Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on May 11, 2018, 02:38:52 PM
-
right?
We made a deal and they complied with it (which we verified) and we chose to renege.
Also Airbus should just go ahead with their deal to sell planes to Tehran
Neither France nor Iran reneged on the deal so hard to conclude that they shouldn't proceed with the sale regardless of US sanctions
-
Cool story bro
-
Cool story bro
thanks bro
here's more
"The President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran has been tasked with taking all necessary steps in preparation for Iran to pursue industrial-scale enrichment without any restrictions, using the results of the latest research and development of Iran's brave nuclear scientists," the statement said.
Germany and France said they would seek to shield European companies from U.S. sanctions, which would prohibit companies that do business in Iran from using the U.S. financial system.
And Russian President Vladimir Putin has spoken to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan about how to save the 2015 agreement with Iran, according to Russia's official press agency TASS. Putin has long advocated for a new financial system with China that would circumvent the reach of U.S. sanctions, which also target his country.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran-preps-industrial-scale-nuke-production-after-us-leaves-nuclear-deal/ar-AAx8ieq?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout
-
thanks bro
here's more
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran-preps-industrial-scale-nuke-production-after-us-leaves-nuclear-deal/ar-AAx8ieq?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout
I guess the entire world does revolve around the United States and our decisions. They hang off our every action. 8)
-
I guess the entire world does revolve around the United States and our decisions. They hang off our every action. 8)
they certainly have to react to it
that's obvious
I know our Putin lovers on this board would agree with his goal to get around US sanctions and now we've given him and our allies some common ground
winning
-
James Taylor to the rescue...
-
When you are a liberal the policies, people, organizations, and countries that you end up taking sides with are really interesting.
It's amazing what you find yourself making excuses for.
-
right?
We made a deal and they complied with it (which we verified) and we chose to renege.
Also Airbus should just go ahead with their deal to sell planes to Tehran
Neither France nor Iran reneged on the deal so hard to conclude that they shouldn't proceed with the sale regardless of US sanctions
They never stopped, jackass
-
When you are a liberal the policies, people, organizations, and countries that you end up taking sides with are really interesting.
It's amazing what you find yourself making excuses for.
Isn't it? It amazes me what some people will attempt to justify for one reason or another when it's obvious to a reasonable person there often is no justification
-
Isn't it? It amazes me what some people will attempt to justify for one reason or another when it's obvious to a reasonable person there often is no justification
(https://i.imgflip.com/2a4isb.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/2a4isb.jpg)
Just sayin' we've all heard some pretty ridiculous excuses for some outlandish things..
-
We made a deal and they complied with it (which we verified)[...]
I'm sorry, they did. W. H. A. T.?
Imagine you find out your kid is doing meth. Your kid, just to get the monkey off his back and to be able to continue to smoke that shit all the while living in his/her parent's house and stealing money from them, agrees to a room inspection that only involves the spaces under the mattress and right behind the TV. THIS is the SHIT that Obama-The-Fake signed.
If WE ALL are delusional enough to think that the Iranian authorities were not hiding nuclear material in military bases just because our FAKE ex-president, the one that said one thing and then proceeded to do another, said the Iranians spoke to him "from the heart," we deserve what's coming.
Do you know what the Iranian authorities did when the inspectors asked them to grant them access to two CIVILIAN compounds the inspectors knew had nuclear material in them? They immediately turned them into military facilities so as to impede access.
This is THE SHIT we are dealing with.
-
I'm sorry, they did. W. H. A. T.?
Imagine you find out your kid is doing meth. Your kid, just to get the monkey off his back and to be able to continue to smoke that shit all the while living in his/her parent's house and stealing money from them, agrees to a room inspection that only involves the spaces under the mattress and right behind the TV. THIS is the SHIT that Obama-The-Fake signed.
If WE ALL are delusional enough to think that the Iranian authorities were not hiding nuclear material in military bases just because our FAKE ex-president, the one that said one thing and then proceeded to do another, said the Iranians spoke to him "from the heart," we deserve what's coming.
Do you know what the Iranian authorities did when the inspectors asked them to grant them access to two CIVILIAN compounds the inspectors knew had nuclear material in them? They immediately turned them into military facilities so as to impede access.
This is THE SHIT we are dealing with.
Unfortunately, people like straw don't care about this, they only care because Trump was involved.
-
"In making my decision, I examined this deal in three parts: nuclear restrictions on Iran in the first ten years, nuclear restrictions on Iran after ten years, and non-nuclear components and consequences of a deal. In each case I have asked: are we better off with the agreement or without it?
In the first ten years of the deal, there are serious weaknesses in the agreement. First, inspections are not “anywhere, anytime”; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling. While inspectors would likely be able to detect radioactive isotopes at a site after 24 days, that delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions (PMD) – the tools that go into building a bomb but don’t emit radioactivity.
Furthermore, even when we detect radioactivity at a site where Iran is illicitly advancing its bomb-making capability, the 24-day delay would hinder our ability to determine precisely what was being done at that site.
Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. cannot demand inspections unilaterally. By requiring the majority of the 8-member Joint Commission, and assuming that China, Russia, and Iran will not cooperate, inspections would require the votes of all three European members of the P5+1 as well as the EU representative. It is reasonable to fear that, once the Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may well be inclined not to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections.
Additionally, the “snapback” provisions in the agreement seem cumbersome and difficult to use. While the U.S. could unilaterally cause snapback of all sanctions, there will be instances where it would be more appropriate to snapback some but not all of the sanctions, because the violation is significant but not severe. A partial snapback of multilateral sanctions could be difficult to obtain, because the U.S. would require the cooperation of other nations. If the U.S. insists on snapback of all the provisions, which it can do unilaterally, and the Europeans, Russians, or Chinese feel that is too severe a punishment, they may not comply.
Those who argue for the agreement say it is better to have an imperfect deal than to have nothing; that without the agreement, there would be no inspections, no snapback. When you consider only this portion of the deal – nuclear restrictions for the first ten years – that line of thinking is plausible, but even for this part of the agreement, the weaknesses mentioned above make this argument less compelling.
Second, we must evaluate how this deal would restrict Iran’s nuclear development after ten years.
Supporters argue that after ten years, a future President would be in no weaker a position than we are today to prevent Iran from racing to the bomb. That argument discounts the current sanctions regime. After fifteen years of relief from sanctions, Iran would be stronger financially and better able to advance a robust nuclear program. Even more importantly, the agreement would allow Iran, after ten to fifteen years, to be a nuclear threshold state with the blessing of the world community. Iran would have a green light to be as close, if not closer to possessing a nuclear weapon than it is today. And the ability to thwart Iran if it is intent on becoming a nuclear power would have less moral and economic force.
If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience. After ten years, it can be very close to achieving that goal, and, unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear program will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States and other nations. To me, after ten years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.
In addition, we must consider the non-nuclear elements of the agreement. This aspect of the deal gives me the most pause. For years, Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. That is why the U.S. has labeled Iran as one of only three nations in the world who are “state sponsors of terrorism.” Under this agreement, Iran would receive at least $50 billion dollars in the near future and would undoubtedly use some of that money to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East, and, perhaps, beyond.
To reduce the pain of sanctions, the Supreme Leader had to lean left and bend to the moderates in his country. It seems logical that to counterbalance, he will lean right and give the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) and the hardliners resources so that they can pursue their number one goal: strengthening Iran’s armed forces and pursuing even more harmful military and terrorist actions.
Finally, the hardliners can use the freed-up funds to build an ICBM on their own as soon as sanctions are lifted (and then augment their ICBM capabilities in 8 years after the ban on importing ballistic weaponry is lifted), threatening the United States. Restrictions should have been put in place limiting how Iran could use its new resources.
When it comes to the non-nuclear aspects of the deal, I think there is a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one.
Using the proponents’ overall standard – which is not whether the agreement is ideal, but whether we are better with or without it – it seems to me, when it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within ten years, we might be slightly better off with it. However, when it comes to the nuclear aspects after ten years and the non-nuclear aspects, we would be better off without it.
Ultimately, in my view, whether one supports or opposes the resolution of disapproval depends on how one thinks Iran will behave under this agreement.
If one thinks Iran will moderate, that contact with the West and a decrease in economic and political isolation will soften Iran’s hardline positions, one should approve the agreement. After all, a moderate Iran is less likely to exploit holes in the inspection and sanctions regime, is less likely to seek to become a threshold nuclear power after ten years, and is more likely to use its newfound resources for domestic growth, not international adventurism.
But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.
Admittedly, no one can tell with certainty which way Iran will go. It is true that Iran has a large number of people who want their government to decrease its isolation from the world and focus on economic advancement at home. But it is also true that this desire has been evident in Iran for thirty-five years, yet the Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?
To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.
Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.
For all of these reasons, I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one."
Charles Ellis Schume
My Position on the Iran Deal
08.06.15
(https://i.imgflip.com/1inukc.jpg)
https://www.schumer.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/my-position-on-the-iran-deal
-
Unfortunately, people like straw don't care about this, they only care because Trump was involved.
I'm sorry, they did. W. H. A. T.?
Imagine you find out your kid is doing meth. Your kid, just to get the monkey off his back and to be able to continue to smoke that shit all the while living in his/her parent's house and stealing money from them, agrees to a room inspection that only involves the spaces under the mattress and right behind the TV. THIS is the SHIT that Obama-The-Fake signed.
If WE ALL are delusional enough to think that the Iranian authorities were not hiding nuclear material in military bases just because our FAKE ex-president, the one that said one thing and then proceeded to do another, said the Iranians spoke to him "from the heart," we deserve what's coming.
Do you know what the Iranian authorities did when the inspectors asked them to grant them access to two CIVILIAN compounds the inspectors knew had nuclear material in them? They immediately turned them into military facilities so as to impede access.
This is THE SHIT we are dealing with.
Mike Pompeo testified last month that Iran was in full compliance with JCPA
those are the rules that we set up
-
"In making my decision, I examined this deal in three parts: nuclear restrictions on Iran in the first ten years, nuclear restrictions on Iran after ten years, and non-nuclear components and consequences of a deal. In each case I have asked: are we better off with the agreement or without it?
In the first ten years of the deal, there are serious weaknesses in the agreement. First, inspections are not “anywhere, anytime”; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling. While inspectors would likely be able to detect radioactive isotopes at a site after 24 days, that delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions (PMD) – the tools that go into building a bomb but don’t emit radioactivity.
Furthermore, even when we detect radioactivity at a site where Iran is illicitly advancing its bomb-making capability, the 24-day delay would hinder our ability to determine precisely what was being done at that site.
Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. cannot demand inspections unilaterally. By requiring the majority of the 8-member Joint Commission, and assuming that China, Russia, and Iran will not cooperate, inspections would require the votes of all three European members of the P5+1 as well as the EU representative. It is reasonable to fear that, once the Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may well be inclined not to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections.
Additionally, the “snapback” provisions in the agreement seem cumbersome and difficult to use. While the U.S. could unilaterally cause snapback of all sanctions, there will be instances where it would be more appropriate to snapback some but not all of the sanctions, because the violation is significant but not severe. A partial snapback of multilateral sanctions could be difficult to obtain, because the U.S. would require the cooperation of other nations. If the U.S. insists on snapback of all the provisions, which it can do unilaterally, and the Europeans, Russians, or Chinese feel that is too severe a punishment, they may not comply.
Those who argue for the agreement say it is better to have an imperfect deal than to have nothing; that without the agreement, there would be no inspections, no snapback. When you consider only this portion of the deal – nuclear restrictions for the first ten years – that line of thinking is plausible, but even for this part of the agreement, the weaknesses mentioned above make this argument less compelling.
Second, we must evaluate how this deal would restrict Iran’s nuclear development after ten years.
Supporters argue that after ten years, a future President would be in no weaker a position than we are today to prevent Iran from racing to the bomb. That argument discounts the current sanctions regime. After fifteen years of relief from sanctions, Iran would be stronger financially and better able to advance a robust nuclear program. Even more importantly, the agreement would allow Iran, after ten to fifteen years, to be a nuclear threshold state with the blessing of the world community. Iran would have a green light to be as close, if not closer to possessing a nuclear weapon than it is today. And the ability to thwart Iran if it is intent on becoming a nuclear power would have less moral and economic force.
If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience. After ten years, it can be very close to achieving that goal, and, unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear program will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States and other nations. To me, after ten years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.
In addition, we must consider the non-nuclear elements of the agreement. This aspect of the deal gives me the most pause. For years, Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. That is why the U.S. has labeled Iran as one of only three nations in the world who are “state sponsors of terrorism.” Under this agreement, Iran would receive at least $50 billion dollars in the near future and would undoubtedly use some of that money to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East, and, perhaps, beyond.
To reduce the pain of sanctions, the Supreme Leader had to lean left and bend to the moderates in his country. It seems logical that to counterbalance, he will lean right and give the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) and the hardliners resources so that they can pursue their number one goal: strengthening Iran’s armed forces and pursuing even more harmful military and terrorist actions.
Finally, the hardliners can use the freed-up funds to build an ICBM on their own as soon as sanctions are lifted (and then augment their ICBM capabilities in 8 years after the ban on importing ballistic weaponry is lifted), threatening the United States. Restrictions should have been put in place limiting how Iran could use its new resources.
When it comes to the non-nuclear aspects of the deal, I think there is a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one.
Using the proponents’ overall standard – which is not whether the agreement is ideal, but whether we are better with or without it – it seems to me, when it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within ten years, we might be slightly better off with it. However, when it comes to the nuclear aspects after ten years and the non-nuclear aspects, we would be better off without it.
Ultimately, in my view, whether one supports or opposes the resolution of disapproval depends on how one thinks Iran will behave under this agreement.
If one thinks Iran will moderate, that contact with the West and a decrease in economic and political isolation will soften Iran’s hardline positions, one should approve the agreement. After all, a moderate Iran is less likely to exploit holes in the inspection and sanctions regime, is less likely to seek to become a threshold nuclear power after ten years, and is more likely to use its newfound resources for domestic growth, not international adventurism.
But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.
Admittedly, no one can tell with certainty which way Iran will go. It is true that Iran has a large number of people who want their government to decrease its isolation from the world and focus on economic advancement at home. But it is also true that this desire has been evident in Iran for thirty-five years, yet the Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?
To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.
Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.
For all of these reasons, I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one."
Charles Ellis Schume
My Position on the Iran Deal
08.06.15
(https://i.imgflip.com/1inukc.jpg)
https://www.schumer.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/my-position-on-the-iran-deal
Lol, I was reading this thinking "who the fuck ghost-wrote this thing for Trump?" Got to the end and realized ;D
-
Mike Pompeo testified last month that Iran was in full compliance with JCPA
those are the rules that we set up
Not "we". Only a "few" and hence another reason why Trump was voted in to get rid of another stupid decision.
-
Lol, I was reading this thinking "who the fuck ghost-wrote this thing for Trump?" Got to the end and realized ;D
;D
-
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/trump-orders-u-turn-to-get-china-s-zte-back-into-business-1.3493787 (https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/trump-orders-u-turn-to-get-china-s-zte-back-into-business-1.3493787)
Trump orders U-turn to get China’s ZTE back into business
Telecom group hit by US clampdown works with Denis O’Brien’s Digicel
.
.
Sanctions violation
ZTE has been trying to resolve the blockade that Trump’s commerce department imposed in April as punishment for violating the terms of a 2017 sanctions settlement, then lying about it. The department banned shipments of US technology to ZTE for seven years, saying the company had failed to reprimand employees who violated US trade controls on Iran and North Korea.
That cut off access to the US technology it needs to build most of its products, from Qualcomm’s semiconductors to optical chips from Lumentum Holdings.
In an April 16th statement the US commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, said ZTE made false statements to the US government and “covered up the fact” that the company paid full bonuses to employees that had engaged in illegal conduct. “This egregious behaviour cannot be ignored,” Mr Ross said.
Denis O'Brien - Look into his ties with the Clintons & their Haiti "Relief" efforts
-
Not "we". Only a "few" and hence another reason why Trump was voted in to get rid of another stupid decision.
yep, just a few
US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany
Iran was in compliance and Trumptard reneged
Today is was reported that Trumptard is talking about sanction our European allies
Good luck with that
-
yep, just a few
US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany
Iran was in compliance and Trumptard reneged
Today is was reported that Trumptard is talking about sanction our European allies
Good luck with that
The ones that were reportedly bribed to accept the deal?
-
The ones that were reportedly bribed to accept the deal?
LOL - sure thing
-
Aside from not knowing which of them is the bigger slimeball the significant issue here is that it appears that at the same time as banning trade with Iran, extending that ban to 3rd party countries Mr Trump seems to be advocating an exception for a company that has previously defied a previous ban
it's cute that you give a shit about "3rd party countries" - stop virtue signaling; do you really want to mimic the path that these euro countries have taken as of late?
do you think the exception for ZTE helps or hurts US corporations/workers?
-
The nature of international politics is to do whatever is in the best interests of your own country, regardless of the interests of anybody else.
Iran has never stopped it's nuke program. It would be against their self-interest.
-
What I dont understand is why Mr trump is supporting this company
Ask Qualcomm
-
No Wonder John Kerry And The EU Leaders Are In A State Of Panic – Bribes Taken On The Iran Deal.
IWB ^ | Ruby Henley
Posted on 5/14/2018, 12:09:29 PM by davikkm
Iran is threatening to release the names of Western officials who took bribe money to pass the Iran Nuke Deal. I am not surprised, as an investigator I follow by the name of George Webb spoke about this in one of his latest videos.
No wonder John Kerry has been working overtime to save the Iran Nuclear Deal. This is the most corrupt scheme in government history. Those who took kickbacks to pass this Deal should be arrested and charged. Is this not called “treason?”
They played politics with a fragile world on the brink of nuclear war. It is sad that when it comes down to the bottom line, money is the end all for politicians.
President Trump must be on the trail of this deception. I am sure he knew of this when he decided to withdraw from the flawed Deal.
It appears that the group of countries who put the Deal together are sticking with it, even though the deal, for all intents and purposes, seems to be a scam of treason and fraud.
(Excerpt) Read more at investmentwatchblog.com ...
-
No Wonder John Kerry And The EU Leaders Are In A State Of Panic – Bribes Taken On The Iran Deal.
IWB ^ | Ruby Henley
Posted on 5/14/2018, 12:09:29 PM by davikkm
Iran is threatening to release the names of Western officials who took bribe money to pass the Iran Nuke Deal. I am not surprised, as an investigator I follow by the name of George Webb spoke about this in one of his latest videos.
No wonder John Kerry has been working overtime to save the Iran Nuclear Deal. This is the most corrupt scheme in government history. Those who took kickbacks to pass this Deal should be arrested and charged. Is this not called “treason?”
They played politics with a fragile world on the brink of nuclear war. It is sad that when it comes down to the bottom line, money is the end all for politicians.
President Trump must be on the trail of this deception. I am sure he knew of this when he decided to withdraw from the flawed Deal.
It appears that the group of countries who put the Deal together are sticking with it, even though the deal, for all intents and purposes, seems to be a scam of treason and fraud.
(Excerpt) Read more at investmentwatchblog.com ...
(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/32599654_10214117509104017_2092555027783614464_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=5bd37904162d09b296ba105adf10cab6&oe=5B990DAD)
-
LOL - Trumptards on this board believes Iran stopped their nuclear program but suddenly they're willing to believe Iran when they claim to have knowledge of "western officials" who took bribe money
I heard they all went to the basement of Comet Ping Pong to pick up their bribes
BTW - also funny as shit that Trump is threatening to impose sanctions on or allies if they do business with Iran yet we find out today that Trump is trying to lift sanctions on a Chinese company which has admitted to selling restricted U.S. technology to Iran and North Korea, and which U.S. intelligence officials have warned may pose an espionage risk.
So our allies and Iran comply with an agreement and Trump wants to punish them.
Our adversary violates sanctions (selling to both Iran and North Korea) and poses an espionage risk and Trump wants to help them ?
-
LOL - Trumptards on this board believes Iran stopped their nuclear program but suddenly they're willing to believe Iran when they claim to have knowledge of "western officials" who took bribe money
I heard they all went to the basement of Comet Ping Pong to pick up their bribes
BTW - also funny as shit that Trump is threatening to impose sanctions on or allies if they do business with Iran yet we find out today that Trump is trying to lift sanctions on a Chinese company which has admitted to selling restricted U.S. technology to Iran and North Korea, and which U.S. intelligence officials have warned may pose an espionage risk.
So our allies and Iran comply with an agreement and Trump wants to punish them.
Our adversary violates sanctions (selling to both Iran and North Korea) and poses an espionage risk and Trump wants to help them ?
Well. Your post is absolute proof that no bribes occured... ::)
-
Well. Your post is absolute proof that no bribes occured... ::)
Your post is proof you're a moron
No opinion on Trump threatening to sanction our allies even while trying to help a Chinese company who the Commerce Department said sold U.S. technology to Iran and North Korea and then failed to live up to the terms of a settlement.
America First ?
-
Stop your nonsence!
Yamcha already dealt above with that issue and prefers to talk about the Clintons
I'm sure he does
America First (except for Russia and sometimes China)
-
Stop your nonsence!
Yamcha already dealt above with that issue and prefers to talk about the Clintons
8)
China is reportedly close to removing tariffs on agricultural products in exchange for relief for ZTE
www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/05/14/china-is-reportedly-close-to-removing-tariffs-on-agricultural-products-in-exchange-for-relief-for-zte.html (http://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/05/14/china-is-reportedly-close-to-removing-tariffs-on-agricultural-products-in-exchange-for-relief-for-zte.html)
-
Trump is suddenly concerned about saving jobs in China?
I'm sure the dirt poor idiots in this country who voted for him will be glad to hear this
And he's throwing his Commerce Secretary under the bus to do it
-
Trump is suddenly concerned about saving jobs in China?
I'm sure the dirt poor idiots in this country who voted for him will be glad to hear this
And he's throwing his Commerce Secretary under the bus to do it
Because the removal of tariffs agricultural products won't have an impact on America. And the employees/investors at Qualcomm won't benefit from the saving of ZTE
Trump must be throwing China a bone for solving the North Korea problem... ::)
-
Because the removal of tariffs agricultural products won't have an impact on America. And the employees/investors at Qualcomm won't benefit from the saving of ZTE
Trump must be throwing China a bone for solving the North Korea problem... ::)
you mean they tariff they added when Trump started his idiotic trade war
who gives a shit about the investors at Qualcomm
Trump doesn't seem too concerned about the employees at Qualcom but very concerned about jobs in China
I don't recall Trump being worried about jobs in France or England or any of our other actual allies who've got billion dollar business deals in the works with Iran
Bottom line is that he's now just neutered his own credibility on sanctions and basically said we put jobs in China ahead of our own national security (remember this Chinese company was selling RESTRICTED US TECHNOLOGY to North Korea and Iran)
-
you mean they tariff they added when Trump started his idiotic trade war
who gives a shit about the investors at Qualcomm
Trump doesn't seem too concerned about the employees at Qualcom but very concerned about jobs in China
I don't recall Trump being worried about jobs in France or England or any of our other actual allies who've got billion dollar business deals in the works with Iran
Bottom line is that he's now just neutered his own credibility on sanctions and basically said we put jobs in China ahead of our own national security (remember this Chinese company was selling RESTRICTED US TECHNOLOGY to North Korea and Iran)
-
On snap. Truth. lol
-
sounds like what you do pretty much every day
You haven't posted this photo in a while so I thought you'd enjoy seeing it again
-
LOL - Trumptards on this board believes Iran stopped their nuclear program but suddenly they're willing to believe Iran when they claim to have knowledge of "western officials" who took bribe money
I heard they all went to the basement of Comet Ping Pong to pick up their bribes
BTW - also funny as shit that Trump is threatening to impose sanctions on or allies if they do business with Iran yet we find out today that Trump is trying to lift sanctions on a Chinese company which has admitted to selling restricted U.S. technology to Iran and North Korea, and which U.S. intelligence officials have warned may pose an espionage risk.
So our allies and Iran comply with an agreement and Trump wants to punish them.
Our adversary violates sanctions (selling to both Iran and North Korea) and poses an espionage risk and Trump wants to help them ?
You're willing to believe Trumps opposition that he was in cahoots with Russia with absolutely no evidence but you'll dismiss Iran when they are going to release the names of Dems that they are openly admitting to bribing?
-
You're willing to believe Trumps opposition that he was in cahoots with Russia with absolutely no evidence but you'll dismiss Iran when they are going to release the names of Dems that they are openly admitting to bribing?
First of all I'm pretty sure I've said many times that I have no idea of Trump colluded with Russia
You and I have that in common because you don't know one way or the other either. That's what the Special Council is trying to find out and if they discover other crimes along the way that's fine too. I'm sure you'd agree with that. I assume you would want criminals to be caught.
Second, I'm fine with Iran releasing any names they want and I'll evaluate it at that time
What I was trying to say in that post (though I see now I have a typo) was the Trump supporter believe without proof that Iran was violating the terms of the agreement (i.e. were being dishonest) but suddenly seem eager to believe them on this claim about bribery ....without having even seen the names or the proof of the claim. Seems weird. If you think Iran is dishonest then why trust ANYTHING they say or do, especially when it's a claim that would seem to benefit Iran
-
sounds like what you do pretty much every day
You haven't posted this photo in a while so I thought you'd enjoy seeing it again
Lol! I do love that picture. :D
-
First of all I'm pretty sure I've said many times that I have no idea of Trump colluded with Russia
You and I have that in common because you don't know one way or the other either. That's what the Special Council is trying to find out and if they discover other crimes along the way that's fine too. I'm sure you'd agree with that. I assume you would want criminals to be caught.
Second, I'm fine with Iran releasing any names they want and I'll evaluate it at that time
What I was trying to say in that post (though I see now I have a typo) was the Trump supporter believe without proof that Iran was violating the terms of the agreement (i.e. were being dishonest) but suddenly seem eager to believe them on this claim about bribery ....without having even seen the names or the proof of the claim. Seems weird. If you think Iran is dishonest then why trust ANYTHING they say or do, especially when it's a claim that would seem to benefit Iran
#1 What crime was committed to start this "special council"? An accusation by the losing side? No proof of anything to base this bullshit waste of taxpayer dollars.
#2 I'm also fine with it, would like to see which swampmonsters start shitting their pants.
#3 I've said I didn't follow the Iran situation close enough to speak too deeply into it, however it's ironic how you say Trump supporters believe without proof, yet libs are wasting tax dollars investigating Trump with no proof.
How would Iran naming politicians they bought benefit them? Do they think the American people will be so happy to hear these names that we'll want to get back into the program?
-
#1 What crime was committed to start this "special council"? An accusation by the losing side? No proof of anything to base this bullshit waste of taxpayer dollars.
#2 I'm also fine with it, would like to see which swampmonsters start shitting their pants.
#3 I've said I didn't follow the Iran situation close enough to speak too deeply into it, however it's ironic how you say Trump supporters believe without proof, yet libs are wasting tax dollars investigating Trump with no proof.
How would Iran naming politicians they bought benefit them? Do they think the American people will be so happy to hear these names that we'll want to get back into the program?
#1 - surprised you don't know this. The FBI was investing the Trump campaign on suspected collusion with Russia. Trump fired Comey and then told his Russian buddies the DAY AFTER that “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” Then on May 11th he tells Lester Holt "when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, “You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story" so he basically explained his intent when firing Comey. He obviously shouldn't have done that. It just makes it appear that he's obstructing justice and has something to hide....so on May 17th Trumps Assistant AG appointed the Special Council to "TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS."
I really thought you knew this already
#3 - never heard a word about money from Republican when they were investigating Hillary for everything they could possibly imagine. So sorry, I can't take you seriously when you complain about money.
I just don't get the Trump supporters position on Iran. You have no proof they violated the agreement. You even have Trump's former CIA chief and now Secretary of State saying he has no evidence of that yet you choose to believe they have. So the basic belief is that Iran is dishonest and deceptive. Fine. If that's what Trump supporters believe they display some consistency with that belief. That's all I'm asking.
Does Iran naming politicians they claimed took bribes help or harm Iran's position
Shouldn't take too long to figure it out helps them. They can now claim the deal was "rigged" (Trump supporters love that word) and have no reason to stick with it. It also obviously makes the parties to the deal look bad.
I for one would love to hear all about these bribes but I'm just surprised the Trump supporters are suddenly so trusting in the Iranians
-
1 WHY was the fbi investigating Trumps campaign? What evidence was used to start an investigation?
3 Killary actually commited crimes, destroyed evidence, sent classified info on public servers, covered it up by having her aides lie and take the fall for her. We know this as fact, yet no charges filed? Imagine the dominos falling if she was charged.
-
1 WHY was the fbi investigating Trumps campaign? What evidence was used to start an investigation?
3 Killary actually commited crimes, destroyed evidence, sent classified info on public servers, covered it up by having her aides lie and take the fall for her. We know this as fact, yet no charges filed? Imagine the dominos falling if she was charged.
1. the DNC hack started the FBI into Russia's involvement with our election.
2. You have evidence that Hillary committed crimes? Holy Shit man why have you not shared this info with the FBI or Trumps Justice Department ? At the very least the Republican controlled congress should investigate. Right?
-
1. the DNC hack started the FBI into Russia's involvement with our election.
2. You have evidence that Hillary committed crimes? Holy Shit man why have you not shared this info with the FBI or Trumps Justice Department ? At the very least the Republican controlled congress should investigate. Right?
Fuck yes there’s evidence!!!! At the very least she lied to Congress and Comey provided the testimony. Should I post the video again??? Holy fuck, you have to be trolling. There is MORE than enough evidence to indict this literal traitor.
-
This needs a listen. Libs on here won’t because they can’t deal with reality. If you doubt it, refute it.
-
Fuck yes there’s evidence!!!! At the very least she lied to Congress and Comey provided the testimony. Should I post the video again??? Holy fuck, you have to be trolling. There is MORE than enough evidence to indict this literal traitor.
evidence she's a traitor
wow, Does Sessions know about this
how about the Republicans in Congress
-
evidence she's a traitor
wow, Does Sessions know about this
how about the Republicans in Congress
Of course, they know. Just because you don't hear about doesn't mean they're not investigating it. You definitely won't hear about it from the propaganda rags.
-
1. the DNC hack started the FBI into Russia's involvement with our election.
2. You have evidence that Hillary committed crimes? Holy Shit man why have you not shared this info with the FBI or Trumps Justice Department ? At the very least the Republican controlled congress should investigate. Right?
There was no hack - Podesta responded to a phishing scam.
Like always - Democrat = incompetence and idiocy
-
There was no hack - Podesta responded to a phishing scam.
Like always - Democrat = incompetence and idiocy
semantics
his email was hacked via a fishing scam
that's what initiated the FBI investigation
-
semantics
his email was hacked via a fishing scam
that's what initiated the FBI investigation
He is a moron for falling in to it. Podesta = idiot and typical dolt democrat. Blame him.
-
He is a moron for falling in to it. Podesta = idiot and typical dolt democrat. Blame him.
fine
I'll blame his stupidity as the reason the FBI initiated an investigation which ultimately led to a larger investigation about Russian hacking and possible collusion with team Trump which then of course led to Trump appointed Asst AG assigning a special council after Trump fired Comey and then was stupid enough to go on TV and explain exactly why he did it and of course also bragged to his Russian buddies about it as well.
Does that make you feel better?
btw - here's the actual story but who really cares.
Last March, Podesta received an email purportedly from Google saying hackers had tried to infiltrate his Gmail account. When an aide emailed the campaign’s IT staff to ask if the notice was real, Clinton campaign aide Charles Delavan replied that it was “a legitimate email" and that Podesta should “change his password immediately.”
Instead of telling the aide that the email was a threat and that a good response would be to change his password directly through Google’s website, he had inadvertently told the aide to click on the fraudulent email and give the attackers access to the account.
Delavan told the Times he had intended to type "illegitimate,” a typo he still has not forgiven himself for making.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/310234-typo-may-have-caused-podesta-email-hack