General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWas without TV this weekend so looking for the DU threads on Sunday shows w/Kerry-Bibi-Iran.
I've been through the pages and haven't found any. It would be difficult for me to believe no one posted about the Sunday political shows, so I am assuming that I just missed the threads and hope someone will post the links.
I did see the thread on the Trump-McCain-Kerry drama, not that I am disinterested, but, this Iran nuclear deal is one of the biggest issues on the world table. I was counting on DU threads with recaps and impressions.
House of Roberts
(5,191 posts)which combine video with text, so you can see whether you want to watch the accompanying video.
This was on Fox News Sunday:
Michael Needham, CEO, Heritage Action America: The problem isnt Donald Trump running as a third party. The problem is that the Republican voters right now are saying, you know what, if the Republican Party is not going to do what they sent them to task, may be Ill stay home and watch football. Maybe Ill go to a third, but not necessarily Donald Trump, it would be somebody more serious. But Republican voters are fed up with an intellectually bankrupt and soulless party, and thats something the party leaders have to do something about.
blm
(113,122 posts)WTF is going on here?
Did check out C&
.thanx.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Today on DU ... Bernie Sanders hasn't done enough for POC and nothing anybody ever says will be politically correct.
I think that about covers DU for today.
blm
(113,122 posts)'what Trump said' to help defend it. 2016 can have a very bad turnout for Dem party if GOP narrative on this Iran deal becomes the accepted storyline in the upcoming month. The GOP has enough control of the corporate media to make theirs the voices that dominate this debate.
karynnj
(59,507 posts)Coverage of the 5 shows. As to DU and Dailykos, apparently it is not anywhere near as interesting as Donald Trump.
blm
(113,122 posts)involved.
GOP will use this lack of interest from Dem's social media 'activists' to their advantage in the short term, and, sadly, the long term
...ala Benghazi. GOP can maintain a 2yr lie and distortion in the media without breaking a sweat.
karynnj
(59,507 posts)sayers too. Remember that just as DU/Dailykos are both in pre primary season more interested in the race and attacks on each other, this is EVEN MORE among the Republicans who have an unbelievable number of candidates all looking for visibility.
This might be a case where the lack of attention to really serious major issues is not really to our disadvantage. In reality, I think this is a fait accompli -- and for political reasons, no one in the Obama administration can say so.
There were hints of this from the Republican spokespeople from the beginning.
- Both Nicole Wallace (Bushie) and a Romney spokesperson but seriously lamented that the Democrats were going to say that being against this was being for a military solution -- and that was just so unfair. Note this was said before Obama and Kerry made just that case - rather compellingly.
- Most arguments raised have nothing to do with a nuclear bomb. They have American in jail - with or without a deal. It is not related and it seems obvious that our chances are higher (or at least equal) of getting them out with a deal. They support terrorists - again with or without the deal - and we are better off if there is no deal.
It is interesting that it took them until Friday to even get the importance of the UN vote today -- and they then had a hissy fit saying essentially, "it was no fair". (In fact, both Bushes went to the UN before going to Congress to start their wars.) In fact, the legislation ALWAYS dealt JUST with lowering US sanctions. As to usurping power, the legislation putting those sanctions in place under both Bush and Obama had a provision that the President could temporarily relax them. THAT is what the legislation changed. It didn't give the right to decide the UN votes to Congress.
At this point, they have a deal that pleasantly surprised many experts, that the world is backing. The legislation is structured that Obama would need to lose 13 Democratic Senators. I would imagine that - in private - Kerry, Obama and Biden could lay out how bad the situation would be for the US if we mess this up. Do we seriously want only Israel and Saudi Arabia and a few other Sunni states on our side? Talk about destroying our leadership and prestige in the world? I would guess most Democrats would give them at least as much credibility as Bibi --- especially as they have the sane position on their side. (Voting against this is actually worse than voting for the IWR - it is voting against diplomacy. )
blm
(113,122 posts)Thank you for the links. I hope more DUers access your links.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1109&pid=4615