Trump Talk™

I take my lead from that far right zealot Chuck Schumer.

I don't care how many other countries that want to make money in Iran agreed to the deal. The fact is Obama agreed to the deal.

You should really take this stuff more seriously instead of just cheerleading for Obama.

After researching all the candidates, I want either Rand Paul or Donald Trump to win. I'm really not impressed by anyone else.

someone say wrestling?

He has better moves than bobby & chris brown combined.

He wants to pass amendments to ban abortion, gay marriage, gay adoption, supports commercial prisons and wants to strip more rights from people accused of crimes. He's opposed to any gun regulation and frequently invokes god as his reason for doing things. So he's either not moderate or a liar and a puppet.

He at least gets one thing right, would eventually have to.

Are people still going off on Obama for Iraq when it had already been finalized?

Seriously?

That is not demonizing. Chasox wanted to know a bit about him. I mentioned things that he points proudly to in his resume.

But as someone who remembers the Eisenhower administration he is no moderate. Mind you I will admit that compared to the tea party he comes off as one. Today.

I am not cheerleading for Obama.

Why are you cheerleading for another war in the mideast?

(Hey, if you can get hyperbolic about this so can I.)

Yes you are. Only person here who is worse than you is Vic.

So, not wanting to give a nuclear weapon to Iran is the same as wanting another war in the Middle East?

Can you stretch a little more please? Usually giving crazy dictators weapons of mass destruction to use on their neighbors is what counts as wanting war to break out, not trying to prevent it....if anything, the liberals of today are the warmongers they are portraying the Republicans to be.....

Let's be perfectly clear... NOBODY is GIVING a nuclear bomb to Iran and the "bad deal" puts them farther from making a bomb than they were before the deal.

The technology required to make a nuke is nearly 100 years old. There isn't a single country on earth that couldn't develop one in a matter of years if that was their chief ambition. Delivering a nuke is harder, and still within the grasp of many 3rd world countries. If Iran doesn't make a bomb, it's because they're not trying.

What would Obama's Theme song be?

The mullahs of Iran are quaking in their boots!

But in reality, right now, Iran can have a nuke in 3 - 6 MONTHS.

With this agreement, if properly inspected and enforced (and I admit there are a few problems in the inspected and enforced departments), This puts it out to 10 - 15 YEARS.

At which time the hardliners in Iran just might be defused.

If we go to war with Iran, as Lindsey Graham‎ and (thankfully) only a few other senators (one of them a Democrat) wish to do, Iran's hardliners WIN. and they will have the bomb in 3 - 5 years.

So give me any other realistic scenario.

Edit:

And why are the GoP and the Iranian hardliners in TOTAL AGREEMENT on this subject?

So many people think he's part of the new world order already, why not run with it?

Iran already has a nuclear bomb. At least more than 4, probably no more than 9.

The behavior of everyone involved indicates this is about a.) stopping them from testing one / performing any nuclear tests and b.) persuading them to not create any more / decreasing production or limiting potency of newly created ones.

Is that from the donald trump immigration research institute or is there some factual basis for the claim?

I just found my team name for fantasy football.

She walks on water, heals the sick, makes the blind see and turns water into wine.

At least according to Democrats. Typical progressive new speak.

Ok so with all the discussions going on I decided to do a lookup of Bernie Sanders and his political presence and holy *** have you guys bought the fabricated narrative hook line and sinker.

He is a card carrying foot solder for the Democratic party, it doesn't get more bought and paid for them him. He is so far progressive that you might as well call him comrade. His entire political career has been as a progressive Democrat and is about as "independent" as George Bush Jr. He's one of the "drag the rich through the streets and take all their stuff" type progressives. Pure socialism and wealth redistribution. His official affiliation as "independent" as just a title so that the Democrats can claim they have one on their side. The idea that he's an independent who's not one of "the team" is a complete fabrication, he takes his marching orders from the same people the other other Democrats do.

I can also see why the Democrats told him to volunteer his name. They want an extremist to use as a political sparing partner against Hillary so as to make her look more moderate for the general election and it doesn't get much more extreme then Bernie. Obviously he's not supposed to win and they will carefully orchestrate the primary such that it looks like he "gave it a good try" but he'll throw the match. They even have gone so far as to ensure another Obama primary won't happen, where the unintended candidate ends up getting the most and thus the nomination. They will carefully manage the primary so that it looks like a sorta kinda fair fight but the winner is preordained as Hillary Clinton. The Republicans wanted to do the same thing but Trump, and his threat of ruining their election chances if they rig the primary, destroyed any hope they had for a managed primary with a preordained winner.

Does she drown when that happens?

You can disagree with my beliefs, feel that my thoughts on politics are far off-base, and throw all the silly jokes about liberals having "mental disorders" you want.

But please stop calling me a "typical progressive" or implying I support Hillary Clinton, because I'm not, and don't, respectively. Of the current runners the only one I like is Sanders, and while I'd prefer Hillary to most of the GOP field, I'm not certain I prefer her to all of the GOP field yet, especially among those who actually stand a chance to get nominated.

As to Rav's comment specifically (bolded): that was my point. I want to see Trump vs. Sanders. Even if it means Trump as a third party. Hell, maybe especially if it means Trump as a third party.

My lot is cast with Bernie this election cycle unless someone truly revolutionary comes out of absolutely nowhere and changes the game. As I said before, I'd rather see Bernie win the Dem nod and lose the general election than see Hillary win it all.

Is that coming from the same source as "If you like your doctor, you can keep him?"

Or "By passing this bill, healthcare will become more affordable"

Sounds like it to me. You never learn, do you?

We know you would because it would guarantee Sanders a win.

You would hate to have any Republican with substance and ability to better the nation to win, because it goes against your narrative....

I'm not entirely clear on what people wanted instead of the Iran deal that went down.

A protracted war with Iran that involved multiple countries, high military casualties on both sides, the potential for serious civilian casualty numbers on both sides, and eventually -- on the other side of all that blood and destruction -- a peace treaty that would probably end up being remarkably similar to this one?

And while that's not best-case without this deal, it's certainly far from worst-case.

I don't "like" the deal with Iran. I don't "like" Iran (the government/religious entity) any more than any of you. They're a mixed bag of jealousy and hatred for the West backed by the religious fanaticism of a violent, believing military (and likely terrorists to boot). But it's a country with almost 80 million people, with a large majority of them innocent civilians trying to live day-to-day just like you or I.

War as a last resort, folks. That's all I'm asking. And by not trying peace first via a deal that multiple nations agreed to, that's not what we're talking about.

I guess you forget (or choose to ignore) that Iran is one of the largest donors of ISIS and Al Qaeda in the world. You also forget that Hamas has stated multiple times that they will destroy both Israel and the West when given a chance.

And you also forget that this deal hedges a lot of "maybes" into it, like "maybe" Iran won't create a nuke, or "maybe" Iran won't declare war on Israel.

But hey, you, like Jassik, will believe anything Obama says. Even though he has lied to your (and the nation's) face most of his presidential career....you will still believe him blindly......without any thought of your own......

Sad how many people still do that. I figured the first 200 or so times would have at least put it through people's heads that Obama cannot be trusted....

lol if they do they got it from somewhere else, they sure as hell didn't make it.

Their enrichment levels were nowhere near the quality for weapons grade.