As far as the effectiveness of his speech goes, effective speeches convince people who otherwise weren’t convinced. Obama’s speech failed to gain support from Democrats, and it failed to gain support from the American people, who went from cautious support of the deal to now wanting Congress to kill it.
ISIS does not have the means to do any damage here except by inspiring a very few lunatics. Haven’t seen that many of them other than that show in Texas.
However, the various GOP candidates (and Congress) want to:
1.Repeal the ACA
2.Shut down or privatize SSI
3. Cut Medicare
4. Strip power from SCOTUS
Think of how much damage will occur if even one of those things is done.
And this is just a sampler.
Except for #4, which has actually historically been a Democrat priority and still gets trotted out when SCOTUS threatens to strike down their laws, you believe that those three are worse than 9/11? Or do you just not think ISIS capable of a 9/11-level attack?
Now see here:
Seriously? Much worse than 9/11.
I really hope Obama runs with that.
And it would be really nice of administration officials and the President himself would stop insinuating that the Jews are part of the problem:
So the president is not allowed to make the factually incontrovertible statement that money, lobbyists, and foreign interests are actively fighting to kill the deal, because somehow that’s blaming “Jews.”
Perfect example of the right’s own version of “political correctness” that was pointed out on another thread.
Democrats hate Jews, blah blah blah, Trump is going to win the Latino vote, blah blah blah. Both statements are equally plausible.
Several Democrats have come out in support of the deal. I can’t say that this speech was what convinced them, and you can’t say that this speech failed to convince anyone.
We’ll find out at the final vote (and probable attempt to overturn a veto) in September. I think it’s extremely unlikely that the “no” votes get their 2/3rds in both houses.
Cite that the President has insinuated that “Jews are part of the problem”? Your link fails to do so.
What is Obama running for?
You think 9/11 is worse than losing healthcare for millions? Killing Social Security? Killing Medicare? 9/11 was a horrible thing, but losing those social programs will have a far greater negative effect on the people of this country.
But it may be a losing strategy in an election. Not realizing how cowardly people can be can lose you votes.
Tragic that more people believe they can protect themselves from financial problems than from terrorist attack?
You should research Leon Blum. He prioritized social programs too. Didn’t work out so well for that particular President, or his people.
Did anyone notice that Obama seems to be preparing an “out” for himself? If the Iranians violate the agreement, or otherwise cheat, he has the answer ready.
I saw the speech as an attempt to put a shine on a sneaker-he knows that agreement is full of holes, and he’s leaving a big pile of steaming turds for his successor.
Please expand on that.
Is it a tu quoque to point out that the other guy started the fight?
How is it a false choice? The other parties with skin in the game have all signed off on the deal. US-only sanctions would be about as effective as farting in the Iranians’ general direction.
Repealing ACA would result in more American deaths than 9/11 did.
But you’re right - Obama is no Reagan. I mean, not one person in his administration has sold any weapons to Iran. What a slacker.
As for the speech: meh. Speeches are speeches. I doubt it changed anyone’s vote who hadn’t already made up their mind, and I’d be surprised if anyone hadn’t made up their mind before the speech.
Certainly…the Iranians are given 24 days to “prepare” for an inspection-pretty easy to move stuff around. Obama already knows that Iran will use their $150 billion to re-equip -known terrorist groups (like Hezballah) with shiny new toys. European and American (and Russian) suppliers are salivating over this windfall. Even John Kerry has noted “the Iranians will proabbly fund terror”!
So much for the Obama “legacy”.
Have you ever tried moving a uranium enrichment facility in 24 days?
Nope. How about moving enriched/bomb grade uranium? that is not too difficult to do.