Welcome To Trump World

[Richard]

^ here,I will help you out a little bit.

Reading comprehension involves numerous thinking skills.


https://literallyrangiora.wikispaces.com/Context+clues+and+figurative+language

It is a guide for teaching children in school,not sure if there is a Canadian version though.


Back to the topic of Iran,top democrats did not agree with the previous administrations
deal but when it is taken off the table they become upset?

We are back to the style of negotiations where you put out the most drastic measures first in order to set a negotiating point.

[oladub]

Trump withdraws from the Iran nuclear deal

I agree. It was a "deal" and was never a treaty approved by 2/3 of Congress.

John Kerry shed some light on this problem. He said it was near impossible to get a 2/3 majority for any treaty as required by the Constitution these days.* Newsweek had a an article about details of the deal coming to light. Nothing surprises me about Obama's deals. I like the idea of getting along with Iran but, as always, the devil is in the details. I have to wonder what Obama's constitutional authority was allowing him to secretly send a plane to Iran with $400,000,000 of ransom. Maybe Congress awarded him a slush fund or something because presidents don't have the constitutional power to be writing $400,000,000 checks without the approval of Congress.

*Q.) Rep. Reid Ribble, "Why is this not considered a treaty?"

A.) John Kerry- "Well, congressman, I spent quite a few years trying to get a lot of treaties through the United States Senate, and frankly it's become physically impossible. That's why. Because you can't pass a treaty anymore. And it's become impossible to, you know, schedule. It's become impossible to pass."

[Maof]

it's like the others have never heard of electronics or something

......lol!

[canuck]

^ here,I will help you out a little bit.

Reading comprehension involves numerous thinking skills.


https://literallyrangiora.wikispaces.com/Context+clues+and+figurative+language

It is a guide for teaching children in school,not sure if there is a Canadian version though.


Back to the topic of Iran,top democrats did not agree with the previous administrations
deal but when it is taken off the table they become upset?

We are back to the style of negotiations where you put out the most drastic measures first in order to set a negotiating point.

You are confusing Ireland for Iran, Richard. I'm worried about your writing skills again, not so much about my comprehension. Shah, not Shaw.

Can't fathom the reverse physiology though, explain away...

[aj3647]

I like the idea of getting along with Iran but, as always, the devil is in the details. I have to wonder what Obama's constitutional authority was allowing him to secretly send a plane to Iran with $400,000,000 of ransom. Maybe Congress awarded him a slush fund or something because presidents don't have the constitutional power to be writing $400,000,000 checks without the approval of Congress.

The $400 million was IRANIAN money that the U.S. had frozen as part of sanctions against Iran dating back to 1979. We simply gave their own money back to them. But I suspect you knew that, and you're just intentionally being intellectually-dishonest and obtuse by misconstruing the payment as being American taxpayer dollars. Par for the course for you, though.

http://fortune.com/2016/08/05/money-america-iran/


But anyways, good job quibbling over the fact that this deal is not a treaty, which literally no one claimed it was. I guess that's easier than you actually offering an honest opinion about Trump's warmongering against Iran. When you can't bring yourself to offer a critical opinion about Trump's policies, just default to criticizing Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile, Israel just "pre-emptively" bombed Iranian troops in Syria again for the second time in two weeks, while also calling up reservists and deploying air defense systems to the Golan Heights. And Rudy Giuliani just said three days ago that Trump remains committed to "regime change" in Iran. It looks like John Bolton may get an early Christmas gift this year.

[oladub]

The $400 million was IRANIAN money that the U.S. had frozen as part of sanctions against Iran dating back to 1979. We simply gave their own money back to them. But I suspect you knew that, and you're just intentionally being intellectually-dishonest and obtuse by misconstruing the payment as being American taxpayer dollars. Par for the course for you, though.

http://fortune.com/2016/08/05/money-america-iran/


But anyways, good job quibbling over the fact that this deal is not a treaty, which literally no one claimed it was. I guess that's easier than you actually offering an honest opinion about Trump's warmongering against Iran. When you can't bring yourself to offer a critical opinion about Trump's policies, just default to criticizing Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile, Israel just "pre-emptively" bombed Iranian troops in Syria again for the second time in two weeks, while also calling up reservists and deploying air defense systems to the Golan Heights. And Rudy Giuliani just said three days ago that Trump remains committed to "regime change" in Iran. It looks like John Bolton may get an early Christmas gift this year.

You forgot to include my quote that "I like the idea of getting along with Iran but, as always, the devil is in the details." Get it? I like the idea of getting along with Iran. We trade with Vietnam. It is entirely reasonable to trade with Iran instead of embargoing Iran which is at least a hostile act. Obama should have passed his deal as a treaty though. You are right about no one mentioning that key point until I did. Its a deal breaker like instituting DACA, bombing Libya without the consent of Congress, running weapons to Syrian "rebels", and putting guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, Obama was just winging it in defiance of constitutional requirements and his oath of office. I support a vote by Congress to establish a treaty with Iran but on reasonable terms rather than danesgeld.

IRAN NUKE DEAL: YET ANOTHER SECRET SIDE DEAL EMERGES

Tell us more about how Obama had the power to secretly send $400,000,000 to Iran. Did Congress provide him with the power to do so? I'm not saying it didn't. I just don't know. Sending it without congressional involvment seems irregular. Letting Iran monitor itself seems a bit stupid too but this was an Obama deal.

Deals are not treaties. Instituting deals that pass the duck test as ersatz treaties is unconstitutional. I added the Kerry quote to emphasize how Democrats so often despise the Constitution. Establishment Republicans are not much better. This was the same Kerry who admitted that the Obama administration allowed ISIS to exist to put pressure on Assad.

Oh, and to correct your spin, I was writing on this site encouraging others to dissuade Trump from bombing Syria while you were silent before Trump killed 40+ people there. I twice suggested here that if you wanted to impeach Trump, it should be for bombing Syria instead of your coup nonsense. Either you are forgetful or a liar. Even though 40+ people is a tiny percentage of the number killed by Obama's policies, let alone his millions of refugees, you were and are silent about that travesty too.

[aj3647]

Tell us more about how Obama had the power to secretly send $400,000,000 to Iran. Did Congress provide him with the power to do so? I'm not saying it didn't. I just don't know. Sending it without congressional involvment seems irregular. Letting Iran monitor itself seems a bit stupid too but this was an Obama deal.

Deals are not treaties. Instituting deals that pass the duck test as ersatz treaties is unconstitutional.

Ah yes, this would be your expert legal opinion on display again, right? As a graduate of the Trump University Law School? Funny how if it was an illegal treaty, no Republican anywhere felt the need to file a lawsuit challenging it as such. Ah yes, those "establishment" Republicans, they're all part of the pro-Obama conspiracy. Another funny thing is how, since it's a totally illegal and unconstitutional de facto treaty, why it took Trump nearly a year and a half to kill it. Shouldn't he have done that right away, and the law would protect him, since the agreement was illegal and unconstitutional to begin with? Weird!

Just FYI, legally, "international agreements" do not require Congressional ratification.

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library...php?id=65#toc4

Outline of the agreement making process:

• Secretary of State authorizes negotiation
• U.S. Representatives negotiate
• Agree on terms, and upon authorization of Secretary of State, sign agreement
• Three types of agreements [5]
• Agreement enters into force
• President transmits agreement to Congress [[pursuant to Case-Zablocki Act)[6]

FYI, if the Iran Deal were a "de facto treaty", Trump wouldn't have been able to just walk away from it like he did because it would have been legally binding. The fact that Trump just unilaterally pulled us out would seem to highly suggest that it was just an international agreement. But again, I'm not a lawyer like you, so what would I know? And it seems you know more about Constitutional Law than the entire Republican Party, including Trump, so perhaps your efforts are being wasted here on this message board. You should be offering your services to the President as one of our nation's foremost legal experts. Just think of how much of Obama's unconstitutional policies you could single-handedly undo using this hidden knowledge that only you possess!

And no, oladub, I haven't forgotten your extremely tepid and measured "criticism" of Trump. How brave of you to express mild and polite discontent towards Trump, when you will write 10 paragraph long mini-novel diatribes bashing Obama and Clinton in the harshest language. But yes, I applaud your brave stance on Trump's bombing of Syria. You managed to fit in maybe three whole sentences where you express measured disagreement with Trump in between your 10,000 sentences where you rail on a guy who hasn't been President in a year and a half and a woman who hasn't held public office since 2013. And in keeping with that unbiased bravery of yours, when the bombs start falling on Tehran, I'm sure you'll offer up a strongly-worded sentence or two about how you disagree with Trump's decision to bomb them before you launch right back into a dissertation about how it's all really Hillary Clinton's fault and she's the fucking Devil incarnate.

[oladub]

aj, Treaties masquarading as "international agreements" [[duck test) do need to be passed by a 2/3 majority. Yes I would have preferred that Trump scrap much of what Obama did to override the Constitution on day 1 and that Congress would not have allowed Bush, Obama, and Trump to get away with assuming congressional power. No "hidden knowledge" was involved because the Constitution spells out that Congress is required to declare wars and that 2/3 of Congress must approve of treaties. Your guy Kerry agrees but chooses to do unconstitutional work arounds to make "deals" aka "international agreement deals". Hanging out with the mullahs trying to undermine his elected president at least shows that Kerry is consistent. Treaties, according to the first definition I came to are "a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries." Obama's deal then was a treaty called something else for the rubes to think it was different. You Democrats are so clever!

Its a puzzle that although I suggested impeaching Trump for committing an act of war that you refer to that as a "extremely tepid and measured "criticism" of Trump". I still prefer a president with whom I can agree with 50% of the time rather than most Democrats I agree with only 20% of the time. True though that Obama was, to date, much worse. What's missing is your admonishment of neocon [[neolib?) policies. We once agreed that "defense" spending should be cut but I don't remember you ever opposing Kerry/Hillary/Obama's interventionist policies.

So, for the third time, what constitutional authority did Obama have for secretly delivering $400,000,000 seemingly without the consent of Congress?

[coracle]

Just imagine if democrats were pro-America instead of obstructionist hate America first [[after Trump), Trump would have had all their life long problems solved by now. We would even be rid of the swamp. But what am I saying? They are the swamp!

For sure though, if hatred is a winning policy they'll romp home in the mid-terms using their other policies of Russia, Stormy Daniels, tax increases and illegals.

A vote for democrats is a vote against MAGA.

[canuck]

Just imagine if democrats were pro-America instead of obstructionist hate America first [[after Trump), Trump would have had all their life long problems solved by now. We would even be rid of the swamp. But what am I saying? They are the swamp!

For sure though, if hatred is a winning policy they'll romp home in the mid-terms using their other policies of Russia, Stormy Daniels, tax increases and illegals.

A vote for democrats is a vote against MAGA.

Coracle, you are very talented at delineating cartoons of yourself.

[Richard]

^ based on your last 3 posts,you have nothing to really add.

What are your thoughts on the new senator Pence,or maybe Nikki Haley as the first woman president after the currant presidents second term?

[coracle]

note for aj3647
It was enlightening to watch the childish antics of the Iranian “leaders” when confronted by an alpha male after conning your erstwhile pompous wimpy president and his lurch.

Can you imagine anybody negotiating with them and not sensing their total lack of stability but wanting “it” so badly they would promise anything and give them $150 Billion? You can be sure they laughed all the way to the bank [[particularly after lurch fell off his bike).

[coracle]

Coracle, you are very talented at delineating cartoons of yourself.

I might say “thank you” if I understood it.

[canuck]

^ based on your last 3 posts,you have nothing to really add.

What are your thoughts on the new senator Pence,or maybe Nikki Haley as the first woman president after the currant presidents second term?

I'll be curt; currant is a misnomer. Trump is the Orange President.

You can ramble on for pages Richard, invent all manner of twaddle about perceived economic aggression on your country from your narrow perspective, but you fail to hit the mark. All that swamp draining drama got you was an extra ton of jet fuel emissions from Trump's AirForce1 weekend escapade over your Tampa digs. I would rather you consider Melania Trump for President. Her speechwriting resume so far is at least on par with the former First Lady's. lotsoflaffs.

[coracle]

I think curt suits you better than canuck, canuck. Why not be curt from now on? Or maybe twaddle for curt might be more appropriate.

Incidently curt, not being a lefty in America I don’t care what color my President is so long as he can do the job like our orange one can. Just think of the white and black ones we’ve had to suffer for the last 30/40 years.

[canuck]

I think curt suits you better than canuck, canuck. Why not be curt from now on? Or maybe twaddle for curt might be more appropriate

I'll certainly consider it coming from you, coracle. Have you considered cuticle or carbuncle for a change?

[Richard]

I'll be curt; currant is a misnomer. Trump is the Orange President.

You can ramble on for pages Richard, invent all manner of twaddle about perceived economic aggression on your country from your narrow perspective, but you fail to hit the mark. All that swamp draining drama got you was an extra ton of jet fuel emissions from Trump's AirForce1 weekend escapade over your Tampa digs. I would rather you consider Melania Trump for President. Her speechwriting resume so far is at least on par with the former First Lady's. lotsoflaffs.

So in short,other then going after the wives now,you still have nothing to add.What is next,the children?

Sorry to disappoint you but the Air Force one flight path does not go over Tampa,what was that you were saying about inventing all manner of twaddle?

Maybe you could volunteer to help build the northern wall,that would be productive.

[canuck]

So in short,other then going after the wives now,you still have nothing to add.What is next,the children?

Sorry to disappoint you but the Air Force one flight path does not go over Tampa,what was that you were saying about inventing all manner of twaddle?

Maybe you could volunteer to help build the northern wall,that would be productive.

Nah, the pussy grabber is the only one in my sightlines. The others are just collateral damage.

Better start saving up,if you wanna build another wall, Richard; here is a hint how to: https://www.google.ca/search?q=air+f...gO3y01wKa54FM:

[Honky Tonk]

Nah, the pussy grabber is the only one in my sightlines. The others are just collateral damage.

Better start saving up,if you wanna build another wall, Richard; here is a hint how to: https://www.google.ca/search?q=air+f...gO3y01wKa54FM:

How does true-doh! get around, Uber?

[Pam]

Torture happened before Trump but since he nominated Haspel, I'll put this here. Protests at confirmation hearing for Haspel:

https://youtu.be/jxuLulXMQ88

https://youtu.be/riD5BwrAyIw

[canuck]

How does true-doh! get around, Uber?

Don't you dare dump on Trudeau. That is crossing boundaries, now.

[Honky Tonk]

Don't you dare dump on Trudeau. That is crossing boundaries, now.

Build a wall...

[canuck]

Build a wall...

The Berlin Wall, the Great Wall of China, the Israeli West Bank barrier: they are all good. All of them meant to keep people in or out. Great tourist attractions. Thanks for the info.

[Richard]

Nah, the pussy grabber is the only one in my sightlines. The others are just collateral damage.

Better start saving up,if you wanna build another wall, Richard; here is a hint how to: https://www.google.ca/search?q=air+f...gO3y01wKa54FM:

No we are going to build a great northern wall and Canada will pay for it,figured they were suckers enough to build a bridge might as well go all the way.

[TKshreve]

No we are going to build a great northern wall and Canada will pay for it,figured they were suckers enough to build a bridge might as well go all the way.

Will they pay for it? Will they? Or is that just what the latest public office seeking charlatan has told you, in order to attain your misinformed vote. Seems to me the last time someone told us that a foreign country would pay for a national border barrier, the masses were duped. But I'm sure you'd run right back down that rabbit hole, for reasons uncomprehending once more. Maybe you think you'll be rich if said candidate rose to power, and swing big power-broker deals at the head of a war room table. It's just envy though.