Aug 192016
 

I know you’ll all be stunned, but the State Department has essentially admitted that that $400 million cash payment to the mullahs in Iran was actually a ransom payment:

State Dept.: $400M to Iran was contingent on US prisoners’ release

Let me think: did the current Administration say something that indicated that it *wasn’t* a ransom payment? Hmmm…

Groovy. Expect to see Americans get kidnapped around the world at an accelerated pace now that scumbags across the globe know that the US government will pay up to $100 *million* per hostage.

 Posted by at 12:02 am
  • James

    So yes it was Ransom. God if it was someone other than trump to vote for i’d be happy. But jesus, Can I just vote in tomato soup

    • sferrin

      So you’re voting for Hillary eh? If she gets in you’ll be looking back at the Obama years with fondness. With Trump at least BOTH sides (Ds AND Rs) will keep him from doing anything stupid. With Hillary the Democrats will help her RAM shit down our throats.

      • Scottlowther

        > So you’re voting for Hillary eh?

        Oy. That’s a weak and dishonest “argument” I’m getting incredibly sick of. No, not voting Trump is not voting Hillary. There are other options such as voting McMullin or Johnson… or voting for *nobody.* Neither of those is a vote for Hillary. And given that Trump is increasingly falling behind – he is fallen so far that even *Utah* is in play for the Democrats – then the question is less “how to make Trump win” and more “how to set things up for 2020.”

        I’m seeing Hillary as being increasingly inevitable, largely due to Trump being an astonishingly bad Republican candidate. I’m becoming increasingly convinced that the idea that Trump *intends* to throw the election is valid. So if Trump is *going* to lose, then your best choice is to *not* vote for him, but to vote for someone else. Yes, that someone else is *also* probably going to lose, but if he gets enough, then he’ll be well positioned for 2020.

        • sferrin

          “Oy. That’s a weak and dishonest “argument” I’m getting incredibly sick of. No, not voting Trump is not voting Hillary. There are other options such as voting McMullin or Johnson… or voting for *nobody.* Neither of those is a vote for Hillary.”

          “Dishonest”? What’s dishonest about it? Make no mistake, Trump would not be my first, second, or third choice, but none of my choices are running. So, knowing that a 3rd party candidate has ZERO chance of winning, how is throwing your vote to a third party (and taking a vote from the person with the best chance of beating Hillary) NOT, in effect, a vote for Hillary? It’s one less vote she has to get to beat Trump, which is no different than if the vote had actually be cast for Hillary.

          • Scottlowther

            > “Dishonest”? What’s dishonest about it?

            You should have read the rest of my comment before hitting reply. Not voting for Candidate A is no more a vote for Candidate B than bald is a hair color, atheism is a religion, or deciding to drink vodka rather than Pepsi is an endorsement of coffee.

            > knowing that a 3rd party candidate has ZERO chance of winning

            And at this time, it looks like Trump has a zero percent chance of winning. Things may be different come November. Maybe he will have turned it around. Maybe he will have made it worse. But, let’s assume for the moment that come election day, Trump is *clearly* going to lose in a historical fashion. If you know he’s going to lose, then any vote cast for him is a vote thrown away. But that can be said for any candidate you know is going to lose. When I lived in California, I voted for Republicans, knowing there was no chance they’d be the incumbent Democrats. Similarly, Dems here in Utah vote into the abyss when voting against incumbent Reps. Yet, we all still vote. So, knowing Trumps going to lose… why vote for Trump as opposed to someone else you also know is going to lose, but whom you know would be better than Trump *next* time?

            If, come election day, the polls are way closer than they are now, the equation changes.

          • sferrin

            “You should have read the rest of my comment before hitting reply.”

            I did. Nothing in that post, or your subsequent one, explains how me making the comment is dishonest. Incorrect? Possibly, but not demonstrably so. But dishonest? No. Dishonest implies a desire to deceive or knowingly misrepresent. I did no such thing. Reducing the number of votes Candidate A needs to win, either by adding one vote to their column, or subtracting one vote from their biggest competitor, makes no difference in the outcome. They are effectively identical.

            As to your other point if Trump were at 15% and door #3 was also at 15% then yeah, whichever you vote for of the two doesn’t matter at that point. And yeah, I wonder at times as well if Trump doesn’t intend to throw it. Time will tell.

          • publiusr
          • Scottlowther

            > Nothing in that post, or your subsequent one, explains how me making the comment is dishonest.

            Because it’s basically the political equivalent of “it’s just a theory.” *You* know that it is inaccurate to say that not voting for Trump is voting for Hillary. You know better than that. Leave the dishonest tactics to those who vote for Hillary. Again, it’s all they have.

            > whichever you vote for of the two doesn’t matter at that point.

            Actually it does. In *this* election, if A wins 70% and B gets 15% and c gets 15%… sure, A wins and it doesn’t matter if all of C’s 15% would have gone to B. But in the *next* election, C will be remembered as having equaled or even bested B. Imagine if in 2020 the Reps actually nominate a good libertarian candidate because they recognize that that’s where the votes are.

          • sferrin

            “Imagine if in 2020 the Reps actually nominate a good libertarian
            candidate because they recognize that that’s where the votes are.”

            I think we’re past the tipping point. Too many people want the free shit, and think life is too hard, to vote for anybody who doesn’t tell them they’re downtrodden little snowflakes who need the government to hold their hand from cradle to grave. I don’t know how it’ll ever turn around. Add up the Hillary and Bernie supporters and they outnumber everybody else.

        • Peter Hanely

          The polls being reported by the major media are as crooked as what’s coming out of DC. They aren’t being conducted to measure opinion, but to shape opinion. As for the 2020 election, if the Hildebeast steals this election I expect the regime, including the supreme court, to be fully weaponized to ensure continued democrat rule. We win it here and now, or it’s on to less civilized means of political debate.

          • sferrin

            It’s likely the next president will appoint 2-3 SC judges. We’ve seen how the left – leaning half are pretty much just pawns for the Democrats. The very real possibility is the SC becomes the weapon the Democrats use to kill off individual freedoms and transform the country into another Venezuela.

          • Scottlowther

            > the next president will appoint 2-3 SC judges

            Sure. But the next president is increasingly unlikely to be anyone but Hillary. The fact that I don’t like that outcome doesn’t mean that that outcome won’t happen.

          • sferrin

            What it means is it’s more important to beat her THIS time than to throw your vote away in hopes of beating her NEXT time with some 3rd – party nobody one might feel is better than Trump. At this point it’s damage control.

          • Scottlowther

            The problem, *again,* is that it’s unlikely that Trump *can* beat Hillary. The way he keeps torpedoing his own campaign it’s getting harder and harder to believe that he’s *not* trying to throw the election. So, if it becomes impossible for him to win… what do you do?

          • sferrin

            Stock up on TP I suppose. Gonna be interesting.

  • sferrin

    Even the Iranians are stealing Zero’s lunch money. What a chump.

  • Jandanagger Laterobinson

    Jesus. Doesn’t anybody fact check anymore ?

    The prisoners were ransom for the cash. The cash wasn’t ransom for the prisoners. Can you imagine how the right wing bubblesphere would have reacted if the president gave them back THEIR money without insisting on a prisoner release ?

    • Scottlowther

      So for you, if some despotic dictatorship thinks they are owed money they are well within their rights to kidnap people.

      Good to know.

    • sferrin

      Keep chugging that Kool-Aid. Looks like you’re in need of a fresh pair of these too: