As we approach the last act of this Trumpion tragi-comedy - -

Floridatexan wrote:
Trump in Alabama:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/23/politics/donald-trump-alabama-speech/index.html?sr=fbCNN092317donald-trump-alabama-speech0137PMVODtop

ALTLEFTCRIMINALS wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:Tell me Pkrbum:  Why should we waste time legally investigating and possibly prosecuting former office holders when our country is being sabotaged RIGHT NOW by criminals who are actually in power at this moment? !  

If we are a nation of laws, the current folks will be taken down as well, saying that the former office holders are exempt shows your hypocrisy, which all of you leftists have to the Nth degree.

PkrBum wrote:Like the overthrow of Libya, the interferences in Egypt, red line in Syria, and the bombing  of numerous other muslin nations by Obama?

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Like the overthrow of Libya, the interferences in Egypt, red line in Syria, and the bombing  of numerous other muslin nations by Obama?

Are you saying there Americans dying on the battlefield today in Libya or Egypt -- as a result of Obama's orders?  Or are you just desperate to defend the Pussy Grabber and his basket of deplorables?

PkrBum wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Like the overthrow of Libya, the interferences in Egypt, red line in Syria, and the bombing  of numerous other muslin nations by Obama?

Are you saying there Americans dying on the battlefield today in Libya or Egypt -- as a result of Obama's orders?  Or are you just desperate to defend the Pussy Grabber and his basket of deplorables?

You were for all those things and more... like the assassination of a juvenile citizen?

Checked out Obama's NDAA?  But now you're all spun up about the war powers?

Cmon... at least feign some objectivity.  

Wordslinger wrote:
Whether I express objectivity acceptable to you or not is irrelevant.  Obama was stable.  Trump isn't.  Nothing Obama did during his years in office    put the world on the threshold of nuclear war.  When you put a magnifying glass on any of our past president's actions while in office, you'll surely find discrepancies.  You have a deeply flawed and self-destructive character.  Your penchant for hiding behind the concept that if a leader from one party did bad things, it's somehow okay for the president of the other side to do so.

I'm glad I really don't know you.  

Wordslinger wrote:Whether I express objectivity acceptable to you or not is irrelevant.  Obama was stable.  Trump isn't.  Nothing Obama did during his years in office    put the world on the threshold of nuclear war.  When you put a magnifying glass on any of our past president's actions while in office, you'll surely find discrepancies.  You have a deeply flawed and self-destructive character.  Your penchant for hiding behind the concept that if a leader from one party did bad things, it's somehow okay for the president of the other side to do so.

I'm glad I really don't know you.  

Wordslinger wrote:Whether I express objectivity acceptable to you or not is irrelevant. It is relevant if you want to be taken seriously 

Obama was stable.  Subjective
Trump isn't.  Subjective
Nothing Obama did during his years in office put the world on the threshold of nuclear war. His Iran deal and destabilizing ME policies likely did 
When you put a magnifying glass on any of our past president's actions while in office, you'll surely find discrepancies. Subjective 
You have a deeply flawed and self-destructive character.  Subjective
Your penchant for hiding behind the concept that if a leader from one party did bad things, it's somehow okay for the president of the other side to do so. See Bush blame for the entire Obama term

I'm glad I really don't know you.

PkrBum wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:Whether I express objectivity acceptable to you or not is irrelevant. It is relevant if you want to be taken seriously 

Obama was stable.  Subjective
Trump isn't.  Subjective
Nothing Obama did during his years in office put the world on the threshold of nuclear war. His Iran deal and destabilizing ME policies likely did 
When you put a magnifying glass on any of our past president's actions while in office, you'll surely find discrepancies. Subjective 
You have a deeply flawed and self-destructive character.  Subjective
Your penchant for hiding behind the concept that if a leader from one party did bad things, it's somehow okay for the president of the other side to do so. See Bush blame for the entire Obama term

I'm glad I really don't know you.

A personal jab doesn't add credibility

PkrBum wrote:"Nothing Obama did moved the USA towards nuclear war. Fact. His Iran deal had the blessing of several of our allies and its validity with Iran was stressed in an interview yesterday with Iran's foreign minister and Fareed Zakaria."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451404/trump-should-decertify-iran-nuclear-deal-ignore-experts

Over the past three years, the IAEA and Washington have routinely ignored reports about a variety of problems, including obstruction of inspections, illegal attempts to purchase nuclear and missile technology, and exceeding the limits on uranium enrichment and production of heavy water. Viewed in isolation, each violation is insufficient to justify threatening Iran with new sanctions or an end to the deal. So the signatories ignore or rationalize the infractions.

In the negotiations that led to the deal, Obama and the secretary of state jettisoned their demand that Iran end its nuclear program and stop advanced nuclear research, and that it concede it had no right to enrich uranium, They always saw getting an agreement on any terms as more important than the details. The same applies to keeping it in place despite multiple violations. That’s why the arms-control community wound up endorsing a deal that did not put an end to the Iranian threat; at best, it kicked the can down the road for a few years on proliferation.

But the point of isolating the Islamist republic via sanctions wasn’t to “reduce the risk” of a nuclear Iran; it was to end the risk altogether. Even if Iran is complying with the terms of the JCPOA, it allows them to go on working toward a bomb. Moreover, the JCPOA expires within a decade, so the deal can’t be said to be doing much to make the world safer.

In order to be a true success, the JCPOA would have to prevent a breakout — not be in position to sound the alarm after it’s too late to do anything about it. The 80 experts assert in their letter that the JCPOA’s main achievement is to make it “very likely” that future Iranian efforts to produce a bomb would be “detected promptly.” That is setting a very low bar.

Leaving aside the sketchy nature of the intelligence that the West has about Iran’s nuclear program, and that the inspections mandated by the deal don’t include military facilities, there is little reason to have confidence that monitoring is working. And prompt detection of a nuclear “breakout” won’t mean much if it doesn’t give an international community that is already predisposed to complacency the time to act. In order to be a true success, the JCPOA would have to prevent a breakout — not be in position to sound the alarm after it’s too late to do anything about it.

But just as important is something that Trump has repeatedly pointed out, only to be told that he doesn’t “get it.” Obama believed that the deal would be an object lesson in the wisdom of multilateralism and diplomacy and that it would give Iran an opportunity to “get right with the world.” But what has happened since his signature foreign-policy achievement has conclusively demonstrated that Obama’s hopes were pipe dreams.

Buoyed by the end of sanctions and the release of frozen assets, Iran has doubled down on a foreign policy whose goal is regional hegemony. Iran remains the leading state sponsor of international terrorism. What’s worse, Obama’s desire for a nuclear deal, at almost any cost, made the U.S. ignore Iranian threats. That’s why the U.S. tacitly allowed Iran to intervene in Syria while also consolidating its influence in Shia-dominated Iraq. That has led to the creation of what, for all intents and purposes, is an Iranian land bridge that extends from Tehran all the way to Lebanon, which is dominated by the mullahs’ Hezbollah auxiliaries.

For all of his faults, Trump’s instinctive desire to end the nuclear deal is more reality-based than the arguments of his critics. The JCPOA treated nonproliferation as the prime objective of Iran policy, and it made only weak attempts to reach this goal. The consequences are far-reaching. Iran is still on a path to a bomb — made more certain by the fact that its nuclear program now has the West’s seal of approval. And it’s also strengthened by the economic carrots that came when the stick of sanctions was removed. Iran’s renewal of its alliance with Hamas — which had been broken off over a disagreement about the Syrian civil war — will enrich another terror group while also giving Tehran the ability to start a three-front war on Israel at a time of its own choosing.

PkrBum wrote: