Seriously tho? What the fuck is he talking about $400 million money drop on Iran?? Is there some existing stormfront conspiracy on a secret Iran Operation Dumbo Drop? Or is he making this up out of whole cloth?
You have to rely more on your neighbors and less on government programs.
I'm under the impression that a lot of rural areas would be absolutely fucked without government programs. Medicaid, food stamps, farm subsidies... the military, in the case of "it gets me the hell out of here". Am I wrong? I understand the story you're telling and I guess people might believe it but is it actually true?
Not especially. The numbers have generally been that red states get more in government funds than they pay in (and blue states get less) and red states are seen as 'rural', so... It also brings to mind the sillyness of saying things like 'Get the government out of my Medicare!'
She gives a shout out to the overflow crowd, apologizes for not being able to fit everyone in, says that they'll need larger spaces in the future. And then?
"I want to say that I actually really like fire marshals."
Never let it be said that Clinton refuses to hit the weak spot of the Giant Enemy Crab for Massive Damage.
Orphanerivers of redthat run to seaRegistered Userregular
edited August 2016
I mean, look at how many red states have quietly rebranded Obamacare with their constituents eating it up despite every Republican politician howling about it and promising to repeal it
i guess the question being - was it illegal? but given that it was publically announced + they actually went through the effort of doing weird shit instead of just wiring USD, i would assume it was legal (circumventing spirit of the sanctions, but, yolo)
The Trump campaign went out of its way to dramatically alter the Republican Party’s official position on Ukraine—against the wishes of GOP hawks and despite senior Trump aide Paul Manafort’s insistence that they weren’t involved.
...
But this account is contradicted by four sources in the room, both for and against the language.
Eric Brakey, a Maine delegate who identifies as a non-interventionist, said he supported the change, which was pushed in part by the Trump campaign.
“Some staff from the Trump campaign came in and… came back with some language that softened the platform,” Brakey told The Daily Beast. “They didn’t intervene in the platform in most cases. But in that case they had some wisdom to say that maybe we don’t want to be calling… for very, very clear aggressive acts of war against Russia.”
“They substantively changed it,” added Washington, D.C. delegate Rachel Hoff, who was present during the meeting. “It absolutely was my understanding that it was Trump staff.”
According to two Republican delegates, the Trump campaign’s efforts were led in part by J.D. Gordon, a Trump campaign official and a former spokesman at the Pentagon.
Meanwhile, records for the meeting seem to have disappeared. A co-chair for the national security platform subcommittee told The Daily Beast that the minutes for the meeting have been discarded. The Republican National Committee had no comment when asked whether this was standard procedure for all the subcommittees.
During the meeting, pro-Cruz delegate Diane Denman proposed language that called for “providing lethal defensive weapons” to Ukraine.
Her amendment was put on hold so that Republican staff could work with Denman on the language. What followed was a back and forth between Denman and the Trump campaign, according to Denman.
“They were over sitting in chairs at the side of the room,” Denman said of two men who said they working for the Trump campaign, one of whom was Gordon. “When I read my amendment, they got up and walked over and talked to the co-chairmen and they read it. That’s when I was told that it was going to be tabled.”
Denman says the two men took a copy of her amendment back to their chairs, then made calls on their cellphones. Later, she said the two members of Trump’s team claimed to have called the campaign’s New York headquarters, and that her amendment needed to be changed.
When the language came back up, after consultation with Trump’s staff—and in direct contradiction to Manafort’s insistence to the contrary—the section called merely for “appropriate assistance” to Ukraine.
...
I'm shocked that Manafort was lying. Just really bewildering and disheartening.
Was Hillary Clinton even at all involved in that deal given John Kerry has been Secretary of State since 2013?
Yes she was. She is on record as the one that wrote the sanctions that brought them to the table. Not the one that wrote the 400mil in non US currency provision probably but a part of the "deal". Good thing the right is inept at taking advantage of that news.
She gives a shout out to the overflow crowd, apologizes for not being able to fit everyone in, says that they'll need larger spaces in the future. And then?
"I want to say that I actually really like fire marshals."
Never let it be said that Clinton refuses to hit the weak spot of the Giant Enemy Crab for Massive Damage.
Was Hillary Clinton even at all involved in that deal given John Kerry has been Secretary of State since 2013?
I think to some extent. It was part of the Iran nuclear deal negotiations which I think extended into Clinton's tenure? I can't remember tbh. That said, they really really wanted their money back, which is understandable.
And to the US, flaunting the process Iran used at the Hague would hurt when then trying to point to the Hague's decision to delegitimize the Chinese artificial islands, among others. It's a payment with many upsides.
i may have this wrong, but roughly concurrent with iran releasing those american sailors, the U.S and the EU arranged an airdrop of $400 mil in non-USD currencies to Iran as payment on an old trade(?) deal that the U.S had violated. the weirdness of an airdrop + non-USD currencies was to circumvent the sanctions which were still in effect at the time?
Iran can't get wire transfers, they are locked out of the world banking market. The different foreign currency is apparently because they don't have very much foreign money.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Was Hillary Clinton even at all involved in that deal given John Kerry has been Secretary of State since 2013?
Yes she was. She is on record as the one that wrote the sanctions that brought them to the table. Not the one that wrote the 400mil in non US currency provision probably but a part of it. Good thing the right is inept at taking advantage of that news.
But the sanctions aren't the deal. She can have helped with the sanctions without being involved in making a deal that finished in 2016.
Edit: Like how do you blame Hillary for that regardless of whether it was OK when she at best only started the talks before they concluded well after she left the office?
i guess the question being - was it illegal? but given that it was publically announced + they actually went through the effort of doing weird shit instead of just wiring USD, i would assume it was legal (circumventing spirit of the sanctions, but, yolo)
Again literally can't wire them money because of sanctions against them.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Was Hillary Clinton even at all involved in that deal given John Kerry has been Secretary of State since 2013?
Yes she was. She is on record as the one that wrote the sanctions that brought them to the table. Not the one that wrote the 400mil in non US currency provision probably but a part of it. Good thing the right is inept at taking advantage of that news.
But the sanctions aren't the deal. She can have helped with the sanctions without being involved in making a deal that finished in 2016.
The thing is on one hand you have an individual that would clout the fact she was a part of the Iran nuclear deal because she was the one that brought them to the negotiating table. Then on the other side you have a rather large negative news break where it changes to well "technically" I didnt finalize the deal.
Was Hillary Clinton even at all involved in that deal given John Kerry has been Secretary of State since 2013?
Yes she was. She is on record as the one that wrote the sanctions that brought them to the table. Not the one that wrote the 400mil in non US currency provision probably but a part of it. Good thing the right is inept at taking advantage of that news.
But the sanctions aren't the deal. She can have helped with the sanctions without being involved in making a deal that finished in 2016.
The thing is on one hand you have an individual that would clout the fact she was a part of the Iran nuclear deal because she was the one that brought them to the negotiating table. Then on the other side you have a rather large negative news break where it changes to well "technically" I didnt finalize the deal.
Because the two deals are separate and you confusing them is exactly the point Republicans are trying to make.
I ate an engineer
+6
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
The January reporting also mentioned that we actually owed them $1.3 billion in interest on that $400 million, since we've been holding onto it since 1979. (It was money the Shah sent us right before the Revolution to buy US military hardware; after the Revolution, we kept the cash but never sent the weapons they had paid for.)
The Trump campaign went out of its way to dramatically alter the Republican Party’s official position on Ukraine—against the wishes of GOP hawks and despite senior Trump aide Paul Manafort’s insistence that they weren’t involved.
...
But this account is contradicted by four sources in the room, both for and against the language.
Eric Brakey, a Maine delegate who identifies as a non-interventionist, said he supported the change, which was pushed in part by the Trump campaign.
“Some staff from the Trump campaign came in and… came back with some language that softened the platform,” Brakey told The Daily Beast. “They didn’t intervene in the platform in most cases. But in that case they had some wisdom to say that maybe we don’t want to be calling… for very, very clear aggressive acts of war against Russia.”
“They substantively changed it,” added Washington, D.C. delegate Rachel Hoff, who was present during the meeting. “It absolutely was my understanding that it was Trump staff.”
According to two Republican delegates, the Trump campaign’s efforts were led in part by J.D. Gordon, a Trump campaign official and a former spokesman at the Pentagon.
Meanwhile, records for the meeting seem to have disappeared. A co-chair for the national security platform subcommittee told The Daily Beast that the minutes for the meeting have been discarded. The Republican National Committee had no comment when asked whether this was standard procedure for all the subcommittees.
During the meeting, pro-Cruz delegate Diane Denman proposed language that called for “providing lethal defensive weapons” to Ukraine.
Her amendment was put on hold so that Republican staff could work with Denman on the language. What followed was a back and forth between Denman and the Trump campaign, according to Denman.
“They were over sitting in chairs at the side of the room,” Denman said of two men who said they working for the Trump campaign, one of whom was Gordon. “When I read my amendment, they got up and walked over and talked to the co-chairmen and they read it. That’s when I was told that it was going to be tabled.”
Denman says the two men took a copy of her amendment back to their chairs, then made calls on their cellphones. Later, she said the two members of Trump’s team claimed to have called the campaign’s New York headquarters, and that her amendment needed to be changed.
When the language came back up, after consultation with Trump’s staff—and in direct contradiction to Manafort’s insistence to the contrary—the section called merely for “appropriate assistance” to Ukraine.
...
I'm shocked that Manafort was lying. Just really bewildering and disheartening.
Was Hillary Clinton even at all involved in that deal given John Kerry has been Secretary of State since 2013?
I think to some extent. It was part of the Iran nuclear deal negotiations which I think extended into Clinton's tenure? I can't remember tbh. That said, they really really wanted their money back, which is understandable.
And to the US, flaunting the process Iran used at the Hague would hurt when then trying to point to the Hague's decision to delegitimize the Chinese artificial islands, among others. It's a payment with many upsides.
If you want other countries to deal with you in accordance with international law and international treaties, it's probably necessary to follow through and do likewise.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Was Hillary Clinton even at all involved in that deal given John Kerry has been Secretary of State since 2013?
Yes she was. She is on record as the one that wrote the sanctions that brought them to the table. Not the one that wrote the 400mil in non US currency provision probably but a part of it. Good thing the right is inept at taking advantage of that news.
But the sanctions aren't the deal. She can have helped with the sanctions without being involved in making a deal that finished in 2016.
The thing is on one hand you have an individual that would clout the fact she was a part of the Iran nuclear deal because she was the one that brought them to the negotiating table. Then on the other side you have a rather large negative news break where it changes to well "technically" I didnt finalize the deal.
Why can't she take credit for bringing them to the negotiating table while not taking credit for every single thing in the deals with Iran that finished well after she left office, including stuff that was considered mostly ancillary to the actual nuclear deal at the time like the $400 million? That doesn't seem contradictory at all to me. She doesn't have to have supported every single thing done to be proud of her role in the overall deal(s) anymore than a politician has to support every single provision in a bill he helped to pass to be proud of his role in getting the bill passed.
Was Hillary Clinton even at all involved in that deal given John Kerry has been Secretary of State since 2013?
Yes she was. She is on record as the one that wrote the sanctions that brought them to the table. Not the one that wrote the 400mil in non US currency provision probably but a part of it. Good thing the right is inept at taking advantage of that news.
But the sanctions aren't the deal. She can have helped with the sanctions without being involved in making a deal that finished in 2016.
The thing is on one hand you have an individual that would clout the fact she was a part of the Iran nuclear deal because she was the one that brought them to the negotiating table. Then on the other side you have a rather large negative news break where it changes to well "technically" I didnt finalize the deal.
Because the two deals are separate and you confusing them is exactly the point Republicans are trying to make.
Its worth noting that I believe, as I implied, that she wasnt a part of the "ransom" brokering. Just, for me, this is one of those "if the tables were reversed" type situations where the left part of the internet would be melting right now. It is a tricky situation to defend as Hilary definately worked on the longstanding Iran weapons deal directly that the white house is attributing the payment towards. And the hostage release is pretty much a "show in good faith" negotiation. But it does look bad. That cannot be denied.
Trump has the instinctive need to prove his dominance. One of the main ways he's been doing this has been to prove he is beyond consequences by lying directly into people's faces while he knows they know he's lying to them.
Ah hmmm. On the one hand, I'm not keen on buying books from politicians during or near their run for office, just feels a bit slimy. On the other hand, my birthday is right around the release date.
Posts
I see
NNID: Hakkekage
Not especially. The numbers have generally been that red states get more in government funds than they pay in (and blue states get less) and red states are seen as 'rural', so... It also brings to mind the sillyness of saying things like 'Get the government out of my Medicare!'
Cognitive Dissonance is a hell of a drug.
Never let it be said that Clinton refuses to hit the weak spot of the Giant Enemy Crab for Massive Damage.
I'm shocked that Manafort was lying. Just really bewildering and disheartening.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yes she was. She is on record as the one that wrote the sanctions that brought them to the table. Not the one that wrote the 400mil in non US currency provision probably but a part of the "deal". Good thing the right is inept at taking advantage of that news.
plus dat made in colorado scarf
I think to some extent. It was part of the Iran nuclear deal negotiations which I think extended into Clinton's tenure? I can't remember tbh. That said, they really really wanted their money back, which is understandable.
And to the US, flaunting the process Iran used at the Hague would hurt when then trying to point to the Hague's decision to delegitimize the Chinese artificial islands, among others. It's a payment with many upsides.
It would be convenient because his secret service detail would be right there to arrest him.
Iran can't get wire transfers, they are locked out of the world banking market. The different foreign currency is apparently because they don't have very much foreign money.
pleasepaypreacher.net
But the sanctions aren't the deal. She can have helped with the sanctions without being involved in making a deal that finished in 2016.
Edit: Like how do you blame Hillary for that regardless of whether it was OK when she at best only started the talks before they concluded well after she left the office?
Again literally can't wire them money because of sanctions against them.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The thing is on one hand you have an individual that would clout the fact she was a part of the Iran nuclear deal because she was the one that brought them to the negotiating table. Then on the other side you have a rather large negative news break where it changes to well "technically" I didnt finalize the deal.
Because the two deals are separate and you confusing them is exactly the point Republicans are trying to make.
So, where would you like your winnings?
Like it would matter even if she wasn't.
If you want other countries to deal with you in accordance with international law and international treaties, it's probably necessary to follow through and do likewise.
Why can't she take credit for bringing them to the negotiating table while not taking credit for every single thing in the deals with Iran that finished well after she left office, including stuff that was considered mostly ancillary to the actual nuclear deal at the time like the $400 million? That doesn't seem contradictory at all to me. She doesn't have to have supported every single thing done to be proud of her role in the overall deal(s) anymore than a politician has to support every single provision in a bill he helped to pass to be proud of his role in getting the bill passed.
That's what made them so crippling and likely what brought Iran to the table
Its worth noting that I believe, as I implied, that she wasnt a part of the "ransom" brokering. Just, for me, this is one of those "if the tables were reversed" type situations where the left part of the internet would be melting right now. It is a tricky situation to defend as Hilary definately worked on the longstanding Iran weapons deal directly that the white house is attributing the payment towards. And the hostage release is pretty much a "show in good faith" negotiation. But it does look bad. That cannot be denied.
Yeah when they are accusing her and Obama for the iraq war and isis things she almost was related to is actually pretty truthful.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's just a giant blue wash of democratsabloobloobloobloo.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/08/03/republicans-nominate-dangerously-insane-person-to-lead-america-then-panic-when-he-proves-hes-dangerously-insane/
This is definitely "Not the Onion" material.
Clinton - what part of an international deal was she responsible for?
Trump - when will he say the C word?
I'm betting he slips it in as a portmanteau so he can claim he misspoke, then if it plays well he can follow up.
Hillary C*nton.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
this detail is important. Curious if they show up in the same sentence or not.
Ah, the Cersei Lannister technique.
That sounds about right.
I want him to use Cockney rhyming slang. Berk, short for "Berkeley Hunt" or "Berkshire Hunt," which rhymes with another word.
Ah hmmm. On the one hand, I'm not keen on buying books from politicians during or near their run for office, just feels a bit slimy. On the other hand, my birthday is right around the release date.
That would be kind of amazing in an awful way.
That little number on the right can't get small enough
i mean i know it's just the now cast but
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k