like it there? We have better schools, better opportunities? Tough shit, deal. See ya.

Damn, let’s settle our own problems here first. America first - prosperous & dangerous. Seriously, you want to challenge us, see how it goes? Like that swagger, let’s get it back.

[wango]

Getting weapons inspectors in Iran's nuclear facilities is a good thing.

Should they have access to ours?

Of course not, JK, it’s not like we’ll ever nuke another country.

[almostgone]

Should they have access to ours?

Of course not, JK, it’s not like we’ll ever nuke another country.

The thing with Iran is is started as an effort to work towards nuclear power plants/ peaceful use of nuclear power. After the oyster of the Shah of Iran, their efforts totally focused on enrichment for use in weapons.


https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/iran/nuclear/

[wango]

The thing with Iran is is started as an effort to work towards nuclear power plants/ peaceful use of nuclear power. After the oyster of the Shah of Iran, their efforts totally focused on enrichment for use in weapons.


https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/iran/nuclear/

Please read my other post.

Fine, so ONLY WE can have weapons?

I disagree with that. As said before, we do it bigger and better. And then try if you want, but it won’t work out in your favor.

[almostgone]

Please read my other post.

Fine, so ONLY WE can have weapons?

I disagree with that. As said before, we do it bigger and better. And then try if you want, but it won’t work out in your favor.

No, you may have read, but you didn't read my post with understanding. The whole nuclear process with Iran started for humanitarian reasons and when the leadership was ousted and the radical regime was in charge, they began enriching uranium for purposes of possessing nuclear weapons despite declaring they weren't doing so.

Now, "Wango", think about it. You have a country that threatens to rain fire on its enemies....I mean really. Think about it. You are going to encourage them to continue to do so?

As far as us being the only one with nuclear weapons, I know you know better than that AND we aren't the only country that was involved in monitoring Iran and they are notoriously deceptive, not to mention extremely unstable. You can very easily research and find out the known nuclear powers...you are/were a schoolteacher.

No, nuclear arms proliferation isn't what we need. A reduction would actually be great. However, encouraging Iran's development of nuclear weapons is highly illogical.

In regards to your statement "Fine, so ONLY WE can have weapons? " That is a cop out. You know we aren't the sole nuclear power and we aren't the sole signatory to the JCPOA.

I will say again....I absolutely grieve for the general Iranian public, but I despise their leadership.

[wango]

I simply stated my view, my opinion. Agree with your points, but don’t think we or anyone else should dictate an agenda on others countries. That’s my view. I’m not trying to argue or say that my view is better.

[almostgone]

I simply stated my view, my opinion. Agree with your points, but don’t think we or anyone else should dictate an agenda on others countries. That’s my view. I’m not trying to argue or say that my view is better.

I understand and don't knock your point of view. I'm simply trying to get people to see that Iranian leadership is extremely prone to violence and deception.

I disagree with your viewpoint regarding the agenda of other countries though when there is such a high risk of a nuclear incident.

Building a larger more powerful nuclear deterrent can be dangerous in and of itself. Yes, it worked in WW2, but via nuclear proliferation, nuclear war has turned into a no-win situation.

Also, please remember, just because I disagree, that doesn't equate to dislike. We just have differing points of view.

[wango]

I understand and don't knock your point of view. I'm simply trying to get people to see that Iranian leadership is extremely prone to violence and deception.

I disagree with your viewpoint regarding the agenda of other countries though when there is such a high risk of a nuclear incident.

Building a larger more powerful nuclear deterrent can be dangerous in and of itself. Yes, it worked in WW2, but via nuclear proliferation, nuclear war has turned into a no-win situation.

Also, please remember, just because I disagree, that doesn't equate to dislike. We just have differing points of view.

You implied that “I know better” and thought it was something it wasn’t AG.

Edit: thank you for your edit. Not needed, but greatly appreciate the courtesy!

Agree about unstable countries like N. Korea & Iran. But it’s like overseeing a disobedient brat imo. Gets old and we have other more pressing things.

[Honkey_Kong]

Should they have access to ours?

Of course not, JK, it’s not like we’ll ever nuke another country.

Yeah, we don't have a history of using them.

[Hughinn]

He is saying a lie.

Or a mistruth.

Personally I think he knows it's a lie because the article he linked to prove his point directly disproves his point.

Moral of the story: Always consider the source of info...

Moral of the story, is that the actions are all the same. The policy is the same, and the politics go back to the same. It didn't work before, but Joe's going to do it again.

Actually, Joe couldn't tell you who the current leaders of Iran even are. He's that senile. But his billionaires and elite handlers could. And they have alot more money to make by backing Iranian state run terrorism with one hand, and pretending to fight it with the other. Lots of excuses for wars and nation stealing ahead.

So what if he doesn't say he's back in the deal formally? His actions show otherwise. Seeing what people do, as opposed to what they say. I realize that's a non democrat way of looking at it, but

Thats the truth.

[tarmyg]

Moral of the story, is that the actions are all the same. The policy is the same, and the politics go back to the same.

So what if he doesn't say he's back in the deal formally? His actions show otherwise. Seeing what people do, as opposed to what they say. I realize that's a non democrat way of looking at it, but

Thats the truth.

You were wrong! Admit it like a man and move on and stop whining. How hard can it be?

[Hughinn]

You were wrong! Admit it like a man and move on and stop whining. How hard can it be?

I listened to idiots howling for the past four years that Donald Trump was "cozying up to fascist dictators"

Now we have Beijing biden turning a blind eye to Chinese communist party genocides and human rights violations, and pacifying murderous Iranian dictators.

And silence. You'd rather howl over semantics of actions without formal declarations. While denying that actions speak louder than words regarding intentions.

Too funny.

[tarmyg]

I listened to idiots howling for the past four years that Donald Trump was "cozying up to fascist dictators"

Now we have Beijing biden turning a blind eye to Chinese communist party genocides and human rights violations, and pacifying murderous Iranian dictators.

And silence. You'd rather howl over semantics of actions without formal declarations. While denying that actions speak louder than words regarding intentions.

Too funny.

To reiterate:

You were wrong! Admit it like a man and move on and stop whining. How hard can it be?

[Hughinn]

To reiterate:

You were wrong! Admit it like a man and move on and stop whining. How hard can it be?

To Reiterate:

From the accociated press a few days ago,
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration says it’s ready to join talks with Iran and world powers to discuss a return to the 2015 nuclear deal

https://apnews.com/article/biden-ira...db0e0f74b62410

If the bidens administrations stated objectives are to return to the deal, then what difference does it make what new label they put on it?
The policy is the same. It's a return to same failed policy.



Get over yourself. You know my point is valid, stop pretending like its not in such a childish manner as to try to argue semantics.

Might as well just cover your ears and go. Lalalalala

[tarmyg]

To Reiterate:

From the accociated press a few days ago,
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration says it’s ready to join talks with Iran and world powers to discuss a return to the 2015 nuclear deal

https://apnews.com/article/biden-ira...db0e0f74b62410

If the bidens administrations stated objectives are to return to the deal, then what difference does it make what new label they put on it?
The policy is the same. It's a return to same failed policy.



Get over yourself. You know my point is valid, stop pretending like its not in such a childish manner as to try to argue semantics.

Might as well just cover your ears and go. Lalalalala

Again:

You were wrong! Admit it like a man and move on and stop whining. How hard can it be?

[The Deadlifting Dog]

First you say....

Joe has... reinstated the Iran nuclear deal

Then you say...

To Reiterate:

From the accociated press a few days ago,
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration says it’s ready to join talks with Iran and world powers to discuss a return to the 2015 nuclear deal

You obviously must know their is a difference between having reinstated the deal versus being ready to discuss a return to the deal.

To give an example:
Trump said he was going to build a wall and that Mexico would pay for it.
That doesn't mean Trump actually finished the wall or that Mexico payed for it.

Just because Biden said he is willing to join talks doesn't mean the deal will happen.

Another example:
Trump said many times over 4 years that in two weeks he was releasing his new health care plan.
Even though Trump said many many times that in two weeks he was unveiling a new health care plan... He never actually did.

Maybe you don't realize their is a difference between talk and actually going thru with your word.

Long story short: You were caught lying again and you can't even admit it.


You can talk trash respectfully all you want.
But lying is not respectful.

[Hughinn]

First you say....


Then you say...


You obviously must know their is a difference between having reinstated the deal versus being ready to discuss a return to the deal.

To give an example:
Trump said he was going to build a wall and that Mexico would pay for it.
That doesn't mean Trump actually finished the wall or that Mexico payed for it.

Just because Biden said he is willing to join talks doesn't mean the deal will happen.

Another example:
Trump said many times over 4 years that in two weeks he was releasing his new health care plan.
Even though Trump said many many times that in two weeks he was unveiling a new health care plan... He never actually did.

Maybe you don't realize their is a difference between talk and actually going thru with your word.

Long story short: You were caught lying again and you can't even admit it.


You can talk trash respectfully all you want.
But lying is not respectful.

I don't see a difference when the biden administration policy is going back the days of the Iranian nuclear deal. Who cares what he calls it? It's a return to the same policy, and there's no way any "new" but not really "new" deal doesn't wind up being the same thing, or else better than the first (for iran) at this point.

Pretending otherwise is simply making feeble excuses and hiding behind language.

You throw around alot of names, and show alot of disrespect around here dog, moreso than most,, so don't talk to me about respect. Especially when the names you call out on a keyboard are ones you wouldn't call out face to face. I don't mind debating politics with you, but don't pretend like you deserve enough of my respect to lecture me. Especially When you won't do it in person. I've always shown respect for your point of view, even if I didn't agree. You do not extend that same courtesy here to anybodybut the moderators . So enough from you about respect. Stick to the issues.

Returning to the same policy, is no different than returning to the deal, absent formal declaration or not. If Iran hasn't taken the offer yet, it's because they know they can do even better than getting the pacification and pallets of cash they got before.

We've returned to the Iranian nuclear deal in practical operation. What difference is formal declaration going to make?

[The Deadlifting Dog]

I don't see a difference when the biden administration policy is going back the days of the Iranian nuclear deal. Who cares what he calls it? It's a return to the same policy, and there's no way any "new" but not really "new" deal doesn't wind up being the same thing, or else better than the first (for iran) at this point.

Pretending otherwise is simply making feeble excuses and hiding behind language.

You throw around alot of names, and show alot of disrespect around here dog, moreso than most,, so don't talk to me about respect. Especially when the names you call out on a keyboard are ones you wouldn't call out face to face. I don't mind debating politics with you, but don't pretend like you deserve enough of my respect to lecture me. Especially When you won't do it in person.

Returning to the same policy, is no different than returning to the deal, absent formal declaration or not. If Iran hasn't taken the offer yet, it's because they know they can do even better than getting the pacification and pallets of cash they got before.

We've returned to the Iranian nuclear deal in practical operation. What difference is formal declaration going to make?

Again...

You said Biden reinstated the deal.
Biden hasn't reinstated the deal.
Biden has said is his willing to join talks to possibly reinstate the deal.

So you lied.

Please stop lying on this board.

[Hughinn]

Again...

You said Biden reinstated the deal.
Biden hasn't reinstated the deal.
Biden has said is his willing to join talks to possibly reinstate the deal.

So you lied.

Please stop lying on this board.

See, you could say for example, that his policy is lining right up with reinstating the deal, and the actions of his administration reflect that. But he hasn't technically put a pen to paper yet.

And nobody could disagree.

And to say that he is, in practice, reinstating the policy of the Iranian deal, and nobody could disagree.

But, you choose to sling insults and call names. Because your trying to hide the point that biden is heading for another (of the same) disastrous Iranian deal.

Your name calling and insults are merely trying to deflect on the point. I've seen you operate like that time and time again. It doesn't bother me anymore, because face to face, you call me names, I'd knock your teeth out. But your objective here is not to get your teeth knocked out, its to deflect on the point, that joe biden is back on board with the failed policies of the Iranian nuclear deal. That's how you operate, and manipulate these political discussions.

Stop deflecting on the point. And stop with the insults unless you're prepared to do it in person. Otherwise, stick to the topic.

[The Deadlifting Dog]

See, you could say for example, that his policy is lining right up with reinstating the deal, and the actions of his administration reflect that. But he hasn't technically put a pen to paper yet.

And nobody could disagree.

And to say that he is, in practice, reinstating the policy of the Iranian deal, and nobody could disagree.

But, you choose to sling insults and call names. Because your trying to hide the point that biden is heading for another (of the same) disastrous Iranian deal.

Your name calling and insults are merely trying to deflect on the point. I've seen you operate like that time and time again. It doesn't bother me anymore, because face to face, you call me names, I'd knock your teeth out. But your objective here is not to get your teeth knocked out, its to deflect on the point, that joe biden is back on board with the failed policies of the Iranian nuclear deal. That's how you operate, and manipulate these political discussions.

Stop deflecting on the point. And stop with the insults unless you're prepared to do it in person. Otherwise, stick to the topic.

What insult or name did I call you in this thread?

You stated a lie.
I withheld myself from calling you a liar.

You stated that Biden had reinstated the deal.
That is an indisputable lie.

The point I am trying to make is that you lied.
I am not deflecting at all.

Now please don't try to deflect off of your obvious lie.

You may be right in that we may return to the deal.
But you are definitely wrong in saying that we have reinstated the deal.

And please stop the threats of violence.

[almostgone]

Guys, let's keep it civil, please.

Let's don't let a dialogue tear us apart.

[almostgone]

.....and Iran continues their strategy as usual. There's a potential return to talks regarding JCPOA, and Iran continues to play games:

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/4532047001

[The Deadlifting Dog]

I'm all ears.

What do you think is a good way to deal with Iran?

I'm am no expert by any means on this.
I do think that the less nations with nukes the better.

[Hughinn]

I'm all ears.

What do you think is a good way to deal with Iran?

I'm am no expert by any means on this.
I do think that the less nations with nukes the better.

Well, since you're now willing to drop the semantics and get back to the topic, albeit after the moderators intervention,


I think that the eliminating of the top Iranian terrorist leader among others was a good step in limiting their ability to make trouble in the region.

Dropping out of the failed policies of the obama era Iran nuclear deal, told Iran, no more bullshit games.

Then working with Isreal, our allies to eliminate thier top scientists developing nuclear weapons while imposing sanctions limiting thier financial ability to do so, were all a pretty good start.

But, that's really just my opinion.

The point, is that the current administration has decided to move backwards. Although it's no surprise. You may disagree, I respect that.

Just like China flying jets over Taiwan airspace to send a message to the region, that China is once again driving American policy in the region, and the biden administration immediately after coming into office, redeployed troops to Syria and other places. Letting the dictators of those regions know, we're open for business and ready to get back into the foreign war market.

[almostgone]

I'm all ears.

What do you think is a good way to deal with Iran?

I'm am no expert by any means on this.
I do think that the less nations with nukes the better.

Honestly, DD, I don't know. Personally, I don't think nuclear proliferation is an acceptable answer because no one wins in that battle.

Iran has a very predictable track record of saying one thing and doing another. It's also pretty much a certainty that they fund terrorist groups like Kata'ib and Hamas, so there's a risk there of a dirty bomb/NBC attacks, or a full blown nuclear weapon getting on the loose.

For now, the only option I see is to somehow get them to the bargaining table. As much I don't like it, I would consider a reduction in the sanctions on a contingency basis, with the stipulation that aid is delivered directly to the citizenry. Also, full and unfettered access to their nuclear research facilities, including the ones they think we don't know about. Any resistance on Iran's part would be met with a full return to sanctions and be enforced/ followed by all members of JCPOA.


For my thoughts to work though, you would need all the JCPOA signatories to be prepared to draw a firm line in the sand and toe the line/ don't waver from the plan.


Unfortunately, I don't see permanent sanctions as a viable solution. It only hurts the Iranian citizens, not the ruling party. A successful coup would probably be the best outcome; then the world community could import aid and oversee that the supplies got to the people on need. However, you have the IRGC between the citizens and the ruling party.

I guess it's a twist on Reagan's outlook with the result being "Don't trust and sure as hell verify".

[The Deadlifting Dog]

The thing is...
Iran made progress towards getting a nuclear weapon under Obama and under Trump.
I am not sure any plan worked better or worse in preventing their developement.

I personally believe in working with allies.
I also believe that the leaders of Iran are assholes but that doesn't mean all Iranians are assholes.
Perhaps a coup is our only hope.

Once some idiot terrorist gets a hold of a briefcase nuke we are fucked.

IMO... For a good unbiased read on the topic:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/21...e-negotiating/

[almostgone]

For all reading this thread, any calls by me for " keeping it civil" was not directed at a specific individual or individuals but was a call for everyone to maintain respect for one another. Basically, a call to keep things in the right track on the news forum.

Thanks!

[Fluidic Kimbo]

Is "the orange man" Donald Trump? I did some websearching just now and I still don't know for sure.

[Hughinn]

The thing is...
Iran made progress towards getting a nuclear weapon under Obama and under Trump.
I am not sure any plan worked better or worse in preventing their developement.

I personally believe in working with allies.
I also believe that the leaders of Iran are assholes but that doesn't mean all Iranians are assholes.
Perhaps a coup is our only hope.

Once some idiot terrorist gets a hold of a briefcase nuke we are fucked.

IMO... For a good unbiased read on the topic:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/21...e-negotiating/

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...n-javad-zarif/

https://www.oann.com/reports-biden-a...resident-trump


Joe bidens team, in corroboration with top DNC politicans actively worked against the previous administration, even before he was president to undermine efforts to negotiate. Arguably illegally. Trying to undermine efforts to de escalate tensions. Now he wants to go back to more of the same.

How is that making progress? The utter, blatant corruption is truly noxious. But even worse Because of it, we'll truly never know if two men could've made peace for both nations. Because it was sabotaged by our own leaders. Time and time again

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7lA3oOo1oZc

[Hughinn]

Is "the orange man" Donald Trump? I did some websearching just now and I still don't know for sure.

There are valid criticisms of Trump, and then there is irrational hatred.

"Orange Man bad" is a phrase used to mock those in the latter category. It's bad because Trump did or said it, but wouldn't have been if it were literally anyone else.

Case in point, Joe biden has done virtually every corrupt thing trump has been accused of, but it's okay, because he's not the "orange man", he's a lifelong Democrat politician. So whatever he says or does is okay.

It mocks the delusional, hypocritical and irrational beliefs of the American left

Donald Trump is sometimes called "the orange man" because of orange hue to the spray on tan he always seems to wear, for reasons nobody can explain.