what happened last night? was reading people say the double execution was botched. Shameful they put that Jones(?) guy to death after reading his story
Only further evidence of PBO being a very average president in handling foreign policy. He was above average on domestic affairs though. Regardless, doesn't look good, but what's done is done.
Being average on foreign policy is still better than almost every president in the second half of the 20th century + 21st
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ions-supreme-court-jack-jones-marcel-williams https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/25/arkansas-execution-eyewitness-marcel-williams
You have to be a sick human being to support the death penalty, especially in the way it's administered
Why the pivot to Trump? He had nothing to do with the Iran deal. Just so I'm clear, the release of the 21 "civilians and businessmen" (who actually turn out to be nuclear component smugglers, IED part distributors, Hezbollah middlemen, etc.) is okay? The $1.7B in cash, $100B in released assets, lifting of economic sanctions and these 21 prisoners are all worth the hope of Iran (who is still doing missile tests) will suddenly stop their already covert nuclear program? "Hey Iran, I know you've been all covert and shit with your attempts at building a nuclear weapon before and this deal is mostly a good faith measure, but its all good. If you pinky promise to never attempt to build a nuclear weapon, we'll give you a big ass cash infusion from the jump, release 21 prisoners (some of which you might need if you ever want to try again for nuclear means), and open up other significant avenues of trade that will make sure Iran has a much better economic outlook for years to come. Just throw in a few American prisoners (including a couple Iranian-Americans that will probably just stay in Iran anyways) and we got ourselves a deal. Cool?" "Oh btw Iran, if in a couple years you feel like the new administration is taking too strong of a rhetoric in regards to your now "non-existent" nuclear ambitions, just conduct a couple missile tests. Don't worry about that being a violation of this agreement. That way, we will all be sure to know that Iran wants peace and stability in the Middle East."
Boy for someone who did not vote for Trump you sure are sensitive about any criticism of Trump, I'm not going to do this shit with you Trumptard. BTW according to your lord and savior Iran seems to be in compliance with the agreement so I guess that hope of them sticking to the agreement may have paid off, but it doesn't matter because it was done under the Kenyan's administration.
I said nothing about Trump. My "lord and savior"? Kinda dramatic, don't you think? I swear at the slightest hint of pro-Trump or anti-left sentiments in my posts, yall are sure quick to resort to name calling. Maybe that's a microcosm of how many Americans feel when they try to engage in debate with a left-leaning person...or maybe its not. Idk. But to get back to the actual point of the Iran deal, this is okay right?
BetterCallSaul will you provide examples of the 'tons of times' Trump has been unfairly criticized by the media over the first 100 days
I would have no problem engaging a Trumptard who admitted he's a Trumptard but continue fighting the good fight.
That's an awful lot of snark for someone that really needs to read up on the agreement more. Missile tests were not part of the negotiations. Neither were human rights issues or their support of terrorism. Those issues are covered by different agreements/sanctions. They are complying with the agreement so far, even the Trump admin acknowledged that. The deal is much more than a "good faith measure." It removed like 98% of their fissile material and 2/3 of their centrifuges. It's hard to run a "covert" enrichment program when radiation doesn't dissipate in that 28 day window the deal's critics always bring up.
Dude I completely agree. Its sickening the sleep and death inducing chemicals they have to endure. I think we should use dilation and extraction, dilation and cutterage, or just plain suction and aspiration instead...much more humane imo.
Just trotted right on by the substance of my post. If the choice was between an ok, not-great deal and Iraq 2.0, I'll take the deal. And with this administration, without that deal, we would already be in Iran. So, yeah, totally worth it imo.
Also, it being a "prisoner swap" means that we got people back too. Returning Americans safely home is usually considered a good thing.
Okay, so all I have to do is admit that I'm a derogatory word used in a negative connotation for Trump supporter, and then you will engage me in civil dialogue? Sounds like a wonderful way to begin a discussion with someone you are trying to have a decent discussion with.
This thread (including you) is a bit like a firehose attached to an asshole and shit is spun about haphazardly
Use whatever word you want just stop telling people I didn't vote for him when it's so obvious you did. Btw you're not a Trumptard for voting for him you're a Trumptard for the mental gymnastics you pull off to justify his actions. But can you answer Dairy Queen question: Name one instance where the media unfairly criticize Trump since he became president?
That's right. There is a difference in the language. In Resolution 2231, passed in 2015, the Security Council endorsed the nuclear deal, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA. It terminated the provisions of the 2010 resolution and added language deep in one of the annexes saying: "Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier." Technically, by way of creative wording, you are correct. Iran didn't violate the agreement so I digress.
He gambled on Iran with the following in mind: - needing to get the Americans returned safely - any kind of armed confrontation being a recipe for disaster - the potential strength of the deal with regard to limiting their nuclear ambitions Given how sticky that is, I'd say we made out ok.
Its way too subjective to answer. I will not give specifics because I already know the flurry of responses about how it really is such a big deal. Take what I said at face value. In my opinion, Trump has had more rush to judgement opinion and hit pieces from members of the MSM than any other president I can remember. Its always immediately negative regardless of how big or small, right or wrong the actual action was. I'll leave it at this. Every action, statement, appointment, and even tweet that Trump has done comes with a corresponding special alert break in on msm outlets and reported on in an initial negative light. CNN and MSNBC will usually bring in a panel with a few left leaning people who immediately attack Trump. For "fairness", they will always have the one token Republican who the others will laugh at or loudly disagree with and thus reinforce the negative rhetoric of the coverage of said action. Granted, Fox News does the same thing in reverse. Its fucked up on both sides of the media.
Counterpoint: He's the President of the United States of America. Everything he does is news worthy, even if it is fucking Donald Trump. We've never had a president whose thoughts were so immediately available and broadcasted as soon as it crosses his mind. All he has to do is stop fucking tweeting and a lot of the ammo given to the press disappears. But he's too god damn stupid and narcissistic to do that. For three months I've received every tweet he sends via a push notification on my phone. It's incredible the amount of incoherent rambling he does. Stop normalizing our insane president as if he's acting the same as those who preceded him.
Gee I wonder why You clearly buy into that ridiculous narrative that the press is being "unfair" in its treatment of this president, and based on that alone I hope you encounter a life circumstance that removes your ability to ever actively participate in our democracy again.
Objective Fact: Modern mainstream media is trapped in over-sensationalized "breaking news" 24 hour cycle of "who won what today?". An objective fact misappropriated by a "totally not biased" moron: Why does the lame stream media keeps attacking the God Emperor? We can't have a "civil discourse" with people that live in an alternate reality where the subjectivity of "feels" overtakes objective analysis. Yet its always the most obtuse posters that demand "civil discourse" on here. Hmm...
South Korean presidential elections in a couple of weeks are not being covered sufficiently in this country https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/14/world/asia/south-korea-election-ahn-cheol-soo.html?_r=0
The same thing could be said about the guy that was in the WH the past 8 years and the guy before that, it's almost like people are critical of people that hold such a high position. Seriously I hate people that are embarrassed to admit they voted for Trump, why the fuck vote for something you find embarrassing?
We're going to have to rely on good willed billionaires in order to ever have an unbiased media. Otherwise journalists will always be tied to how many fucking clicks they can create. Which means we're going to be inundated with bullshit fluff pieces and sensationalized headlines, and less and less really well written articles. Those hard hitting articles cost a lot and usually don't get as many clicks as the "Donald Trump just took away your freedom of speech" sensationalist 5 paragraph long articles. I hate when people criticize the fucking media for being biased. Man, no one could have ever seen them catering to an audience in a capitalist system.
I voted for him in the general. Voted for Rand Paul in the primary. Would have voted for Gary Johnson if he was't such a dumbass. Literally the first political post I made was in response to a question about how people could vote for him. I bring up my pov about the emails, among other things, and boom. I'm attacked from 15 different posters only about the emails. Once again, I haven't really said shit about Trump today until once again, my post was turned in that direction. I've been equally negative of Trump as positive. I literally agree with you guys on roughly half of the REAL issues, but for whatever reason, its the other, more conservative beliefs that immediately get you guys up in arms, name calling and shit. Now this is the internet and not to be taken seriously. I have thick skin and honestly couldn't give two shits less how you all feel about me or my political views. However, this is a microcosm of real life and why so many moderate conservatives like myself are so turned off by the progressive agenda and many liberals in general. Sorry, but being shouted down and called insults isn't exactly the best way to get someone to agree with your POV.
You lost the ability to claim that you're a moderate conservative when you voted for Trump. Hell I can even buy your disqualification of Clinton in a vacuum, but you can't really claim to be a middle of the road conservative if you hopped on the Trump train.
When you say stupid shit you can't be mad when people call it stupid and tell you why it's stupid. Maybe instead you should try to learn things so that you will say less stupid shit in the future
Lessor of two evils, but whatever you say chief. Who says its stupid? That's subjective, no? Regardless, some random people on the internet disagree with me and think I'm stupid. Oh noes!
In this post you claimed to both be thick skinned and not care what others think of your opinion then you state that you and other moderate voted for Trump because libs were mean to you. Never change Trumptard, never change.
Thinking Hillary Clinton was a bigger threat to national security than Donald Trump because of her emails is an objectively stupid position.
"trump was the lessor of two evils" havent heard that phrase in a hot minute. wish we coulda kept it that way