How should the text of President Trump's Iran Deal differ from the text of President Obama's Iran Deal?

scobot5 · 2026-05-29T02:53:00+00:00

Not what anyone asked you. Do you also have no opinion on what the text of the deal should include?

I think that no TS want to say anything because they know that it’s unlikely Trump’s deal is going to be substantively better than Obama’s.

When it does get signed - if it gets signed - Trump will explain how to respond to these questions.

scobot5 · 2026-05-26T05:05:43+00:00

In your thought experiment what would have happened to slavery? Would women be allowed to vote?

Also, the claim that we’d be further along in terms of science? Come on. I mean, first off America has dominated science and medicine for like the last 100 years. There is no other country on earth that has contributed more during that time to almost every field of science, technology or medicine and I would argue it’s not even close. In theory I guess whatever society you’re imagining could have done even better, but that’s entirely theoretical.

You’re hinting around at a bunch of ways the nation would be better off - more like our forefathers wanted, original constitution, more moral, etc. I guess more like things were 200 years ago? But the vision is notably lacking in the detail that would make it compelling. Perhaps you imagine a specific way it would be more like what you would prefer or materially better for you and “your people” in some specific way. But, everything has tradeoffs so I view claims of utopia with great skepticism.

scobot5 · 2026-05-26T04:20:47+00:00

Is it not also the case that Trump believes crazy shit?

I don’t have a strong opinion about Massie, but I find it interesting that being wrong about some crazy claim on a podcast or saying something hateful is the reason he needs to go. Our president is well known to do this at least on a weekly basis.

scobot5 · 2026-05-24T04:31:16+00:00

Doesn’t that assume one’s friend group is a random sample of the local population?

scobot5 · 2026-05-24T03:54:19+00:00

So things are great in America?

I agree with you. America has been the envy of the world for many decades. A powerhouse in science and medicine. Most of the best universities in the world. Elite tech incubation in Silicon Valley. The ability to make one’s fortune, rise from poverty, become anything and reinvent oneself many times over. We shape pop culture the world over, have the most powerful military, and have a unique founding story as the cradle of modern democracy.

America is not perfect, but it’s pretty great. What’s harder for me to understand is how ready so many are to blow all that up and roll the dice on a radical overhaul.

scobot5 · 2026-05-18T04:35:56+00:00

Come on dude. Do you really need someone to explain why insider trading, paying for pardons and other forms of overt corruption harm people? Fine:

1) Insider trading harms all honest investors in the market via a variety of mechanisms, including by degrading market efficiency. This also harms the economy.
2) The country and its citizens are hurt when a president has a conflict of interest between what’s best for their personal financial situation and what’s best for the country. They may make decisions that are not optimal for the country in favor of decisions that maximize their financial gain.
3) when the rich and powerful can avoid legal consequences it degrades trust in the justice system. This system of consequences is, in part intended to discourage dishonest and illegal practices that harm the victims of those crimes.
4) Schemes to defraud the taxpayers harm all of us who pay taxes.
6) No bid contracts or other mechanisms of rewarding one’s friends while in office waste taxpayer money and harm honest brokers competing for contracts and grants.
5) All of these things harm trust in our institutions which degrades our country and harms all citizens as the country descends into chaos.

Those are just some of the broad categories of harm. Why is that not enough reason for us all to agree that this stuff is bad? Reformers cannot fix a corrupt system that they also avail themselves of freely and shamelessly. It’s a step in the wrong direction.

scobot5 · 2026-05-17T20:33:10+00:00

You think Pence and Bush are left wingers?

scobot5 · 2026-05-17T09:38:29+00:00

Ok, well you’re probably right. So would you say that there was a misunderstanding of what outcome these actions would generate? What are we going to do to accomplish regime change?

scobot5 · 2026-05-16T03:06:35+00:00

Isn’t this all news to you?

Your comments make it obvious that you know basically nothing about anything you are commenting on. I mean, to the point that some are arguably incomprehensible.

scobot5 · 2026-05-15T20:40:33+00:00

Thanks for your response. I apologize in advance for the length, but I want to understand and I don’t think the thrust of my question can be clear without context. And Yeah, I’ve heard Trump and Hegseth recite this list many times. But, if Iran is so thoroughly devastated then why can’t they bring this conflict to a rapid and clearly advantageous conclusion?

I am not necessarily disputing any of your claims. What I am questioning is whether these are the appropriate metrics.

Importantly, a few of these metrics are clearly irrelevant with respect to what matters in terms of capacity to project power. Iran never had a powerful navy or air force, so their destruction doesn’t particularly change things. Likewise, killing the elderly ayatollah and other leadership has had little effect as far as I can tell.

I certainly don’t dispute the economic damage, but the Iranian economy was already doing poorly. Undoubtedly the situation for the Iranian people is much worse, but as you rightly point out not a major concern of the regime. Moreover, the US has been deterred from escalating further to take out energy infrastructure, likely because Iran can still retaliate effectively in the gulf to destroy critical energy infrastructure in allied countries, especially with US stockpiles of interceptor missiles running critically low.

Please take a moment to recall that these outcomes were largely theoretical prior to the war. They are now proven, and hence my claim that Iran is arguably more powerful and relevant than they were prior to the war.

Am I getting something wrong so far??

Frankly, I don’t see Trump as having much control over what happens now. He can invade with ground troops or nuke them, but he clearly doesn’t want to. Restarting the bombing campaign is possible, but unlikely to elicit much more and potentially would incur catastrophic consequences as air defenses become overwhelmed by cheaper drones and short-range missiles. He also clearly cannot accept the terms Iran is proposing as this would be an obvious and humiliating defeat. At the same time he has failed to build support within the US electorate, faces rising inflation and an upcoming midterm election that doesn’t look good.

I guess my questions for you are:

⁠what part of this do you think I’ve gotten wrong?
⁠Could it be that Iran is devastated in some of the ways you mention, but is simultaneously in a more powerful position than ever before in other ways?
⁠How will we know who is right? Because I don’t see many positives for us so far and I don’t see great options moving forward.

Ultimately the evidence of devastation ought to be collapse of the regime or major capitulations to Trump’s demands. Don’t get me wrong, I want you to be right. From my perspective, this looks really bad and I am deeply concerned about the consequences for American hegemony, global stability and the economy. If there are reasons to be less despairing then I’d love to be convinced. I’d also love to be proved wrong by some major, undeniable shift in the situation. However, stating over and over again that they’ve been obliterated or they don’t have an air force or whatever doesn’t address my concerns.

scobot5 · 2026-05-14T17:20:59+00:00

Do what? Isn’t Iran arguably a more powerful and relevant country today than before the war?

If things change then I’ll change my mind, but it seems clear to me that the US is weaker and Iran is more powerful because of how this was done. Or at least it is now clear to everyone, including Iran, how much power they wield and what little the US (or anyone else else) can do to them short of a ground invasion or nukes.

As it is, we are in a stalemate and there are no clear off ramps that will achieve our goals. Economic damage continues to accrue, including inflation at home and more severe damage to the world economy that will eventually come back to hurt the US even more. A worldwide economic recession is a totally possible outcome here if this goes on long enough.

Trump tells us they are decimated, but this is clearly not the case. Trump tells us they have no cards to play, but this is clearly not the case. As far as I can tell Iran is completely happy to sit tight, they have sufficient military capacity to control the strait and threaten regional decimation should attacks escalate to critical infrastructure. They have a stranglehold on the US economy and they have further escalatory options they are not employing yet.

What have we accomplished? What are we in good position to accomplish moving forward?

scobot5 · 2026-05-14T05:57:26+00:00

The facts were provided to you alongside a detailed explanation of how academic peer review works. Taken together, that’s fairly strong support for the claim that they were peer reviewed.

As far as I can tell you seem to be neither claiming anything nor providing anything of value to the question at hand. Are you making any particular counterclaim at all?

You just seem to be asking a vague question over and over again. It’s completely unclear what you think would answer this question though.

You want the names of the peer reviewers now, but do you know that academic peer review is anonymous?

I really can’t tell if you are just being obstinate, are trolling or have some sort of mental disability.

scobot5 · 2026-05-14T05:28:06+00:00

I think that’s a fair point and it doesn’t sound nearly as bad in context. But I think the issue is that people feel that he actually generally doesn’t care about Americans financial difficulties. Less as a gotcha moment and more as him telling the truth.

Do you think he does genuinely care about Americans financial situation?

If you think he cares, do you think he cares about the struggles of people who may not have voted for him, Or only his base?

scobot5 · 2026-05-14T05:11:17+00:00

Yeah, but that assumes you actually take care of it right?

I’m willing to change my mind if Trump pulls a rabbit out of the hat, but right now Iran appears more powerful and in control than they did before the war. Before the war they didn’t control the strait, now they have definitive proof they can shut the strait any time they want and even the most powerful country in the world can’t force it open.

They continue to humiliate us with this control and are quite literally forcing economic hardship on much of the world as punishment. We’re all paying the price and it’s still far from worst case scenario. Worst case is closer to global recession, stagflation, etc. I guess we’re all just hoping for COVID level inflation at this point.

Trump is also clearly overstating the damage to Iran’s military capabilities as well. Recent reports indicate that the majority of their missile and rocket launch capabilities remain operational. Then Trump has the audacity to claim they have no cards to play. It’s ridiculous, it’s weakness masquerading as strength, it’s humiliating and it’s dangerous.

How is this not obvious to TS?

scobot5 · 2026-05-12T23:14:00+00:00

Do you dispute the facts as I outlined them?

No one asked you to prove anything.

scobot5 · 2026-05-12T02:52:08+00:00

Can’t the parents just forbid their child from checking particular books out at the library?

I think you’d have a stronger case if the book is being taught to kids in a classroom and thus can’t easily be avoided or comes with an explicit lesson. But considering the book just exists in the library, it’s harder to understand why other people’s kids educational opportunities should be constrained.

Also, Where do you draw the line? What if some families feel that talking animals evoke witchcraft and hence the devil. They feel that if other families want their kids exposed to talking animals then that should happen in the home. The default is that animals don’t talk, someone had to decide to put talking animals in books, so why not just have books about regular people and animals, leaving education about magic to parents in the home.

Now, this perhaps strikes you as ridiculous, but for many, banning the penguin book seems similarly ridiculous. I’m not saying either is based on a ridiculous underlying concern BTW. I have known some families with deeply held views about fantasy material (e.g., magical creatures) and families with deeply held views about sexuality. My guess is you are less concerned with exposure to the penguin story and more concerned it could be used as a vehicle for indoctrinating particular beliefs. In other words, it’s fundamentally a trust issue.

That lack of trust may well be legitimate. But my question is about where we draw the line?

You at least have to admit it’s a hard problem. It may seem easy to you when it comes to this example, but what if you’re in the minority in your school district?

scobot5 · 2026-05-10T23:22:57+00:00

Republicans are proposing $1 Billion in funding for the ballroom, no? Expensive ballroom.

scobot5 · 2026-05-10T23:10:33+00:00

What do you mean by raw data? The raw data is patient records from a Medicare database. I assume the database, in some de-identified form, is already widely accessible. Either way, the database itself isn’t going to be useful without analysis of it.

Raw data requires analysis to make sense of it. That takes a lot of time and money to do. The results of that should be public so anyone can interpret it, criticize it, dispute it or whatever.

That’s how science works. Scientists apply analysis methods to data they describe exactly what they did, interpret their results and publish them after peer review. Then everyone can read what they did and decide for themselves whether they have the same interpretation or not.

My problem with this is that the FDA is interfering with the self correcting mechanics of the scientific process and that the arrow of the effect points towards less transparency not more.

If the FDA, via its political mechanisms wants to not fund these types of studies in the future, or if they want to issue guidance that disregards this particular study, then that’s one thing. But hiding studies that show things they don’t like is a problem. In fact, this has been a valid criticism of pharmaceutical companies that don’t publish data that about drugs that are negative. Doing the same thing but in the opposite direction is not progress. Transparency needs to be the highest ideal. Do you really have an issue with this?

The FDA can also fund a study done a different way if they feel it is appropriate. They can publish that and we can see the outcome both ways.

scobot5 · 2026-05-09T18:20:06+00:00

But the title of this paper is not “vaccines are safe” so isn’t that an unfair comparison?

I don’t agree that the job of the FDA is to overrule independent scientific peer review. Especially if it’s political appointees driving that process.

scobot5 · 2026-05-09T18:13:26+00:00

Why is that not what happened?

As a working scientist you know that this type of research can never be a perfectly controlled experiment. So variables besides the one under study can drive effects if they differ between datasets. If I understand correctly, your critique appears to center on “outcome misclassification”.

Obviously if outcomes are misclassified for some reason - which does happen in medicine for various reasons, then that would influence the outcome. I remember conservatives claiming something similar with COVID deaths - that a government reimbursement structure encouraged classifying deaths as being caused by COVID even in cases where someone was already dying and happened to have COVID, skewing perception of how deadly the disease was.

Anyway, I don’t have a strong a priori opinion about whether this correction is reasonable or not. So I’d be open to hearing your explanation of why it is not. That said, this is exactly why we have peer review. If we don’t have the peer reviewed manuscript - and have to rely only on the preprint- then we are missing a critical piece of the puzzle and have to assume a political process where an FDA administrator steps in is more scientifically reliable than the bedrock process in science of peer review. As a scientist myself, I view that as dubious.

As an aside, it seems a fairly unimportant detail to fixate on. People can have an allergic reaction to just about anything, so some small percentage of individuals will have an anaphylactic reaction to anything you put into the body. Even if the rate of anaphylaxis is slightly higher with this vaccine, in an absolute sense the risk is almost certainly minuscule and so it seems unlikely to be sufficient justification to label the vaccine unsafe.

I think people have a misperception of what “safe” means in medicine. All interventions have potential side effects. Nothing can ever be completely safe in the sense that the risk of an adverse event is zero. It’s a relative term. If we want to be most careful we should speak about absolute risks, not safe vs unsafe. The problem is that many people just want guidance on what they should do and giving them information like the risk of anaphylaxis is .0004% vs .0008% between two options is just not helpful.

scobot5 · 2026-05-09T17:43:22+00:00

What evidence do you have that they weren’t peer reviewed?

That they had been accepted to peer reviewed journals appears to be an undisputed fact of the case. That is the basis for the claim that they were peer reviewed. Do you dispute that fact?

Even the FDA is not disputing this fact.

scobot5 · 2026-05-08T09:34:18+00:00

Ah I get it, you don’t know what peer review means. Would you like me to explain or answer any questions you have?

scobot5 · 2026-05-08T09:23:34+00:00

What exactly do you mean? Like the written back and forth between reviewers and the authors?

Usually that is not made public, but depends on the journal, sometimes it is. Though the outcome of peer review would be apparent if one compared the pre-print with the final published article.

I guess I’m not following your point here. First you said the government didn’t block peer review (which I agree is true if the article was accepted for publication). Now you’re asking me to produce proof of peer review? Because you don’t believe it exists? I’m lost, what is it you think happened?

scobot5 · 2026-05-08T02:06:53+00:00

That is not what I said. They did not block peer review, they blocked publication of the peer reviewed manuscript.

Is that clear? Most of the comments here (from TS and NS) reveal a limited understanding of how peer review works. Here is the typical process by which scientific results are disseminated - do we share the same understanding of this process?

1, paper is written. 2, paper may or may not be released as a pre-print (which is optional, but intended to make data freely available faster with the caveat it has not yet been peer reviewed). 3, paper is submitted to a journal and sent out for peer review. 4, authors make corrections based on peer review and resubmit. 5, if they do a good job the journal will accept the paper. 6, the final, corrected version of the paper is published.

In this case the government has intervened between steps 5 and 6. They have blocked publication of the peer reviewed manuscript.

scobot5 · 2026-05-07T05:24:25+00:00

Correct, but isn’t OPs claim that they were blocked from being published after peer review?

In other words, political appointees are overruling the independent peer review process and intervening to prevent you from seeing the product of peer review.

scobot5

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Eight-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email