|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 19 2016 09:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 09:13 Nevuk wrote:On August 19 2016 09:06 zlefin wrote:On August 19 2016 08:56 Nevuk wrote:
This is one of those things that both sides are probably right about to a degree. Iran would never have gotten the money if it wasn't for the hostages, though. Is there any argument on that point? It's a purely semantic argument.
Of course it's the GOP's fault that no democratic president could call it a ransom payment without being called weak and spineless, but the other method of rescuing hostages from Iran didn't work very well last time. (I guess you could blame Carter, but eh). i'm not so sure about that; I have heard that the litigation over the matter might've gone favorably for Iran getting their money back in the end anyways. and hence they might've gotten their money eventually regardless of the hostages. Sadly I don't have a citation handy, so you'd have to look for one if you wanted to. Haven't they been owed this money for decades? They might have gotten it eventually, sure, but only when the political climate was in favor of it (ie they had something we wanted). Whether the money was owed is besides the point (if for no other reason than what was paid back in January was merely an initial payment on a larger deal). The big no-no (and why Obama has consistently lied about what happened until today) was injecting the hostage issue into the larger settlement of the other claims. As soon as he did that, he was breaking longstanding American policy.
Iran is a sovereign nation, not a group of terrorist in a cave. We make deals with sovereign nations. We made prisoner trades all throughout history.
|
On August 19 2016 09:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 09:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2016 09:13 Nevuk wrote:On August 19 2016 09:06 zlefin wrote:On August 19 2016 08:56 Nevuk wrote:
This is one of those things that both sides are probably right about to a degree. Iran would never have gotten the money if it wasn't for the hostages, though. Is there any argument on that point? It's a purely semantic argument.
Of course it's the GOP's fault that no democratic president could call it a ransom payment without being called weak and spineless, but the other method of rescuing hostages from Iran didn't work very well last time. (I guess you could blame Carter, but eh). i'm not so sure about that; I have heard that the litigation over the matter might've gone favorably for Iran getting their money back in the end anyways. and hence they might've gotten their money eventually regardless of the hostages. Sadly I don't have a citation handy, so you'd have to look for one if you wanted to. Haven't they been owed this money for decades? They might have gotten it eventually, sure, but only when the political climate was in favor of it (ie they had something we wanted). Whether the money was owed is besides the point (if for no other reason than what was paid back in January was merely an initial payment on a larger deal). The big no-no (and why Obama has consistently lied about what happened until today) was injecting the hostage issue into the larger settlement of the other claims. As soon as he did that, he was breaking longstanding American policy. Iran is a sovereign nation, not a group of terrorist in a cave. We make deals with sovereign nations. We made prisoner trades all throughout history.
So why didn't Obama come out in January and say "look at this awesome deal that I made?" Why has he been lying about and obfuscating what happened for 8 months? That's a big, glaring hole in the pro-Obama position, and I have yet to see a good answer to it.
|
On August 19 2016 09:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 09:13 Nevuk wrote:On August 19 2016 09:06 zlefin wrote:On August 19 2016 08:56 Nevuk wrote:
This is one of those things that both sides are probably right about to a degree. Iran would never have gotten the money if it wasn't for the hostages, though. Is there any argument on that point? It's a purely semantic argument.
Of course it's the GOP's fault that no democratic president could call it a ransom payment without being called weak and spineless, but the other method of rescuing hostages from Iran didn't work very well last time. (I guess you could blame Carter, but eh). i'm not so sure about that; I have heard that the litigation over the matter might've gone favorably for Iran getting their money back in the end anyways. and hence they might've gotten their money eventually regardless of the hostages. Sadly I don't have a citation handy, so you'd have to look for one if you wanted to. Haven't they been owed this money for decades? They might have gotten it eventually, sure, but only when the political climate was in favor of it (ie they had something we wanted). Whether the money was owed is besides the point (if for no other reason than what was paid back in January was merely an initial payment on a larger deal). The big no-no (and why Obama has consistently lied about what happened until today) was injecting the hostage issue into the larger settlement of the other claims. As soon as he did that, he was breaking longstanding American policy.
Paul Ryan and John Boehner disagree. If you want to pretend like you didn't want the prisoners to be a part of the Iran Deal now, go ahead, we know what Republicans thought at the time. See Boehner's statement from 2015:
“In addition to building up its supply of nuclear fuel in recent months, urging ‘death to America,’ and working to boost radical Islamic terrorists in the Middle East, Iran continues to unjustly imprison and abuse at least three Americans: a Christian pastor, a former U.S. Marine, and a journalist. Another American was kidnapped in 2007. All four are being held hostage, and they must all be allowed to come home to their families immediately. This should be a condition of any potential agreement the Obama administration discusses with Iran.”
http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/house-obama-administration-make-four-american-hostages-held-iran-priority
Obama held up release of the Iranian owed funds until the hostages were secure. It was the responsible thing to do. You spinning this after the fact, after the Republicans asked for exactly this result, is entirely consistent with your character.
|
On August 19 2016 09:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 09:13 Nevuk wrote:On August 19 2016 09:06 zlefin wrote:On August 19 2016 08:56 Nevuk wrote:
This is one of those things that both sides are probably right about to a degree. Iran would never have gotten the money if it wasn't for the hostages, though. Is there any argument on that point? It's a purely semantic argument.
Of course it's the GOP's fault that no democratic president could call it a ransom payment without being called weak and spineless, but the other method of rescuing hostages from Iran didn't work very well last time. (I guess you could blame Carter, but eh). i'm not so sure about that; I have heard that the litigation over the matter might've gone favorably for Iran getting their money back in the end anyways. and hence they might've gotten their money eventually regardless of the hostages. Sadly I don't have a citation handy, so you'd have to look for one if you wanted to. Haven't they been owed this money for decades? They might have gotten it eventually, sure, but only when the political climate was in favor of it (ie they had something we wanted). Whether the money was owed is besides the point (if for no other reason than what was paid back in January was merely an initial payment on a larger deal). The big no-no (and why Obama has consistently lied about what happened until today) was injecting the hostage issue into the larger settlement of the other claims. As soon as he did that, he was breaking longstanding American policy.
Which settlement did he tie it into, the whole Iran nuclear deal? I wasn't following this situation very closely in January, to be honest. What are some of the long-term repercussions? I know that we have some policies about hostages, but I thought the rules were sort of flexible after the ones in the Carter administration.
Side note on the nuclear deal : That whole deal seemed like an issue that was entrenched along partisan lines before debate even happened, but would likely have been done no matter which party was in charge (ie many of the people opposing it were only doing so as lip service).
|
On August 19 2016 09:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 09:23 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2016 09:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2016 09:13 Nevuk wrote:On August 19 2016 09:06 zlefin wrote:On August 19 2016 08:56 Nevuk wrote:
This is one of those things that both sides are probably right about to a degree. Iran would never have gotten the money if it wasn't for the hostages, though. Is there any argument on that point? It's a purely semantic argument.
Of course it's the GOP's fault that no democratic president could call it a ransom payment without being called weak and spineless, but the other method of rescuing hostages from Iran didn't work very well last time. (I guess you could blame Carter, but eh). i'm not so sure about that; I have heard that the litigation over the matter might've gone favorably for Iran getting their money back in the end anyways. and hence they might've gotten their money eventually regardless of the hostages. Sadly I don't have a citation handy, so you'd have to look for one if you wanted to. Haven't they been owed this money for decades? They might have gotten it eventually, sure, but only when the political climate was in favor of it (ie they had something we wanted). Whether the money was owed is besides the point (if for no other reason than what was paid back in January was merely an initial payment on a larger deal). The big no-no (and why Obama has consistently lied about what happened until today) was injecting the hostage issue into the larger settlement of the other claims. As soon as he did that, he was breaking longstanding American policy. Iran is a sovereign nation, not a group of terrorist in a cave. We make deals with sovereign nations. We made prisoner trades all throughout history. So why didn't Obama come out in January and say "look at this awesome deal that I made?" Why has he been lying about and obfuscating what happened for 8 months? That's a big, glaring hole in the pro-Obama position, and I have yet to see a good answer to it.
why is that so relevant? you can just look at the deal alone and see how combining the release with the payment is a very clever way to make it seem like its not ransom, but just good will and sense of duty on the side of the US. its a brilliant political maneuver.
|
On August 19 2016 09:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 09:23 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2016 09:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2016 09:13 Nevuk wrote:On August 19 2016 09:06 zlefin wrote:On August 19 2016 08:56 Nevuk wrote:
This is one of those things that both sides are probably right about to a degree. Iran would never have gotten the money if it wasn't for the hostages, though. Is there any argument on that point? It's a purely semantic argument.
Of course it's the GOP's fault that no democratic president could call it a ransom payment without being called weak and spineless, but the other method of rescuing hostages from Iran didn't work very well last time. (I guess you could blame Carter, but eh). i'm not so sure about that; I have heard that the litigation over the matter might've gone favorably for Iran getting their money back in the end anyways. and hence they might've gotten their money eventually regardless of the hostages. Sadly I don't have a citation handy, so you'd have to look for one if you wanted to. Haven't they been owed this money for decades? They might have gotten it eventually, sure, but only when the political climate was in favor of it (ie they had something we wanted). Whether the money was owed is besides the point (if for no other reason than what was paid back in January was merely an initial payment on a larger deal). The big no-no (and why Obama has consistently lied about what happened until today) was injecting the hostage issue into the larger settlement of the other claims. As soon as he did that, he was breaking longstanding American policy. Iran is a sovereign nation, not a group of terrorist in a cave. We make deals with sovereign nations. We made prisoner trades all throughout history. So why didn't Obama come out in January and say "look at this awesome deal that I made?" Why has he been lying about and obfuscating what happened for 8 months? That's a big, glaring hole in the pro-Obama position, and I have yet to see a good answer to it.
Tell them they can have the money and then hold it up at the last minute as leverage? Don't get the families hopes up in case the deal falls through? Concerns of infighting in Iran that would hold up the trade if it was public. There are plenty of reasons to keep it on it under wraps that are totally reasonable.
On August 19 2016 09:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 09:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2016 09:13 Nevuk wrote:On August 19 2016 09:06 zlefin wrote:On August 19 2016 08:56 Nevuk wrote:
This is one of those things that both sides are probably right about to a degree. Iran would never have gotten the money if it wasn't for the hostages, though. Is there any argument on that point? It's a purely semantic argument.
Of course it's the GOP's fault that no democratic president could call it a ransom payment without being called weak and spineless, but the other method of rescuing hostages from Iran didn't work very well last time. (I guess you could blame Carter, but eh). i'm not so sure about that; I have heard that the litigation over the matter might've gone favorably for Iran getting their money back in the end anyways. and hence they might've gotten their money eventually regardless of the hostages. Sadly I don't have a citation handy, so you'd have to look for one if you wanted to. Haven't they been owed this money for decades? They might have gotten it eventually, sure, but only when the political climate was in favor of it (ie they had something we wanted). Whether the money was owed is besides the point (if for no other reason than what was paid back in January was merely an initial payment on a larger deal). The big no-no (and why Obama has consistently lied about what happened until today) was injecting the hostage issue into the larger settlement of the other claims. As soon as he did that, he was breaking longstanding American policy. Paul Ryan and John Boehner disagree. If you want to pretend like you didn't want the prisoners to be a part of the Iran Deal now, go ahead, we know what Republicans thought at the time. See Boehner's statement from 2015: “In addition to building up its supply of nuclear fuel in recent months, urging ‘death to America,’ and working to boost radical Islamic terrorists in the Middle East, Iran continues to unjustly imprison and abuse at least three Americans: a Christian pastor, a former U.S. Marine, and a journalist. Another American was kidnapped in 2007. All four are being held hostage, and they must all be allowed to come home to their families immediately. This should be a condition of any potential agreement the Obama administration discusses with Iran.”http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/house-obama-administration-make-four-american-hostages-held-iran-priorityObama held up release of the Iranian owed funds until the hostages were secure. It was the responsible thing to do. You spinning this after the fact, after the Republicans asked for exactly this result, is entirely consistent with your character.
The Republics were for it before it before they saw it as leverage in the election. Weather coming up next.
|
On August 19 2016 09:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 09:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2016 09:13 Nevuk wrote:On August 19 2016 09:06 zlefin wrote:On August 19 2016 08:56 Nevuk wrote:
This is one of those things that both sides are probably right about to a degree. Iran would never have gotten the money if it wasn't for the hostages, though. Is there any argument on that point? It's a purely semantic argument.
Of course it's the GOP's fault that no democratic president could call it a ransom payment without being called weak and spineless, but the other method of rescuing hostages from Iran didn't work very well last time. (I guess you could blame Carter, but eh). i'm not so sure about that; I have heard that the litigation over the matter might've gone favorably for Iran getting their money back in the end anyways. and hence they might've gotten their money eventually regardless of the hostages. Sadly I don't have a citation handy, so you'd have to look for one if you wanted to. Haven't they been owed this money for decades? They might have gotten it eventually, sure, but only when the political climate was in favor of it (ie they had something we wanted). Whether the money was owed is besides the point (if for no other reason than what was paid back in January was merely an initial payment on a larger deal). The big no-no (and why Obama has consistently lied about what happened until today) was injecting the hostage issue into the larger settlement of the other claims. As soon as he did that, he was breaking longstanding American policy. Paul Ryan and John Boehner disagree. If you want to pretend like you didn't want the prisoners to be a part of the Iran Deal now, go ahead, we know what Republicans thought at the time. See Boehner's statement from 2015: “In addition to building up its supply of nuclear fuel in recent months, urging ‘death to America,’ and working to boost radical Islamic terrorists in the Middle East, Iran continues to unjustly imprison and abuse at least three Americans: a Christian pastor, a former U.S. Marine, and a journalist. Another American was kidnapped in 2007. All four are being held hostage, and they must all be allowed to come home to their families immediately. This should be a condition of any potential agreement the Obama administration discusses with Iran.”http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/house-obama-administration-make-four-american-hostages-held-iran-priorityObama held up release of the Iranian owed funds until the hostages were secure. It was the responsible thing to do. You spinning this after the fact, after the Republicans asked for exactly this result, is entirely consistent with your character.
Before you try assassinating someone's character, you may want to dot your I's and cross your T's and make sure that your argument is sound. This is especially true when you are going after someone who is quite likely far smarter than you.
Before I go further, I'll give you an opportunity to fix the gigantic, gaping anus of a hole in your shitpost. However, the more prudent thing for you to do is to retract the post and leave the matter be.
|
What an elitist as fuck post.
|
On August 19 2016 09:37 Slaughter wrote:
What an elitist as fuck post.
He asked for it. I don't report people who attack me personally around here -- particularly when it is badly uncalled for. I address the issue publicly and directly. It's up to him how far he wants to take this. But I promise that it won't end well for him.
|
Do you expect anything less from one of the most intellectually dishonest posters on TL who incapable of enough self reflection to see who wrong his views are?
+ Show Spoiler +Before everyone gets grumpy, this is the exactly thing Xdaunt accuses Cannons and other left leaning posters of
|
On August 19 2016 09:40 xDaunt wrote:He asked for it. I don't report people who attack me personally around here -- particularly when it is badly uncalled for. I address the issue publicly and directly. It's up to him how far he wants to take this. But I promise that it won't end well for him.
i am an ex navy, trained in gorilla warfare
|
xDaunt is a better poster than both myself and like 90% of you, independent of left/right leans
On August 19 2016 09:41 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 09:40 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2016 09:37 Slaughter wrote:
What an elitist as fuck post. He asked for it. I don't report people who attack me personally around here -- particularly when it is badly uncalled for. I address the issue publicly and directly. It's up to him how far he wants to take this. But I promise that it won't end well for him. i am an ex navy, trained in gorilla warfare
Lol
|
On August 19 2016 09:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
xDaunt is a better poster than both myself and like 90% of you, independent of left/right leans
Well the bar is pretty low for this thread.
|
On August 19 2016 09:40 Plansix wrote:Do you expect anything less from one of the most intellectually dishonest posters on TL who incapable of enough self reflection to see who wrong his views are? + Show Spoiler +Before everyone gets grumpy, this is the exactly thing Xdaunt accuses Cannons and other left leaning posters of
Only the posters who aren't really paying attention share that view, but whatever. The people that matter in this thread know the score.
+ Show Spoiler +And I'm in a particularly shitty mood today, so I have little patience for garbage like what Cannons posted.
|
Regardless of your mood, we were going to need to cut a deal with Iran to get our citizens home. Those people have been over their for a very long time under both parties control of the oval office. The only people trying to turn this deal into a political football are the Republicans, who were pushing for Obama to get these people home a while ago.
If we are not willing to cut deals and are not willing to go to war over it, we are powerless. 400 million of money that wasn't ours to begin with is pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things.
|
United States41117 Posts
APEX, N.C. — On the floor of the Republican National Convention last month, an anguished attendee cornered Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions with an urgent message.
“We need help in North Carolina,” the attendee told Sessions, a top Donald Trump ally. “We can get no information about anything. We don’t know who to go to. … We’ve got to get some boots on the ground, we really do. We have nothing.”
Now, 80 days before the election, Trump’s team is trying to regain a foothold in this must-win state, but the Republican nominee’s challenge here is only growing.
Interviews with more than a dozen North Carolina operatives and lawmakers reveal that Trump has failed to consolidate the Republican base in North Carolina. Worse, according to these sources, he is particularly driving away female and independent voters who are crucial in Republican-leaning suburbs, such as Apex, outside of Raleigh.
Meanwhile, they say, Hillary Clinton’s extensive field organization and saturation of the airwaves make it even harder for Trump’s bare-bones, late-starting operation to catch up despite a recent reorganization of his team here.
At this point, said veteran Republican strategist Carter Wrenn, Trump’s best hope for winning North Carolina rests on the possibility of some major game-changing external event, rather than on his campaign’s ability to produce a win. That’s a risky dynamic for Trump, whose road to the White House would almost certainly have to run through North Carolina, given his underwater polling in other key battleground states.
Asked what Trump’s path to victory in North Carolina looks like, Wrenn responded, “I’m not sure I know.”
“There’s no doubt he could win North Carolina,” Wrenn continued. “Whether he can control that or not, I don’t know. Whether there’s things he can do to turn things around, that’s harder to say. More likely, there are external events that neither campaign can control: a terrorist attack, a turndown in the economy, a WikiLeak. … If Hillary steps on her own foot, that could change it, but she hasn’t done that the last two months. She seems pretty cautious.”
Recent polls show Trump lagging Clinton by anywhere from 1 to 9 percentage points. His team is just now getting organized in a more substantive way on the ground, after a previous longtime state director, Earl Phillip, was removed from the position earlier this month. Phillip is now the subject of a lawsuit after allegedly pulling a gun on another staffer.
Source
|
On August 19 2016 09:49 Plansix wrote:
Regardless of your mood, we were going to need to cut a deal with Iran to get our citizens home. Those people have been over their for a very long time under both parties control of the oval office. The only people trying to turn this deal into a political football are the Republicans, who were pushing for Obama to get these people home a while ago.
If we are not willing to cut deals and are not willing to go to war over it, we are powerless. 400 million of money that wasn't ours to begin with is pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things.
Here's the crux of the issue, and keep in mind this is coming from Obama's Justice Department:
The head of the national security division at the Justice Department was among the agency’s senior officials who objected to paying Iran hundreds of millions of dollars in cash at the same time that Tehran was releasing American prisoners, according to people familiar with the discussions.
John Carlin, a Senate-confirmed administration appointee, raised concerns when the State Department notified Justice officials of its plan to deliver to Iran a planeful of cash, saying it would be viewed as a ransom payment, these people said. A number of other high-ranking Justice officials voiced similar concerns as the negotiations proceeded, they said.
The U.S. paid Iran $400 million in cash on Jan. 17 as part of a larger $1.7 billion settlement of a failed 1979 arms deal between the U.S. and Iran that was announced that day. Also on that day, Iran released four detained Americans in exchange for the U.S.’s releasing from prison—or dropping charges against—Iranians charged with violating sanctions laws. U.S. officials have said the swap was agreed upon in separate talks.
The objection of senior Justice Department officials was that Iranian officials were likely to view the $400 million payment as ransom, thereby undercutting a longstanding U.S. policy that the government doesn’t pay ransom for American hostages, these people said. The policy is based on a concern that paying ransom could encourage more Americans to become targets for hostage-takers.
www.wsj.com
|
On August 19 2016 09:40 xDaunt wrote:He asked for it. I don't report people who attack me personally around here -- particularly when it is badly uncalled for. I address the issue publicly and directly. It's up to him how far he wants to take this. But I promise that it won't end well for him.
There's no personal attack there, he argued against your point. And this fite me 1v1 irl brah attitude is not 'addressing the issue'. if there was one.
|
On August 19 2016 09:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 09:49 Plansix wrote:
Regardless of your mood, we were going to need to cut a deal with Iran to get our citizens home. Those people have been over their for a very long time under both parties control of the oval office. The only people trying to turn this deal into a political football are the Republicans, who were pushing for Obama to get these people home a while ago.
If we are not willing to cut deals and are not willing to go to war over it, we are powerless. 400 million of money that wasn't ours to begin with is pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things. Here's the crux of the issue, and keep in mind this is coming from Obama's Justice Department: Show nested quote +
The head of the national security division at the Justice Department was among the agency’s senior officials who objected to paying Iran hundreds of millions of dollars in cash at the same time that Tehran was releasing American prisoners, according to people familiar with the discussions.
John Carlin, a Senate-confirmed administration appointee, raised concerns when the State Department notified Justice officials of its plan to deliver to Iran a planeful of cash, saying it would be viewed as a ransom payment, these people said. A number of other high-ranking Justice officials voiced similar concerns as the negotiations proceeded, they said.
The U.S. paid Iran $400 million in cash on Jan. 17 as part of a larger $1.7 billion settlement of a failed 1979 arms deal between the U.S. and Iran that was announced that day. Also on that day, Iran released four detained Americans in exchange for the U.S.’s releasing from prison—or dropping charges against—Iranians charged with violating sanctions laws. U.S. officials have said the swap was agreed upon in separate talks.
The objection of senior Justice Department officials was that Iranian officials were likely to view the $400 million payment as ransom, thereby undercutting a longstanding U.S. policy that the government doesn’t pay ransom for American hostages, these people said. The policy is based on a concern that paying ransom could encourage more Americans to become targets for hostage-takers.
www.wsj.com
This is a reasonable argument, but it's a slightly different one than whether or not the money paid was ransom or not.
Effectively, whether we as Americans consider the $400 million to be ransom money is completely irrelevant. What matters is whether the rest of the world sees it as ransom, and insofar as it could be perceived as such, it endangers potential American hostages in other parts of the world.
On August 19 2016 09:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
xDaunt is a better poster than myself
I would disagree with that, but you're free to be as humble as you please.
|
From what you just posted doesn't it say the prisoner thing was a separate talk and that they swapped people? Seems like they are just concerned with people's feelings. They might feel that it's a ransom payment.
Maybe that is why Obama wanted to drop it in the 1st place because now certain people are screaming about ransom and Iran is probably like loool Americans over this. And let me tell you, they are laughing at our government dysfunction and not how much of a sweet deal they got.
Yet again with the GOP and feelings/perceptions over facts. Just as Newt said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
