Schumer, No. 3 US Senate Democrat, to oppose Iran nuclear deal

[Ulysses G.]

Get to nitpicking guys. That is all the "facts" that you have to back up your silly spin. 69% are against the deal and 10% are in favor, not anywhere close to "40%".

The poll, of a statistical sample of Israelis, found that 69% are against the deal, 10% are in favor and 21% do not know.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/Poll-74-percent-of-Israelis-say-deal-wont-stop-nuclear-Iran-409102

Edited August 9, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Somtamnication]

Get to nitpicking guys. That is all the "facts" that you have to back up your silly spin.

The poll, of a statistical sample of Israelis, found that 69% are against the deal, 10% are in favor and 21% do not know.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/Poll-74-percent-of-Israelis-say-deal-wont-stop-nuclear-Iran-409102

I never knew you take everything you read from the media, as FACT. A true Roger Ailes Fox believer.

But I do respect your opinions.

[Ulysses G.]

I trust legitimate polls a lot more than some nut on the Internet's made up opinion.

[Chicog]

A democrat with some INTEGRITY. This crazy deal should be opposed by the whole Congress and Senate.

Schumer, a leading Jewish Democrat,

That should answer all questions.

That should answer all questions for Holocaust deniers and other anti-Semites.

Oh here we go again..... If you point out that he's Jewish you're a Nazi eh?

[Ulysses G.]

Are your ears turning red?

Plenty of Jewish democrats are for the deal, so why would anyone with any common sense pretend otherwise and say, "That should answer all questions."?

Edited August 9, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Seastallion]

Get to nitpicking guys. That is all the "facts" that you have to back up your silly spin. 69% are against the deal and 10% are in favor, not anywhere close to "40%".

The poll, of a statistical sample of Israelis, found that 69% are against the deal, 10% are in favor and 21% do not know.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/Poll-74-percent-of-Israelis-say-deal-wont-stop-nuclear-Iran-409102

So, which poll is right? The first one you offered or this one? Or neither? It seems that once the first one showed statistics you didn't like, you searched for a contradiction....make up your mind.

Posting contradictory information is unhelpful.,

[JakeSully]

I think the world will be a much better place if the USA stopped being Israel's slave.

Seems every time since the Bush years.. Israel jump.. USA yes master!

To even question the alliance seems to be political suicide by many politicians.

But something is seriously wrong when Congress which has a 15% approval rating by its own citizens swoon at PM of Israel but can't be hard pressed to care for Americans by oh stopping giving visas to pregnant Chinese women who want to come for birth tourism and then use the family clause for green cards once the baby is 21 years old.

I didn't figure Schumer to be a war hawk.. guess I was wrong.

[Steely Dan]

Here we have the sanctimonious progressive press accusing the majority of Americans of being Iran hard liners, Schumer committed the heresy of siding with the majority and not the 28% in favour of the deal.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/259730/new-york-times-accuses-majority-americans-being-daniel-greenfield#.VcbCbVqSOmU.twitter

The leading birdcage liner for the elite parrots and pigeons of Manhattan launched its predictable attack on Schumer for coming out against the Iran deal. In keeping with the Obama style, the smear editorial by Carol Giacomo reads like bad Pravda.

[Ulysses G.]

Get to nitpicking guys. That is all the "facts" that you have to back up your silly spin. 69% are against the deal and 10% are in favor, not anywhere close to "40%".

The poll, of a statistical sample of Israelis, found that 69% are against the deal, 10% are in favor and 21% do not know.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/Poll-74-percent-of-Israelis-say-deal-wont-stop-nuclear-Iran-409102

So, which poll is right? The first one you offered or this one? Or neither? It seems that once the first one showed statistics you didn't like, you searched for a contradiction....make up your mind.

Posting contradictory information is unhelpful.,

I have no problem with either poll and they are not far apart. They both pretty much say the same thing. YOU are the one who was nitpicking about the other poll, not me. Slightly different information from two different polls is not contradictory.

[elgordo38]

Take it easy on Schumer. There are legitimate reasons for being very wary about this deal. I can't for the life of me think of a better option, and have not seen any better option put on the table, but I respect those who are wary about it even to the the point of considered rejection (this does not include those who reject it for party political reasons or grandstanding, or simply because rejection is one card in their Republican player pack).

Anyway, Schumer knows how to count and what the numbers are. He doesn't have to vote for it to in order for it go forward. He can do what he wants - the 2/3 required to overcome a veto won't be there.

Schumer's campaign to destroy the Agreement gives political cover to any Democrats who might want or need to oppose the Agreement because of heavy-handed rich and powerful opposition to it in their states. The two New York state US Senators are now divided on the Agreement, with D Sen Kirsten Gillibrand supporting it in the name of the same constituents as Sen Schumer.

Schumer wants to be the new leader of the D party in the Senate beginning in January 2017 yet this is not the way to lead his party. In fact until this, Sen Schumer was a shoe-in to be party leader as he is singularly the most prolific money raiser in the Senate of either party. I suspect the new D senators who will take office in January 2017 after the election will determine the outcome of that vote and that the new president will also have a strong hand in it simply because the president needs and must demand the loyalty of party senators on such issues of national security, war and peace. The Senate has after all recently gained a new Republican US Senator from Israel who sits deep inside its counsel as well as addressing the body publicly from the dias.

I don't see the votes for an override either ... but there is always a chance and if anyone blows it, it will be the leadership in Iran doing some new kind of outrageous thing reminding the U.S. congress what Iran will be like liberated with their released billions.

To be clear, personally I am on the fence ... I feel I am not expert enough to know if this deal is better than nothing but I think I do know enough to see that it's no coincidence that they were dancing in the streets of Tehran about it (they were the better negotiators).

I can't really fault legislators that go either way on this. I don't see this as a black and white thing. It's a very difficult issue.

Iranians dancing in the streets shouting "Death to America" are like North Koreans parading for Kim Jong Fat which means we never take it personally. In each country it is strictly business, nothing personal, no matter what books they wave or what instructed slogans are shouted by those fanatical servants chosen by their governments to be in the streets.

The Iranian people don't want war with anyone and they don't want to annihilate anyone, especially a people in the immediate region and neighborhood, as any conflagration would consume themselves and they know it. With this Agreement the ayatollahs have promised their people deliverance to peace and prosperity, which means the mullahs know they have no mandate of heaven for anything other than that and that only.

It's strictly business, nothing personal.

Yes the Iranian people do not want a war with anyone but unfortunately like every country in the world the country is run by a small group of megalomaniacs who serve various interests like religion, the new world order(greed) sadists (Boko Haram, demi gods(Putin) legacy seekers(Obama) arms dealers, outright fanatics, financial bloodsuckers(bleeding the country dry for personal gain Africa in general) ultimate control of the masses(China with on a leash democracy) failing economic experiments (EU)and the list and reasons go on and on. Unfortunately the average Joe citizen hard working honest persons that we are gets dragged into and suffer from their decisions much like what is going on in the world today. We the many are being manipulated for the benefit of the fanatical few. Power is corruption nothing more nothing less.

Edited August 9, 2015 by elgordo38

[Seastallion]

Here we have the sanctimonious progressive press accusing the majority of Americans of being Iran hard liners, Schumer committed the heresy of siding with the majority and not the 28% in favour of the deal.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/259730/new-york-times-accuses-majority-americans-being-daniel-greenfield#.VcbCbVqSOmU.twitter

The leading birdcage liner for the elite parrots and pigeons of Manhattan launched its predictable attack on Schumer for coming out against the Iran deal. In keeping with the Obama style, the smear editorial by Carol Giacomo reads like bad Pravda.

Again, I ask the question, slightly paraphrased, if Netanyahu was not against the deal, who would be against it?

[cheeryble]

The Iranian people don't want war with anyone and they don't want to annihilate anyone, especially a people in the immediate region and neighborhood, as any conflagration would consume themselves and they know it. With this Agreement the ayatollahs have promised their people deliverance to peace and prosperity, which means the mullahs know they have no mandate of heaven for anything other than that and that only.

It's strictly business, nothing personal.

That;s it Publicus....

The language of the Middle East is hyperbole.

Every time you hear Bibi or a US politician braying about Iranians calling for "Death to America" you know they are eejuts searching out soundbites.

By the way there is no reason on earth from the Mossadeq/Shah support era onwards why the Iranians should not want Death to America.....which made life awful for the Iranian people for so many decades for the sake of greed....... yet it seems that in fact off the microphone Iranians are very fond of Americans and even American ways.

Add to that the sharpest pencil in the box, Zbigniew Brzezinski, continues to say

"Iran is a rational nation".

Cheeryble

Edited August 9, 2015 by cheeryble

[Ulysses G.]

Again, I ask the question, slightly paraphrased, if Netanyahu was not against the deal, who would be against it?

Pretty much everyone who is against it now. It is a stupid deal, no matter who supports it.

[Pakboong]

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." Ike's departing words in 1960.

Ike feared creating enemies for financial gain. Every time I see these "warmongering" threads, that is what comes into my mind first. Seriously, what have we become? Total safety is not achievable and IMO, only fools pursue that which can never be achieved.

If there is no wisdom among us, we are in deep trouble anyway. Wisdom tells us when enough is enough; we never fail to prepare but we keep it smart. We must know where to pause and enjoy life.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Pakboong

[Seastallion]

Get to nitpicking guys. That is all the "facts" that you have to back up your silly spin. 69% are against the deal and 10% are in favor, not anywhere close to "40%".

The poll, of a statistical sample of Israelis, found that 69% are against the deal, 10% are in favor and 21% do not know.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/Poll-74-percent-of-Israelis-say-deal-wont-stop-nuclear-Iran-409102

So, which poll is right? The first one you offered or this one? Or neither? It seems that once the first one showed statistics you didn't like, you searched for a contradiction....make up your mind.

Posting contradictory information is unhelpful.,

I have no problem with either poll and they are not far apart. They both pretty much say the same thing. YOU are the one who was nitpicking about the other poll, not me. Slightly different information from two different polls is not contradictory.

I take your point IF they "both say pretty much the same thing", and are "slightly different".

So, you have no problem with the figure that over 40% of Israelis are not against the Iran deal.

[Seastallion]

Again, I ask the question, slightly paraphrased, if Netanyahu was not against the deal, who would be against it?

Pretty much everyone who is against it now. It is a stupid deal, no matter who supports it.

I think you're being disingenuous.

Why did Netanyahu address Congress on the issue if he didn't feel the need to persuade people?

Why are the Jewish lobbies so desperately scrambling to persuade people?

The answer is because it's an Israeli political issue.

[Publicus]

Again, I ask the question, slightly paraphrased, if Netanyahu was not against the deal, who would be against it?

Pretty much everyone who is against it now. It is a stupid deal, no matter who supports it.

Vacuous.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." Ike's departing words in 1960.

Ike feared creating enemies for financial gain. Every time I see these "warmongering" threads, that is what comes into my mind first. Seriously, what have we become? Total safety is not achievable and IMO, only fools pursue that which can never be achieved.

If there is no wisdom among us, we are in deep trouble anyway. Wisdom tells us when enough is enough; we never fail to prepare but we keep it smart. We must know where to pause and enjoy life.

Ike wrote that himself and in the original called it the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex due to Congress voting all these defense and military pet projects in their districts and states, but Republicans in Congress talked Ike out of including Congressional for fear of....well, fear of the fear the public might get an alert that could put them on to something the trio did not like being disseminated to begin with.

So Ike was in fact POTUS and the hero of WW2 in Europe which back then meant he got to say most of what wuz on his mind, if not all of it as the whole picture. Imagine John McCain cautioning against such a thing? Or more recently Sen Chuckie "Bombs Away" Schumer??

It also points out the divide among graduates of the US armed services academies that existed then and carries forward to the present. Ike was a grad of the USMA at West Point and McCain is a grad of the USNA at Annapolis. Regardless of which Academy career track, Ike was a war hero who was against war, prudent about his country and its military personnel. McCain was a war hero of his own particular time who wants to bomb everybody back to the Stone Age.

While the armed forces go wherever the CinC tells 'em to go, it's a sure thing the brass across the board do not like the idea of fighting on the orders of the prime minister of a foreign government and who could blame 'em. It would be a diversionary waste of US military personnel and resources and a squandering of US national interests.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Publicus

[Boon Mee]

Again, I ask the question, slightly paraphrased, if Netanyahu was not against the deal, who would be against it?

Pretty much everyone who is against it now. It is a stupid deal, no matter who supports it.

Got that right UG

The only ones who are for this appeasment 'treaty' which isn't a Treaty at all according to John Purple Heart Kerry are our old friends the 'Oven Warmers'.

Jing, jing, mai go hok...

[Publicus]

Again, I ask the question, slightly paraphrased, if Netanyahu was not against the deal, who would be against it?

Pretty much everyone who is against it now. It is a stupid deal, no matter who supports it.

Got that right UG

The only ones who are for this appeasment 'treaty' which isn't a Treaty at all according to John Purple Heart Kerry are our old friends the 'Oven Warmers'.

Jing, jing, mai go hok...

UGH!

[Jingthing]

I think there are good arguments both for and against it. But please be honest. It's a big risk and hardly certain it is better than no deal.

[Seastallion]

I think there are good arguments both for and against it. But please be honest. It's a big risk and hardly certain it is better than no deal.

Without using any of the false rhetoric (such as "wipe Israel off the map" which nobody ever said except in the reporting of it by partisan sources), what are the arguments against it?

[Boon Mee]

I think there are good arguments both for and against it. But please be honest. It's a big risk and hardly certain it is better than no deal.

Wrong.

The increased revenue that I-Ran will be getting thru this appeasment deal will create more Terror throughout the ME and elsewhere.

Vote for Jimmuh did you?

[Jingthing]

I think there are good arguments both for and against it. But please be honest. It's a big risk and hardly certain it is better than no deal.

Wrong.

The increased revenue that I-Ran will be getting thru this appeasment deal will create more Terror throughout the ME and elsewhere.

Vote for Jimmuh did you?

Yes I agree. That's a downside. It is not a peace deal. It is only about a questionably effective scheme to retard Iran's nuclear weapons program in exchange for an awful lot in return. Edited August 9, 2015 by Jingthing

[Publicus]

I think there are good arguments both for and against it. But please be honest. It's a big risk and hardly certain it is better than no deal.

Wrong.

The increased revenue that I-Ran will be getting thru this appeasment deal will create more Terror throughout the ME and elsewhere.

Vote for Jimmuh did you?

The farting on about some kind of appeasement ignores or dismisses the fact everyone learned from Munich and a number of other instances of appeasement throughout history both recent and ancient. It is self-righteous and false to claim that only the anti-Agreement people have learned the lessons of appeasement.

No one is arguing the point or the validity of the point concerning a likely increase of terrorism or terror. The highly probably likelihood is definitely a negative because more lives will be lost on every side in most places and instances.

Frankly speaking, it comes with the package deal which is to prevent or severely limit any effort by the ayatollahs to create a nuclear weapon, which is the first and foremost, priority, threat to the region and to the world. The extremists over here have to face the analysis and the real world trade offs, as ugly as the tradeoffs are. Nobody likes this aspect of it. This aspect is in fact flat out repugnant.

However, the grim reality raised in making the point of a great likelihood of increased terror and terrorism is nowhere near strong enough to negate the overall nuclear weapons Agreement that has been realized by the international community against the ayatollahs.

We have diplomacy and we have military force to use as appropriate and that is a reality of life. It is terrible people will die and suffer at all anywhere at anytime, so it is the calling of the good guys to limit the sacrifices that must be made by our side.

There is an "our side" in this.

[Publicus]

I think there are good arguments both for and against it. But please be honest. It's a big risk and hardly certain it is better than no deal.

The only certainties of life are death, taxes, no peace in the Middle East.

If God had wanted peace in the Middle East he would not have created religion.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Publicus

[Jingthing]

Note that Iranians hoping to overthrow the Mullahs who would have a lot of support from Iran's young people feel this deal makes that even harder to do.

[Ulysses G.]

The "honest answer" is that Schumer is hurting his political career, by not backing the president and his party, no matter what. He is doing the right thing. A lot of his party know what a bad deal this is, but are backing it anyway for political reasons. It is sickening.

[Ulysses G.]

I think there are good arguments both for and against it. But please be honest. It's a big risk and hardly certain it is better than no deal.

Without using any of the false rhetoric (such as "wipe Israel off the map" which nobody ever said except in the reporting of it by partisan sources), what are the arguments against it?

You are the one using false rhetoric. You keep pretending that one possibly mistranslated statement is all there was. Many Iranian officials - including the Supreme Leader - have called for the destruction of Israel and you are well aware of it.as it has been pointed out to you many times.

Iran supreme leader touts 9-point plan to destroy Israel

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-supreme-leader-touts-9-point-plan-to-destroy-israel/

[Boon Mee]

The "honest answer" is that Schumer is hurting his political career, by not backing the president and his party, no matter what. He is doing the right thing. A lot of his party know what a bad deal this is, but are backing it anyway for political reasons. It is sickening.

Not too sure you're right there UG.

Schumer is up for relection soon and he can see which way the wind blows in his district and if he doesn't come out against the I-Rainian appeasment deal, he's toast.

[Ulysses G.]

Again, I ask the question, slightly paraphrased, if Netanyahu was not against the deal, who would be against it?

Pretty much everyone who is against it now. It is a stupid deal, no matter who supports it.

I think you're being disingenuous.

Why did Netanyahu address Congress on the issue if he didn't feel the need to persuade people?

No. YOU are being disingenuous. I never said that Netanyahu didn't feel the need to persuade people. I said that it is a stupid deal, no matter who supports it. It would still be a stupid deal, whether he supported it, or not.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Ulysses G.