The Trump Presidency

57Brave said:
or you could read the article - understand what transpired and move on

being the Trump apologist you've become it is surprising you have trouble with
"negotiated settlement"
or "interest"
or negotiations that have lasted decades

but hey, that's the world of CNN sourcing
How the mighty have fallen
Click to expand...

You said the money was frozen in a bank account. You were completely wrong.
You said that that is how sanctions work. You were completely wrong.
You said that the deal satisfied both parties. You were completely wrong.

Ain't that enough wrongness for one go around?

Stick to whining about losing the election.
 
Runnin said:
No, I just correct you because I still have hope for you. Your jealousy/hatred of him is all based on the us vs them metric and not in reality. You can say you disagreed with is politics, but you take it to fantasyland.

I actually wanted Hillary in '08. I thought Obama was too young and inexperienced, but he learned fast, and yes, I grew to admire him and his style. He wasn't as hawkish as some would have like but you have to remember he took over in the middle of a major foreign policy disaster with 2 wars going and a spent military. Of course he is viewed poorly by people who regard any diplomacy short of in your face belligerence as passive and weak.
Click to expand...

Wasn't as hawkish? The dude bowed to Islamic extremism and allowed it to flourish based on his inaction. The results speak for themselves, both domestically and abroad. He was a horrible president. There is no justification for Obama even being an average president. His two defining legislations were disasters. ISIS rose under his watch and Russia seized land while we did nothing. Let's not forget all the appeasement of China's land grabs. He dissed Israel many times over. Let Hezbollah deal drugs in our hemisphere when they could have been easily stopped.

Just an awful human being. But, he did win a Nobel prize.
 
Hawk said:
You said the money was frozen in a bank account. You were completely wrong.
You said that that is how sanctions work. You were completely wrong.
You said that the deal satisfied both parties. You were completely wrong.

Ain't that enough wrongness for one go around?

Stick to whining about losing the election.
Click to expand...

I was really hoping you would locate the vault where the money was stored . Did the Iranaians dig a hole in the middle of Iowa ?
Iran had set up a $400 million trust fund for such purchases

They technically may not be sanctions. However this:
The settlement comes as the U.S. is unfreezing a much larger pool of Iranian assets, estimated at between $100-$150 billion, as part of the nuclear deal.

Are you saying the Iranians were not satisfied ? Because of the two primary parties one is quoted above as being satisfied
"Clearly, it's in the U.S. interest to resolve these (claims) in ways that reduce our risk," a senior administration official told reporters in a conference call. "And we believe that this is a very positive settlement for us."

Stick to whining about losing the election
Don't boo --- vote

....................

These quotes from an article you posted
 
57Brave said:
I was really hoping you would locate the vault where the money was stored . Did the Iranaians dig a hole in the middle of Iowa ?
Iran had set up a $400 million trust fund for such purchases
Click to expand...

Post #14289

They technically may not be sanctions.
Click to expand...

Ok.

Were the Iranians not satisfied ? Because the two primary parties are on record as being satisfied
"Clearly, it's in the U.S. interest to resolve these (claims) in ways that reduce our risk," a senior administration official told reporters in a conference call. "And we believe that this is a very positive settlement for us."
Click to expand...

I don't know, you tell me, they violated the terms over 5 times in less than one year.
 
Julio3000 said:
The parallel is between observed commentary on the two issues, not between the issues themselves.

I do eagerly anticipate the continued application of lipstick to the pig.
Click to expand...

I thought you couldn't recollect the commentary. I'm so confused. Smoke and mirrors.

It's going to be hard for me to top forlorn bellyaching over a meeting that hasn't even transpired yet.
 
Hawk said:
Post #14289

Ok.

I don't know, you tell me, they violated the terms over 5 times in less than one year.
Click to expand...

I for the life of me can't figure out how the misuse (or lack thereof) of an apostrophe got past you.
Its CNN turning your brain to mush
 
I mean political commentary. Comments from this board. People like thethe, who are already crediting Trump with denuclearizing nuclear the peninsula but treat the Obama administration's negotiations with Iran as if they had personally nuked Tel Aviv. Good god.

If I'm bellyaching, it's from concern this has come about from an imprudent attempt to win a news cycle, which has led to (already dampened) speculation about an unlikely event, the full fruition of which ultimately depends on the competence and judgement of a guy who is barely competent to deliver legislative layups through a friendly Congress. If you'd rather filibuster about Obama's Iran deal, ok.
 
Julio3000 said:
I mean political commentary. Comments from this board. People like thethe, who are already crediting Trump with denuclearizing nuclear the peninsula but treat the Obama administration's negotiations with Iran as if they had personally nuked Tel Aviv. Good god.

If I'm bellyaching, it's from concern this has come about from an imprudent attempt to win a news cycle, which has led to (already dampened) speculation about an unlikely event, the full fruition of which ultimately depends on the competence and judgement of a guy who is barely competent to deliver legislative layups through a friendly Congress. If you'd rather filibuster about Obama's Iran deal, ok.
Click to expand...

We've already made more progress with NK under this administration than in the three prior. Forgive me if I'm optimistic since denuclearizarion has already been mentioned. Whether you want to admit it or not this administration's response to the threats of NK were part of the equation that is beginning thsee talks.

Obama had to pay off Iran to get to the table and ignore their terrorist arm. Obama gave away the house to get nothing. Trump hasn't given an inch and got them to the table (hopefully).
 
Julio3000 said:
I mean political commentary. Comments from this board. People like thethe, who are already crediting Trump with denuclearizing nuclear the peninsula but treat the Obama administration's negotiations with Iran as if they had personally nuked Tel Aviv. Good god.
Click to expand...

thethe said, "If denuclearization happens".

That's it. Chillax with the reach.

If I'm bellyaching, it's from concern this has come about from an imprudent attempt to win a news cycle, which has led to (already dampened) speculation about an unlikely event, the full fruition of which ultimately depends on the competence and judgement of a guy who is barely competent to deliver legislative layups through a friendly Congress. If you'd rather filibuster about Obama's Iran deal, ok.
Click to expand...

Blame it on the South Korean delegation then. They are the ones that flew to the White House, direct from Pyongyang, still reeking of soju and 7.27's.

Anyways, you know as well as I do that if the two end up meeting 75%+ of the framework will be pre-agreed upon, negotiated by emissaries. And that framework will focus much more on unification activity (such as reopening Kaesong) than on weapons, because that is what history dictates and that is what the South Koreans have signaled since day 1 of Moon Jae-in's administration.

There is a chance that Kim Jong-un is of a different mind than his father. That this diplomatic progression could evolve into much more. What happened during the Olympics was historic - important to not overlook it. At the same time, I'd like to know how much money the South Koreans have been sending North Korea over the past several months.

It's OK to maintain an oversized hope about all of this, even if Trump is the one to walk away bragging about a peace he didn't orchestrate.
 
I think it's fine to hold out hope, and in fact I have an open mind and some optimism about the end product of negotiations...just some extreme skepticism about Trump's interjection in them, and concern that he's making the final call, subject to input which may be same and constructive but may be otherwise, and not confident in his discernment.

And my response was based on a comment by thethe which was considerably stronger.
 
57Brave said:
Tom Nichols

‏Verified account @RadioFreeTom

14h14 hours ago

Listening to this speech hardens my belief that the

hard-core rally-type Trumpers cannot be reasoned with,

and should instead be shamed.

The key question, after a year of the illusions finally fading

, is how many decent people still want to be associated with this.
Click to expand...

And on queue, here is Hilary, reminding us that Trump voters are just a bunch of racist, sexist, poor people

"There’s all that red in the middle, where Trump won. Now, I win the coasts, I win Illinois, Minnesota, places like that. But what the map doesn’t show you is that I won the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product. So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward, and his whole campaign, Make America Great Again, was looking backwards. “You don’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women getting jobs, you don’t want to see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are, whatever your problem is, I’m going to solve it.”
 
The GDP is large because it represents a handful of corporations and not the people. HRC proving what a terrible person she is.
 
thethe said:
Wasn't as hawkish? The dude bowed to Islamic extremism and allowed it to flourish based on his inaction. The results speak for themselves, both domestically and abroad. He was a horrible president. There is no justification for Obama even being an average president. His two defining legislations were disasters. ISIS rose under his watch and Russia seized land while we did nothing. Let's not forget all the appeasement of China's land grabs. He dissed Israel many times over. Let Hezbollah deal drugs in our hemisphere when they could have been easily stopped.

Just an awful human being. But, he did win a Nobel prize.
Click to expand...
He employed a drone strike mentality, which Trump is continuing, took out Saddam. If he allowed ISIS to flourish so, how come after only one year with Trump more or less following the same policies, you say ISIS is now in check?

Your delusion on him is 100% based on your hatred for anything you perceive to be liberal/democratic/the left. Your posts reflect this extreme prejudice. You have a severely deranged mind.
 
Runnin said:
He employed a drone strike mentality, which Trump is continuing, took out Saddam. If he allowed ISIS to flourish so, how come after only one year with Trump more or less following the same policies, you say ISIS is now in check?

Your delusion on him is 100% based on your hatred for anything you perceive to be liberal/democratic/the left. Your posts reflect this extreme prejudice. You have a severely deranged mind.
Click to expand...

The strategy did change. I notice that this is now a common talking point on the left. The generals have said that. They are now given operational authority to make real time decision's without getting approval from Washington bureaucrats. You know this is true and you know this is the reason the physical caliphate was destroyed so quickly after trumps inauguration.

Unless of course you think this was all building to a point and iraculously the tides turned after trumps election. Surely you can't be that bias?

I also enjoy how you and the rest of the left hides from the Hezbollah and Farakhan stories. Anything to defend the god.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top