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

[elgordo38]

I was watching a rerun of "Republican Idol" this morning, listening to Ted Cruz wittering on about how Iran are "on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon".

The rubbish these people come out with and the great unwashed just lap it up.

Mind you he also said God talks to him every day.

Boy Chicog your stomach is much stronger than mine. I got about 90% of the way through and had to vomit. I just could not stomach "Just call me Jeb" saying that he would get the growth up to 4% and create 19 million new jobs. Then there was that time old "lets do away with abortion and govern women's bodies" crap. The Koch Bros. must have really prepped these boys besides giving them a big fat check. I wonder what that check buys them? It just goes to show you how low a person will stoop to take a handout from these two double trouble boys. Make America great again they say geeze with 40 billion dollars how much greater do you want it be? I did not see any mention about no future bailouts for banks and rich corporations. Nothing about taxing corporations at the American rate not some low rate in a foreign country. They all shout about making America great again well news flash it was great till the huge sucking sound hollowed out American manufacturing and shipped it abroad. TPP should finish the job.

[elgordo38]

I was watching a rerun of "Republican Idol" this morning, listening to Ted Cruz wittering on about how Iran are "on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon".

The rubbish these people come out with and the great unwashed just lap it up.

Mind you he also said God talks to him every day.

Boy Chicog your stomach is much stronger than mine. I got about 90% of the way through and had to vomit. I just could not stomach "Just call me Jeb" saying that he would get the growth up to 4% and create 19 million new jobs. Then there was that time old "lets do away with abortion and govern women's bodies" crap. The Koch Bros. must have really prepped these boys besides giving them a big fat check. I wonder what that check buys them? It just goes to show you how low a person will stoop to take a handout from these two double trouble boys. Make America great again they say geeze with 40 billion dollars how much greater do you want it be? I did not see any mention about no future bailouts for banks and rich corporations. Nothing about taxing corporations at the American rate not some low rate in a foreign country. They all shout about making America great again well news flash it was great till the huge sucking sound hollowed out American manufacturing and shipped it abroad. TPP should finish the job.

PS love your phrase Republican Idol. Instead of a competition they were all singing from the same time worn song sheet..

[Publicus]

Maybe they just want Obama to stick to what he said in the first place.

The administration insisted that the nuclear talks would not affect separate sanctions imposed because of Iranian aggression and terrorism. That was then. The administration is now leaking that everything will be lifted.

Taken together, the catalog of capitulations is breathtaking: spot inspections, disclosure of previous nuclear activity, gradual sanctions relief, retention of non-nuclear sanctions.

What’s left? A surrender document of the kind offered by defeated nations suing for peace. Consider: The strongest military and economic power on Earth, backed by the five other major powers, armed with what had been a crushing sanctions regime, is about to sign the worst international agreement in American diplomatic history.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jul/04/charles-krauthammer-us-backpedaling-driving-deal/

The link is to the right wing darling Charles Krauthammer. Yes Krauthammer has won one Pulitzer Prize yet he has also won just about every award provided by the rightwing mass of highly funded mass of rightwing media for constant and prolific rightwing writings.

[Publicus]

I don't know if Shumer is a Patriot or not. I am simply curious as to whether or not he would have still been considered a patriot on this forum had he committed for the deal.

I don't think I would have questioned his patriotism. I would have questioned his common sense. IMO, most of the democrats who support the "deal" support it only for partisan reasons.

IMO the rightwingers who oppose the Agreement oppose it because they are political and ideological rightwingnuts.

Mr. Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate and the likely Democratic leader beginning in 2017, said on Thursday night that he opposed the deal, citing concerns about the inspection regime, provisions to reimpose sanctions if Iran cheats, and Tehran’s freedom after a decade to possibly pursue a nuclear bomb. In quick succession, two other prominent Jewish Democrats, Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Mr. Sherman announced their opposition.

These are Schumer's stated reasons. He has concerns , I too have conerns but, not any where near what it would take for me to vote against the POTUS. We do live in a democracy and voting nay is one of the options. Just not a good vote in this spot.

The reference is of course to the rightwingers and the rightwingnuts who oppose the deal, i.e., the usual suspects. I dunno anyone who might consider Sen Schumer or the others named in the post rightwingers.

While the quoted poster offers his mundane and predictable theory of why Democrats would support the Agreement, the quoted poster does fail to state why Democrats who suddenly have decided they oppose the Agreement might consider it patriotic to turn their backs on POTUS in this particular global agreement imposed internationally on Iran.

Albeit the commanders of US armed forces don't take their orders from a prime minister of a foreign government, perhaps there are some US Senators and US Representatives who do receive and accept such orders. So it's a good thing the USA has a commander in chief to look out for the interests of the United States.

[Pakboong]

Here is some commentary on the kind of race baiting in support of a deal we are seeing from Obama and Kerry, not to mention some of our esteemed members.

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/192751/crossing-a-line-to-sell-a-deal

This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately—some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives. Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about “money” and “lobbying” and “foreign interests” who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card. It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the President of the United States—and it’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it.

Anti-semitism, like pretty much everything else, does have an antithesis. I think it is a serious breach of ethics to talk about one as if the other doesn't exist.

[Steely Dan]

Another way to look at this is whether Democrats voting against the deal are in fact putting their Country ahead of their party. Polls show clearly where the Country is on this deal.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/259736/veteran-dem-senator-iran-deal-time-put-country-daniel-greenfield#.Vce2ttskOL0.twitter

[chuckd]

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?

It appears nobody is willing to do your work for you only to get parsed to death, so I am providing you a link to the Agreement.

Please read it and point out to us why you believe this agreement is so good.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2165399/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal.pdf

This DOES NOT include any side deals made by any of the participating nations. Those are confidential and are not be released in the public domain.

We await your input.

That's a very weak parry, avoiding answering the question.

I have no idea what you are on about with "my work" or being "parsed to death"..although there might be an unintentional compliment to me in there.

You challenged somebody, anybody, to make a post listing the argument against the surrender to Iran.

I merely said why don't you make a post itemizing the strengths of the agreement.

Don't flatter yourself. No compliments were issued nor intended.

[Publicus]

 

Another way to look at this is whether Democrats voting against the deal are in fact putting their Country ahead of their party. Polls show clearly where the Country is on this deal.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/259736/veteran-dem-senator-iran-deal-time-put-country-daniel-greenfield#.Vce2ttskOL0.twitter

 

The guy in the link is still smarting over Vietnam much less Iran and is the same guy who voted in the Senate to withdraw all US troops from Iraq in 90 days.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey released a couple of days ago finds Americans sliced in thirds about the Agreement, one-third support it, one-third oppose it. and a third say they don't have enough information. The mainstream in the US is not clamoring at all much less either way, which means there is no mandate in the United States to oppose the Agreement.

We'll see how it goes as the highly financed rightwing extreme mass of media blanket the country with its anti-Agreement programming, advertising, self-promotion.

[JingerBen]

The most puzzling detail in Schumer's defense of his negative vote is the reversal on which it closes. He admits that the heart of the nuclear deal works against the development of nuclear weapons quite effectively. "When it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within ten years, we might be slightly better off with it. However when it comes to the nuclear aspects after ten years and the non-nuclear aspects, we would be better off without it." There, for all his elaborate show of scruple, he gives the game away. The "nuclear aspects" are the substance of the agreement. That is why they call it the nuclear deal. But no, for Schumer and Netanyahu what offends is the prospect of Iran's re-entry into the global community as a trading and diplomatic partner of importance. This emergence can only curb Israel's wish to dominate for another half century as it has done for the past half century.

That, and not anything resembling an "existential threat" is what is really at issue for the Israelis and their lobbyists in Washington.

[up-country_sinclair]

I don't know if Shumer is a Patriot or not. I am simply curious as to whether or not he would have still been considered a patriot on this forum had he committed for the deal.

I don't think I would have questioned his patriotism. I would have questioned his common sense. IMO, most of the democrats who support the "deal" support it only for partisan reasons.

IMO the rightwingers who oppose the Agreement oppose it because they are political and ideological rightwingnuts.

I don't believe this falls into the right/left archetype. For example, the topic of this thread, "War Monger Chuck", is a member of Democrat part and most would categorize him as a lefty. In my opinion (and the opinion of many others) these treasonists oppose the deal because they swear allegiance to Israel and not the United States.

[up-country_sinclair]

Polls show clearly where the Country is on this deal.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/259736/veteran-dem-senator-iran-deal-time-put-country-daniel-greenfield#.Vce2ttskOL0.twitter

So we have yet another poster who believes that foreign policy and other major public policy decisions should be determined by polling data.

And since when did our esteemed members start putting so much faith in polling data? Didn't the polling data "show clearly" that Governor Romney was going to win the 2012 election? How'd that work out in the end?

Edited August 10, 2015 by up-country_sinclair

[Steely Dan]

 

Another way to look at this is whether Democrats voting against the deal are in fact putting their Country ahead of their party. Polls show clearly where the Country is on this deal.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/259736/veteran-dem-senator-iran-deal-time-put-country-daniel-greenfield#.Vce2ttskOL0.twitter

 

The guy in the link is still smarting over Vietnam much less Iran and is the same guy who voted in the Senate to withdraw all US troops from Iraq in 90 days.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey released a couple of days ago finds Americans sliced in thirds about the Agreement, one-third support it, one-third oppose it. and a third say they don't have enough information. The mainstream in the US is not clamoring at all much less either way, which means there is no mandate in the United States to oppose the Agreement.

We'll see how it goes as the highly financed rightwing extreme mass of media blanket the country with its anti-Agreement programming, advertising, self-promotion.

[Boon Mee]

Maybe they just want Obama to stick to what he said in the first place.

The administration insisted that the nuclear talks would not affect separate sanctions imposed because of Iranian aggression and terrorism. That was then. The administration is now leaking that everything will be lifted.

Taken together, the catalog of capitulations is breathtaking: spot inspections, disclosure of previous nuclear activity, gradual sanctions relief, retention of non-nuclear sanctions.

What’s left? A surrender document of the kind offered by defeated nations suing for peace. Consider: The strongest military and economic power on Earth, backed by the five other major powers, armed with what had been a crushing sanctions regime, is about to sign the worst international agreement in American diplomatic history.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jul/04/charles-krauthammer-us-backpedaling-driving-deal/

The link is to the right wing darling Charles Krauthammer. Yes Krauthammer has won one Pulitzer Prize yet he has also won just about every award provided by the rightwing mass of highly funded mass of rightwing media for constant and prolific rightwing writings.

Your point?

Vs. left-wing hacks such as the entire Opinion Page of the NY Slimes?

[Ulysses G.]

Maybe they just want Obama to stick to what he said in the first place.

The administration insisted that the nuclear talks would not affect separate sanctions imposed because of Iranian aggression and terrorism. That was then. The administration is now leaking that everything will be lifted.

Taken together, the catalog of capitulations is breathtaking: spot inspections, disclosure of previous nuclear activity, gradual sanctions relief, retention of non-nuclear sanctions.

What’s left? A surrender document of the kind offered by defeated nations suing for peace. Consider: The strongest military and economic power on Earth, backed by the five other major powers, armed with what had been a crushing sanctions regime, is about to sign the worst international agreement in American diplomatic history.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jul/04/charles-krauthammer-us-backpedaling-driving-deal/

The link is to the right wing darling Charles Krauthammer.

Charles Krauthammer explains why some of the the polling on the "deal":contradicts others:

The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that the American public rejects the president’s Iran deal by more than 2 to 1. This is astonishing. The public generally gives the president deference on major treaties. Just a few weeks ago, a majority supported the deal.

What happened? People learned what’s in it.

And don’t be fooled by polls that present, as fact, the administration’s position in the very question . The Post/ABC poll assures the respondent that, for example, “international inspectors would monitor Iran’s facilities, and if Iran is caught breaking the agreement economic sanctions would be imposed again. Do you support or oppose this agreement?”

Well, if you put it that way, sure. But it is precisely because these claims are so tendentious and misleading that public — and congressional — opinion is turning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/just-who-is-helping-irans-hard-liners/2015/08/06/45700fde-3c75-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html?wprss=rss_charles-krauthammer

[Publicus]

Sen. Tim Kaine the Democrat elected from Virginia has announced his support of the Agreement. The Republicans in the Senate are fast running out of helpful Democrats.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released a couple of days ago asked three questions about the Agreement, which shows most Americans are not passionate about it. This survey is distinctive because is is not simply a two-question yes/no survey.

Support: 35%

Oppose: 33%

Dont know enough: 32%

https://www.washingt...-the-iran-deal/

The moment a few months ago the Republicans in control of Congress agreed that the Executive Agreement can be implemented with one-third consent of the Senate and also the House, only some little doubt existed it would survive.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Publicus

[Boon Mee]

Sen. Tim Kaine the Democrat elected from Virginia has announced his support of the Agreement. The Republicans in the Senate are fast running out of helpful Democrats.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released a couple of days ago asked three questions about the Agreement, which shows most Americans are not passionate about it. This survey is distinctive because is is not simply a two-question yes/no survey.

Support: 35%

Oppose: 33%

Dont know enough: 32%

https://www.washingt...-the-iran-deal/

The moment a few months ago the Republicans in control of Congress agreed that the Executive Agreement can be implemented with one-third consent of the Senate and also the House, only some little doubt existed it would survive.

And this appeasment document will be shit-canned by the next Administration.

Why do folks aboard TV Forum support I-Ran instead of the USA?

Edited August 10, 2015 by Boon Mee

[Jingthing]

Not sure yet what Hillary will do.

[Publicus]

 

Sen. Tim Kaine the Democrat elected from Virginia has announced his support of the Agreement. The Republicans in the Senate are fast running out of helpful Democrats.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released a couple of days ago asked three questions about the Agreement, which shows most Americans are not passionate about it. This survey is distinctive because is is not simply a two-question yes/no survey.

Support: 35%

Oppose: 33%

Dont know enough: 32%

https://www.washingt...-the-iran-deal/

The moment a few months ago the Republicans in control of Congress agreed that the Executive Agreement can be implemented with one-third consent of the Senate and also the House, only some little doubt existed it would survive.

And this appeasment document will be shit-canned by the next Administration.

Why do folks aboard TV Forum support I-Ran instead of the USA?

 

The Republican party leaders in control of the Senate and the House can count heads. If they couldn't do that they'd be out of business fast.

Republican party leaders in Washington knew when they agreed to the 2/3 override rule the great improbability they would ever get two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate to kill the Agreement in the United States.

They just want to stink up the place en route to the Executive Agreement going in to effect.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Publicus

[Steely Dan]

 

Sen. Tim Kaine the Democrat elected from Virginia has announced his support of the Agreement. The Republicans in the Senate are fast running out of helpful Democrats.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released a couple of days ago asked three questions about the Agreement, which shows most Americans are not passionate about it. This survey is distinctive because is is not simply a two-question yes/no survey.

Support: 35%

Oppose: 33%

Dont know enough: 32%

https://www.washingt...-the-iran-deal/

The moment a few months ago the Republicans in control of Congress agreed that the Executive Agreement can be implemented with one-third consent of the Senate and also the House, only some little doubt existed it would survive.

And this appeasment document will be shit-canned by the next Administration.

Why do folks aboard TV Forum support I-Ran instead of the USA?

 

The Republican party leaders in control of the Senate and the House can count heads. If they couldn't do that they'd be out of business fast.

Republican party leaders in Washington knew when they agreed to the 2/3 override rule the great improbability they would ever get two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate to kill the Agreement in the United States.

They just want to stink up the place en route to the Executive Agreement going in to effect.

You conveniently forget the fact that Congress only agreed to treating the deal as an executive agreement if Obama gave them chance to scrutinize it and vote on it before he went to the security council to get the deal ratified. Obama lied, sanctions can't be rolled back it's a grubby stitch up of a deal which stinks more as every new fact leaks out.

P.S Regarding said facts here's one. The Saudi King came out against the deal stating it would cause havoc in the region. So Israel is note alone in opposing it as Obama claimed.

[copa8]

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

A Democrat whose loyalties lie not with his president and nation, but with his brethren of a different nation. He should be sacked.

Imagine had a Russian or Chinese-American Senator done the same for their brethren in their ancestral homeland?

[up-country_sinclair]

The Saudi King came out against the deal

Next thing you'll tell me is that North Korea came out against the deal!

Quite frankly, with "friends" like Israel and KSA, who needs enemies?

[Ulysses G.]

Very hypocritical. Even other Arabs don't want to be friends with the Palestinians.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

 

Sen. Tim Kaine the Democrat elected from Virginia has announced his support of the Agreement. The Republicans in the Senate are fast running out of helpful Democrats.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released a couple of days ago asked three questions about the Agreement, which shows most Americans are not passionate about it. This survey is distinctive because is is not simply a two-question yes/no survey.

Support: 35%

Oppose: 33%

Dont know enough: 32%

https://www.washingt...-the-iran-deal/

The moment a few months ago the Republicans in control of Congress agreed that the Executive Agreement can be implemented with one-third consent of the Senate and also the House, only some little doubt existed it would survive.

And this appeasment document will be shit-canned by the next Administration.

Why do folks aboard TV Forum support I-Ran instead of the USA?

 

The Republican party leaders in control of the Senate and the House can count heads. If they couldn't do that they'd be out of business fast.

Republican party leaders in Washington knew when they agreed to the 2/3 override rule the great improbability they would ever get two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate to kill the Agreement in the United States.

They just want to stink up the place en route to the Executive Agreement going in to effect.

You conveniently forget the fact that Congress only agreed to treating the deal as an executive agreement if Obama gave them chance to scrutinize it and vote on it before he went to the security council to get the deal ratified. Obama lied, sanctions can't be rolled back it's a grubby stitch up of a deal which stinks more as every new fact leaks out.

P.S Regarding said facts here's one. The Saudi King came out against the deal stating it would cause havoc in the region. So Israel is note alone in opposing it as Obama claimed.

Republicans in the majority control of the Congress can count heads and the Rs well knew they could not get a two-thirds vote of the Senate and also of the House to agree on the time of day.

What Republicans in the Congress did get was their time period of 30 days, or now as things are 60 daze, to let the rightwing mass of highly financed extremist media say Prez Obama lied, that Prez Obama sold out America, that the Agreement is the worst "deal" in diplomatic history, that the "surrender document" needs to be called a "deal"; that new and shocking facts of the horrendous deal are seeping out each and every day (through the rightwing mass media 24-hour cycle) for 60 daze and so much more of politically and partisan motivated rightwing fun and games that had long ago become foreseeable and are entirely predictable, regardless of what the particular issue may be.

Except on this issue it is nuclear weapons.

[Exsexyman]

Not sure yet what Hillary will do.

Hillary will do whatever her paymasters tell her to do. That is a given.

[Publicus]

 

Maybe they just want Obama to stick to what he said in the first place.

The administration insisted that the nuclear talks would not affect separate sanctions imposed because of Iranian aggression and terrorism. That was then. The administration is now leaking that everything will be lifted.

Taken together, the catalog of capitulations is breathtaking: spot inspections, disclosure of previous nuclear activity, gradual sanctions relief, retention of non-nuclear sanctions.

What’s left? A surrender document of the kind offered by defeated nations suing for peace. Consider: The strongest military and economic power on Earth, backed by the five other major powers, armed with what had been a crushing sanctions regime, is about to sign the worst international agreement in American diplomatic history.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jul/04/charles-krauthammer-us-backpedaling-driving-deal/

The link is to the right wing darling Charles Krauthammer.

Charles Krauthammer explains why some of the the polling on the "deal":contradicts others:

The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that the American public rejects the president’s Iran deal by more than 2 to 1. This is astonishing. The public generally gives the president deference on major treaties. Just a few weeks ago, a majority supported the deal.

What happened? People learned what’s in it.

And don’t be fooled by polls that present, as fact, the administration’s position in the very question . The Post/ABC poll assures the respondent that, for example, “international inspectors would monitor Iran’s facilities, and if Iran is caught breaking the agreement economic sanctions would be imposed again. Do you support or oppose this agreement?”

Well, if you put it that way, sure. But it is precisely because these claims are so tendentious and misleading that public — and congressional — opinion is turning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/just-who-is-helping-irans-hard-liners/2015/08/06/45700fde-3c75-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html?wprss=rss_charles-krauthammer

 

If a pollster is going to ask the public whether they support the president's position (on anything), then the pollster needs to present the president's position as the president himself defines his position to be. This is true of any pollster or any POTUS.

Conversely, if Quinnipiac polls which Republicans increasingly like as a pollster, were to ask, "The President wants to enable Iran to become a nuclear weapons state. Do you agree or disagree with Iran becoming a nuclear armed state?" then the poll by the rightwing pollster, such as Rassmussen to cite another of 'em, would be self-exposed.

Krauthammer's next award will be for talking jibberish but it will be called the "Keen Commentator" award or somesuch by the rightwinger entertainment organization that issues it.

[Jingthing]

Not sure yet what Hillary will do.

Hillary will do whatever her paymasters tell her to do. That is a given.

That's just hyperbole but the reality is she is supporting Obama on this so when she is elected president she is then free to make her own call on any adjustments. Certainly what happens between now and then will count for something.

[Seastallion]

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?

It appears nobody is willing to do your work for you only to get parsed to death, so I am providing you a link to the Agreement.

Please read it and point out to us why you believe this agreement is so good.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2165399/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal.pdf

This DOES NOT include any side deals made by any of the participating nations. Those are confidential and are not be released in the public domain.

We await your input.

That's a very weak parry, avoiding answering the question.

I have no idea what you are on about with "my work" or being "parsed to death"..although there might be an unintentional compliment to me in there.

You challenged somebody, anybody, to make a post listing the argument against the surrender to Iran.

I merely said why don't you make a post itemizing the strengths of the agreement.

Don't flatter yourself. No compliments were issued nor intended.

You're still not answering the question.

The implied compliment is that you foresee that people will get "parsed to death" if they try.

[Seastallion]

 

Another way to look at this is whether Democrats voting against the deal are in fact putting their Country ahead of their party. Polls show clearly where the Country is on this deal.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/259736/veteran-dem-senator-iran-deal-time-put-country-daniel-greenfield#.Vce2ttskOL0.twitter

 

The guy in the link is still smarting over Vietnam much less Iran and is the same guy who voted in the Senate to withdraw all US troops from Iraq in 90 days.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey released a couple of days ago finds Americans sliced in thirds about the Agreement, one-third support it, one-third oppose it. and a third say they don't have enough information. The mainstream in the US is not clamoring at all much less either way, which means there is no mandate in the United States to oppose the Agreement.

We'll see how it goes as the highly financed rightwing extreme mass of media blanket the country with its anti-Agreement programming, advertising, self-promotion.

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1439201323.604808.jpg

That's a bit bold of you, posting a weak parody of Bush's notorious BS that tries to apply it to Obama's actual truth. It doesn't work. Actually, it backfires.

Fox Newsesque..

[Ulysses G.]

It doesn't work. Actually, it backfires.

Nope. Considering the way Obama is acting about his crazy "deal" and people in his own party who object to it, very pertinent.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[sdanielmcev]

I don't know if Shumer is a Patriot or not. I am simply curious as to whether or not he would have still been considered a patriot on this forum had he committed for the deal.

I don't think I would have questioned his patriotism. I would have questioned his common sense. IMO, most of the democrats who support the "deal" support it only for partisan reasons.

IMO the rightwingers who oppose the Agreement oppose it because they are political and ideological rightwingnuts.

So, then what are the dems that oppose it?