President Trump announces he's going to send the Iran deal to Congress so Democrats are FORCED to support a NUCLEAR IRAN to the American people..
"The DUMOCRATS would say 'they should have a nuclear weapon!' I like the idea! *Looks at his team* Send it to Congress!" 🔥🔥
(twitter.com)
💥 BOOOOOOM 💥
😆😂President Trump drops this HILARIOUS line
"I should send [the Iran deal] to Congress saying, 'you shouldn't approve it!'"
"Then I'll get it approved!"
"Whatever I say, they do the opposite!" 🤣
I'm keeping this in the back of my mind. President Trump is going to fully expose the traitorous Obama deal with Iran. This may be a factor.
That's actually one of the things I'm curious about.
If Trump's deal is going to expose how bad Obama's deal was, then the comparison should be straightforward.
What specifically is different?
Because so far I've heard "not taxpayer money" and "economic benefits to Iran" used as criticisms of Obama's deal, but now I'm hearing those same things dismissed as irrelevant when discussing Trump's deal.
If the new deal is genuinely better, I'd like to know exactly why, beyond just who negotiated it.
Every one of your posts reeks of anti-Trump sentiment. I checked. Not fooling anyone.
No, it's not anti-Trump. It's having one set of standards that I apply to everyone equally.
I'm also pointing out that these are 100% arguments that you'll hear from liberals and normies, so best be prepared for them.
If I was truly anti-Trump, I would gleefully be encouraging people to go spread this type of stuff far and wide to anyone they can tell it to, and then sit back and laugh when they had their asses handed to them in front of everyone.
One thing I find interesting is that Obama was accused of practically committing treason for allowing Iran access to money that critics said would benefit the regime.
Now I'm hearing "it's not taxpayer money" and "it's just sanctions relief" as defenses.
Those sound a lot like the arguments Obama supporters were making a decade ago.
If this deal is better, that's fine. But I think the explanation should be why it's better, not why the old criticisms suddenly don't matter anymore.
Has the Iranian government changed?
So many of the leaders were killed in this conflict, who's in charge these days and what do we know about them?
That's a fair question.
But notice that's a different argument than "it's not taxpayer money" or "it's just sanctions relief."
If the case is that Iran's government is materially different today than it was under the JCPOA, then that's an actual distinction worth discussing.
That's exactly the kind of difference I'm looking for when I ask how this deal differs from Obama's.
What's your opinion? What differences do you see in this regime that contrast the most with the one under Obama?
Funny thing is that this isn't about CONGRESS... this is about ISRAEL.
Everyone knows that Israel doesn't want the Iran peace deal. Everyone also knows that Israel controls roughly 1/2 of the House and Senate members, either through bribery, extortion or other means.
Now... Pres. Trump send the Iran peace deal through Congress. Congressmen have two options:
Vote for the Iran Peace Deal, stating that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons and opening the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping... and upset Israel.
Support Israel by voting against the Iran Peace Deal... and voting for Iran to have nuclear weapons. It will expose which congress people are totally controlled.
He should do it. But dem voters won't care. They only believe what the fake news tells them. No amount of outing Democrats in any way affects their vote. Still, it would be fun to watch.
I bet the foriegn born scum that are in the house/senate have no issue with Iran having a nuke.
brilliant! - if the Dumocrats filibuster…
putting the treaty before the Senate and put all the Senators on record!
I hope someone in the Senate compares this deal with Obuma’s $ giveaway
Every one of them are already coming up with some way to spin it.
Remember Pelosi's "spark of divinity" speech re: ms13...those were good ole days..!!