volbeast33
You can count on Carlos!
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 35,607
- Likes
- 108,729
I'm sure there are some Dems that could be trusted. There are likely many Republicans that can't. The question is not if there are ANY that can be trusted. It's whether there are ANY that can't.I like Gabbard. I think she’s fine. I’m addressing the absurd claim that no Dems in Congress can be trusted.
This is such a stupid detour. It's not a matter of whether ALL of Congress is untrustworthy. It's a matter of whether ANYONE in Congress is untrustworthy.What about Spanberger? By your rationale, Spanberger can’t be trusted at all but maybe Matt Gaetz could be trusted in between coke binges and DUI arrests?? Who decides which Republicans are trustworthy? Let us know all of this once you figure it out.
Hmmm. From what I've read, it appears no one had a clue about last night until Trump announced it. If correct, is it reasonable to think the earlier gaffes have been corrected?Your party got military plans hacked and accidentally looped in a reporter. Wanting to keep Congress in the dark in the name of “Op-Sec” is a joke.
He may not have, but I did say I do not believe there was a single Democrat in Congress that could be trusted to keep their mouth shut. However, I will allow an possible exemption for Fetterman.I believe your comment from last night was that only Republicans could be trusted because Dems would spill the beans. I’m not going to go back and look. If that’s not what you said then I’ll apologize. If it is what you said, then you essentially accused about 48% of the legislative branch of treason.
Iran has been enriching uranium to levels significantly beyond those needed for civilian nuclear power, particularly reaching 60% purity, which is close to weapons-grade. The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) has reported on Iran's increasing stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%, a level that raises serious concerns about proliferation. While Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, the IAEA has reported finding uranium particles enriched to 83.7% at the Fordow facility, which is very close to the 90% needed for weapons-grade material.Iran has been enriching uranium to 60% since 2021, that’s a known fact. But enrichment alone, even at that level, is not the same as building a bomb. Weapons-grade uranium requires around 90% enrichment, and there’s been no verified evidence from the IAEA or any intelligence agency that Iran has moved to that threshold or begun weaponization. They started enriching to 60% after the U.S. exited the JCPOA and following Israeli sabotage and assassinations prior to that time, it was clearly a political and strategic response, not a secretive sprint to a weapon. If Iran truly intended to build a bomb, why hasn’t enrichment gone beyond 60% after nearly 3 years? The activity is provocative, yes, but equating it to weapons production without further proof is assumption, not fact.
Not so fast my friendIran’s had the technical capability to enrich past 60% for years, even the IAEA has confirmed that. The fact they haven’t done it shows restraint or strategic signaling, not inability. As for why 60%? ,medical isotope production, political leverage, and a response to JCPOA collapse and Israeli sabotage are well-documented explanations. You just don’t like them.