Did you even read the link where the IAEA confirmed the destruction of plutonium cores? Not surprising that someone would resort to making stereotypical judgements when facts don’t support their conspiracies.
1 Like
Why bother? Like I said, the idea that N Korea allows independent inspections is a myth. I doubt the veracity of IAEA data on its face.
For a guy who likes to yammer on about acronyms, you libs sure seem to place a lot of faith in 'em.
“October 1997, the spent fuel rods were safely encased in steel containers, under IAEA inspection. The reactor remained closed, construction on two other, larger reactors had stopped, and the reprocessing plant sat idle. After the spent fuel project was established, I went on to other work, leaving my memories locked away like a disturbingly vivid dream”
Facts do not burst the bubble only catchy acronyms.
1 Like
Hilarious. You people.
Seems you were wrong Bojack. IAEA was there and did stop the nuclear program. I know thats hard to admit so I’ll leave you with your witty comebacks.
1 Like
lol. Thank God you people only have the House. And hopefully for not much longer.
You can’t have a constructive debate when the issue being raised is dismissed out of hand as being fear mongering. I understand the need for treaties, for world governing bodies. There are benefits to globalism and I don’t doubt that those who believe in it do so honestly and without malicious intent.
However, there needs to be balance. Corporations are about making the maximum profit and that doesn’t care about borders or peoples jobs or factor in the human cost which governments do. For example, if it’s cheaper to make cars in Canada than the US and because they can import with no tax, car companies move to Canada and US plants close down. If Canada has a free trade agreement with China and it’s cheaper to buy the aluminium from China that’s what they do, then in turn can move to the US with another free trade agreement and as a result aluminium plants in Canada and USA close.
This is not a black or white discussion, there are merits and negative aspects to both, unfortunately in todays world, people don’t like to discuss the merits that exist in opposing ideas, its either all or nothing. It’s not very conducive for productive debate, but that’s just my opinion.
Not sure what you mean by globalism. That phrase is usually associated with dog-whistle politics for something a la Alex Jones. Free trade is what I’m talking about.
I agree there needs to be balance but seems we’ve got free market Repubs talking out of both sides of their mouths. They are all of the sudden ok with protectionism and trade wars, but want the free market for healthcare. To your point, if you let corporations run an industry they will act amorally with only profit in mind. Privatizing basic human needs leads to price gauging which is why you have the highest healthcare and education costs in the developed world and $700 epipens. Not complicated really.
As for production, companies move when it makes sense to move. Costs play an important part but the skill set of the labor force plays an equally important if not somewhat ignored part. You can’t move production over night. It can take years to build up a skilled labor force not to mention the equipment necessary to produce.
The question then becomes how to keep our labor force skilled and competitive. One investment the government can and should make is in education. We have millions of jobs in the US that can’t be filled due to lack of skills. If you have affordable or completely subsidized access to retraining and education there should be no reason why you still need to work in a coal mine.
Let’s stop kicking the can down the road and trying make people feel good by talking tough to China. We should be focused on the long game and that doesn’t mean running away from free trade, but instead learning to excel in an already globalized economy.
1 Like
Well, globalism is one of those terms that seems to be off limits to some, like the deep state or MSM. If we need to define what these terms are we are really in the very rudimental form of a discussion.
The easiest way to define global corporate interests is to look up a list of the Fortune 500 companies. Here is one part of the engine that makes up Washington, they in turn have influence over the media, think tanks, advocacy groups, lawyers (like a group like Lawfare) and after a while you see how these moving parts work together along with politicians to create an outcome.
Take the whistle-blower compliant recently. It wasn’t just some random complaint that came out of nowhere. Before it made it’s way to ICIG (I can posts links if you like), it was sent to Adam Schiff who for all intents and purposes looked like he teamed up with Lawfare to put this very well worded and legally sounding complaint together adding lots of references made to reporting done by OCCRP which is a left leaning think tank.
When you look at the way the whistle blower complaint came together, via the Democrats and lawyers whose aim is to take down the President, you might ask yourself a very valid question “does this complaint meet the whistle blower guidelines?” or given the combination of leaks to the media is it a political hit job? That’s before you get to Michael Atkinson his conflicts of interests and who changed the whistle blower rules to allow second hand sources days before the filing.
But the media is complicit in this, they want the impeachment, they turn up the volume to 11 and feign outrage 24/7. Politicians use the media outrage to validate more and more outrageous statements like wanting Trump locked up in solitary confinement, the media report on those outrageous statements, and so the feedback loop goes on.
Within all that, some serious issues and concerns are being overlooked. But I’ll save that for another time.
2 Likes
And meanwhile Trump is taking to Twitter for a little whistleblowing of his own.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1179502966606352386
4 Likes
HahAHhAhAHAAhh that was glorious!! Who made it, Carpedonktum?
lololol
Such a conspiratorial rabbit hole we have here.
- Whistleblower rules were not changed
Intelligence Community.
“In fact, by law the Complainant – or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint,” the three-page statement said.
- Adam Schiff referred him to the ICIG and the Whistleblower followed the correct procedure as per the ICIG.
Now if we can stick to facts instead of this deep State globalist cabaal nonsense.
1 Like
Not sure. Maybe the same people who did this one?
https://twitter.com/thedonaldreddit/status/1179371845805596679
2 Likes
No one claimed the law was changed, the form for submission was. This is the current form.
This is from the old one.
I doubt you have heard of why Michael K Atkinson, has a conflict of interest, but there you go. The less you know sometimes the better to latch onto the MSM outrage.
You can hold me to task for using the term MSM, which no doubt don’t consider a thing either.
Come on. You posted a screenshot of the “old one” with the source as the FEDERALIST.COM. How do people fall for this crap?
Trump did claim the rule changed and it’s been debunked repeatedly.
All three tweets lead back to the same article on the conservative website Federalist.
All three are wrong.
• First-hand knowledge by a whistleblower has never been required since the law protecting intelligence community whistleblowers was enacted.
• Inspector General staff, who investigate a charge, need first-hand information to move a complaint forward — as they did in this case.
• The current complaint was based on both first- and second-hand information.
You guys make this too easy. 
Read what I wrote. No one claimed the law changed. The form for submission was. The IC put out a 4 page explanation for why.
The explanation for why is because there is no requirement in the law for first hand knowledge, not that they didn’t change the submission form or that it didn’t state the individual must have first hand knowledge.
That’s from the horses mouth. What are you going to believe the ICIG himself, or politifact?
Yes, the media lies to you, get used to it.
The Trump campaign is really upping their ad game. The Democrats should be scared.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1179542037479202816
4 Likes
Terrific ad. Now I’ve got to go look up who’s doing this work, whether it’s a Trump-only outfit or the GOP.