If Trump Were A Democrat

[PoliticalChic]

He will be a Democrat the moment he is out of office. Many in the right will deny he existed or their support.

To answer your question no i wouldn’t. I wouldn’t vote for populists. Bernie and Trump have a lot more in common rhetoric wise than people choose to admit

The intelligent thing is to vote for policies, not persons.

Most voted against the Democrats,
against the mess Hussein Obama made of the economy,
against the corruption we've witnessed for decades,
against awarding nuclear weapons to the 7th century savages,
against the anti-white bias of the Democrat Party,

against the flood of illegal immigrants who require welfare
against bringing millions of unvetted Muslim refugees from war-indoctrinated nations,
against redistribution of wealth,
against the failed Liberal welfare industry,
against being dictated to by the United Nothings,
against a failed Liberal education industry,
and for a conservative Supreme Court...

...and for the slim possibility of a rebirth of America.

 

[Care4all]

silly girl....

MOST citizens voted AGAINST Republicans, in 2016 and in 2018!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

silly girl....

MOST citizens voted AGAINST Republicans, in 2016 and in 2018!

Assuming they were citizens, perhaps.

And yet, Trump sits in the Oval Office because of the brilliance of the Electoral College system. Citizens don't elect the president. States do.

 

[FreeAndClear]

He will be a Democrat the moment he is out of office. Many in the right will deny he existed or their support.

To answer your question no i wouldn’t. I wouldn’t vote for populists. Bernie and Trump have a lot more in common rhetoric wise than people choose to admit

The intelligent thing is to vote for policies, not persons.

Most voted against the Democrats,
against the mess Hussein Obama made of the economy,
against the corruption we've witnessed for decades,
against awarding nuclear weapons to the 7th century savages,
against the anti-white bias of the Democrat Party,

against the flood of illegal immigrants who require welfare
against bringing millions of unvetted Muslim refugees from war-indoctrinated nations,
against redistribution of wealth,
against the failed Liberal welfare industry,
against being dictated to by the United Nothings,
against a failed Liberal education industry,
and for a conservative Supreme Court...

...and for the slim possibility of a rebirth of America.

Those are all nice bumper stickers but they are not policy. I agree it is better to vote for policy rather than person. That's why i didn't vote for either of the major party candidates. I am one of those libs whom others like to blame for being a fence sitter and causing a Trump presidency....

 

[Care4all]

silly girl....

MOST citizens voted AGAINST Republicans, in 2016 and in 2018!

Assuming they were citizens, perhaps.

And yet, Trump sits in the Oval Office because of the brilliance of the Electoral College system. Citizens don't elect the president. States do.

Then people need to STOP saying the ''people'' chose Trump to be president, cuz they did NOT pick him over the Democratic candidate... he lost the 'people's' vote.... more did NOT choose him or the Republicans.... as was stated in this thread by other members?!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

silly girl....

MOST citizens voted AGAINST Republicans, in 2016 and in 2018!

Assuming they were citizens, perhaps.

And yet, Trump sits in the Oval Office because of the brilliance of the Electoral College system. Citizens don't elect the president. States do.

Then people need to STOP saying the ''people'' chose Trump to be president, cuz they did NOT pick him over the Democratic candidate... he lost the 'people's' vote.... more did NOT choose him or the Republicans.... as was stated in this thread by other members?!

"The people" in the states he won elected electors - people all - who then elected the president.

That's how it works. Your semantic ravings are irrelevant.

 

[Care4all]

silly girl....

MOST citizens voted AGAINST Republicans, in 2016 and in 2018!

Assuming they were citizens, perhaps.

And yet, Trump sits in the Oval Office because of the brilliance of the Electoral College system. Citizens don't elect the president. States do.

Then people need to STOP saying the ''people'' chose Trump to be president, cuz they did NOT pick him over the Democratic candidate... he lost the 'people's' vote.... more did NOT choose him or the Republicans.... as was stated in this thread by other members?!

"The people" in the states he won elected electors - people all - who then elected the president.

That's how it works. Your semantic ravings are irrelevant.

the people's vote within the States do not elect the electors according to their vote....

the state legislators manipulated the electors by creating their ''winner takes all'', which does not reflect the peoples vote for electors in the electoral college, or the electors within each state....

 

[PoliticalChic]

He will be a Democrat the moment he is out of office. Many in the right will deny he existed or their support.

To answer your question no i wouldn’t. I wouldn’t vote for populists. Bernie and Trump have a lot more in common rhetoric wise than people choose to admit

The intelligent thing is to vote for policies, not persons.

Most voted against the Democrats,
against the mess Hussein Obama made of the economy,
against the corruption we've witnessed for decades,
against awarding nuclear weapons to the 7th century savages,
against the anti-white bias of the Democrat Party,

against the flood of illegal immigrants who require welfare
against bringing millions of unvetted Muslim refugees from war-indoctrinated nations,
against redistribution of wealth,
against the failed Liberal welfare industry,
against being dictated to by the United Nothings,
against a failed Liberal education industry,
and for a conservative Supreme Court...

...and for the slim possibility of a rebirth of America.

Those are all nice bumper stickers but they are not policy. I agree it is better to vote for policy rather than person. That's why i didn't vote for either of the major party candidates. I am one of those libs whom others like to blame for being a fence sitter and causing a Trump presidency....

Obviously you made a mistake when you voted.

Which of Trump's policies are you rejecting.....the one where he ended Obama's funding the nuclear program of the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism???

 

[FreeAndClear]

He will be a Democrat the moment he is out of office. Many in the right will deny he existed or their support.

To answer your question no i wouldn’t. I wouldn’t vote for populists. Bernie and Trump have a lot more in common rhetoric wise than people choose to admit

The intelligent thing is to vote for policies, not persons.

Most voted against the Democrats,
against the mess Hussein Obama made of the economy,
against the corruption we've witnessed for decades,
against awarding nuclear weapons to the 7th century savages,
against the anti-white bias of the Democrat Party,

against the flood of illegal immigrants who require welfare
against bringing millions of unvetted Muslim refugees from war-indoctrinated nations,
against redistribution of wealth,
against the failed Liberal welfare industry,
against being dictated to by the United Nothings,
against a failed Liberal education industry,
and for a conservative Supreme Court...

...and for the slim possibility of a rebirth of America.

Those are all nice bumper stickers but they are not policy. I agree it is better to vote for policy rather than person. That's why i didn't vote for either of the major party candidates. I am one of those libs whom others like to blame for being a fence sitter and causing a Trump presidency....

Obviously you made a mistake when you voted.

Which of Trump's policies are you rejecting.....the one where he ended Obama's funding the nuclear program of the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism???

The fact that his SCOTUS picks are heritage foundation picks. I don't agree with environmental deregulation. There are more

I am not going to get into a pissing match of the differences and similarities of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

 

[Leo123]

Then people need to STOP saying the ''people'' chose Trump to be president, cuz they did NOT pick him over the Democratic candidate... he lost the 'people's' vote.... more did NOT choose him or the Republicans.... as was stated in this thread by other members?!

Ya we understand you lefties need people to say what you want to hear. Actually people in Geographic America overwhelmingly elected President Trump so saying the 'people' elected Trump is absolutely the truth. Sorry if that doesn't soothe your burning butt.

 

[Leo123]

the people's vote within the States do not elect the electors according to their vote....

the state legislators manipulated the electors by creating their ''winner takes all'', which does not reflect the peoples vote for electors in the electoral college, or the electors within each state....

Why is it always someone else (other than Hillary's) fault? Russians, the EC, legislators.........I don't know.........You guys are running out of others to blame for your resounding loss. MAGA!

 

[PoliticalChic]

He will be a Democrat the moment he is out of office. Many in the right will deny he existed or their support.

To answer your question no i wouldn’t. I wouldn’t vote for populists. Bernie and Trump have a lot more in common rhetoric wise than people choose to admit

The intelligent thing is to vote for policies, not persons.

Most voted against the Democrats,
against the mess Hussein Obama made of the economy,
against the corruption we've witnessed for decades,
against awarding nuclear weapons to the 7th century savages,
against the anti-white bias of the Democrat Party,

against the flood of illegal immigrants who require welfare
against bringing millions of unvetted Muslim refugees from war-indoctrinated nations,
against redistribution of wealth,
against the failed Liberal welfare industry,
against being dictated to by the United Nothings,
against a failed Liberal education industry,
and for a conservative Supreme Court...

...and for the slim possibility of a rebirth of America.

Those are all nice bumper stickers but they are not policy. I agree it is better to vote for policy rather than person. That's why i didn't vote for either of the major party candidates. I am one of those libs whom others like to blame for being a fence sitter and causing a Trump presidency....

Obviously you made a mistake when you voted.

Which of Trump's policies are you rejecting.....the one where he ended Obama's funding the nuclear program of the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism???

The fact that his SCOTUS picks are heritage foundation picks. I don't agree with environmental deregulation. There are more

I am not going to get into a pissing match of the differences and similarities of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Your opinion matters less than this:
"US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'
Annual State Department report admonishes Tehran for assisting 'terrorists' as attacks down for second year in a row."
US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'



Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.

Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.


Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism

He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.


Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.


The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.

The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.

 

[FreeAndClear]

He will be a Democrat the moment he is out of office. Many in the right will deny he existed or their support.

To answer your question no i wouldn’t. I wouldn’t vote for populists. Bernie and Trump have a lot more in common rhetoric wise than people choose to admit

The intelligent thing is to vote for policies, not persons.

Most voted against the Democrats,
against the mess Hussein Obama made of the economy,
against the corruption we've witnessed for decades,
against awarding nuclear weapons to the 7th century savages,
against the anti-white bias of the Democrat Party,

against the flood of illegal immigrants who require welfare
against bringing millions of unvetted Muslim refugees from war-indoctrinated nations,
against redistribution of wealth,
against the failed Liberal welfare industry,
against being dictated to by the United Nothings,
against a failed Liberal education industry,
and for a conservative Supreme Court...

...and for the slim possibility of a rebirth of America.

Those are all nice bumper stickers but they are not policy. I agree it is better to vote for policy rather than person. That's why i didn't vote for either of the major party candidates. I am one of those libs whom others like to blame for being a fence sitter and causing a Trump presidency....

Obviously you made a mistake when you voted.

Which of Trump's policies are you rejecting.....the one where he ended Obama's funding the nuclear program of the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism???

The fact that his SCOTUS picks are heritage foundation picks. I don't agree with environmental deregulation. There are more

I am not going to get into a pissing match of the differences and similarities of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Your opinion matters less than this:
"US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'
Annual State Department report admonishes Tehran for assisting 'terrorists' as attacks down for second year in a row."
US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'



Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.

Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.


Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism

He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.


Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.


The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.

The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.

The State Department is correct. Like I said I am not getting into this. If Iran is the worst and Saudi Arabia is just a little better does that mean that it is still ok?

This is silly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The intelligent thing is to vote for policies, not persons.

Most voted against the Democrats,
against the mess Hussein Obama made of the economy,
against the corruption we've witnessed for decades,
against awarding nuclear weapons to the 7th century savages,
against the anti-white bias of the Democrat Party,

against the flood of illegal immigrants who require welfare
against bringing millions of unvetted Muslim refugees from war-indoctrinated nations,
against redistribution of wealth,
against the failed Liberal welfare industry,
against being dictated to by the United Nothings,
against a failed Liberal education industry,
and for a conservative Supreme Court...

...and for the slim possibility of a rebirth of America.

Those are all nice bumper stickers but they are not policy. I agree it is better to vote for policy rather than person. That's why i didn't vote for either of the major party candidates. I am one of those libs whom others like to blame for being a fence sitter and causing a Trump presidency....

Obviously you made a mistake when you voted.

Which of Trump's policies are you rejecting.....the one where he ended Obama's funding the nuclear program of the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism???

The fact that his SCOTUS picks are heritage foundation picks. I don't agree with environmental deregulation. There are more

I am not going to get into a pissing match of the differences and similarities of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Your opinion matters less than this:
"US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'
Annual State Department report admonishes Tehran for assisting 'terrorists' as attacks down for second year in a row."
US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'



Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.

Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.


Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism

He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.


Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.


The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.

The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.

The State Department is correct. Like I said I am not getting into this. If Iran is the worst and Saudi Arabia is just a little better does that mean that it is still ok?

This is silly.

The word 'silly' doesn't enter into this discussion.
Guaranteeing nuclear weapons to Iran is treachery of the highest order.
It is jaw-droppingly appalling in its enormity, its anti-American and anti-civilization dimension.

 

[FreeAndClear]

Those are all nice bumper stickers but they are not policy. I agree it is better to vote for policy rather than person. That's why i didn't vote for either of the major party candidates. I am one of those libs whom others like to blame for being a fence sitter and causing a Trump presidency....

Obviously you made a mistake when you voted.

Which of Trump's policies are you rejecting.....the one where he ended Obama's funding the nuclear program of the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism???

The fact that his SCOTUS picks are heritage foundation picks. I don't agree with environmental deregulation. There are more

I am not going to get into a pissing match of the differences and similarities of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Your opinion matters less than this:
"US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'
Annual State Department report admonishes Tehran for assisting 'terrorists' as attacks down for second year in a row."
US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'



Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.

Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.


Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism

He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.


Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.


The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.

The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.

The State Department is correct. Like I said I am not getting into this. If Iran is the worst and Saudi Arabia is just a little better does that mean that it is still ok?

This is silly.

The word 'silly' doesn't enter into this discussion.
Guaranteeing nuclear weapons to Iran is treachery of the highest order.
It is jaw-droppingly appalling in its enormity, its anti-American and anti-civilization dimension.

I understand that dealing and communicating in hyperbole is easier than addressing nuance but it is nuanced. Sorry that you disagree

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obviously you made a mistake when you voted.

Which of Trump's policies are you rejecting.....the one where he ended Obama's funding the nuclear program of the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism???

The fact that his SCOTUS picks are heritage foundation picks. I don't agree with environmental deregulation. There are more

I am not going to get into a pissing match of the differences and similarities of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Your opinion matters less than this:
"US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'
Annual State Department report admonishes Tehran for assisting 'terrorists' as attacks down for second year in a row."
US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'



Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.

Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.


Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism

He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.


Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.


The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.

The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.

The State Department is correct. Like I said I am not getting into this. If Iran is the worst and Saudi Arabia is just a little better does that mean that it is still ok?

This is silly.

The word 'silly' doesn't enter into this discussion.
Guaranteeing nuclear weapons to Iran is treachery of the highest order.
It is jaw-droppingly appalling in its enormity, its anti-American and anti-civilization dimension.

I understand that dealing and communicating in hyperbole is easier than addressing nuance but it is nuanced. Sorry that you disagree

Are you standing with Obama's insistence on Iran getting nuclear weapons....is that it?

 

[FreeAndClear]

The fact that his SCOTUS picks are heritage foundation picks. I don't agree with environmental deregulation. There are more

I am not going to get into a pissing match of the differences and similarities of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Your opinion matters less than this:
"US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'
Annual State Department report admonishes Tehran for assisting 'terrorists' as attacks down for second year in a row."
US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'



Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.

Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.


Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism

He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.


Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.


The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.

The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.

The State Department is correct. Like I said I am not getting into this. If Iran is the worst and Saudi Arabia is just a little better does that mean that it is still ok?

This is silly.

The word 'silly' doesn't enter into this discussion.
Guaranteeing nuclear weapons to Iran is treachery of the highest order.
It is jaw-droppingly appalling in its enormity, its anti-American and anti-civilization dimension.

I understand that dealing and communicating in hyperbole is easier than addressing nuance but it is nuanced. Sorry that you disagree

Are you standing with Obama's insistence on Iran getting nuclear weapons....is that it?

I disagree with your verbiage and your conclusion regarding Obama’s intent. That’s it

 

[Leo123]

I disagree with your verbiage and your conclusion regarding Obama’s intent. That’s it

Intent is difficult to discern and its definition probably has a high degree of opinion. The US Presidency is, after all only an executive position (not a King, Emperor, Dictator) and historically, has been held in high esteem no matter who the President is. What the President intends has been based on that person's history, education and mostly, political party. I believe Obama's intent was to do what was best for the U.S. however, his seeming lack of ability to see beyond the political machine and his indoctrination into radical, leftist ideology makes his 'intent' short-sided and oriented more to maintaining power by apologizing for America. IOW, he may have THOUGHT his intent was pure but, it was really tainted by anti-American leftist, black revolutionary ideology.

Trump has a simple ideology "Make America Great Again" that is his intent. This political philosophy would have been closer to Democrats decades ago but, today he is more aligned with the Republican Party. Simply put, Trump has no one pulling his strings so, the Democrats and a great number of Republicans are beside themselves trying to find that one string that will make him unravel.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your opinion matters less than this:
"US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'
Annual State Department report admonishes Tehran for assisting 'terrorists' as attacks down for second year in a row."
US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'



Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.

Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.


Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism

He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.


Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.


The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.

The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.

The State Department is correct. Like I said I am not getting into this. If Iran is the worst and Saudi Arabia is just a little better does that mean that it is still ok?

This is silly.

The word 'silly' doesn't enter into this discussion.
Guaranteeing nuclear weapons to Iran is treachery of the highest order.
It is jaw-droppingly appalling in its enormity, its anti-American and anti-civilization dimension.

I understand that dealing and communicating in hyperbole is easier than addressing nuance but it is nuanced. Sorry that you disagree

Are you standing with Obama's insistence on Iran getting nuclear weapons....is that it?

I disagree with your verbiage and your conclusion regarding Obama’s intent. That’s it

There is no disputing either what I said or my conclusions.....if you'd like to be correct.

If you'd rather lick the boots of this anti-America and anti-Western Civilization villain, Barack Hussein Obama, well, that's your right.


"Obama Gave Iran A Faster Route To A Nuke -- And Didn't Tell Us
President Obama's deal with Iran was supposed to keep that nation's mullahs from creating a nuclear weapon with which it could intimidate and dominate the Mideast and much of Europe. Instead, it actually makes it more possible -- and in shorter time.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of a secret side deal that, in the words of the normally circumspect AP, advances "Tehran's ability to build a bomb even before the end of the pact." The accord as agreed to by the U.S. and five other nations was supposed to last 15 years. Or so we were told. Turns out, that's not the case.


...the deal as signed all but guarantees that Iran will someday get a nuclear weapon with which to terrorize its neighbors. What the AP document does is move up the time under which Iran can make a nuclear weapon. So we'll all be at risk sooner than we think.

The so-called "add-on" agreement lets Iran expand its uranium enrichment program after 10 years -- not 15 years, as the public parts of the deal suggested."
Obama Gave Iran A Faster Route To A Nuke -- And Didn't Tell Us | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD




BTW....

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?



" Iran President Hassan Rouhani endorsed the agreement in a nationally broadcast speech Sunday, saying the accord recognizes Iran's "nuclear rights" even if that precise language was kept from the final document because of Western resistance.

"No matter what interpretations are given, Iran's right to enrichment has been recognized," said Rouhani,...."
US, Iran nuclear deal spurs bipartisan concern in Congress





Iran's right to enrichment has been recognized,


By whom?


Oh.....by Obama.....



3.war criminal - an offender who violates international law during timesof war
offender, wrongdoer - a person who transgresses moral or civillaw
war criminal

 

[FreeAndClear]

The State Department is correct. Like I said I am not getting into this. If Iran is the worst and Saudi Arabia is just a little better does that mean that it is still ok?

This is silly.

The word 'silly' doesn't enter into this discussion.
Guaranteeing nuclear weapons to Iran is treachery of the highest order.
It is jaw-droppingly appalling in its enormity, its anti-American and anti-civilization dimension.

I understand that dealing and communicating in hyperbole is easier than addressing nuance but it is nuanced. Sorry that you disagree

Are you standing with Obama's insistence on Iran getting nuclear weapons....is that it?

I disagree with your verbiage and your conclusion regarding Obama’s intent. That’s it

There is no disputing either what I said or my conclusions.....if you'd like to be correct.

If you'd rather lick the boots of this anti-America and anti-Western Civilization villain, Barack Hussein Obama, well, that's your right.


"Obama Gave Iran A Faster Route To A Nuke -- And Didn't Tell Us
President Obama's deal with Iran was supposed to keep that nation's mullahs from creating a nuclear weapon with which it could intimidate and dominate the Mideast and much of Europe. Instead, it actually makes it more possible -- and in shorter time.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of a secret side deal that, in the words of the normally circumspect AP, advances "Tehran's ability to build a bomb even before the end of the pact." The accord as agreed to by the U.S. and five other nations was supposed to last 15 years. Or so we were told. Turns out, that's not the case.


...the deal as signed all but guarantees that Iran will someday get a nuclear weapon with which to terrorize its neighbors. What the AP document does is move up the time under which Iran can make a nuclear weapon. So we'll all be at risk sooner than we think.

The so-called "add-on" agreement lets Iran expand its uranium enrichment program after 10 years -- not 15 years, as the public parts of the deal suggested."
Obama Gave Iran A Faster Route To A Nuke -- And Didn't Tell Us | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD




BTW....

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?



" Iran President Hassan Rouhani endorsed the agreement in a nationally broadcast speech Sunday, saying the accord recognizes Iran's "nuclear rights" even if that precise language was kept from the final document because of Western resistance.

"No matter what interpretations are given, Iran's right to enrichment has been recognized," said Rouhani,...."
US, Iran nuclear deal spurs bipartisan concern in Congress





Iran's right to enrichment has been recognized,


By whom?


Oh.....by Obama.....



3.war criminal - an offender who violates international law during timesof war
offender, wrongdoer - a person who transgresses moral or civillaw
war criminal

You cite an editorial in support of your conclusive statements. The editorial of course repeats and reiterates the same old statements and of course forgets the most important problem, but for the deal does Iran have a nuke soon or later?