I started trying to help cite what the actual amount of enrichment that is allowed, and based upon what I read it would seem that the enrichment amount is unimportant, the only requirement is that is must be used for “peaceful purposes”, this can be found in Article III section 3, and by extension article IV, treaty Article 3.3

The safeguards required by this Article shall be implemented in a manner designed to comply with Article IV of this Treaty, and to avoid hampering the economic or technological development of the Parties or international co-operation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities, including the international exchange of nuclear material and equipment for the processing, use or production of nuclear material for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this Article and the principle of safeguarding set forth in the Preamble of the Treaty.

Article 4

1.        Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.
   

2.        All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.
   

The percentage may have come from a standpoint of plausible deniability for civilian uses, but based on the treaty itself, enrichment does not mean anything.

I will take his idiocy over the next in line any day, he is flip flopping constantly which slows him down from actually accomplishing villainy, while I fear Vance would be incredibly more directed and thus far more vile.

I’ve seen a couple of these articles, does anyone know why they choose to aggregate their articles into one page?

I think you got your groups a little mixed up,

America: invades foreign countries and kills innocent people.

Mentally ill warhawks: it’s for a valid reason we swear!

China: has military presence just outside of its borders.

Freedom conscious people: OMG guys the evil communist dictators are going to destroy the world!!

There’s quite a bit of overlap with these groups and liberals, but I wouldn’t say liberals in general hold these opinions.