Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 11:30 AM Jan 2014

The fate of these 2 issues will likely be determined in the next 6 months. Which is more critical?

One issue centers on domestic politics, and all of the implications that may hold for us as a nation moving forward. The other centers on international relations, and all of the repercussions that may hold for us as a nation moving forward.

One involves Chris Christie, the other involves Iran. Which outcome will have the most far reaching consequences?


4 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Legally determining whether Chris Chrisite abused state power as the Governor of New Jersey
0 (0%)
The success or failure of negotiations with Iran to restrict its nuclear program to non weapon uses
2 (50%)
They are equally important
2 (50%)
Neither is critical
0 (0%)
I am here to look at cat pictures
0 (0%)
Other
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The fate of these 2 issues will likely be determined in the next 6 months. Which is more critical? (Original Post) Tom Rinaldo Jan 2014 OP
I think they are equally important gaspee Jan 2014 #1
Success at #2 will be irrelevant if Christie becomes president. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2014 #2
#2 will most likely be determined over a year before the first Republkican primary Tom Rinaldo Jan 2014 #5
The ability to walk and chew gum at the same time. (n/t) Iggo Jan 2014 #3
OK, how about this then? Tom Rinaldo Jan 2014 #4
Silly poll gets silly answer. I voted Christie cthulu2016 Jan 2014 #6
Why is it silly? Seriously Tom Rinaldo Jan 2014 #7

gaspee

(3,231 posts)
1. I think they are equally important
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 12:08 PM
Jan 2014

Because a Christie Presidency, long-term, will destroy more than just the Iran negotiations.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
2. Success at #2 will be irrelevant if Christie becomes president.
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 12:14 PM
Jan 2014

War is good for Republican business. "Negotiated settlements" not so much.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
5. #2 will most likely be determined over a year before the first Republkican primary
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 03:23 PM
Jan 2014

But I get your point. Still A) it is uncertain if Christie can win the Republican nomination even if he is not directly implicated in these scandals and B) it is not certain that Christie would win the election for President even if he does get the Republican nomination.

But it is not just Republicans we have to worry about regarding war in the Middle East. Democrats in Congress played a key role in enabling the Iraq invasion. Democrats in Congress are playing a key role in pushing new sanctions against Iran during this 6 month negotiating window.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
4. OK, how about this then?
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 03:07 PM
Jan 2014

Which issue more requires our immediate attention now?

Regarding Chris Christie subpenas have just been issued and more may be forthcoming. Courage may be required in the U.S. Attorney's office and in the NJ State Legislature to ensure that all leads are investigated and that justice is served. Public attention and pressure could increase the likelihood that will happen, but nothing of substance will be settled over the next couple of weeks while documents are assembled in response to the subpenas.

Legislation is now advancing in the U.S. Senate to impose new sanctions on Iran. The Obama administration and many outside experts conclude that such an effort to introduce further sanctions against Iran would introduce a poison pill into the negotiations that would result in their collapse and failure. 59 U.S. Senators are already on record as being in favor of those new sanctions. That includes 16 Democratic Senators, many of them from very blue states. President Obama is about to conduct a White House meeting with Senate Democrats, with this topic high on the agenda for that meeting.

For the moment only Leader Harry Reid is preventing a Senate vote on the Iran resolution, with a clear majority of U.S. Senators now seeking to impose new sanctions on Iran.

Forget about chewing gum. Isn't it now urgent that peace activists and those who favor giving negotiations with Iran at least an opportunity to succeed to chew out the Democratic Senators who are undercutting the Obama Administration's attempt to avoid military conflict with Iran through a non violent successful resolution of the nuclear issue?

Where are the reports of all of our phone calls to Democratic Senators who are on the verge of steering us toward decades on new conflict in the Middle East? I've been in touch with both of my NY Senators by phone, and also wrote a long letter to Senator Gillibrand who I campaigned on behalf of of during her first run for Congress.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
7. Why is it silly? Seriously
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 03:39 PM
Jan 2014

This is an activist board. I think it is implicit to most of us being involved here that the visibility and attention paid to an issue has a lot to do with our chances of influencing how that issue ultimately plays out. It is of course a obvious variant of the classic "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" truism. It's why we are concerned when an issue seems to be advancing "below the radar". It's why Big Ed keeps screaming about the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) not getting the attention that it deserves, for another example.

I have no doubt that my two NY Senators are getting more heat from AIPAC and its related donors regarding the status of negotiations with Iran than they are from individual constituents like myself. When special interests mobilize but the general public doesn't the results are predictable.

OK that is my agenda here regarding this OP, but I think I was fair in how I presented the poll questions so as to avoid "push polling". I honestly wasn't sure how people who participated would vote. I can understand how you could choose the Christie option.

I didn't express an opinion at first, but it is interesting to see how people keep responding. If the Iran option continues to clearly outpace the Christie one, then my question becomes; why aren't we talking more about the Senate resolution that could torpedo our best chance of avoiding another war in the Middle East? We have lots of threads discussing Christie, I admit I started one myself.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The fate of these 2 issue...