Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    11 May '18 11:58
    http://thehill.com/policy/international/386894-schumer-to-trump-hostages-arent-bargaining-chips

    Apparently Chucky Cheese got upset over Trump getting hostages released from NK. I reckon this is why Obama did not get hostages released with Iran after he gave them all that money.

    Makes sense.
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52855
    11 May '18 12:07
    Originally posted by @whodey
    http://thehill.com/policy/international/386894-schumer-to-trump-hostages-arent-bargaining-chips

    Apparently Chucky Cheese got upset over Trump getting hostages released from NK. I reckon this is why Obama did not get hostages released with Iran after he gave them all that money.

    Makes sense.
    Obama? Iranian hostages? I hope you realize the Iranian hostages happened in 1979 and it was the election of Reagan that got those hostages released because they knew we would come in guns blazing if they hadn't done that.
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    11 May '18 12:081 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey
    http://thehill.com/policy/international/386894-schumer-to-trump-hostages-arent-bargaining-chips

    Apparently Chucky Cheese got upset over Trump getting hostages released from NK. I reckon this is why Obama did not get hostages released with Iran after he gave them all that money.

    Makes sense.
    A) Schumer didn't get upset;

    B) As has been explained to you many times on this board, the only money Iran got in the deal was its own which it was going to get anyway as soon as legal proceedings were concluded (in fact, it's highly likely they would have gotten more);

    C) US prisoners were released at the same time as the Iran deal; in fact, Trump just complained about it. https://nypost.com/2018/05/10/trump-unlike-obama-we-didnt-pay-for-release-of-us-prisoners/
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    11 May '18 12:24
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    A) Schumer didn't get upset;

    B) As has been explained to you many times on this board, the only money Iran got in the deal was its own which it was going to get anyway as soon as legal proceedings were concluded (in fact, it's highly likely they would have gotten more);

    C) US prisoners were released at the same time as the Iran deal; in fact, Trum ...[text shortened]... t it. https://nypost.com/2018/05/10/trump-unlike-obama-we-didnt-pay-for-release-of-us-prisoners/
    Oh, that's right. Obama sent all that money to Iran and then all of a sudden they released the hostages, although Obama swore the money had nothing to do with the hostage release.

    Why was Chucky Schumer not upset with that transaction? In fact, what money did Trump give NK? What, if anything, did Trump give NK to have the hostages released?
  5. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    81360
    11 May '18 12:25
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    A) Schumer didn't get upset;

    B) As has been explained to you many times on this board, the only money Iran got in the deal was its own which it was going to get anyway as soon as legal proceedings were concluded (in fact, it's highly likely they would have gotten more);

    C) US prisoners were released at the same time as the Iran deal; in fact, Trum ...[text shortened]... t it. https://nypost.com/2018/05/10/trump-unlike-obama-we-didnt-pay-for-release-of-us-prisoners/
    " which it was going to get anyway as soon as legal proceedings were concluded"

    why the rush under the cover of darkness then?

    you don't even believe your own lies.
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    11 May '18 12:31
    Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
    " which it was going to get anyway as soon as legal proceedings were concluded"

    why the rush under the cover of darkness then?

    you don't even believe your own lies.
    Huh? The Iran Agreement was "under cover of darkness"?

    Even someone as terminally stupid as you should be able to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework

    I don't see any "lies" in my post.
  7. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    11 May '18 12:32
    Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
    " which it was going to get anyway as soon as legal proceedings were concluded"

    why the rush under the cover of darkness then?

    you don't even believe your own lies.
    Now, now, I'm sure all that money going to Iran had nothing to do with Iran all of a sudden wanting to release those hostages.
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    11 May '18 12:33
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Huh? The Iran Agreement was "under cover of darkness"?

    Even someone as terminally stupid as you should be able to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework

    I don't see any "lies" in my post.
    So why was Schumer not upset over that transaction, or is this just more partisan hypocritical derangement?
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    11 May '18 12:35
    While the release of the prisoners is definitely a positive development, one might question the degree of ass-kissing of Kim that Trump engaged in:

    Mr. Trump thanked Mr. Kim for releasing Americans that North Korea had effectively kidnapped. Mr. Kim, he said, “really was excellent to these three incredible people.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/world/asia/trump-north-korea-singapore.html

    IF they were unjustifiably imprisoned for years as the US claims, that's hardly what most would consider being "excellent" to them.

    For whodey from the same article:

    Previous administrations, including President Barack Obama’s, secured the release of imprisoned Americans from North Korea without promising a summit meeting or improved diplomatic relations.
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    11 May '18 12:37
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Now, now, I'm sure all that money going to Iran had nothing to do with Iran all of a sudden wanting to release those hostages.
    How many times do we have to go through this? You know that a Court was going to award that money (and possibly quite a bit more) to Iran. If the US got concessions for paying money it was going to have to anyway, so what?
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    11 May '18 12:382 edits
    Originally posted by @whodey
    So why was Schumer not upset over that transaction, or is this just more partisan hypocritical derangement?
    You are saying Schumer was "upset". That usually means the thing claimed is false (as it is here).

    Schumer was saying the US government should be careful about publicly linking the release of prisoners to other matters as dimwit Donald did because it might encourage hostage taking. That seems like common sense. It's probably true, however, that Chuck wouldn't have said the same thing if a Democrat was President under the same circumstances. IF a Democrat was, I'm sure we'd get a far harsher rejection from right wingers if that President said a foreign dictator had been "excellent" to US citizens supposedly imprisoned on false charges.
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    11 May '18 12:391 edit
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    While the release of the prisoners is definitely a positive development, one might question the degree of ass-kissing of Kim that Trump engaged in:

    Mr. Trump thanked Mr. Kim for releasing Americans that North Korea had effectively kidnapped. Mr. Kim, he said, “really was excellent to these three incredible people.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/ ...[text shortened]... Americans from North Korea without promising a summit meeting or improved diplomatic relations.
    Trump promised better relations?

    Where exactly did he say that?

    And why is this release bad when under Obama it was good?

    Is meeting with NK bad?
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    11 May '18 12:45
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Trump promised better relations?

    Where exactly did he say that?

    And why is this release bad when under Obama it was good?

    Is meeting with NK bad?
    Is there an "or" between the words "summit meeting" and "improved relations"? Are you familiar with what that means in the English language?

    The release was "good" and no one has said any differently.

    I'm fine with the meeting.
  14. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35848
    11 May '18 20:14
    Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
    " which it was going to get anyway as soon as legal proceedings were concluded"

    why the rush under the cover of darkness then?

    you don't even believe your own lies.
    But you sure believe yours.
Back to Top