I see that all 20 said they would give illegal aliens free health care.

With that I know that all 20 are trash and not worth my vote.

Next...

Free health care, free college, and open borders (oops, they're not for "open borders," just not enforced). We'll have half the population of Latin America crossing the border (not to mention Asia). But think of all of the new Democrat voters!

We need free border crossings, as well. The cost of coyotes is outrageous and is inherently unfair to poor and disabled undocumented immigrants. Rather than being forced to compensate coyotes at exorbitant rates, which ultimately lines the pockets of the 1%, we need to establish a Coyotes For All program. Under my administration, coyotes will be provided, free of charge, to all who wish to cross the U.S. border outside of traditional means.

---

I see that all 20 said they would give illegal aliens free health care.

With that I know that all 20 are trash and not worth my vote.

Next...

Free health care, free college, and open borders (oops, they're not for "open borders," just not enforced). We'll have half the population of Latin America crossing the border (not to mention Asia). But think of all of the new Democrat voters!

You left out forgiving the debt of those who didn't actually have free college.

---

Trump is NOT a negotiator. He is a "demander". Period.

That's not the way the tax cuts were advertised to the American public. 

No they can't. You have animals to maintain and a short planting season. When you have animals that need to be maintained and plants that need to be planted, things can't be delayed. What equipment and supplies are Chinese? Do you want an itemized list? Find a farmer and ask them yourself. There are tons of everyday items, supplies and machinery that is imported from China. We imported a total of $539.5 billion worth of goods in 2018. That's a lot of stuff. You would think farm supplies would not be high on the list of things imported from China, but they import alot. Even meat is also imported to the U.S. from China. For instance, Smithfield was bought by the Chinese and now they are the top pork producers in the U.S. importing their meat from China. Chinese products are everywhere. There is no way to avoid them. If you run any type of business, you will have to deal with buying Chinese products. Farmers are not exempt. From animal feed to seeds to fertilizer to tractor parts to virtually thousands of other things which are subject to tariffs, the prices are skyrocketing and the American farmer is paying a huge price.

As others have pointed out, Trump gets results, and they are not the same as his demands. That's negotiation. Maybe not the way you think negotiation should be done, but it works. Do you think the Obama method of giving Iran everything they wanted and then more is the proper way to negotiate? Or maybe just ignoring the Europeans' failure to reach military spending as promised in the NATO treaty is proper negotiation?

Advertisements? I didn't see any advertisements about the tax cuts. In any case, the results were necessary to enable the US working class keep their jobs, so who cares how it was advertised? Or maybe you would have preferred having (say) Chris Christie (or were you a Hillary supporter?) just keep corporate tax rates the same so that American companies would continue to flee.

And I see that you talk a lot but can't give any actual examples of what farmers need to buy from China. Tractor parts? Are your farmer friends repairing Chinese tractors? Animal feed? I doubt much animal feed (mostly corn) comes from China, but if so I'd blame Clinton, Bush and Obama for the ethanol mandates if they can't buy animal feed from the US.

Prices should be up no more than the tariffs, which are 25% of the wholesale price and not on everything. That's far from "skyrocketing." If the price has increased more than that then the importers and dealers are responsible.

I have no idea how much you make a year, but you are completely out of touch with people who live paycheck to paycheck, which makes me believe you are pretty well off $150K a year or better. I'm not going to give you an itemized list of everything farmers use that is imported from China. Do your own research. And do you honestly think an American vehicles only uses American parts? Really? If a belt breaks or fuel pump goes bad, you just don't drive back to the tractor dealer and get a new one. You go to the local hardware or tractor supply store and find the parts to fix it yourself with "off brand" parts that can do the job. Much of those parts are Chinese and a lot cheaper. It's the only way to keep the overhead low enough to make any money. And yes, tons of animal feed is imported from China. Don't believe me? Look it up. Finding any type of dog food that doesn't contain ingredients imported from China. It's nearly impossible. Purina is one of the biggest importers of Chinese ingredients. Those things are subject to tariffs which make the cost of the food go up. It's common sense. The same goes for cattle feed, hog feed, chicken feed and virtually every other food for domesticated animals. I know this, because I've done my research. When I got my dogs, I wanted buy them feed that contained no Chinese imported ingredients, because China doesn't inspect their dog foods or the things that go in it. The brands containing Chinese ingredients kept getting recalled and animals were dying. After a long, exhausting search, I finally found a really good, affordable dog food made in Texas with all American ingredients except for two things, which were imported from Canada and I believe the other is Australia. Both countries have pet food inspection standards similar to the U.S. As far as blaming Clinton, Bush and Obama for every problem in the world, that's a typical "Trumper" response.

---

As others have pointed out, Trump gets results, and they are not the same as his demands. That's negotiation. Maybe not the way you think negotiation should be done, but it works. Do you think the Obama method of giving Iran everything they wanted and then more is the proper way to negotiate? Or maybe just ignoring the Europeans' failure to reach military spending as promised in the NATO treaty is proper negotiation?

Advertisements? I didn't see any advertisements about the tax cuts. In any case, the results were necessary to enable the US working class keep their jobs, so who cares how it was advertised? Or maybe you would have preferred having (say) Chris Christie (or were you a Hillary supporter?) just keep corporate tax rates the same so that American companies would continue to flee.

And I see that you talk a lot but can't give any actual examples of what farmers need to buy from China. Tractor parts? Are your farmer friends repairing Chinese tractors? Animal feed? I doubt much animal feed (mostly corn) comes from China, but if so I'd blame Clinton, Bush and Obama for the ethanol mandates if they can't buy animal feed from the US.

Prices should be up no more than the tariffs, which are 25% of the wholesale price and not on everything. That's far from "skyrocketing." If the price has increased more than that then the importers and dealers are responsible.

I have no idea how much you make a year, but you are completely out of touch with people who live paycheck to paycheck, which makes me believe you are pretty well off $150K a year or better. I'm not going to give you an itemized list of everything farmers use that is imported from China. Do your own research. And do you honestly think an American vehicles only uses American parts? Really? If a belt breaks or fuel pump goes bad, you just don't drive back to the tractor dealer and get a new one. You go to the local hardware or tractor supply store and find the parts to fix it yourself with "off brand" parts that can do the job. Much of those parts are Chinese and a lot cheaper. It's the only way to keep the overhead low enough to make any money. And yes, tons of animal feed is imported from China. Don't believe me? Look it up. Finding any type of dog food that doesn't contain ingredients imported from China. It's nearly impossible. Purina is one of the biggest importers of Chinese ingredients. Those things are subject to tariffs which make the cost of the food go up. It's common sense. The same goes for cattle feed, hog feed, chicken feed and virtually every other food for domesticated animals. I know this, because I've done my research. When I got my dogs, I wanted buy them feed that contained no Chinese imported ingredients, because China doesn't inspect their dog foods or the things that go in it. The brands containing Chinese ingredients kept getting recalled and animals were dying. After a long, exhausting search, I finally found a really good, affordable dog food made in Texas with all American ingredients except for two things, which were imported from Canada and I believe the other is Australia. Both countries have pet food inspection standards similar to the U.S. As far as blaming Clinton, Bush and Obama for every problem in the world, that's a typical "Trumper" response.

Our family income is roughly 1/4 of your guess. In spite of that we don't live paycheck to paycheck, we are just careful about not wasting money on expensive phones and fancy cars, nor live in a McMansion. So like everything else you believe, you were way off the mark. As a lower income American Trump's tax cuts were a big boon to us this year (specifically the doubling of the standard deduction).

You still never answered; what should Trump have done to stop the Chinese theft of intellectual property? Make a meaningless complaint and then ignore the lack of response? Complain to the UN so they can ignore it? Get into a shooting war with China? I think the tariff method will work with the least harm to the US. But if you have a better idea we'd all like to hear it. Did I miss some great plan to deal with that in the first debates? Maybe having the country flooded with foreigners getting free health care and college will solve the problem!

Dog food? DOG FOOD? So now your farmer neighbors are raising dogs? Do they also butcher them themselves, or just sell them to Perdue? I'm not a farmer but I know that cows, pigs, and chickens (you know, the animals farmers usually raise) eat mostly corn, and the US is a net exporter of corn which is the #1 crop in the US. And if your farmer neighbors can't afford the extra $2 for a tractor belt made in Korea then they have my sympathy. Have you asked your farmer friends why they haven't received their share of the billions in aid the US government has authorized to farmers to compensate for the tariff?

At least my blaming Clinshbama for the ethanol mandate raising feed prices, and for letting the China problem fester, has some basis in reality. Unlike you who blames everything on Trump. I guess you think he personally kidnapped all of those Guatemalan children just so he could put them into cages. Probably was the one who killed Nicole Brown Simpson too! But please, based on the first Dem debates which one would be better for the country than Trump? We all want to hear your opinion.

---

                                                                          

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

Trump is NOT a negotiator. He is a "demander". Period.

That's not the way the tax cuts were advertised to the American public. 

No they can't. You have animals to maintain and a short planting season. When you have animals that need to be maintained and plants that need to be planted, things can't be delayed. What equipment and supplies are Chinese? Do you want an itemized list? Find a farmer and ask them yourself. There are tons of everyday items, supplies and machinery that is imported from China. We imported a total of $539.5 billion worth of goods in 2018. That's a lot of stuff. You would think farm supplies would not be high on the list of things imported from China, but they import alot. Even meat is also imported to the U.S. from China. For instance, Smithfield was bought by the Chinese and now they are the top pork producers in the U.S. importing their meat from China. Chinese products are everywhere. There is no way to avoid them. If you run any type of business, you will have to deal with buying Chinese products. Farmers are not exempt. From animal feed to seeds to fertilizer to tractor parts to virtually thousands of other things which are subject to tariffs, the prices are skyrocketing and the American farmer is paying a huge price.

As others have pointed out, Trump gets results, and they are not the same as his demands. That's negotiation. Maybe not the way you think negotiation should be done, but it works. Do you think the Obama method of giving Iran everything they wanted and then more is the proper way to negotiate? Or maybe just ignoring the Europeans' failure to reach military spending as promised in the NATO treaty is proper negotiation?

Nobody knows the totality of what Iran's negotiators wanted in 2015, besides the people who were in the room.
A claim that they got everything they wanted is tantamount to a claim to know everything that they wanted, which is way beyond what any of us can say.

The rest of your post has similarly, but less obviously, wrong presumptions.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

As others have pointed out, Trump gets results, and they are not the same as his demands. That's negotiation. Maybe not the way you think negotiation should be done, but it works. Do you think the Obama method of giving Iran everything they wanted and then more is the proper way to negotiate? Or maybe just ignoring the Europeans' failure to reach military spending as promised in the NATO treaty is proper negotiation?

Nobody knows the totality of what Iran's negotiators wanted in 2015, besides the people who were in the room.
A claim that they got everything they wanted is tantamount to a claim to know everything that they wanted, which is way beyond what any of us can say.

The rest of your post has similarly, but less obviously, wrong presumptions.

That's a pathetic argument. If Iran had asked the US to turn over all of its nuclear weapons to the Ayatollah and execute every American non-Muslim you would be technically correct. You should have learned that "technically correct" has been refuted as a reasonable argument during the Concentration Camp discussion. 

But if I need to spell it out for you (and I wasn't addressing you) let's just say that Iran got everything they could reasonably expect, and more. They got back all of the money being held, sanctions ended, the right to enrich uranium, the right to build a nuclear weapon after ten years and no inspections by the US to verify that they wouldn't be building one before that. Right there is more than any sane person would give them. Then they got an additional pallet of cash as ransom payment.

---

                                                                          

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

Nobody knows the totality of what Iran's negotiators wanted in 2015, besides the people who were in the room.
A claim that they got everything they wanted is tantamount to a claim to know everything that they wanted, which is way beyond what any of us can say.

The rest of your post has similarly, but less obviously, wrong presumptions.

That's a pathetic argument. If Iran had asked the US to turn over all of its nuclear weapons to the Ayatollah and execute every American non-Muslim you would be technically correct. You should have learned that "technically correct" has been refuted as a reasonable argument during the Concentration Camp discussion. 

But if I need to spell it out for you (and I wasn't addressing you) let's just say that Iran got everything they could reasonably expect, and more. They got back all of the money being held, (1) sanctions ended, the right to enrich uranium, (2) the right to build a nuclear weapon after ten years and (3) no inspections by the US to verify that they wouldn't be building one before that. Right there is more than any sane person would give them. Then they got an additional pallet of cash as ransom payment.

(1) we had some sanctions against Iran after 2015.  Not as many, but some.
(2) all of the deal provisions ended after 10 years. It would have been renegotiated, perhaps renewed with no changes.  
(3) the IAEA was to do the inspections.  They are trustworthy.  There was no need for the US specifically to them.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That's a pathetic argument. If Iran had asked the US to turn over all of its nuclear weapons to the Ayatollah and execute every American non-Muslim you would be technically correct. You should have learned that "technically correct" has been refuted as a reasonable argument during the Concentration Camp discussion. 

But if I need to spell it out for you (and I wasn't addressing you) let's just say that Iran got everything they could reasonably expect, and more. They got back all of the money being held, (1) sanctions ended, the right to enrich uranium, (2) the right to build a nuclear weapon after ten years and (3) no inspections by the US to verify that they wouldn't be building one before that. Right there is more than any sane person would give them. Then they got an additional pallet of cash as ransom payment.

(1) we had some sanctions against Iran after 2015.  Not as many, but some.
(2) all of the deal provisions ended after 10 years. It would have been renegotiated, perhaps renewed with no changes.  
(3) the IAEA was to do the inspections.  They are trustworthy.  There was no need for the US specifically to them.

(1) So we still refuse to sell them military equipment. I feel so refuted!
(2) Going ten years without sanctions gives them plenty of cash to amass the materials needed for building a nuclear weapon. Why would they choose to renew unless they already had one?
(3) If you believe that you are even more gullible than I thought.

---

                                                                          

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

(1) we had some sanctions against Iran after 2015.  Not as many, but some.
(2) all of the deal provisions ended after 10 years. It would have been renegotiated, perhaps renewed with no changes.  
(3) the IAEA was to do the inspections.  They are trustworthy.  There was no need for the US specifically to them.

(1) So we still refuse to sell them military equipment. I feel so refuted!
(2) Going ten years without sanctions gives them plenty of cash to amass the materials needed for building a nuclear weapon. Why would they choose to renew unless they already had one?
(3) If you believe that you are even more gullible than I thought.

(1) it was more than just that.
(2) cash yes, materials no.  Certain critical items were still banned from being imported.
(3) you do know that US citizens are among the scientists that IAEA would have sent, right?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Not that I like agreeing with flsprtsgod at all, but he kind of has a point. I prefer to see a wolf for what it is, not hiding in sheep's clothing. I dislike Trump immensely but at least we know what he is.

I'm gonna win you over yet. I just want what's best for you, and what's best for you really has nothing at all to do with me.

I really feel like there's a romcom movie quote there.....or a line from some lovey dovey song. Lol

---

That's a pathetic argument. If Iran had asked the US to turn over all of its nuclear weapons to the Ayatollah and execute every American non-Muslim you would be technically correct. You should have learned that "technically correct" has been refuted as a reasonable argument during the Concentration Camp discussion. 

But if I need to spell it out for you (and I wasn't addressing you) let's just say that Iran got everything they could reasonably expect, and more. They got back all of the money being held, (1) sanctions ended, the right to enrich uranium, (2) the right to build a nuclear weapon after ten years and (3) no inspections by the US to verify that they wouldn't be building one before that. Right there is more than any sane person would give them. Then they got an additional pallet of cash as ransom payment.

(1) we had some sanctions against Iran after 2015.  Not as many, but some.
(2) all of the deal provisions ended after 10 years. It would have been renegotiated, perhaps renewed with no changes.  
(3) the IAEA was to do the inspections.  They are trustworthy.  There was no need for the US specifically to them.

Dude... you are so way off in this argument it isn't even funny anymore.

You will literally argue for evil just to be against something Trump has done.

You quite possibly have THE WORST case of TDS ever.

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-sec...ar-program

"The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week admitted an inconvenient truth. The U.N. watchdog, said Yukiya Amano, has proven unable to verify Iran’s compliance with Section T of the 2015 nuclear deal, which prohibits activities that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device."

"Contrary to widespread media reporting, the IAEA has never fully certified Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA."

The Iran deal was a bad deal made by a bad POTUS backed by a bunch of European idiots who lean on the US to pay for all of the meddling and nonsense that goes on over there.
Iran didn't even fully comply with the "deal" and it did nothing to improve the situation in the Middle East.


It is absolutely laughable that you can even try to defend, not just the deal

---

What is so sad is the way that the left and the dems are after their "debate" (public ad for every candidate).

We have one lefty thinking that Iran has been doing what they were supposed to do after the "deal" that the previous president made with them.  That obviously has not happened with Iran bragging about going against the  "deal".  Lesson learned.  Giving a rouge regime "flexibility" and a pallet of cash isn't going to fix the problem.

Why this announcement from Iran?  Why the attack on the tankers and the shooting down of our drone?  Because the sanctions put in place by the current administration are working.  Their economy is suffering because of it and eventually it will force them back to the negotiating table.

Why did the Mexican government choose to do what they have done regarding the border crisis?  Because of the threat of tariffs became a reality and would hurt their economy much worse than ours.

Why does a dictator agree to meet with our President at the DMZ and invite him into the country?  While many leftists say that it was "dangerous" and a "photo op" it was actually a historic moment.  Kim Jun Un did it because he see's that our current President isn't [BLEEP] around.

Meanwhile after I finally got to watch the "debates" (democrat advertising) in their entirety I got the following from them (note, nothing really on foreign policy or the economy).

1  "Free" college

2. "Free" healthcare to all including those that broke the law and entered the country illegally.

3. Forgive the debt that people signed a contract for (student loans).  I personally have paid off every single loan that I ever made.

4.  Give "reparations" to black people because at one time black people were slaves in this country.

5.  Corporations are bad MKAY?

6.  We need to confiscate the wealth of some individuals because they are wealthy.

7.  We need to tax individuals that earn a very good salary that you know... they EARNED it.

8.  We need to repeal the President Trump tax cuts because it only benefits the "very top" of our income earners.  I don't know about anyone else on this board but between my wife and I we earn a 6 figure income.  We are FAR away from the "top 1%" of wage earners.  I consider us middle class or perhaps "upper middle class" if we really want to put people into categories.  I saw my actual income tax bill go down this year.  I'm not talking about "how much you get back" when filing your taxes or "how much you have to pay".  I look at the line on my tax forms that shows total tax owed and mine was less this year.

9.  Most it not all of them complained about the economy "working for everybody".  There are more jobs available right now and so much money to be made.  The economy is roaring and the stock market is breaking all time highs right now.  Lower information people that might contribute a small amount into their company provided 401k probably don't realize that they are making money.

In the end, the democrat party has moved so far left and has been embracing socialist policies and quite frankly none of them have a real vision for the future.  They have turned into the party of seizing wealth and distributing it as they see fit in order to stay in power.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

(1) we had some sanctions against Iran after 2015.  Not as many, but some.
(2) all of the deal provisions ended after 10 years. It would have been renegotiated, perhaps renewed with no changes.  
(3) the IAEA was to do the inspections.  They are trustworthy.  There was no need for the US specifically to them.

Dude... you are so way off in this argument it isn't even funny anymore.

You will literally argue for evil just to be against something Trump has done.

You quite possibly have THE WORST case of TDS ever.

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-sec...ar-program

"The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week admitted an inconvenient truth. The U.N. watchdog, said Yukiya Amano, has proven unable to verify Iran’s compliance with Section T of the 2015 nuclear deal, which prohibits activities that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device."

"Contrary to widespread media reporting, the IAEA has never fully certified Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA."

The Iran deal was a bad deal made by a bad POTUS backed by a bunch of European idiots who lean on the US to pay for all of the meddling and nonsense that goes on over there.
Iran didn't even fully comply with the "deal" and it did nothing to improve the situation in the Middle East.


It is absolutely laughable that you can even try to defend, not just the deal

That article was filed under opinion.
The usually credible website allowed that man to publish with a byline explaining who pays him.
The organization named gets most of its money from Sheldon Adelson.

But I don't think either of us like to dismiss things just because people we've disagreed with in the past wrote them.

So I read the article to see if it made sense. And it did make sense, but in the wrong way.
The headline of the article says that the IAEA never certified Iran as being fully compliant with the treaty.
But as the article goes on to explain, the task of certifying was left to the seven individual member countries of the treaty. The IAEA consists of many more than just seven countries.
Each of the seven countries was authorized to have a certain number of representatives on the ground with certain instruments to observe certain things.
And then the President of each country was to get those seven reports and make his or her own decision about if the reports said that all parties were complying with the treaty.
You should remember this, because early in Donald Trump's term, he had to issue some of these declarations. Trump himself certified that Iran was complying with what was required by the treaty, before he ultimately decided to cancel US participation in the treaty altogether.
When Trump pulled out, he did not claim that Iran was violating the treaty. He just said that it was a bad treaty.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Dude... you are so way off in this argument it isn't even funny anymore.

You will literally argue for evil just to be against something Trump has done.

You quite possibly have THE WORST case of TDS ever.

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-sec...ar-program

"The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week admitted an inconvenient truth. The U.N. watchdog, said Yukiya Amano, has proven unable to verify Iran’s compliance with Section T of the 2015 nuclear deal, which prohibits activities that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device."

"Contrary to widespread media reporting, the IAEA has never fully certified Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA."

The Iran deal was a bad deal made by a bad POTUS backed by a bunch of European idiots who lean on the US to pay for all of the meddling and nonsense that goes on over there.
Iran didn't even fully comply with the "deal" and it did nothing to improve the situation in the Middle East.


It is absolutely laughable that you can even try to defend, not just the deal

That article was filed under opinion.
The usually credible website allowed that man to publish with a byline explaining who pays him.
The organization named gets most of its money from Sheldon Adelson.

But I don't think either of us like to dismiss things just because people we've disagreed with in the past wrote them.

So I read the article to see if it made sense. And it did make sense, but in the wrong way.
The headline of the article says that the IAEA never certified Iran as being fully compliant with the treaty.
But as the article goes on to explain, the task of certifying was left to the seven individual member countries of the treaty. The IAEA consists of many more than just seven countries.
Each of the seven countries was authorized to have a certain number of representatives on the ground with certain instruments to observe certain things.
And then the President of each country was to get those seven reports and make his or her own decision about if the reports said that all parties were complying with the treaty.
You should remember this, because early in Donald Trump's term, he had to issue some of these declarations. Trump himself certified that Iran was complying with what was required by the treaty, before he ultimately decided to cancel US participation in the treaty altogether.
When Trump pulled out, he did not claim that Iran was violating the treaty. He just said that it was a bad treaty.

I don't recall Trump ever making a claim Iran was in compliance. Do you have a link supporting this?

---

Also getting out of the Iran deal was a campaign promise. Did he somehow have access to the intelligence on what the Iranians were doing before he even ran for office?

---

That article was filed under opinion.
The usually credible website allowed that man to publish with a byline explaining who pays him.
The organization named gets most of its money from Sheldon Adelson.

But I don't think either of us like to dismiss things just because people we've disagreed with in the past wrote them.

So I read the article to see if it made sense. And it did make sense, but in the wrong way.
The headline of the article says that the IAEA never certified Iran as being fully compliant with the treaty.
But as the article goes on to explain, the task of certifying was left to the seven individual member countries of the treaty. The IAEA consists of many more than just seven countries.
Each of the seven countries was authorized to have a certain number of representatives on the ground with certain instruments to observe certain things.
And then the President of each country was to get those seven reports and make his or her own decision about if the reports said that all parties were complying with the treaty.
You should remember this, because early in Donald Trump's term, he had to issue some of these declarations. Trump himself certified that Iran was complying with what was required by the treaty, before he ultimately decided to cancel US participation in the treaty altogether.
When Trump pulled out, he did not claim that Iran was violating the treaty. He just said that it was a bad treaty.

I don't recall Trump ever making a claim Iran was in compliance. Do you have a link supporting this?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42670577

---

Also getting out of the Iran deal was a campaign promise. Did he somehow have access to the intelligence on what the Iranians were doing before he even ran for office?

Trump did not claim to know if Iran was complying or not.

He promised to get out of the deal because he was going to negotiate a tougher one instead, perhaps a permanent one.

the Quran forbids Muslim countries from making permanent treaties with non-muslim countries.

But, Trump's going to Trump.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I don't recall Trump ever making a claim Iran was in compliance. Do you have a link supporting this?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42670577

---

Also getting out of the Iran deal was a campaign promise. Did he somehow have access to the intelligence on what the Iranians were doing before he even ran for office?

Trump did not claim to know if Iran was complying or not.

He promised to get out of the deal because he was going to negotiate a tougher one instead, perhaps a permanent one.

the Quran forbids Muslim countries from making permanent treaties with non-muslim countries.

But, Trump's going to Trump.

From your own article...

"Is the current deal working?
In October, President Trump refused to certify that Iran complied with the accord, accusing the country of "not living up to the spirit" of the pact." From day one, he suggested they were never in compliance and the only reason he did certify a time or two was to get his people to research a bit while following the disputed measure in the agreement.

Anytime you have to refer to a piece of foreign policy as a deal; it is not an honest effort towards the stated end game. This 'deal' was a bust from the beginning and more of a financial agreement than a nuclear non-proliferation agreement. Compliance was solely through distance monitoring and Iranian report submittal. Inspectors were never going to be allowed access to any location other than what was initially submitted by Iran. Yep, that's legit. Furthermore, equipment not domesticaly produced and the material associated, ie. Russian, Chinese, etc. does not get marked against the equipment or materials listings and banned amounts. This thing was a mess and reads like one of the worst "voluntary" contracts I've ever seen. It is impossible to verify total compliance. You can read it yourself below:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentclou...r-deal.pdf

---

Democrats: "If Americans wont buy health insurance we'll fine them $700."

Also Democrats: "We are going to give illegals free health care."

Mikesez: 260 posts on why this is good policy, actually bad for illegals and proof the Dems are serious about immigration reform, good for the economy but bad for rich people, a winning platform for the Dems and something Republicans should compromise on, and at the end of the day really all Trump's fault anyhow.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42670577

---

Trump did not claim to know if Iran was complying or not.

He promised to get out of the deal because he was going to negotiate a tougher one instead, perhaps a permanent one.

the Quran forbids Muslim countries from making permanent treaties with non-muslim countries.

But, Trump's going to Trump.

From your own article...

"Is the current deal working?
In October, President Trump refused to certify that Iran complied with the accord, accusing the country of "not living up to the spirit" of the pact." From day one, he suggested they were never in compliance and the only reason he did certify a time or two was to get his people to research a bit while following the disputed measure in the agreement.

Anytime you have to refer to a piece of foreign policy as a deal; it is not an honest effort towards the stated end game. This 'deal' was a bust from the beginning and more of a financial agreement than a nuclear non-proliferation agreement. Compliance was solely through distance monitoring and Iranian report submittal. Inspectors were never going to be allowed access to any location other than what was initially submitted by Iran. Yep, that's legit. Furthermore, equipment not domesticaly produced and the material associated, ie. Russian, Chinese, etc. does not get marked against the equipment or materials listings and banned amounts. This thing was a mess and reads like one of the worst "voluntary" contracts I've ever seen. It is impossible to verify total compliance. You can read it yourself below:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentclou...r-deal.pdf

The thing about fissile material is that it radiates.  The by-products and beta particles spread for miles. As long as you're reasonably close to the suspected source, and have working equipment, you'll be able to figure out if things are ramping up or down.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

From your own article...

"Is the current deal working?
In October, President Trump refused to certify that Iran complied with the accord, accusing the country of "not living up to the spirit" of the pact." From day one, he suggested they were never in compliance and the only reason he did certify a time or two was to get his people to research a bit while following the disputed measure in the agreement.

Anytime you have to refer to a piece of foreign policy as a deal; it is not an honest effort towards the stated end game. This 'deal' was a bust from the beginning and more of a financial agreement than a nuclear non-proliferation agreement. Compliance was solely through distance monitoring and Iranian report submittal. Inspectors were never going to be allowed access to any location other than what was initially submitted by Iran. Yep, that's legit. Furthermore, equipment not domesticaly produced and the material associated, ie. Russian, Chinese, etc. does not get marked against the equipment or materials listings and banned amounts. This thing was a mess and reads like one of the worst "voluntary" contracts I've ever seen. It is impossible to verify total compliance. You can read it yourself below:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentclou...r-deal.pdf

The thing about fissile material is that it radiates.  The by-products and beta particles spread for miles. As long as you're reasonably close to the suspected source, and have working equipment, you'll be able to figure out if things are ramping up or down.

You're assuming all sources are submitted and that distant detection devices are actually measuring quantities or dosage levels. That is not the case as half-lives, temps, humidity, precipitation, etc. makes detection efficiency non-binding. Surveillance is done by camera, seals, human inspectors, documentation, and weight measurements. Bottom line...Iran determines voluntary compliance. Oh, FYI, inspectable sites do not include military facilities.

Do you think if Iran was truly compliant with the context of the agreement that they would be able to produce an additional 418 pounds of enriched uranium in a matter of a month? Which also means they have newer and an increased number of centrifuges!

---