https://twitter.com/John_Hudson/status/1...5127186432


Thousands and thousands of innocent people will die because of this

---

https://twitter.com/medeabenjamin/status...6386101248

Thousands and thousands of innocent people will die because of this???.... Thousands of innocent people have already died because of this terrorist....

---

There's a blurry line in saying that the $400m that we previously owed Iran was used specifically to maim and kill US military members. Serious question to consider: Would they have done what they did without the $400m IOU plus 45 years' interest?

---

 
"$400m IOU plus 45 years' interest" - Let's not equivocate, that number is actually $150,000,000,000. The money was kept from them in sanctions because they're bad people doing bad things. Regardless, giving them that huge amount of money (which our government kept secret from us for 8 months) is like asking for a pledge of honor from a panhandling drug addict that he will spend all the money you give him on food. But don't take my word for it. Let the lead DNC information agency lay it out.

Tongue-in-cheek response: Isn't CNN fake MSM news? Shocker - I trust DNC leadership about as far as I can toss em. 

You can disagree with how these agreements were made (like I have stated) or dislike that it was the Obama administration that was in charge when they were made, but make no mistake: $1.8b in owed funds from the US and $150b in released assets are two. separate. things. $150b was never transferred from the US treasury to Iran.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

 
"$400m IOU plus 45 years' interest" - Let's not equivocate, that number is actually $150,000,000,000. The money was kept from them in sanctions because they're bad people doing bad things. Regardless, giving them that huge amount of money (which our government kept secret from us for 8 months) is like asking for a pledge of honor from a panhandling drug addict that he will spend all the money you give him on food. But don't take my word for it. Let the lead DNC information agency lay it out.

Tongue-in-cheek response: Isn't CNN, Fox, and MSNBC fake MSM news? Shocker - I trust DNC leadership about as far as I can toss em. 

Added for clarification

---

I trust DNC leadership about as far as I can toss em. 

Pretty interesting use of words if you really break it down.


id·i·om

1. 1.
   a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words (e.g., rain cats and dogs, see the light ).
   

---

 
"$400m IOU plus 45 years' interest" - Let's not equivocate, that number is actually $150,000,000,000. The money was kept from them in sanctions because they're bad people doing bad things. Regardless, giving them that huge amount of money (which our government kept secret from us for 8 months) is like asking for a pledge of honor from a panhandling drug addict that he will spend all the money you give him on food. But don't take my word for it. Let the lead DNC information agency lay it out.

Tongue-in-cheek response: Isn't CNN fake MSM news? Shocker - I trust DNC leadership about as far as I can toss em. 

You can disagree with how these agreements were made (like I have stated) or dislike that it was the Obama administration that was in charge when they were made, but make no mistake: $1.8b in owed funds from the US and $150b in released assets are two. separate. things. $150b was never transferred from the US treasury to Iran.

So they received $151.8B. I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Is the source of a financial windfall to a despotic regime conducive to changed behavior? Especially when our own top diplomat openly conceded that some of that money would be used for terrorism. Terrorist regimes kill, that’s what they do.

---

Tongue-in-cheek response: Isn't CNN fake MSM news? Shocker - I trust DNC leadership about as far as I can toss em. 

You can disagree with how these agreements were made (like I have stated) or dislike that it was the Obama administration that was in charge when they were made, but make no mistake: $1.8b in owed funds from the US and $150b in released assets are two. separate. things. $150b was never transferred from the US treasury to Iran.

So they received $151.8B. I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Is the source of a financial windfall to a despotic regime conducive to changed behavior? Especially when our own top diplomat openly conceded that some of that money would be used for terrorism. Terrorist regimes kill, that’s what they do.

The point I originally made, HB, was that the rhetoric around how and why the agreements were made, as well as the source of any funds that ended up in Iran is slanted/distorted. We didn't "give" Iran $150b... or even billionS, despite what Trump has stated as a representation of the "worst deal(s) ever made." $1.8b - We made good on a debt owed for military equipment that we never paid. With regard to the that arrangement and the $150b asset release in exchange of nuclear program restraint - I've already stated that I would have structured them differently, releasing assets/paying debts in intervals based on good findings after appropriate oversight, BECAUSE they've had terrorist ties - giving them a chance to prove they're progressing forward instead of backward. 

I don't disagree with you: Terrorists kill, that's what they do. We deal with that on our own soil as well. 

I guess I'd ask you this: Do you trust what Kerry says any other time? There seems to be a lack of any trust of the "liberal left," (AKA any democrat) in this forum, just from my perception.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

I guess I'd ask you this: Do you trust what Kerry says any other time? There seems to be a lack of any trust of the "liberal left," (AKA any democrat) in this forum, just from my perception.

Wouldn't you say that mistrust is earned by all the hyperbole (don't have to even look past the chicken little/WWIII is starting origins of this very thread) and flat out lies ("fine people" and Russian hoaxes) that many, if not the majority, of the left believes are true?

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

So they received $151.8B. I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Is the source of a financial windfall to a despotic regime conducive to changed behavior? Especially when our own top diplomat openly conceded that some of that money would be used for terrorism. Terrorist regimes kill, that’s what they do.

The point I originally made, HB, was that the rhetoric around how and why the agreements were made, as well as the source of any funds that ended up in Iran is slanted/distorted. We didn't "give" Iran $150b... or even billionS, despite what Trump has stated as a representation of the "worst deal(s) ever made." $1.8b - We made good on a debt owed for military equipment that we never paid. With regard to the that arrangement and the $150b asset release in exchange of nuclear program restraint - I've already stated that I would have structured them differently, releasing assets/paying debts in intervals based on good findings after appropriate oversight, BECAUSE they've had terrorist ties - giving them a chance to prove they're progressing forward instead of backward. 

I don't disagree with you: Terrorists kill, that's what they do. We deal with that on our own soil as well. 

I guess I'd ask you this: Do you trust what Kerry says any other time? There seems to be a lack of any trust of the "liberal left," (AKA any democrat) in this forum, just from my perception.

Ah, the false dilemma. Nice.

---

So they received $151.8B. I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Is the source of a financial windfall to a despotic regime conducive to changed behavior? Especially when our own top diplomat openly conceded that some of that money would be used for terrorism. Terrorist regimes kill, that’s what they do.

The point I originally made, HB, was that the rhetoric around how and why the agreements were made, as well as the source of any funds that ended up in Iran is slanted/distorted. We didn't "give" Iran $150b... or even billionS, despite what Trump has stated as a representation of the "worst deal(s) ever made." $1.8b - We made good on a debt owed for military equipment that we never paid. With regard to the that arrangement and the $150b asset release in exchange of nuclear program restraint - I've already stated that I would have structured them differently, releasing assets/paying debts in intervals based on good findings after appropriate oversight, BECAUSE they've had terrorist ties - giving them a chance to prove they're progressing forward instead of backward. 

I don't disagree with you: Terrorists kill, that's what they do. We deal with that on our own soil as well. 

I guess I'd ask you this: Do you trust what Kerry says any other time? There seems to be a lack of any trust of the "liberal left," (AKA any democrat) in this forum, just from my perception.

The fact is that Obama chose to release the $150B. The fact that these were Iranian assets makes no difference, he was not required to do so. 

Obama made the choice. He didn't have to.

Same with the $1.8B, although the claim by Iran was even less solid in that case since the Mullahs chose to overthrow the government that purchased the arms, and the original purchasing government was no longer able to receive them.

As far as trusting what a partisan (Kerry) or partisan website says, it's reasonable to trust the statement if it opposes the position the partisan holds. CNN is not going to claim as true a falsehood that supports Trump or anything he says.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The point I originally made, HB, was that the rhetoric around how and why the agreements were made, as well as the source of any funds that ended up in Iran is slanted/distorted. We didn't "give" Iran $150b... or even billionS, despite what Trump has stated as a representation of the "worst deal(s) ever made." $1.8b - We made good on a debt owed for military equipment that we never paid. With regard to the that arrangement and the $150b asset release in exchange of nuclear program restraint - I've already stated that I would have structured them differently, releasing assets/paying debts in intervals based on good findings after appropriate oversight, BECAUSE they've had terrorist ties - giving them a chance to prove they're progressing forward instead of backward. 

I don't disagree with you: Terrorists kill, that's what they do. We deal with that on our own soil as well. 

I guess I'd ask you this: Do you trust what Kerry says any other time? There seems to be a lack of any trust of the "liberal left," (AKA any democrat) in this forum, just from my perception.

The fact is that Obama chose to release the $150B. The fact that these were Iranian assets makes no difference, he was not required to do so. 

Obama made the choice. He didn't have to.

Same with the $1.8B, although the claim by Iran was even less solid in that case since the Mullahs chose to overthrow the government that purchased the arms, and the original purchasing government was no longer able to receive them.

As far as trusting what a partisan (Kerry) or partisan website says, it's reasonable to trust the statement if it opposes the position the partisan holds. CNN is not going to claim as true a falsehood that supports Trump or anything he says.

Thanks for addressing my question head-on, MBJ. I agree, though I still don't have very much trust in DNC leadership or JK, for that matter. FWIW, he said he thought a portion could/would go to terrorist groups to settle debts Iran owed, but didn't have evidence to show it had occurred and that such behaviors would result in sanctions against Iran. Kerry was also at the table during the negotiations of the JCPOA

As for your former point, I'd posit that Obama/US was the centerpiece in the agreement, which was made in conjunction with China, France, Russia & the UK, as well as EU-3 countries. Might as well say that the UN/NATO made the agreement, considering the world powers in alignment with the decision. The US will always be the centerpiece in such alignments, but my point is that we/Obama didn't solely make it. To my knowledge, Israel was the only country that vocally opposed it. 

Again, I would have structured it differently because of Iran's history with terrorism & government instability.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

The fact is that Obama chose to release the $150B. The fact that these were Iranian assets makes no difference, he was not required to do so. 

Obama made the choice. He didn't have to.

Same with the $1.8B, although the claim by Iran was even less solid in that case since the Mullahs chose to overthrow the government that purchased the arms, and the original purchasing government was no longer able to receive them.

As far as trusting what a partisan (Kerry) or partisan website says, it's reasonable to trust the statement if it opposes the position the partisan holds. CNN is not going to claim as true a falsehood that supports Trump or anything he says.

Thanks for addressing my question head-on, MBJ. I agree, though I still don't have very much trust in DNC leadership or JK, for that matter. FWIW, he said he thought a portion could/would go to terrorist groups to settle debts Iran owed, but didn't have evidence to show it had occurred and that such behaviors would result in sanctions against Iran. Kerry was also at the table during the negotiations of the JCPOA

As for your former point, I'd posit that Obama/US was the centerpiece in the agreement, which was made in conjunction with China, France, Russia & the UK, as well as EU-3 countries. Might as well say that the UN/NATO made the agreement, considering the world powers in alignment with the decision. The US will always be the centerpiece in such alignments, but my point is that we/Obama didn't solely make it. To my knowledge, Israel was the only country that vocally opposed it. 

Again, I would have structured it differently because of Iran's history with terrorism & government instability.

History?  They were chanting death to america while it was being signed!

And essentially we are nato/the un

---

Thanks for addressing my question head-on, MBJ. I agree, though I still don't have very much trust in DNC leadership or JK, for that matter. FWIW, he said he thought a portion could/would go to terrorist groups to settle debts Iran owed, but didn't have evidence to show it had occurred and that such behaviors would result in sanctions against Iran. Kerry was also at the table during the negotiations of the JCPOA

As for your former point, I'd posit that Obama/US was the centerpiece in the agreement, which was made in conjunction with China, France, Russia & the UK, as well as EU-3 countries. Might as well say that the UN/NATO made the agreement, considering the world powers in alignment with the decision. The US will always be the centerpiece in such alignments, but my point is that we/Obama didn't solely make it. To my knowledge, Israel was the only country that vocally opposed it. 

Again, I would have structured it differently because of Iran's history with terrorism & government instability.

History?  They were chanting death to america while it was being signed!

And essentially we are nato/the un

JJ, perhaps its naive of me, or just my pure optimism - but I don't believe a group of protesters/demonstrators represents the whole of a country (much like our own). That said, I believe in diplomacy...and that countries can work toward peace. I would have pushed for agreement/s to be made, I just would have structured the agreement/s differently.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

History?  They were chanting death to america while it was being signed!

And essentially we are nato/the un

JJ, perhaps its naive of me, or just my pure optimism - but I don't believe a group of protesters/demonstrators represents the whole of a country (much like our own). That said, I believe in diplomacy...and that countries can work toward peace. I would have pushed for agreement/s to be made, I just would have structured the agreement/s differently.

Bruh...  the chants were lead by the supreme leader.  They do them every friday.

---