Hahahah, no. The UNSC resolution made it binding and the US congress didn't object to it within the 60 day timeframe layed out in the JCPOA deal. Educate yourself.

@vil
@StukaFox
@wtfcaniuse

Obama made this mess, not our government, not Trump.

Donald Trump isn’t ripping up a treaty, he’s walking away from Barack Obama’s personal pledge. President Obama made a deal with Iran without support from Congress. Trump is pulling out of President Obama’s personal commitment, and he doesn’t need Congress’s support to do” it because Congress had nothing to do with authorizing this.

Iran can’t violate because they never signed it! Therefore, technically they’re incapable of violating. This is just a set of political documents put forth by Obama, never ratified by the Senate, not signed by the Iranians.


Iranian President Hassan Rowhani opposes a parliamentary vote on the nuclear deal reached because terms of the agreement would turn into legal obligations if passed by lawmakers. “If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to (and passed by) parliament, it will create an obligation for the government. it will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it,” Rowhani said. “Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?”



2015 — in the Obama State Department, “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),” said that the Iran deal, “is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document…” It was the final document.




State Department: Iran Deal Is Not ‘Legally Binding’ and Iran Didn’t Sign It
https://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/


White House admits it played us for fools to sell Iran deal
https://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/

Rowhani: no need for parliament vote on nuke deal
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/08/29/Rowhani-Iran-nuke-deal-doesn-t-need-parliament-approval.html

Your video, Snow Surfing (no bindings), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

He's incredibly lucky.

If his bindings were so loose that he lost a ski flopping over like that, there's no way he would have made it down anyway. Better to fail at 5 mph in powder than 50+ over a cliff.

Also, what kind of back country skier can't ski with just one ski? I could before I was 10.

And the post 1990 borders of Texas include historically Mexican lands populated by Mexican people...so what. It was sovereign and Russia acknowledged that, agreed to it, and signed binding treaties ratifying it permanently.

Those keys and systems would have been quickly replaced had those treaties not been enacted...enough of them to be a deterrent. Had we not agreed to defend them and Russia agreed to never try to annex or otherwise take them over, they would have been a nuclear nation and safe from Russian expansion.

As I said, not defending them was a violation. I'm not defending the US's actions.
Opportunity kicked off Russian land grabs, make no mistake.

That statement reflects our undeniable obligation under clear international treaty, not any personally desire to be at war.
Nuclear powers often go to war...by proxy. We've been in one in Syria recently. Edit: according to Russia, they weren't there anyway, so they would be hard pressed to complain about US military in the Ukraine fighting what Russia said were all Ukrainians, no?

Regarding collusion-This isn't a legal forum, you can debate legal terminology and specific charges on one, here, we all understand what collusion means and none of us are swearing out specific legal charges.
Definition of collusion:secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose; acting in collusion with the enemy

Edit: As for the coup, many called it the revolution. It was a coup by the populace, who largely thought the elections were rigged for pro Russians. That said, it was probably a violation for us to eventually support it (I think we waited until after Russian incursions, though). It still, in no way, excuses the Crimean or Ukrainian invasions and annexations.

Bob....
Federal judges aren't Obama OR the DOJ. This is just one more lie you've swallowed hook, line, and sinker. It's the only way you can make sense of his pardon...make the conviction political. It plainly wasn't, even you admit he broke the law.

True, the DOJ wanted him convicted...but for NOT doing his job, and instead for stopping citizens and demanding their papers if they looked Hispanic. That's illegal in America, no matter why you do it. He was ordered by the courts to stop, and he defied that legal order. That's illegal in America, period.
Trump pardoned him because he doesn't respect the rule of law or courts...Unless he's using them to screw people he owes money, then the law is all important....bankruptcy law. He's shown this clearly repeatedly by disparaging any judge that might rule against him as "so called judges".

This isn't about illegals, it's about citizens that look Hispanic. By far, most pulled over weren't illegals or even immigrants. More importantly, it's about the rule of law, which he and Trump just flushed down the toilet with a cheer.

Sad that you are so blinded by partisan politics that you've lost sight of what America is about....laws that apply to everyone, not a ruling class that's above them, or laws that only apply when it's convenient for your agenda, but that's exactly what you're advocating here.
Advocating for lawless dictatorship isn't making us great, Bob. It just makes you sound dumb and gullible...insanely gullible. Take a civics class and learn about your country....please.

Edit: Honestly, Bob, it's becoming hard to believe you aren't really far left, pretending to be the worst kind of far right character, setting up weak straw men for us to knock down. You cannot believe that this is a good idea, condoning and pardoning violating the constitution and binding judicial orders...and even you cannot possibly believe that subversion of our systems is patriotic somehow.

Given the polls put support for gay marriage in Aus between 65 and 85%, the only way the no vote will win is through voter apathy.

Conservatives are motivated and will fill out their postal votes. Staunch equal rights activist will of course vote yes. The middle ground in Australia is mostly apathetic and that's where you might find this whole thing falls on it's tits unfortunately.

Annnnnd the plebiscite is not binding... So if the gov still doesn't want to go ahead with it, they don't actually need to (although I suspect they will cop a short term shellacking in the polls because of it).

Sad thing is, the current PM is on record repeatedly as being in favour of same sex marriage, but he is only in power because of right wing power brokers in his party and if he came out openly in support (ironic, I know...) he would likely be spilled out of office.

Fuck politics.

I agree. Obama set a goal for the US by executive order, and since it wasn't voluntary, he never needed to ask the Senate for a two-thirds vote to ratify. Though, I highly doubt it would have passed even with a majority of Democrats...similar to Byrd-Hagel after Gore signed Kyoto. Oddly enough, a NYT/CBS poll in 2015 showed that two-thirds of the respondents supported an agreement...if it were legally binding.

I don't think there's any way to force China to do much of anything. Carbon tariffs? Sure, it'd hurt them, but it would damage us just as much. I guess what sticks in my craw is that China comes out of this looking "clever and cool."

One thing I don't get is if the Paris agreement is non-binding why did Trump feel it was necessary to very publicly withdraw to supposedly protect American jobs and its economy. I mean we have ample evidence that he is very good at entering into agreements and not living up to them so why should this be different for him.

Strangely, the thing that seems to be most important in stopping nuclear war with Russia is Trump's outrageous friendly relationship with Tsar Putin, because he's already made it clear that he has no qualms about using nukes against those he thinks are enemies.

Do you have to demonize a man who assassinates his enemies and expands his country? There's no question that he's done those things, so I don't get his point at all. You don't have to demonize a demon.

How does he think he knows what classified proof there may be? His statement makes him seem silly, he's complaining he hasn't seen this proof, knowing he shouldn't be able to see it.

Russia incontrovertibly militarily and financially supports our enemies and attacks our allies. That alone makes them threat #1. Period. They are also expansionist on multiple fronts, which is hyper threatening.

It's only unwise to build up Polish border forces if you want Poland to be Russian.

Be clear, Putin didn't "put Trump into the whitehouse", but he certainly helped. The argument that he didn't just install him is a red herring, designed to distract from the legal and illegal things Russia did to effect the election, a plan that worked better than they ever hoped.

Fake news hysteria?!? Fake news is one of the most important issues today, because it denies progress on ANY other issue by confusing the facts, making negotiation impossible.

I hate hearing about Bakers "promise"....it wasn't in writing, it wasn't from America or NATO, it wasn't binding in any way even then, and thinking we should stand by it in the face of Russia breaking treaty after treaty is just insane and naïve. Remember, Russia promised to never invade Ukraine (including Crimea).

I don't really think Aleppo was liberated....there's nothing left to liberate there but rubble.
Really, he's claiming that when Mosul was "liberated", Iraq just let the enemy drive away? That's bullshit. We have bombed the fleeing militants, and the Iraqi have fought them with vigor this time.

For a professional on US, Russia relations, he's got some strange ways of seeing things.
I do agree with him that, to Russia, bolstering Assad IS fighting terrorism. I think we failed miserably when we didn't take Assad out after he gassed the populace AND support/safeguard the local populace (if not their militias)....no question in my mind, that's when we lost Syria. Once Daesh and others were allowed to take over the anti-Assad side, there was no "winning" that war.
I also agree, with our current leaders, the nuclear safeguard is no safeguard at all, it's a sword of Damocles, not a shield.

I can understand, it's not a simple issue, but this expansion happened 18-20 (invited in 97, members in 99) years ago. I simply can't grasp anyone being upset that NATO troops are in a long term NATO country.
If Putin/Russia hadn't been massing troops on it's borders, and then moving them into neighboring countries it now claims as part of Russia, the other bordering countries would not be asking for this safeguard, but to imply that NATO troops in Poland are somehow an attack on Russia is laughable. NATO troops would never invade Russia, that would certainly be WW3. As it stands, I feel like NATO probably wouldn't respond if it's troops were overrun by a Russian invasion of a member country, we (the US and others) certainly didn't help Crimea or Ukraine, even though we have a binding treaty requiring us to come to their defense, one paid for by giving up their nuclear arsenal.

Sadly, it's looking like there can be no stability/security in Europe with Russia either.

Customer: They were able to resurrect my flesh, it's healed. And it's time for me to go home.

Cashier: Oh my god!

Customer: And I.. my.. e-they even told me my scales are turning gold as my father's were. My father was a piece of creation itself. He was the protector of god himself.

Cashier: Well that's good then.

Customer: That's the thing, people damn power. It's not evil it's how you choose to use it.

Cashier: Oh yeah most definitely. That's pretty much like how everything is.

Customer: But the dictation of true power is lost to this world. I'm returning home but I'm... going to come back. But I'm going to make it that no human is permitted to use power without sanction.

Cashier: Good!

Customer: You must give your soul to me.

Cashier: Oh my god!

Customer: I am the Sovereign of Power and I'm going to become what my father was before my birth: "Eternal Guardian Dragon of Time".

Cashier: Oh wow!

Customer: My father gave up much of his power when I was born. Because she.. (pause) h-he-his mate was Hecate (?), mother of angels. I was the only true born.. My brethren. Even Lucifer down in the pit for his fucking retardation, he was my brother.

Cashier: Oh my goodness!

Customer: I am not a fallen. I am a lost. I fell to Earth from my own folly- not following that bastard.

Cashier: (exasperated exhale) Wow.

Customer: Honestly look into my eyes. Do I seem mad to you?

Cashier: Not really.

Customer: Most humans denounce anything that is outside their realm (of...)

Cashier: (finishes Customer's sentence) Understanding.

Customer: But that is my dictation. I do not demand your soul as payment. It is moreso protection that if you abuse your power.. then your soul is (was?) going to be bound. You keep your soul within your flesh but your soul will be bound never to touch power again. That is the dictation of the blood contract. I give you my blood, you give me... a piece of your soul. You do not lose your soul. I am not the father, I have no rights to your soul. But I do have rights to claim how you use my power. And that is the only reason I bind your soul like that.

Cashier: Oh yeah forreal.. like.. that makes sense.

I agree with Oliver here, but I think he sorta missed an opportunity to talk about confirming exactly who our US Constitutional protections should apply to.

It has been all-to-common in the past decade-plus for people / bodies in our government to "justify" questionable actions by saying that they were performed on people who aren't US citizens. Detain and torture suspected (or *known*) terrorists indefinitely without trial? That's fine, they aren't citizens. Send drone strikes against people outside of US borders that we suspect may be aiding terrorists, even though collateral damage is likely? Meh, they aren't Americans. Spy on people, record and intercept their communications to the greatest extent possible without a warrant or probable cause? Never mind -- we're not doing it to our own citizens (even though we now know that even that justification is an outright lie).

It would be nice for the government to take a stand and state that ALL of the protections that are granted by our constitution and have made our country what it is should actually be considered universal and binding in terms of how our government interacts with ALL people, not just US citizens.

Freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, fair trial, no unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. etc. Consistently and universally applied whenever the government has any interaction with any human being on the planet -- inside or outside of US soil, and whether that person is a US Citizen or not.

I suppose it would take a constitutional amendment to codify that. That would require 2/3 support in congress -- so I won't hold my breath. But here is where a president with true leadership could step up and say that whether there is an official amendment codifying that or not, every government office under his (or her) command should behave as though that was law. All the 3-letter agencies, the military, etc. I think that would get the ball rolling and make an amendment possible on down the line.

Our constitutional protections are arguably what made our country great. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by proving that to the rest of the world by actually standing by the courage of our own convictions.

CRISPR-Cas9
Bring me a gene
Encoding for a specific protein
Make a few snips at this coded locus
You work so well inside a streptococcus
Cas9
I'm so alone
Without your scissors in my chromosome
Cut me up and do it clean
CRISPR-Cas9 bring me a gene

CRISPR-Cas9
Keep me a gene
A viral sequence you've already seen
Chopped into bits and stored as genomic
With clustered repeats
That are palindromic
Cas9
Bind with this code
Use it to target infections of old
Immunized like a vaccine
CRISPR-Cas9 keep me a gene

CRISPR-Cas9
Cut me a gene
With a precision that I've never seen
Unzip a strand and interrogate it
Seek out your sequence until you locate it
Cas9
Lock into place
And do your job as endonuclease
Chop just like a guillotine
CRISPR-Cas9 cut me a gene

Snip snap!
CRISPR-Cas9
CRISPR-Cas9

CRISPR-Cas9
Bring me a gene
By commandeering my repair routine
A strand to match your severed location
For some homologous recombination
Cas9
Cheap and precise
Rewriting genomes from microbes to mice
And soon the humble human being
CRISPR-Cas9 bring me a gene

CRISPR-Cas9
Give us a gene
Give us a miracle like that one Nazarene
‘Cause giving the lame their legs and the blind their sight is
In view for dystrophy and retinitis
But CRISPR-Cas9
What if you fall
Outside our power and inside us all
That really could incite a scene

When this terrible wonderful power unsettling
Opens the door to unethically meddle
Is ev’ry congenital malady bettered
Sufficient to warrant genetics unfettered
To modify man in the manner of Gattaca
Raise up a mammoth or make a rattata
Dramatical medical means to eradicate aging
Or cancer or make a fanatic
A mass epidemic a weapon nefarious
Single mosquito to wipe out malaria
Send in a viral infection to ferry a
Cure to the cells of an HIV carrier
Freed of disease as we're free to uncover
What nature and accident failed to discover
And free to be other than
All that we ever have been

CRISPR-Cas9
CRISPR-Cas9

Oh CRISPR-Cas9
Bring us a gene
You wondrous ribonucleoprotein
You have the power to vanquish or save us
Who would have thought that the microbe that gave us
Cas9
S. pyogenes
The source of strep and flesh-eating disease
Housed this marvellous machine
Full of uses great and obscene
CRISPR-Cas9 bring us
Please don't sting us
Cas9 bring us a gene

With adenine
And thiamine
Incite a scene
Cas9 bring us a gene!

Wax is a lubricant, or at least it can be. Not to be confused with wax for surfboards. My theory is that in liquid form it gets sucked into the threads via wicking action and prevents the binding of rust on rust when trying to turn the nut, but that's just my 2 cents. This probably won't work for nuts that are over-tightened, just ones that are rusted in place,