Mr Trump threatens the lives of former presidents

I've addressed everything you said, ad nauseum, before.

You are welcome to your opinion, but you are stuck with the facts.

NATO has long been funded primarily by WHAT country? What countries have NOT always fulfilled their NATO obligations, despite the urging of some American presidents? And you keep asserting a "deal" that you base on a single, unofficial account as if what you say cannot possibly be questioned.

You keep asserting, in essence, that super-enriching Uranium coupled with ever-more-powerful ballistic missiles is somehow nothing to worry about, but don't seem to consider what the United Nations itself has said in several resolutions about Iran.

Partisan pile-ons are hardly rare on the internet, but they get tedious and predictable.

Trump is not the president of Europe or of Canada or of Ukraine. He has had MANY actual, positive, verifiable benefits for America. Contrast the state of America now to the wreck of four years ago. And I suspect he's made quite a few Venezuelans happy, too.

Sorry if he hasn't satisfied some who root for OTHER countries of which he is not the president. But, again, that's NOT his job. Those countries can elect their own governments. How have they been doing? Somehow, that seems to get discussed a lot less.

I've addressed everything you said, ad nauseum, before. You are welcome to your opinion, but you are stuck with the facts. NATO has long been funded primarily by WHAT country? What countries have NOT always fulfilled their NATO obligations, despite the urging of some American presidents? And you keep asserting a "deal" that you base on a single, unofficial account as if what you say cannot possibly be questioned. You keep asserting, in essence, that super-enriching Uranium coupled with ever-more-powerful ballistic missiles is somehow nothing to worry about, but don't seem to consider what the United Nations itself has said in several resolutions about Iran. Partisan pile-ons are hardly rare on the internet, but they get tedious and predictable. Trump is not the president of Europe or of Canada or of Ukraine. He has had MANY actual, positive, verifiable benefits for America. Contrast the state of America now to the wreck of four years ago. And I suspect he's made quite a few Venezuelans happy, too. Sorry if he hasn't satisfied some who root for OTHER countries of which he is not the president. But, again, that's NOT his job. Those countries can elect their own governments. How have they been doing? Somehow, that seems to get discussed a lot less.

notsoneutral

Ad nauseam like whining about others using emojis ?!

Noflaps

"whining"

Personal attacks are poor substitutes for rational argument.

And use all the emojis you want, but I won't mistake them for rational argument. Perhaps some others will.

"whining" Personal attacks are poor substitutes for rational argument. And use all the emojis you want, but I won't mistake them for rational argument. Perhaps some others will.

tpr edited

"NATO has long been funded primarily by WHAT country?"

Yes, USA. European countries cut defense budgets as a peace dividend.

"super-enriching Uranium"

Ad nauseam: 60% is medium enrichment, super enrichment is 90% weapons grade.

"ever-more-powerful ballistic missiles"

The farthest Iran can get is Cyprus or Diego Garcia, laughable compared to the Jericho IV of Israel.

"Trump is not the president of Europe or of Canada or of Ukraine."

He wanted to take Greenland, Canada, and seize Spanish air bases.

"he's made quite a few Venezuelans happy"

Not those he deported to El Salvador, not those he killed when abducting president Maduro.

"NATO has long been funded primarily by WHAT country?" * Yes, USA. European countries cut defense budgets as a peace dividend. "super-enriching Uranium" * Ad nauseam: 60% is medium enrichment, super enrichment is 90% weapons grade. "ever-more-powerful ballistic missiles" * The farthest Iran can get is Cyprus or Diego Garcia, laughable compared to the Jericho IV of Israel. "Trump is not the president of Europe or of Canada or of Ukraine." * He wanted to take Greenland, Canada, and seize Spanish air bases. "he's made quite a few Venezuelans happy" * Not those he deported to El Salvador, not those he killed when abducting president Maduro.

Noflaps

edited

In order to get to 90 percent, one must first pass through 60 percent if starting from a lower percentage than that.

SEE mathematical continuity of the real numbers.

And if there's no REAL peaceful reason to get to 60 percent, saying that 90 percent hasn't yet been reached seems like just the APPEARANCE of an argument -- a mere distraction or a "something to say."

What "peaceful" benefit of 60 percent (I think you once mentioned "transportation costs," while not noticing the cost of huge fortified underground bunkers) could possibly outweigh the loss of an entire air force and navy? Boy, those must be some WHOPPING transportation savings, eh?

There seems to be a never-ending cycle of Trump criticism and America criticism based mostly on emotion and often featuring misreadings or exaggerations. With responses to counterargument often being more emoji and insult than fact, although I appreciate that @tpr tries to respond politely and not with mere insult.

People seem to have very short memories -- four years ago was a nightmare. Things have gotten much better. But some in the media do everything they can to stir up discontent and ignore positive change.

In order to get to 90 percent, one must first pass through 60 percent if starting from a lower percentage than that. SEE mathematical continuity of the real numbers. And if there's no REAL peaceful reason to get to 60 percent, saying that 90 percent hasn't yet been reached seems like just the APPEARANCE of an argument -- a mere distraction or a "something to say." What "peaceful" benefit of 60 percent (I think you once mentioned "transportation costs," while not noticing the cost of huge fortified underground bunkers) could possibly outweigh the loss of an entire air force and navy? Boy, those must be some WHOPPING transportation savings, eh? There seems to be a never-ending cycle of Trump criticism and America criticism based mostly on emotion and often featuring misreadings or exaggerations. With responses to counterargument often being more emoji and insult than fact, although I appreciate that @tpr tries to respond politely and not with mere insult. People seem to have very short memories -- four years ago was a nightmare. Things have gotten much better. But some in the media do everything they can to stir up discontent and ignore positive change.

notsoneutral edited

So using super-enriching - when facts are stating it is 60 % - is a valid argument ??!

So **using super-enriching** - when facts are stating **it is 60 %** - is a valid argument ??!

tpr

"to get to 90 percent, one must first pass through 60 percent"

From 0% to 50% it gets easier, from 50% to 100% it gets harder again, as with any purification process.

"there's no REAL peaceful reason to get to 60 percent"

There are. Breeding isotopes for medical applications.
A Venera space probe to Venus even carried a nuclear reactor on 90% weapons grade.

"What peaceful benefit of 60 percent"

It makes engineering and economic sense. Near 50% enrichment is easiest.
Iran accepted limitations and inspections under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Trump withdrew from the JCPoA, so Iran no longer felt bound by it.

"huge fortified underground bunkers"

To protect against Israeli attacks.

"the loss of an entire air force and navy"

So threaten a country and it should do whatever Trump says?

"Things have gotten much better."

A new war started.

"to get to 90 percent, one must first pass through 60 percent" * From 0% to 50% it gets easier, from 50% to 100% it gets harder again, as with any purification process. "there's no REAL peaceful reason to get to 60 percent" * There are. Breeding isotopes for medical applications. A Venera space probe to Venus even carried a nuclear reactor on 90% weapons grade. "What peaceful benefit of 60 percent" * It makes engineering and economic sense. Near 50% enrichment is easiest. Iran accepted limitations and inspections under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Trump withdrew from the JCPoA, so Iran no longer felt bound by it. "huge fortified underground bunkers" * To protect against Israeli attacks. "the loss of an entire air force and navy" * So threaten a country and it should do whatever Trump says? "Things have gotten much better." * A new war started.

notsoneutral edited

@Noflaps said ^

You keep asserting, in essence, that super-enriching Uranium coupled with ever-more-powerful ballistic missiles is somehow nothing to worry about, but don't seem to consider what the United Nations itself has said in several resolutions about Iran.

Quoting before you-know-who edits it .

@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/maPRxUoK) > You keep asserting, in essence, that **super-enriching Uranium** coupled with ever-more-powerful ballistic missiles is somehow nothing to worry about, but don't seem to consider what the United Nations itself has said in several resolutions about Iran. Quoting before you-know-who edits it .

notsoneutral

Enough time wasted on a weekend day replying to you-know-who ...

Noflaps

edited

Iran is enriching Uranium far beyond the need for actual energy generation in order to fuel something like a Venus probe?

Oh. I had no idea Iran was trying to reach the stars. Is Hamas involved in their space program, too?

And the huge fortified bunkers protect the "peaceful" Uranium? Oh.

Why would anybody attack slightly enriched Uranium (needed and useful ONLY for peaceful energy generation).

Rationales multiply like rabbits.

Believe what you like. Minds seldom change, and I don't really expect them to. I just hope not too many rational independents swallow some of what is presented over and over and over.

What a great time to remind of the old saying:

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and has ducklings, it's not a mission to Venus.

Iran is enriching Uranium far beyond the need for actual energy generation in order to fuel something like a Venus probe? Oh. I had no idea Iran was trying to reach the stars. Is Hamas involved in their space program, too? And the huge fortified bunkers protect the "peaceful" Uranium? Oh. Why would anybody attack slightly enriched Uranium (needed and useful ONLY for peaceful energy generation). Rationales multiply like rabbits. Believe what you like. Minds seldom change, and I don't really expect them to. I just hope not too many rational independents swallow some of what is presented over and over and over. What a great time to remind of the old saying: If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and has ducklings, it's not a mission to Venus.