The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[bronconick]

Why Republicans Are So Mad About Obama's Nuclear Deal With Iran - The Atlantic

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The question is more why make an agreement where one side gets everything it wants and the other side gets nothing? Especially when the side asking for more is calling for your death after it takes care of Israel.

I think the US gets plenty. We get to monitor their nuclear program in way that nuclear experts would give high grades to (which is what the international sanctions were for - nuclear program, not the other stuff):

"I would give it an A": Why nuclear experts love the Iran deal - Vox

Jeffrey Lewis was so eager to read the Iran nuclear deal that he woke up at 3:30 am California time to pore through all 150-plus pages of the text. Lewis is a nukes super nerd: He's the director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, and also runs an excellent arms control blog network and arms control podcast and has a regular arms control column in Foreign Policy. He is the person to talk to on this.

When Lewis and I first spoke, in early 2015, he was skeptical, as a lot of arms control analysts were. He was skeptical that the US, world powers, and Iran would ever reach a nuclear deal. And he was skeptical that if they did reach a deal, it would be good enough. But when the negotiators released the "framework" in April, describing the broad strokes, Lewis came away impressed and happily surprised — but with some caveats and some unanswered questions.

I called up Lewis to see what he thought of the final deal. His assessment was very positive: Asked to grade the deal, he said, "I would give it an A."

[Schmidty]

Can we please use a better term than "Straw Man"? It's just played out.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Can we please use a better term than "Straw Man"? It's just played out.

Played out? It's the term.

You know, I use the word "table" a lot. Can we use another? "Sunlight", too. I'm so sick of that shit.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Well to be fair Iran only calls for the peaceful elimination of Israel, or something.

Yes. Well, what they apparently have in uranium can't be used for bombs. But the question is why they have spent billions on thousands of centrifuges enriching a lot of it to just under the 20% threshold - something that doesn't have any justification for peaceful applications on the level they're doing it if they don't intend to do the easier and more-easily concealed work to enrich it to the 90% level, which is necessary for nuclear weapons.

The scary part of the agreement is how deeply Iran resisted an inspection requirement for the smaller military labs. That's the only thing they really wanted to protect. They don't want people to see they have warheads fitted for nuclear weapons and they don't want people to see the uranium enrichment from 20% to 90%, which doesn't require these huge numbers of centrifuges. It only requires about 60 pounds of U-235 to wipe out a city.

If the US had held firm to unfettered access, I could see some positives in a deal. But there's nothing in it. Once international sanctions are lifted, getting Russia to agree that there's a violation will be impossible. This agreement really is tacit approval of Iran's nuclear weapons program.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Once international sanctions are lifted, getting Russia to agree that there's a violation will be impossible.

That's why there is a snapback provision. To quote the interview I linked:

Jeffrey Lewis: The snapback thing is really clever, I had to read it a couple of times to make sure it said what I think it said.

According to the deal, the way this is going to work is that sanctions will be lifted, but in a conditional fashion. If any party to the deal — and, not to spill the beans, that means the United States — is dissatisfied with Iran's compliance, then first it has to go to the joint commission [of the seven states that signed the Iran deal plus the European Union]. If they don't get satisfaction, then they go to the UN Security Council. And they can notify them that they're not satisfied with the compliance of another party.

That starts a 30-day clock ticking. The Security Council must act to resolve the concerns of the state. If the Security Council does nothing — which could include them trying to pass something and the US vetoing it — at the end of the 30 days, if there's no action from the Security Council, the sanctions are reimposed automatically.

So, if the US is dissatisfied with compliance and the joint commission can't approve anything and then the UN Security Council can't approve anything, the sanctions immediately snapback into place. The Security Council has to take affirmative action to prevent the sanctions from automatically reapplying.

[Solecismic]

There are two major problems with snapback itself:

1) It doesn't apply to deals that will be made before a violation is found. And Russia, at least, is very eager to make those deals - Iran will get a huge cash infusion right away and Russia has an impressive store.

2) It is subject to this bizarre phrase, "...unless the U.N. Security Council decides otherwise." Why was this included? What does it mean?

The literal read is that snapback takes place if we can't agree, unless we do agree. But that's gibberish. The implication is that the independent action of a permanent Security Council member can negate snapback at least as it applies to that member (and anyone else who seeks that member's Security Council protection from sanctions down the road for violating the agreement).

Snapback may sound clever and like a real protection. But it's really absolutely nothing. If Iran wants nuclear weapons, this agreement gives them nuclear weapons. And Iran's actions indicate they want nuclear weapons very badly. Which means Saudi Arabia will want nuclear weapons, because they are Sunni (like around 90% of Muslims in the Middle East) and Iran is Shiite. Of course, we have to be extra careful about taking sides because ISIS and Al-Qaeda are Sunni.

[ISiddiqui]

What do you mean bizarre phrase? It means unless the U.N. Security Council decides otherwise, the sanctions snapback automatically. It's straight forward. And the US, of course, has a veto on the Security Council. So even if all the other countries feel the US's dissatisfaction is unwarranted, they cannot override the US if it really wants to pull the trigger.

The implication is that the independent action of a permanent Security Council member can negate snapback

Where exactly are you getting this from?

[Subby]

Here is a good article that outlines why President Obama will be viewed as one of our most important and consequential presidents. Unlike someone like W, history actually will be kind to Obama's legacy.

Barack Obama is officially one of the most consequential presidents in American history - Vox

[Edward64]

Some good articles on the negotiations and the deal. Both were insightful but think NYT had more background info.

Log In - The New York Times

But during a break on one particularly discouraging March day in Lausanne, Switzerland, where negotiations were held before adjourning to Vienna, Mr. Zarif struck a different tone as he invoked the names of the key figures on two sides, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the top energy officials of the United States and Iran, Ernest J. Moniz and Ali Akbar Salehi.

“We are not going to have another time in history when there is an Obama and a Biden and a Kerry and a Moniz again,” he said, according to notes of the conversation. “And there may be no Rouhani, Zarif and Salehi.”
:
The logjam was not broken until several extensions of the talks, and a marathon set of meetings in Lausanne, where a critical treaty had been negotiated at the end of World War I. By this time, Mr. Moniz and Mr. Salehi, a former foreign minister and now head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, joined the talks to work out the nuclear details — in a less political, more scientific environment.

The officials working under Mr. Salehi “were mostly hard-liners, and they would give on nothing,” one American official said. But when Mr. Salehi, who got his nuclear training at M.I.T. before the Iranian revolution, showed up and developed a rapport with Mr. Moniz, the secretary of energy and a former chairman of the M.I.T. physics department, the Iranian bureaucrats were often sidelined, or overruled. (Mr. Moniz played the connection to the hilt, showing up one day with M.I.T.-logo baby gifts for Mr. Salehi’s first grandchild.)

The path to a final Iran nuclear deal: Long days and short tempers - The Washington Post

As they neared a deal over the weekend, Kerry wanted to get one thing straight with Zarif. “Are you authorized to actually make a deal, not just by the [Iranian] president, but by the supreme leader,” Kerry asked, referring to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Zarif assured Kerry that he was, according to a U.S. official.

Overall, leaning towards this is a good deal for the US. Kerry and Zarif are likley Nobel Prize finalists.

[ISiddiqui]

The deal may actually, finally, validate Obama's Nobel Prize.

[Edward64]

Friedman interview with Obama.

Log In - The New York Times

The president argues that preventing Iran from having any enrichment capacity is simply impossible. The key, he insists, is how well you curb it and verify its limitations: “Now, Prime Minister Netanyahu would prefer, and many of the critics would prefer, that they don’t even have any nuclear capacity. But really, what that involves is eliminating the presence of knowledge inside of Iran. Nuclear technology is not that complicated today, and so the notion that the yardstick for success was now whether they ever had the capacity possibly to obtain nuclear weapons — that can’t be the yardstick. The question is, Do we have the kind of inspection regime and safeguards and international consensus whereby it’s not worth it for them to do it? We have accomplished that.”

I agree with the below for sure.

The president also said: “America has to listen to our Sunni Arab allies, but also not fall into the trap of letting them blame every problem on Iran. The citizens of more than a few Arab Gulf states have been big contributors to Sunni Jihadist movements that have been equally destabilizing.

I noted to Mr. Obama that one of the issues most troubling nonpartisan critics of the deal is what happens if we suspect that Iran is operating a covert nuclear program at a military base not covered by this deal. There is a process in place that allows for inspections, but it could take over three weeks for international inspectors to get access after raising a complaint. Couldn’t Iran use that time to just scrub clean any signs of cheating?

“Yeah, but here’s where having somebody like [Energy Secretary] Ernie Moniz is pretty helpful, because he assured us that if, in fact, we have good mechanisms to scoop up and sample earth, this stuff has got a long half-life. My high school physics probably isn’t equal to Ernie Moniz’s, but I do remember it’s not that easy to suddenly just hide potentially radioactive material that’s been developed. The same is true, by the way, for the possibility that Iran might import materials that could be used for nuclear programs but might have a dual use. We’ve set up unprecedented mechanisms to be able to look at each one of those imports and say, ‘You got to show us how this is being used to ensure that it’s not being converted.’ ”

The president added: “If you hear a critic say, `Well, this inspection regime is not 100 percent foolproof,’ I guess theoretically, nothing is 100 percent foolproof. But if the standard is what is the best, most effective, most rigorous mechanism whereby it is very, very, very difficult for Iran to cheat, then this is the mechanism, and it goes far beyond anything that was done, for example, in North Korea.”

[bob]

To paraphrase a popular movie, let's not start sucking each other dicks quite yet. Let's see how it all plays out first.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The deal may actually, finally, validate Obama's Nobel Prize.

Good heaven, I completely forgot about that stupid thing.

[Dutch]

Wasn't Obama the one that made that award obsolete?

[JonInMiddleGA]

In light of the fact this thread is largely a political catch-all ...

Looks like domestic attacks on the military have joined school/public shootings as being so common that they're no longer immediately topical.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In light of the fact this thread is largely a political catch-all ...

Looks like domestic attacks on the military have joined school/public shootings as being so common that they're no longer immediately topical.

"No Way To Prevent This," Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Subby

"No Way To Prevent This," Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

How do we stop these things, then?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Dutch

How do we stop these things, then?

No solutions allowed! Only complaints!

[CraigSca]

I guess we could follow France's lead. Never mind.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

How do we stop these things, then?

Is there a flag we can remove?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Is there a flag we can remove?

Must be one somewhere.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In light of the fact this thread is largely a political catch-all ...

Looks like domestic attacks on the military have joined school/public shootings as being so common that they're no longer immediately topical.

A Jordanian born Kuwaiti(or vice versa) naturalized US citizen carries out a heavily armed targeted suicide attack on US military personnel on the eve of Ramadan expiring and we've gotta sit around and decide if it's terrorism or random violence. Geez.

[Dutch]

The only solution is a less awesome America, I guess.

[RainMaker]

Wonder why there won't be a bunch of thinkpieces saying Muslims need to be held accountable for his actions.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by stevew

A Jordanian born Kuwaiti(or vice versa) naturalized US citizen carries out a heavily armed targeted suicide attack on US military personnel on the eve of Ramadan expiring and we've gotta sit around and decide if it's terrorism or random violence. Geez.

It's interesting reading these stories as everybody who know the attacker is saying they can't believe it. Of course, we're already reading that he was "radicalized."

So my question is two parts...

1. Do you think people have to be radicalized or do people just hide their true nature?

2. If you believe somebody can be radicalized, what doe that person's mindset have to be prior? That is, in what condition does the mind have to be in order to be accepting of what is preached to make you carry out something that violent?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The only solution is a less awesome America, I guess.

How the South Skews America - Michael Lind - POLITICO Magazine

If by "less awesome" you mean one where the culture eventually shifts, then maybe:

All of this leaves little doubt that, in the absence of Southern exceptionalism, the U.S. would be much more similar to other English-speaking democracies, which don’t subject their leaders to religious tests, don’t suffer from high levels of gun violence and don’t rival communist China and despotic Saudi Arabia in the number of executions per capita. Without the gravitational force exerted on the South, American conservatism itself would be radically different—more Bob Dole than Ted Cruz.

The northern progressives who joke about the U.S. jettisoning “Jesusland” and merging with Canada will not get their wish. But there is hope: A combination of demographic change and generational change is weakening the ability of the old-fashioned South to skew American politics and culture in the future. Peripheral Southern states like Florida and Virginia are increasingly competitive, and the Deep South may join them in time. In Texas once-reactionary cities like Houston and Dallas are competing with Austin as tolerant meccas for transplants who prefer the Sun Belt to the Old South. Immigration into the South from other countries and American regions is breaking down local oligarchies and old folkways.

I had a back and forth with someone on FB over the flag/monument debate, someone who was heated enough to state that they would kill with a shovel anyone who comes to dig up any soldiers (specifically Forrest, who Memphis is looking to move). I don't doubt that she was completely serious. But her opinions were based in her view of heritage:

A little Southern education is also in order here related to heritage. Knowing one's lineage down to one's cousins twice removed? DAILY DISCUSSION in my grandparents' homes. Pride in where one comes from. My family has been in Virginia & North Carolina since the 1600s. So, yeah. My heritage here? Runs DEEP. I possess the dageurrotype pictures of some of my Confederate ancestors. The DOA isn't the only big deal society ladies club here. The Daughters of the Confederacy (and yes.. you must prove you had an ancestor who fought in the war) is as well. It matters. The old family names in the small towns that ran the places & still do... those matter. The land that has been in families for over 100 years? Matters. Telling us your relatives landed on The Mayflower is nice... telling us they were in Jamestown in 1607? Matters more.

To which I ask: why in the blue blazes does that matter? Really, why should I or anyone else care that your ancestors were in Jamestown? How does that have any relevance on you or me, in 2015? Should you get points for this? Am I less of an American because my family came here in the 1900s? This speaks directly to what the author of the linked story points out:

The American South, with the lowest rates of intergenerational social mobility in the U.S., clearly skews the national statistics, creating an embarrassing and depressing version of American exceptionalism

I don't believe they want mobility. Not if they endorse a system that ranks you based on if you came over in 1607, or 1650, or 1700, etc. Not if they've named places and controlled them for a couple hundred years. They want to keep doing so. If you are black? Well, you can't get in on that lineage. Nor if you are an immigrant. Or a carpet bagger. This is their land, has been and in their minds always will be, and nobody else can tell them what to do. Except that by the numbers, that will eventually change. Will America be less awesome? I know what some will answer (some will say there won't BE one in 30 years). Guess we'll have to wait and find out.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

How the South Skews America - Michael Lind - POLITICO Magazine

If you break down the statistics a little further it ends at a point that I don't think the author intended it to. And definitely not at a point that those on the left want it to.

[cuervo72]

Right, right, I know - well the PROBLEM with the Southern states is more black folk!

And sure, I have no doubt that there is less social and economic mobility for black people, in the South or otherwise. Where you fall on all of this is basically if you believe that is mostly their doing, or if it's more the whites who have held power and money for 400 years doing their best to keep it while attempting to suppress everyone else.

The demographics and politics of gun-owning households | Pew Research Center

The new research also suggests a paradox: While blacks are significantly more likely than whites to be gun homicide victims, blacks are only about half as likely as whites to have a firearm in their home (41% vs. 19%). Hispanics are less likely than blacks to be gun homicide victims and half as likely as whites to have a gun at home (20%).

But regional differences emerge when race is factored into the analysis. White southerners are significantly more likely to have a gun at home (47%) than whites in other regions. But because blacks disproportionately live in the South and are only half as likely to have a gun at home as whites, the overall rate for the southern region falls to 38%.

So, is it the chicken or the egg? Did ownership rise in defense to violence, or did they proliferate as threats of violence?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

How the South Skews America - Michael Lind - POLITICO Magazine

If by "less awesome" you mean one where the culture eventually shifts, then maybe:



I had a back and forth with someone on FB over the flag/monument debate, someone who was heated enough to state that they would kill with a shovel anyone who comes to dig up any soldiers (specifically Forrest, who Memphis is looking to move). I don't doubt that she was completely serious. But her opinions were based in her view of heritage:



To which I ask: why in the blue blazes does that matter? Really, why should I or anyone else care that your ancestors were in Jamestown? How does that have any relevance on you or me, in 2015? Should you get points for this? Am I less of an American because my family came here in the 1900s? This speaks directly to what the author of the linked story points out:



I don't believe they want mobility. Not if they endorse a system that ranks you based on if you came over in 1607, or 1650, or 1700, etc. Not if they've named places and controlled them for a couple hundred years. They want to keep doing so. If you are black? Well, you can't get in on that lineage. Nor if you are an immigrant. Or a carpet bagger. This is their land, has been and in their minds always will be, and nobody else can tell them what to do. Except that by the numbers, that will eventually change. Will America be less awesome? I know what some will answer (some will say there won't BE one in 30 years). Guess we'll have to wait and find out.

I've learned to understand a lot of the regional culture of the US by reading Colin Woodward's, American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Reigonal Cultures of North America.

The South basically breaks down along three of these "nations;" Tidewater, the Deep South and Greater Appalachia.

TIDEWATER. Built by the younger sons of southern English gentry in the Chesapeake country and neighboring sections of Delaware and North Carolina, Tidewater was meant to reproduce the semifeudal society of the countryside they’d left behind. Standing in for the peasantry were indentured servants and, later, slaves. Tidewater places a high value on respect for authority and tradition, and very little on equality or public participation in politics. It was the most powerful of the American nations in the eighteenth century, but today it is in decline, partly because it was cut off from westward expansion by its boisterous Appalachian neighbors and, more recently, because it has been eaten away by the expanding federal halos around D.C. and Norfolk.

DEEP SOUTH. Established by English slave lords from Barbados, Deep South was meant as a West Indies–style slave society. This nation offered a version of classical Republicanism modeled on the slave states of the ancient world, where democracy was the privilege of the few and enslavement the natural lot of the many. Its caste systems smashed by outside intervention, it continues to fight against expanded federal powers, taxes on capital and the wealthy, and environmental, labor, and consumer regulations.

GREATER APPALACHIA. Founded in the early eighteenth century by wave upon wave of settlers from the war-ravaged borderlands of Northern Ireland, northern England, and the Scottish lowlands, Appalachia has been lampooned by writers and screenwriters as the home of hillbillies and rednecks. It transplanted a culture formed in a state of near constant danger and upheaval, characterized by a warrior ethic and a commitment to personal sovereignty and individual liberty. Intensely suspicious of lowland aristocrats and Yankee social engineers alike, Greater Appalachia has shifted alliances depending on who appeared to be the greatest threat to their freedom. It was with the Union in the Civil War. Since Reconstruction, and especially since the upheavals of the 1960s, it has joined with Deep South to counter federal overrides of local preference.

Over generations the cultures of these areas have been dramatically influenced by the people who settled there. The ideals, social standing and mores of these regions are branded by the history of the area and the people who settled there. Our current political divides are a focused battle to define what makes America, America. These same battles have been going on for generations and will continue into the future. I believe we are possibly heading to a point where open conflict between Americans over that true definition may become a reality.

[cuervo72]

Oh, thanks PilotMan - that sounds like a very interesting read. And it makes a lot of sense - earlier after posting I thought to myself "it's as if that woman wants to perpetuate feudalism" with her lineages and societies. If her family is based in Virginia and North Carolina that matches perfectly with Tidewater.

ETA: this essay may be a little more direct than trying to navigate his site; and yes, he does touch on gun ownership and violence http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine...p-in-arms.html

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Right, right, I know - well the PROBLEM with the Southern states is more black folk!

The article was being smug and implying that if it weren't for those evil white rednecks in the South, this country would be a beacon of enlightenment. That statistically it is holding the country back.

I'm simply pointing out that if you breakdown the statistics further, it's not the evil white Southerners that is skewing the data downward.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Our current political divides are a focused battle to define what makes America, America. These same battles have been going on for generations and will continue into the future. I believe we are possibly heading to a point where open conflict between Americans over that true definition may become a reality.

We don't get to do this on each other's stuff very often so ...

+1

[Edward64]

Donald doesn't stand a chance but he is fun to listen to, makes this process more interesting. He brings up some polarizing issues and its interesting to see how candidates respond (or not).

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/politi...rge/index.html

Laconia, New Hampshire (CNN)—Donald Trump, surging in the polls, arrived at this lakeside enclave and trained his ire on perhaps the only target that aggravates his supporters as much as the Obama Administration: Republicans.

"They're all talk, they're no action," Trump said, revving up his fiery takedown of politicians.

"I'm more disappointed in many ways with the Republicans," Trump said. "They have this great indignation, whether it's Benghazi or the emails... nothing ever happens."

Trump is enjoying a summer surge as takes the lead in a poll of Republican presidential contenders released on Friday. The billionaire businessman is offending Hispanics and irking his GOP competitors but it's clear that his in-your-face demeanor and willingness to take on President Barack Obama -- then just as quickly turn his sharp tongue toward members of his own party -- is winning over Republican voters.

"Even though I'm a Republican and I'm obviously voting that way, I'm very disappointed in the Republicans in the House. There's weakness there," said Julie Pagliarulo, a 56-year-old resident of Belmont, New Hampshire, who arrived hours early to see Trump speak. "Donald just says it like it is. I love it."

Friday's Fox News poll found Trump leading with support from 18% of Republican primary voters nationwide, compared to 15% for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and 14% for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Statistically speaking, the top three candidates are within the margin of error, and therefore tied -- a point Trump tends to leave out of his speeches.

[stevew]

Real or Onion?

ISIS head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi bans group from releasing more execution videos

[Edward64]

Early opinions on legacy, history book stuff etc. on Obama's presidency.

From my perspective, his domestic policy has been transformational and I think is equal to or exceeds Reagan. His foreign policy doesn't quite rise up to the end of the Cold War ...

Obama, you're still no Reagan - CNNPolitics.com

This may be President Obama's time, but it's still Ronald Reagan's era.

Obama has helped negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran, normalized relations with Cuba, and watched his approval ratings recently hit a two-year high after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Obamacare. But has he become a "transformational" president like Ronald Reagan?
:
The Obama-Reagan comparisons are nothing new. Obama first made the comparison himself years ago when he declared that Reagan "changed the trajectory of America" and "put us on a fundamentally different path."

But we took the comparison a step further. We asked a group of historians and political scientists from the left and right to describe the qualities that make a president transformational. We also asked whether Obama lines up more favorably against Reagan now that he's reached a deal with Iran.

The consensus was quick. Even those historians who personally disliked Reagan say Obama still hasn't matched the Gipper -- at least not yet.

[RainMaker]

What was so transformational about it? I'm not knocking it but just don't see him accomplishing anything dramatic during his Presidency. At least from a domestic standpoint.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What was so transformational about it? I'm not knocking it but just don't see him accomplishing anything dramatic during his Presidency. At least from a domestic standpoint.

The two are Obamacare and LGBT rights. Arguably (and probably still to be determined) the third is himself as a black man achieving the presidency.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by stevew

Real or Onion?

ISIS head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi bans group from releasing more execution videos

For a group that swears by v1.0....lets call this ISIS v1.0.0.1

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The two are Obamacare and LGBT rights. Arguably (and probably still to be determined) the third is himself as a black man achieving the presidency.

I'll call it transformational when we don't label him based on skin color.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'll call it transformational when we don't label him based on skin color.

Same goes for Dr. King!

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'll call it transformational when we don't label him based on skin color.

He's the first so it's inevitably taken into account (as will gender if Hillary wins). The traditional white male president is going to be joined by a black, a woman, and probably a Hispanic president in the next 10-20 years.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Dutch

For a group that swears by v1.0....lets call this ISIS v1.0.0.1

I know I'm just despondent over the Chattanooga incident and how a seemingly normal immigrant wasn't able to see the good that US is and the opportunities she gave his family and him.

Obama's strategy seems to be more containment and hope the regional powers get its act together. I'm paying more attention to GOP candidates that are talking tougher (some saying "boots on the ground") and willing to have a more active participation with the Kurds. Is our national security interests not being threatened or has it not yet reached that level?

Maybe with the Nuke deal done, Obamacare done ... he can start to focus on the Middle East.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Edward64

He's the first so it's inevitably taken into account (as will gender if Hillary wins). The traditional white male president is going to be joined by a black, a woman, and probably a Hispanic president in the next 10-20 years.

It is historic...Im waiting for the American transformation when the color of our skin is irrelevant. It's possible, just still a ways off.

[Subby]

Meet Your Three New National Monuments

This latest round of National Monuments take the total to 19 created or expanded by President Obama under the Antiquities Act, bringing the total area of land that’s been protected during his administration to 260 million acres — more than any other President, even Teddy Roosevelt.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The two are Obamacare and LGBT rights. Arguably (and probably still to be determined) the third is himself as a black man achieving the presidency.

I don't know if Obamacare is that transformational. It changed things a bit, but it feels like a bandaid till the country moves to a national health care system. And many of the LGBT advances weren't from his pen.

I mean he'll go down as the first black President which will always be a big deal. But "transformational" seems overboard. When I think about that, I think of guys like Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, etc that governed during important times and made dramatic changes to not only the country but the world. It's not Obama's fault that he's President during a rather boring time in the world, but we also shouldn't blow up some of his actions to be larger than they are in the grand scheme of things.

[ISiddiqui]

It depends. If Hillary wins, Obama can be seen as the first in an era of government as an important part of the solution is back - and the ACA will be an example of that transformation. Kind of a reversal of Reagan sort of understanding of the role of government.

[RainMaker]

Obamacare was really just an expansion of what Reagan started with health care in the 80's though.

[ISiddiqui]

....

[Edward64]

This is a surprise as I thought there was some sort of Turkish backdoor deal of pseudo-peace with ISIS to get back their diplomats from a year (?) ago. Good stuff though, there's hope yet that Obama can save his Iraq fiasco.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/23/politi...sis/index.html

Washington (CNN)—The U.S. and Turkey have reached a "tentative handshake deal" to increase U.S. and coalition access to Turkish air bases, including the base at Incirlik, according to an administration official.

A finalized deal would give the U.S. crucial access from Turkey into Syria and Iraq that it has long wanted. It could significantly shorten flight times on airstrikes against ISIS compared to flights from current bases in Iraq or aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf.

"Access to Turkish bases such as Incirlik air base will increase the coalition's operational efficiency," said Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman.

The administration official emphasized strongly that the agreement, which has been a subject of discussion for months, is tentative and still needs to be established as a more formal military agreement. The official noted it's possible either side could back out before that happens.

It is expected that a final agreement could include provisions for the U.S. to conduct manned airstrikes from Incirlik. Until now, the Turks had not allowed such missions.

At a press briefing Thursday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest would not go into details for "operational security reasons." On Wednesday, President Barack Obama spoke with Turkey President Recep Erdogan. Earnest said he "can confirm that in the context of that conversation the two leaders did agree that we would deepen our cooperation as we take on this ISIL threat," another name for ISIS.

Reports of the agreement first appeared in Turkish media.