Obama, Netanyahu make dueling appeals on Iran to US Jews

[ABCer]

Israel does face existential threats (from multiple enemies).

Iran's regime may feel threatened, but as a sovereign nation it is not really under the same level of existential threats as Israel. An Israeli strike on their nuclear program would not be a total attack but of course it could escalate into an actual war depending on Iran's reaction. Israel would expect a reaction but if it was too strong, yes, that could spark a major war and yes the USA would be in it.

Are absolutely sure USA will be in it?

Are you sure on which side?

I am not.

[Jingthing]

Israel does face existential threats (from multiple enemies).

Iran's regime may feel threatened, but as a sovereign nation it is not really under the same level of existential threats as Israel. An Israeli strike on their nuclear program would not be a total attack but of course it could escalate into an actual war depending on Iran's reaction. Israel would expect a reaction but if it was too strong, yes, that could spark a major war and yes the USA would be in it.

Are absolutely sure USA will be in it?

Are you sure on which side?

I am not.

Clinton will be better.

[Steely Dan]

^^

I was about to give you a like, but maybe things aren't all as they seem. The following is a conspiracy theory, though it speculates on what is going to happen not what has already taken place. Interesting nonetheless. Mods please delete if this sends thread off on a tangent but the likelihood of Israeli military action has been touched on in this thread.

http://www.thomaswictor.com/the-greatest-deception-operation-in-human-history/

Edited August 5, 2015 by Steely Dan

[lap82]

Everything that involves Middle East seems to be a neverending maze.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed. This thread is not about the genetics of Jews.

[chuckd]

The latest Quinnipiac poll shows a 2-1 margin AGAINST the Iran nuclear deal.

Anybody want to bet Obama's legacy quest outbids the wishes of the American voters?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Regional DefinitionsContacts and InformationStaffSearch Releases

August 3, 2015 - American Voters Oppose Iran Deal 2-1, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Pope's Climate Change Message Gets Huge Support

Sample and Methodology detail

American voters oppose 57 - 28 percent, with only lukewarm support from Democrats and overwhelming opposition for Republicans and independent voters, the nuclear pact negotiated with Iran, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

Voters say 58 - 30 percent the nuclear pact will make the world less safe, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds.

Opposing the Iran deal are Republicans 86 - 3 percent and independent voters 55 - 29 percent, while Democrats support it 52 - 32 percent. There is little gender gap as men oppose the deal 59 - 30 percent and women oppose it 56 - 27 percent.

Article here: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2265

[Jingthing]

It really doesn't matter about public opinion on this. He's not running again. All he needs is to avoid enough votes to override the expected veto.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Jingthing

[up-country_sinclair]

The latest Quinnipiac poll shows a 2-1 margin AGAINST the Iran nuclear deal.

Anybody want to bet Obama's legacy quest outbids the wishes of the American voters?

What's your point, exactly? That foreign affairs and major public policy decisions should be determined by a poll of 1600 people?

Is that how you think government should operate?

And by the way, this poll was taken after AIPAC had just saturated the media landscape with an $11 million advertising campaign.

[Seastallion]

The latest Quinnipiac poll shows a 2-1 margin AGAINST the Iran nuclear deal.

Anybody want to bet Obama's legacy quest outbids the wishes of the American voters?

What's your point, exactly? That foreign affairs and major public policy decisions should be determined by a poll of 1600 people?

Is that how you think government should operate?

And by the way, this poll was taken after AIPAC had just saturated the media landscape with an $11 million advertising campaign.

I think your last sentence is the most pertinent. Just as with the Iraq blunder, the public are swayed by vested interests in war telling lies.

[Ulysses G.]

The latest Quinnipiac poll shows a 2-1 margin AGAINST the Iran nuclear deal.

Anybody want to bet Obama's legacy quest outbids the wishes of the American voters?

What's your point, exactly? That foreign affairs and major public policy decisions should be determined by a poll of 1600 people?

The ignorance is astounding. You obviously don't understand how polls work.

[Ulysses G.]

And by the way, this poll was taken after AIPAC had just saturated the media landscape with an $11 million advertising campaign.

Please provide CREDIBLE evidence. You have been caught making up such claims in the past.

[chuckd]

The latest Quinnipiac poll shows a 2-1 margin AGAINST the Iran nuclear deal.

Anybody want to bet Obama's legacy quest outbids the wishes of the American voters?

What's your point, exactly? That foreign affairs and major public policy decisions should be determined by a poll of 1600 people?

The ignorance is astounding. You obviously don't understand how polls work.

Nor do they understand the Islamic Republic of Iran.

That doesn't seem to stop them from making ignorant posts, however.

[up-country_sinclair]

The latest Quinnipiac poll shows a 2-1 margin AGAINST the Iran nuclear deal.

Anybody want to bet Obama's legacy quest outbids the wishes of the American voters?

What's your point, exactly? That foreign affairs and major public policy decisions should be determined by a poll of 1600 people?

The ignorance is astounding. You obviously don't understand how polls work.

Your seemingly indefatigable obtuseness has become boring. Or perhaps it is a ruse to try and avoid answering the question?

So I'll ask it again: Should foreign affairs and major public policy decisions be determined by polling data?

We await your answer.

Edited August 8, 2015 by up-country_sinclair

[up-country_sinclair]

And by the way, this poll was taken after AIPAC had just saturated the media landscape with an $11 million advertising campaign.

Please provide CREDIBLE evidence. You have been caught making up such claims in the past.

1. A link to the article in Politico has already been provided in this thread. Pay attention and stop wasting everyone's time with such silliness.

2. For you (of all people) to question my veracity is not worrisome in the least. But feel free to provide a link to a post where I've been "caught making up such claims".

[Ulysses G.]

Provide the link to support your claim. I am not going to search for something that may not even exist.

The latest Quinnipiac poll shows a 2-1 margin AGAINST the Iran nuclear deal.

Anybody want to bet Obama's legacy quest outbids the wishes of the American voters?

What's your point, exactly? That foreign affairs and major public policy decisions should be determined by a poll of 1600 people?

How does polling work?

Sampling public opinion, George Gallup once said, is like sampling soup: One spoonful can reflect the taste of the whole pot, if the soup is well-stirred. In other words, its all about finding a sample that reflects the larger population. Polling is based on the laws of probability. According to probability theory, its not necessary to sample the opinions of all 300 million Americans; a much smaller sample can reflect the larger populationif that sample is truly representative.

http://theweek.com/articles/517178/briefing-how-polls-work

Edited August 8, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

The latest Quinnipiac poll shows a 2-1 margin AGAINST the Iran nuclear deal.

Anybody want to bet Obama's legacy quest outbids the wishes of the American voters?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Regional DefinitionsContacts and InformationStaffSearch Releases

August 3, 2015 - American Voters Oppose Iran Deal 2-1, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Pope's Climate Change Message Gets Huge Support

Sample and Methodology detail

American voters oppose 57 - 28 percent, with only lukewarm support from Democrats and overwhelming opposition for Republicans and independent voters, the nuclear pact negotiated with Iran, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

Voters say 58 - 30 percent the nuclear pact will make the world less safe, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds.

Opposing the Iran deal are Republicans 86 - 3 percent and independent voters 55 - 29 percent, while Democrats support it 52 - 32 percent. There is little gender gap as men oppose the deal 59 - 30 percent and women oppose it 56 - 27 percent.

Article here: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2265

The polls are all over the place on this deal since it was announced. So let's look at one survey that offered respondents three choices instead of the yes/no choice of other polls to include the increasingly Republican party favorite pollster Quinnipiac...

[A] new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll also came out today, and thus far (also shockingly) it’s getting less attention: It finds 35 percent of Americans support the deal; 33 percent are against it; and 32 percent are undecided.

What’s significant here is that, unlike many other polls, the NBC/WSJ poll offered respondents the choice of saying they are not informed enough to have an opinion. The good folks at NBC sent over the question wording:

As you may know, an agreement has been reached between Iran and a group of six other nations, including the U.S. The agreement attempts to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon by limiting Iran’s ability to produce nuclear material and allowing inspections into Iran’s nuclear sites in exchange for reducing certain economic sanctions that are currently in place. Do you support or oppose this agreement or do you not know enough to have an opinion?

Support: 35

Oppose: 33

Don’t know enough: 32

{G}etting two-thirds of both chambers to override Obama’s veto would probably require a tremendous public backlash, since at bottom, most Congressional Dems are likely to be reluctant to sink Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement. And feelings may not be running all that strongly on this issue among much of the American mainstream. Indeed, they probably aren’t, if it’s true that many Americans are not that tuned in to the details, as the new NBC/WSJ poll suggests.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/08/03/what-does-the-american-public-really-think-of-the-iran-deal/

There is also the following factor....

upporters and opponents of the agreement have mobilized activists to contact members of Congress. Donors have also weighed in — a factor that might matter more than anything else to a lawmaker hoping for reelection.

One group of people whose views are being touted in a way that could make a difference to swing-vote lawmakers are Jewish-Americans; some polling suggests most support the agreement, which is in line with American Jews’ broad support for Democrats.

Still, many of the fiercest critics of the deal are conservative pro-Israel organizations that deem Iran an existential threat to the Jewish-majority state.

http://theiranproject.com/blog/2015/08/04/does-the-american-public-oppose-the-iran-deal/

Again it seems to condense to attentive conservatives vs attentive liberals and most Democrats vs most Republicans while most Jewish voters argue amongst themselves and the significant number of Americans maintain a certain reserve toward the diverse antagonists.

Prez Obama has meanwhile achieved a veto supporting margin in the House and the past week three Senators announced their support of the Agreement thus bringing the US Senate very close to also having a veto supporting number for the Agreement.

Mainstream Americans are neither overwhelmingly for or against the deal with the votes in Congress coming in a few weeks. With the polls all over the place and most Americans inclined to defer to the President on foreign policy issues, opponents of the Agreement are looking at a very high mountain directly in front of them.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Publicus

[Jingthing]

Again, I think this is a case where the polling doesn't matter very much except to Hillary Clinton who is supporting the deal, and she has plenty of time to dance around that position later.

[up-country_sinclair]

Provide the link to support your claim. I am not going to search

You do realize it's a two-page thread, don't you?

Pro-Israel groups have spent more than $11 million on a TV ad blitz aimed at scuttling President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran,

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/iran-nuclear-deal-foes-spending-121011.html#ixzz3iCh1Hivs

You'll need a dish towel to get all that egg of your face. Considering it happens so often, you should have that towel handy.

Now then, when are you going to address whether or not foreign policy and major public decision should be determined by polling data?

Let me guess: Never.

[Ulysses G.]

Amazing. You provided credible evidence for a change. It does not seem like it would have to be dragged out of you though. Other people post it on their own.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

Last attempt:

Should foreign policy and major public decisions be determined by polling data?

Edited August 8, 2015 by up-country_sinclair

[NeverSure]

Last attempt:

Should foreign policy and major public decisions be determined by polling data?

Or, "Do we have a dictator who even defies Congress rather than giving a damn what the people think? Should one narcissistic be able to crash around like a loose cannon despite what the people who elected him think? Is it a dictatorship or does the jerk work for the people? Just who are his real bosses, anyway? Who gave him his position and power? Why does he insist on taking more power than anyone expected him to?

Does the US have a junta, or does the POTUS still answer to the people?

Are you nuts, or what?"

[up-country_sinclair]

Last attempt:

Should foreign policy and major public decisions be determined by polling data?

Or, "Do we have a dictator who even defies Congress rather than giving a damn what the people think? Should one narcissistic be able to crash around like a loose cannon despite what the people who elected him think? Is it a dictatorship or does the jerk work for the people? Just who are his real bosses, anyway? Who gave him his position and power? Why does he insist on taking more power than anyone expected him to?

Does the US have a junta, or does the POTUS still answer to the people?

Let's take a closer look at some of the language used in this post:

"A dictator"

"A junta"

"Defies congress"

"Taking more power"

You certainly do like the drama, don't you?

But if any of the above were true, why hasn't the US Congress (both of which are controlled by Republicans) commenced with impeachment proceedings? Don't worry, I don't expect answer.

Just like I didn't expect an answer to the question in the post you quoted. When he knew he had painted himself into a corner, he attempted to distract with silly requests about posting the same link for the second time. However, it was apparent to every one reading the thread what he was doing. I posted the question 3 times in direct response to something he posted, but he never responded. He ran away. Unfortunately some just don't have the intellectual wherewithal to think critically about the ideological positions they hold. Sad but true.

[arunsakda]

While Obama and John Kerry will sleep snug and comfy in their mansions after they will give back the keys

with their mega salaries and personal body guards, Israel will for ever now has to live under the threats

of the Iranians producing nukes on ballistic missiles very soon and under the noses of every one,,,

Rubbish. Israel's own intelligence assessments, which are public knowledge disprove Netanyahu's assertions. He wants America to launch war on Iran, on Israels' behalf for reasons of continued regional dominance. Nothing to do with Nuclear weapons proliferation. Israel has hundreds of Nuclear weapons and can destroy any country in the region if it needed to . At this point I have no choice but to question the loyalty of politicians, such as Schumer, who would work to scuttle the deal. This opposition movement is nothing but the most unbelievable pile of reactionary right-wing crap imaginable. Britain, Russia, France, Germany. Guess they were all "fleeced" too. Ripped off and tricked, taken to the cleaners. Anybody who believes this is a blithering idiot. Edited August 8, 2015 by arunsakda

[chuckd]

While Obama and John Kerry will sleep snug and comfy in their mansions after they will give back the keys

with their mega salaries and personal body guards, Israel will for ever now has to live under the threats

of the Iranians producing nukes on ballistic missiles very soon and under the noses of every one,,,

Rubbish. Israel's own intelligence assessments, which are public knowledge disprove Netanyahu's assertions. He wants America to launch war on Iran, on Israels' behalf for reasons of continued regional dominance. Nothing to do with Nuclear weapons proliferation. Israel has hundreds of Nuclear weapons and can destroy any country in the region if it needed to . At this point I have no choice but to question the loyalty of politicians, such as Schumer, who would work to scuttle the deal. This opposition movement is nothing but the most unbelievable pile of reactionary right-wing crap imaginable. Britain, Russia, France, Germany. Guess they were all "fleeced" too. Ripped off and tricked, taken to the cleaners. Anybody who believes this is a blithering idiot.

" He wants America to launch war on Iran, on Israels' behalf for reasons of continued regional dominance."

Please help me out here.

Name one war or battle the US has fought in support of gaining Israeli dominance.

Show me one reference where the Israeli PM has requested or is requesting the US to attack Iran on behalf of Israel.

I await your input with bated breath.

[chuckd]

While Obama and John Kerry will sleep snug and comfy in their mansions after they will give back the keys

with their mega salaries and personal body guards, Israel will for ever now has to live under the threats

of the Iranians producing nukes on ballistic missiles very soon and under the noses of every one,,,

Rubbish. Israel's own intelligence assessments, which are public knowledge disprove Netanyahu's assertions. He wants America to launch war on Iran, on Israels' behalf for reasons of continued regional dominance. Nothing to do with Nuclear weapons proliferation. Israel has hundreds of Nuclear weapons and can destroy any country in the region if it needed to . At this point I have no choice but to question the loyalty of politicians, such as Schumer, who would work to scuttle the deal. This opposition movement is nothing but the most unbelievable pile of reactionary right-wing crap imaginable. Britain, Russia, France, Germany. Guess they were all "fleeced" too. Ripped off and tricked, taken to the cleaners. Anybody who believes this is a blithering idiot.

I just re-read this remarkable bit of prose from arunsakada and laughed out loud.

All you good folks out there read the various hypothesis presented by the illustrious author, digest the theories he has expounded on...and then apply his closing sentence to all of it.

" Anybody who believes this is a blithering idiot."

[up-country_sinclair]

Britain, Russia, France, Germany. Guess they were all "fleeced" too. Ripped off and tricked, taken to the cleaners. Anybody who believes this is a blithering idiot.

To Israel and its appologists, only Israel's opinion matters. The perspectives of these other countries and the UN Security Council are irrelevant.

The only country which has officially come out against this deal is Israel. Of course some other countries have reservations, but it is only Israel beating the war drums. And just to be clear, the Israel regime fully expects the US taxpayer to finance it, and US military to fight and die in it.

[NeverSure]

Let's take a closer look at some of the language used in this post:

"A dictator"

"A junta"

"Defies congress"

"Taking more power"

You certainly do like the drama, don't you?

But if any of the above were true, why hasn't the US Congress (both of which are controlled by Republicans) commenced with impeachment proceedings? Don't worry, I don't expect answer.

Just like I didn't expect an answer to the question in the post you quoted. When he knew he had painted himself into a corner, he attempted to distract with silly requests about posting the same link for the second time. However, it was apparent to every one reading the thread what he was doing. I posted the question 3 times in direct response to something he posted, but he never responded. He ran away. Unfortunately some just don't have the intellectual wherewithal to think critically about the ideological positions they hold. Sad but true.

Obama is elected to represent the people who elect him. End of.

Your undo repetition about polling numbers didn't deserve an answer so you didn't get it from whom you were asking. You're just a broken record.

[Scott]

An off-topic, inflammatory troll post has been removed. I note that some members wish to bait others into an argument. It will result in suspensions. I suggest you stay on topic and stick strictly to the topic. Personal remarks directed at others will get you a posting holiday.

[venturalaw]

Last attempt:

Should foreign policy and major public decisions be determined by polling data?

Or, "Do we have a dictator who even defies Congress rather than giving a damn what the people think? Should one narcissistic be able to crash around like a loose cannon despite what the people who elected him think? Is it a dictatorship or does the jerk work for the people? Just who are his real bosses, anyway? Who gave him his position and power? Why does he insist on taking more power than anyone expected him to?

Does the US have a junta, or does the POTUS still answer to the people?

Let's take a closer look at some of the language used in this post:

"A dictator"

"A junta"

"Defies congress"

"Taking more power"

You certainly do like the drama, don't you?

But if any of the above were true, why hasn't the US Congress (both of which are controlled by Republicans) commenced with impeachment proceedings? Don't worry, I don't expect answer.

Just like I didn't expect an answer to the question in the post you quoted. When he knew he had painted himself into a corner, he attempted to distract with silly requests about posting the same link for the second time. However, it was apparent to every one reading the thread what he was doing. I posted the question 3 times in direct response to something he posted, but he never responded. He ran away. Unfortunately some just don't have the intellectual wherewithal to think critically about the ideological positions they hold. Sad but true.

Of course you did not expect an answer. Your question was completely off topic and an obvious attempt to distract from the fact that you do not understand how polling works. Why would anyone take it seriously?