Isn't that how you get paid? Cash on pallets? That's how I get paid, but payday gets a little stressful because the pallets don't really fit thru my front door. And I'm worried the UPS guy might figure it out one day even though its wrapped in black shrink wrap.
Right. I can't think of a time, especially 1979 and the Hostage Crisis, when Iran has acted in good faith on anything. Obama was a weak minded President and this just exemplifies that. I don't care what the US "owed" Iran. This was a suspect way of doing this.
Oh, we are heading for a recession in 2021-2022, right after the 2020 election. No doubt about that. The latest data supports it.
Yes, the previous Iranian government but not this one. Besides, it's never a good idea to give this much money to a government heavily involved in terrorism. This was probably the stupidest thing that Obama did in his eight years.
Settlements in the billions of dollars are more likely to paid with a paper trail and by the book, not less. The reason why this payment was made like a high-level cocaine deal is that we have economic sanctions on Iran that prohibit their access to our financial system and certain transactions including transactions involving the US government. Paying in Euros and Swiss Francs was designed to circumvent the sanctions. Is it always that simple? Since we're talking about my lawsuits, I'll draw a comparison. Suppose I settle a personal injury lawsuit with the US government for $100K. By any "rational legal argument," they owe my client $100k, right? Wrong. What if my client owes money to somebody else? Most of the time it doesn't matter, but sometimes it does. Suppose one of those creditors is the hospital my client visited after the accident? They may have statutory lien against my client's recovery. That means we can't just turn the $100k over to my client. Suppose Iran owes money to somebody - like, for example, to the victims of Iranian-backed terrorism? A similar principle applies here, because the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act granted the federal government (which paid victims of Iranian terrorism) a subrogation interest or offset against funds paid to Iran. Was that law followed to the letter? I'm not sure. I'd have to read up on it more, so I'm not judging the case, but it complicates the legality of it. It's not an open and shut matter. The Right said everything Obama did was crap. It wasn't, but that doesn't mean that nothing he did was. (In other words, the Right did what the media now does to Trump.) There's a lot of room for legitimate criticism for the Administration's handling of Iran, especially in how it sold the Iran deal to the public. As for tearing down parts of the wall to spite Trump, Beto O'Rourke is already promising to do that. I don't think Joe Biden would, but I think many of the others would.
Husker and Longesthorn would be going apeshit if Trump pulled this crap that Obama did with Iran, especially if it was with Israel instead of Iran.
Wait, where is the US holding Israel's money and do we need to have nuclear weapons inspections there? Do they have some secret weapons program that needs to be controlled for our collective safety? Sorry, the analogy is ludicrous.
What I stated was hypothetical. What I said still stands. If it was Trump involved with Israel over money and if he had handled it like Obama did Iran you'd be demanding investigations by now. As Deez said, Obama was extremely shady in his dealings with Iran but you're okay with it because he's on your team.
Two things were shady. First, read my post about the cash payments. It definitely doesn't come from "TrumpWorld." It involves subrogation. Trump can't even spell "subrogation," much less explain it or apply it to a real life situation. In fact, nothing I say comes from TrumpWorld. Second, there was shadiness in how the Iran deal was sold. Now, if you're a full blown partisan, you won't care. A Democrat could take a piss on your face, and you'd be ok with it. However, for thinking adults, it matters, and even some left-leaning publications have been critical of it. I'm specifically talking about the Ben Rhodes narrative. Having said all that, I break with the Right on the importance of the Iran deal. I do think it stinks, but I also admit that no deal would have been good enough for me, so it's of little consequence. I didn't crap my pants when signed onto it, and I didn't do an end zone dance when Trump pulled out of it. I didn't particularly care either way. We could have gotten the biggest, baddest, MFer of a deal or something even flimsier than what we got, and we'd still have to set our foreign policy and military postures as though Iran was going to get a nuclear weapon. Why? Because any deal that we could have gotten would still have to rely on Iran being an honest broker and acting in good faith. They aren't, and they won't. After all, the reason we don't want them to have a nuclear weapon is that they aren't an honest broker and don't act in good faith. If we thought they were, then we wouldn't care. So, regardless, we have to act as though they'll have a nuclear weapon (which they will) and be prepared to counter it. That would be true if we got a "good" deal, a bad deal, or no deal.
This is stupid. We like states' rights. California can have any emissions standard it wants, and if the auto companies don't like those standards, they don't have to sell there.
Agreed. I don't like democrats using the bureaucracy as a club, and I don't like this use of the EPA either.
Yes. Against federal rules for car efficiency. Give power back to the States for good or ill. They are the labs of political policy.
The sharpie drawn umbrella is funny The pic where Obama couldn't figure out how to get his umbrella under an arch is funnier.
The US has killed 1,000+ Taliban soldiers in last 10 days US says it's killed more than 1000 Taliban in past 10 days
A lot of the people the US military kills in Afghanistan aren't Taliban. Trump needs to just get us out.
