The vote in the House was 144 to 44, with 35 not voting. The House vote was almost entirely along party lines, with no Democrats supporting the bill and only 3 Republicans voting against .
Press sec Sanders is getting high kudos for sitting through the hateful and unfunny Michelle Wolf jokes that even some liberal journalists are criticizing.
Press sec Sanders is getting high kudos for sitting through the hateful a
Wow, that is sure an impressive thing to add to the resume....Maybe she learned something...like not lying, but that is wishful thinking....BTW...she looked ravishing last night.....
Thats not something you pit into s resume stupid. But when lib journalists like terry moran and norah odonnell speak out on her behalf, it does reflect a higher level of respect.
Pompeo declaring that the USA will scrap the Iranian nuclear accord, just as North Korea is proposing a nuclear deal that hinges on trusting the US to honor our deals. WTF is going through their minds in DC?
Pompeo might not be wrong about Iran sponsoring terrorism and violating their own obligations testing ballistic missiles. I wouldn't disagree with taking serious measures with regards to Iran. But hamstringing Trump in his potential negotiations with North Korea ... it must spring from a lack of direction, of a coherently defined policy. Trump's big international focus is currently whining about the "bad location" of the new London embassy, his "non-state" visit to UK. We're just bumbling about, and I guess we should just expect that as a "new normal" until Trump's term is done.
Last time I checked, Trump didn't make the deal with Iran. In fact, the United States never officially entered into any legal treaty with Iran, because all treaties have to be confirmed by the Senate. Obama himself entered into a deal with Iran (outside of the treaty authority that our constitution requires for international deals).
Had Obama bothered to cut a deal that the Senate could have confirmed and could have become a legal treaty, then I am quite certain that Trump would not be looking to renegotiate it.
I am also pretty sure that Kim knows that Trump is not responsible for Obama's agreements, and that most certainly that any agreement he makes with Trump, must either pass the muster of our Senate and become a legal treaty, or would be subject to being ended (or changed) if Trump is no longer President.
Certainly you are not trying to hold Trump accountable for Obama's egotistical flaunting of Presidential authority?
Bah... what am I thinking. Of course it's Trump's fault. Everything it Trump's fault. How could I forget.
The US made the deal. Trump wants to toss it. Who the hell cares that "Trump didn't make the deal"?
It may be news to you CH, but the universe doesn't spin around Trump.
"Kim knows that Trump is not responsible for Obama's agreements" - that is, frankly, stupid on more than one level.
First, Kim doesn't give a flying fuck whether it's Trump or Obama (basically it's only partisan halfwits who have that attitude) signing any particular deal. Secondly it's an agreement between nations, just like with Iran. And finally, if the USA is backing out of one nuclear agreement, you can't trust them not to back out of another. At the very least you've just given North Korea more leverage in negotiations.
WP, l9ng for the lost years, when the prez was cool, got pushed around, bent over and grabbed his ankles to be properly punked like US Prisoner Carlos Danger.
The reality is a guy like Kim is more interested in evaluating the strength and weakness of the people he is negotiating with than anything else.
Your argument seems to be that it would be a good idea for Trump to continue honoring an agreement with Iran that a majority of our Congress was against, in spite of the reality that many people feel that Iran has not even followed through on their end of the agreement.
Kim would love the idea that Trump might be willing to sign a bad deal for the U.S. knowing full well that the President would still stick to "his end of the bargain" even if Kim didn't stick to his end.
Better to let Kim know up front that any agreement he signs with us will be reevaluated or even terminated if Kim and N Korea do not continue to live up to their end of the bargain.
"Better to let Kim know up front that any agreement he signs with us will be reevaluated or even terminated if Kim and N Korea do not continue to live up to their end of the bargain."
Anyone with an ounce of common sense...
Of course when ALL they have is TDS, common sense flies out of the window.
No doubt freemartin asshole, WP not only kicks your ass, but reddens CH and lezbo's with regularity with well thought, well written and completely logical...While you on the other hand post nothing but sophomoric insults that cause you to dribble down your leg with excitement...Go burn a tree for jesus.....Your carpet muncher has as little a life as you do as your pathetic life of posting here is all you do. Maybe you can ask about my mother again since your ability to retain anything is fleeting.
"The reality is a guy like Kim is more interested in evaluating the strength and weakness of the people he is negotiating with than anything else."
I don't know what "a guy like Kim" is actually interested in with respect to negotiations. He appears to be motivated by self-interest, to a degree that we'd consider psychotic.
The public information that we have paints him as having unremarkable intellectual capabilities, yet we are warned by people who should know not to underestimate him. He seems self-destructive but he's also been pretty adept at getting what he wants. So that's something of an enigma.
What I do know is that we've seen this pattern before. A lot of escalation, to the point of literal insanity, then overtures of rapprochement including formally ending the war and destruction of his weapons, achieving concessions and even material considerations, and then the cycle starts again. Maybe the Administration is trying to throw some change-ups to cut through that cycle, but it all looks the same to me. I think it's just random, officials doing whatever they think is effective in their bailiwick because they have no direction whatsoever from Trump and they know he's liable to undercut them at random.
Does he care about "strength" of an individual, I doubt it. Logically, he wants to exploit the fear he's caused in the regional population and what he hopes exists in America to achieve concessions, and he'll expect that to happen regardless of what face Trump puts on.
"Your argument seems to be that it would be a good idea for Trump to continue honoring an agreement with Iran that a majority of our Congress was against"
Disregarding the political hot air here, it would be a good idea to honor our existing agreements when we're trying to negotiate new ones.
it would be a good idea to honor our existing agreements when we're trying to negotiate new ones.
In light of all of the information showing the fact that Iran is not complying with their end of the agreement. It seems foolish to suggest we would still honor our side of the agreement (even if we "did" believe it was a good agreement in the first place).
Unless of course we want to signal to Kim that we intend to honor our side, even if he reneges on his end of the bargain. That would seem like an invitation.
Weird Trump-style alternate reality again. You seem to assume that it's "a bad deal", acknowledged as such by any objective person ... because Trump keeps saying that. Basically, because it happened during Obama's term. Pretending that Iran has violated the nuclear agreements ... just because hey, Iran. Obama. They smart we dumb, Trump logic.
Those little bubbles are harmless as long as they're isolated. When they threaten to impact national security, not so much.
American voters oppose 57 - 28 percent, with only lukewarm support from Democrats and overwhelming opposition for Republicans and independent voters, the nuclear pact negotiated with Iran, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.
Voters say 58 - 30 percent the nuclear pact will make the world less safe, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds.
Opposing the Iran deal are Republicans 86 - 3 percent and independent voters 55 - 29 percent, while Democrats support it 52 - 32 percent. There is little gender gap as men oppose the deal 59 - 30 percent and women oppose it 56 - 27 percent.
Yeah, you can find polls right after intense partisan attacks. Even if so, all of those people changed their minds in 2016 and 2017 with a solid majority supporting continued participation.
Your entire viewpoint on the Iran deal is currently from little more than Trump's campaign bloviating, and you've repeated it so much that you've come to believe as a matter of faith. Iran's behavior needs to get them slapped down, but the nuclear deal is working. And unfortunately for your perspective, most of America knows it.
47 comments:
The 15th Amendment
The vote in the House was 144 to 44, with 35 not voting. The House vote was almost entirely along party lines, with no Democrats supporting the bill and only 3 Republicans voting against .
LOL.
Press sec Sanders is getting high kudos for sitting through the hateful and unfunny Michelle Wolf jokes that even some liberal journalists are criticizing.
Press sec Sanders is getting high kudos for sitting through the hateful a
Wow, that is sure an impressive thing to add to the resume....Maybe she learned something...like not lying, but that is wishful thinking....BTW...she looked ravishing last night.....
Thats not something you pit into s resume stupid. But when lib journalists like terry moran and norah odonnell speak out on her behalf, it does reflect a higher level of respect.
You may not know what that is.
Fatty has at the top of his resume'
PIE EATING CAMPION
AA in food services from a uncredited 2 bit unknown jr. College
Pompeo declaring that the USA will scrap the Iranian nuclear accord, just as North Korea is proposing a nuclear deal that hinges on trusting the US to honor our deals. WTF is going through their minds in DC?
Pompeo might not be wrong about Iran sponsoring terrorism and violating their own obligations testing ballistic missiles. I wouldn't disagree with taking serious measures with regards to Iran. But hamstringing Trump in his potential negotiations with North Korea ... it must spring from a lack of direction, of a coherently defined policy. Trump's big international focus is currently whining about the "bad location" of the new London embassy, his "non-state" visit to UK. We're just bumbling about, and I guess we should just expect that as a "new normal" until Trump's term is done.
W.P...
Last time I checked, Trump didn't make the deal with Iran. In fact, the United States never officially entered into any legal treaty with Iran, because all treaties have to be confirmed by the Senate. Obama himself entered into a deal with Iran (outside of the treaty authority that our constitution requires for international deals).
Had Obama bothered to cut a deal that the Senate could have confirmed and could have become a legal treaty, then I am quite certain that Trump would not be looking to renegotiate it.
I am also pretty sure that Kim knows that Trump is not responsible for Obama's agreements, and that most certainly that any agreement he makes with Trump, must either pass the muster of our Senate and become a legal treaty, or would be subject to being ended (or changed) if Trump is no longer
President.
Certainly you are not trying to hold Trump accountable for Obama's egotistical flaunting of Presidential authority?
Bah... what am I thinking. Of course it's Trump's fault. Everything it Trump's fault. How could I forget.
The US made the deal. Trump wants to toss it. Who the hell cares that "Trump didn't make the deal"?
It may be news to you CH, but the universe doesn't spin around Trump.
"Kim knows that Trump is not responsible for Obama's agreements" - that is, frankly, stupid on more than one level.
First, Kim doesn't give a flying fuck whether it's Trump or Obama (basically it's only partisan halfwits who have that attitude) signing any particular deal. Secondly it's an agreement between nations, just like with Iran. And finally, if the USA is backing out of one nuclear agreement, you can't trust them not to back out of another. At the very least you've just given North Korea more leverage in negotiations.
No obama made the deal. That is cht's point.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows Iran has breached the "deal" several times.
Hell, they did it right in front of Obama's nose, just AFTER the great "deal."
We're supposed to sit back and let them continue?
Doing nothing sends the signal to rocket man that he can make a "deal" AND break the "deal" because the US will do nothing.
Thank God the two-bit community organizer is out of office.
"Bah... what am I thinking. Of course it's Trump's fault. Everything it Trump's fault. How could I forget."
Yeah, testing long-range missiles in 2016 was Trump's fault, lol.
Paragraph 3 of Annex B of UN resolution 2231 and 2015 means nothing to Iran.
BUT, it was a GREAT "deal" for the region...
WP, Conflating.
So sad and so wrong.
The US made the deal.
You see any official U.S. Treaties on record for the deal in question?
"it does reflect a higher level of respect."
Liberals: we live in a racist, misogynistic society!
Liberal comedians and journalists: let’s slam white women in Trump admin as “Uncle Toms” for not agreeing with us! It’s just a joke, though.
Don’t overreact, though you hated PC stuff bigots.
We can say these misogynistic, racist jokes because we’re not either! You are!
Hahahahhahahahahah
Translation: play by our rules but we don’t have to. That’s how we win.
Kim went to SK , signed an outline to End the Korean War and "denuclearzation" during the Lost Years?
Ya WimP, it matter that your lost years fairy boy is out.
Trump to Iran: YOU breached the "deal" so the "deal" is off.
Trump to rocket man: THIS is what happens when you breach an agreement.
Rocket man to Trump: yes sir! I get the picture.
Low IQ WP.
I will help you this time.
"You see any official U.S. Treaties on record for the deal in question? " CHT
Answer : NO, signed "I have a Pen and a Phone"
WP, l9ng for the lost years, when the prez was cool, got pushed around, bent over and grabbed his ankles to be properly punked like US Prisoner Carlos Danger.
WP...
The reality is a guy like Kim is more interested in evaluating the strength and weakness of the people he is negotiating with than anything else.
Your argument seems to be that it would be a good idea for Trump to continue honoring an agreement with Iran that a majority of our Congress was against, in spite of the reality that many people feel that Iran has not even followed through on their end of the agreement.
Kim would love the idea that Trump might be willing to sign a bad deal for the U.S. knowing full well that the President would still stick to "his end of the bargain" even if Kim didn't stick to his end.
Better to let Kim know up front that any agreement he signs with us will be reevaluated or even terminated if Kim and N Korea do not continue to live up to their end of the bargain.
WP pays the window sticker price when he buys a new vehicle.
No Negotiation skills.
"Better to let Kim know up front that any agreement he signs with us will be reevaluated or even terminated if Kim and N Korea do not continue to live up to their end of the bargain."
Anyone with an ounce of common sense...
Of course when ALL they have is TDS, common sense flies out of the window.
Tedious, really. AND pathetic.
"Low IQ WP."
He's ten times smarter than Roger, James and Dennis combined.
Three rocks and a potted flower, ok
No doubt freemartin asshole, WP not only kicks your ass, but reddens CH and lezbo's with regularity with well thought, well written and completely logical...While you on the other hand post nothing but sophomoric insults that cause you to dribble down your leg with excitement...Go burn a tree for jesus.....Your carpet muncher has as little a life as you do as your pathetic life of posting here is all you do. Maybe you can ask about my mother again since your ability to retain anything is fleeting.
Fatty, with both your parents worm feed. Did they leave you an inherence?
commieApril 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM"
Nonsense from our un-entertaining troll.
Did they leave you an inherence?
Not a fucking penny freeloader...while you are still sucking on the hind tit of your parents. Asshole Go burn a tree for jesus.
So you came from financial failures which like HB and Jane formed your base for wealth envy. Explains a lot.
Maybe Trump just doesn't value women as much.
I remember back when Republicans were outraged by Presidents having affairs and covering it up with hush money deals.
But things are different now, because Trump Akbar!
"The reality is a guy like Kim is more interested in evaluating the strength and weakness of the people he is negotiating with than anything else."
I don't know what "a guy like Kim" is actually interested in with respect to negotiations. He appears to be motivated by self-interest, to a degree that we'd consider psychotic.
The public information that we have paints him as having unremarkable intellectual capabilities, yet we are warned by people who should know not to underestimate him. He seems self-destructive but he's also been pretty adept at getting what he wants. So that's something of an enigma.
What I do know is that we've seen this pattern before. A lot of escalation, to the point of literal insanity, then overtures of rapprochement including formally ending the war and destruction of his weapons, achieving concessions and even material considerations, and then the cycle starts again. Maybe the Administration is trying to throw some change-ups to cut through that cycle, but it all looks the same to me. I think it's just random, officials doing whatever they think is effective in their bailiwick because they have no direction whatsoever from Trump and they know he's liable to undercut them at random.
Does he care about "strength" of an individual, I doubt it. Logically, he wants to exploit the fear he's caused in the regional population and what he hopes exists in America to achieve concessions, and he'll expect that to happen regardless of what face Trump puts on.
"Your argument seems to be that it would be a good idea for Trump to continue honoring an agreement with Iran that a majority of our Congress was against"
Disregarding the political hot air here, it would be a good idea to honor our existing agreements when we're trying to negotiate new ones.
it would be a good idea to honor our existing agreements when we're trying to negotiate new ones.
In light of all of the information showing the fact that Iran is not complying with their end of the agreement. It seems foolish to suggest we would still honor our side of the agreement (even if we "did" believe it was a good agreement in the first place).
Unless of course we want to signal to Kim that we intend to honor our side, even if he reneges on his end of the bargain. That would seem like an invitation.
Weird Trump-style alternate reality again. You seem to assume that it's "a bad deal", acknowledged as such by any objective person ... because Trump keeps saying that. Basically, because it happened during Obama's term. Pretending that Iran has violated the nuclear agreements ... just because hey, Iran. Obama. They smart we dumb, Trump logic.
Those little bubbles are harmless as long as they're isolated. When they threaten to impact national security, not so much.
WP...
Here are four posts of mine from the summer of 2015 criticizing the Iran deal. In fact in a couple of these threads, you and I argued over the deal.
I know you would like to rewrite history here, but this was a bad deal, criticized by many (including me), right from the start.
It would seem in retrospect, given the fact that Iran has basically broken most of the agreement... we were probably correct to criticize it.
http://coldheartedtruthlegacy.blogspot.com/2015/07/oh-who-hell-cares-anymore.html
http://coldheartedtruthlegacy.blogspot.com/2015/08/by-count-of-200-to-36.html
http://coldheartedtruthlegacy.blogspot.com/2015/08/cruz-challenges-president.html
http://coldheartedtruthlegacy.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-do-american-liberals-prefer-to.html
Naturally it was criticized by you at the start. You criticized everything Obama, I wouldn't dream of disputing that.
Your criticisms have been seen to be unfounded ... unless you buy into Trump's "Obama ... you smart, we dumb" reasoning.
I have to say, if all I had for validation was that Trump was agreeing with me, I'd probably just keep quiet about it ...
WP...
The deal was opposed by a majority of Congress, a vast Majority of Americans, and most Military experts.
Support was pretty much limited to people who were compelled to knee jerk support of everything Obama did, no matter what.
yet half of even Republicans favored continued participation in the Iran agreement last year. 60% of everyone favored Americans Support Continued US Participation in Iran Deal
Evidently your view about the performance is very much a minority one. Perhaps limited to Trump constituency, with a littering of Tea Party ...
Hmm, 62% of the public in 2014, 59% in 2015 ... all "compelled to knee jerk support of everything Obama did" Coldheart?
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2265
American voters oppose 57 - 28 percent, with only lukewarm support from Democrats and overwhelming opposition for Republicans and independent voters, the nuclear pact negotiated with Iran, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.
Voters say 58 - 30 percent the nuclear pact will make the world less safe, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds.
Opposing the Iran deal are Republicans 86 - 3 percent and independent voters 55 - 29 percent, while Democrats support it 52 - 32 percent. There is little gender gap as men oppose the deal 59 - 30 percent and women oppose it 56 - 27 percent.
Yeah, you can find polls right after intense partisan attacks. Even if so, all of those people changed their minds in 2016 and 2017 with a solid majority supporting continued participation.
Your entire viewpoint on the Iran deal is currently from little more than Trump's campaign bloviating, and you've repeated it so much that you've come to believe as a matter of faith. Iran's behavior needs to get them slapped down, but the nuclear deal is working. And unfortunately for your perspective, most of America knows it.
Even if so, all of those people changed their minds
All of them, huh?
All of those people = a big solid majority of them, since you're putting stock in the polling.
Post a Comment