Chuck Schumer rejects Iran deal

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Aug 7, 2015.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    Then why? I'd like to know how much Chuck received from AIPAC over the last few election cycles.
     
  2. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #2
    It seems a political move. Somebody he owes leaned on him hard.
     
  3. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #3
    Interesting - you take a very selective quote, from a 1600 word well-reasoned and well written explanation from his website - and through in an unsupported insinuation. I've looked at his record, and his election record and he seems to win through hard work and representing his constituents.
     
  4. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
  5. vrDrew, Aug 7, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2015

    vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #5
    This is a an example of all the things I really dislike about most politicians. The short answer is that Shumer did this because he could.

    Chuck Schumer is doubtless an otherwise honorable man. I'll bet on 80% of issues we'd see eye to eye. He's obviously a knowledgeable, decent and committed public servant.

    But he's also a tremendously self-interested one. Not in the sense of taking bribes and decorating his office to look like Downton Abbey. But in the sense of everything he does goes through a very fine analysis, parsing out every word in every statement, every vote, and every committee appearance.

    There was (vast conspiracy!) a story up in this morning's New York Times describing a lunch Sen. Schumer had (green gazpacho, grilled sea bass, Virginia Peach melba, I'm not making this up) with various experts on the deal, including Energy Secretary Moniz; Secretary of State John Kerry; and a senior former Israeli airforce commander.

    So I'm sure Schumer was knowledgeable enough to understand that in most every practical sense the deal to end sanctions was a good one.

    However the reality is also that Schumer did the pure calculus, and determined that voting for the deal would cost him more than it gained him. His supporters would swallow their anger. Whereas he might pick up a few voters on the margins. He'd save himself from attack ads next election cycle.

    He also, cynically, figured out that Obama didn't need his vote. That even if the Congress passed a vote condemning the deal, that enough of his fellow Democrats would stand by the President to sustain a veto.

    I wish more politicians had the principles to vote what is truly the right thing to do. Rather than what the cynical, and self-interested, Senator Schumer did.
     
  6. dwfaust, Aug 7, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2015

    dwfaust macrumors 68040

    dwfaust

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    I am here => [•]
    #6
    This is purely a posturing move. The dems obviously have enough votes to block an override of POTUS veto when the resolution to reject the agreement is passed. Because there are already enough votes to take this BHO's way, Schumer has been given the OK from the dem leadership to appear to stand with his Jewish connections.

    These types of moves rarely have anything to do with reality and they are all extremely calculated.
     
  7. LizKat, Aug 7, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2015

    LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #7
    Please get the guy's name right. It's Chuck Schumer. I'm really unhappy that he has come down against the agreement. Not shocked, maybe a little surprised, and very disappointed. At least my other senator (also a Democrat), Kirsten Gillibrand, is supporting the agreement.
     
  8. shinji macrumors 65816

    shinji

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    #8
    Schumer has broken with Obama in the past on other issues, too. The same goes for other Democrats. It is not written in stone that the "correct" vote here is to toe the party line, despite the cries of MoveOn and friends.

    And there may be Democrats who privately oppose the deal but are only supporting it because they're not willing to take the political risk of breaking with the President on his legacy foreign policy deal. The same would go for Republicans who don't want to anger the GOP leadership.
     
  9. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #9
    I was very disappointed to hear that Schumer, who has been one of my favorite politicians,, had rejected the deal. I agree with everyone that this was clearly a self-serving political calculation that he would not have made if his vote were critical to the deal passing. What this proves to me is that Israel really wants to go to war with Iran and that this deal would significantly undermine their whole argument for war. This whole show and dance by Israel about wanting a peaceful solution with Iran is political correctness gone awry. They won't come out and admit that Israel only sees two options for the future of Iran, complete impoverishment or death.
     
  10. Huntn, Aug 8, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2015

    Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #10
    Personally I would not be surprised, although I don't know if this is a case of allegiance to his faith and some source that exists within that faith possible in Israel objecting to the deal, although this poll claims that the majority of US Jews support the deal.
     
  11. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #11
    Maybe if we had the cliff notes of this deal then I will form an opinion! If my Senator dislikes it then it makes me suspect!
     
  12. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #12
    Interesting how quickly people are apologizing and making excuses for Schumer’s vote against the Iran deal. Fact is, anti-Obamacare Chuck is a reliable neocon, on record stating that Israel should strangle Gaza economically until they admit Israel is here to stay. He voted to invade Iraq in 2002 and is one of AIPAC's staunchest supporters, much like his former Senate colleague Hillary Nixon, I mean Clinton.

    Amusing how for the first time in his political career, Schumer is running away from the television cameras.
     
  13. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #13


    I don't think there are too many people apologizing for Schumer's decision. If the comments in the New York Times article on it are anything to go by, a very large majority of Schumer's Jewish and other liberal New York constituents are rightfully disgusted by his cynical choice.

    Trying to understand why he did it is not the same thing as excusing it or agreeing with. Its simply an attempt to understand how such things happen.

    My prediction is that Chuck Schumer may come to regret his choice in this matter. But that doesn't make him wrong about - for example Planned Parenthood or a better system for reporting criminal or mental health issues to our national gun-check system.
     
  14. Oudinot macrumors regular

    Oudinot

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL USA
    #14
    Hopefully more Democrats will come to their senses and realize obama's Iran deal is a disaster. Postponing Iran getting a nuke is not good policy for Israel or the world
     
  15. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #15
    Why is it not a good policy? What is a good policy?
     
  16. Oudinot macrumors regular

    Oudinot

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL USA
    #16
    It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure.

    Restrictions being placed on Irans nuclear program are only temporary, with the most important restrictions expiring in 10 years.

    The deal paves Iran’s path to the bomb and others will race to get nuclear weapons of their own.

    Iran gets billions for its global terror network. As part of the economic benefits of the agreement, Iran will gain access to frozen funds of about $150 billion.These funds will be used, at least in part, to increase Iran’s subversive activities in the region and its support of terror, including Hezbollah and Hamas, against Israel and its neighbors, as well as to strengthen the oppressive rule of the Ayatollahs.

    The agreement enables Iran to continue its significant enrichment of uranium far beyond any practical civilian needs. Its nuclear program is designed specifically for military, and not civilian, purposes.

    When these limitations end, Iran will be able to increase its overall enrichment capacity significantly and rapidly.

    The agreement does not adequately limit Iran’s research and development capabilities.

    Sanctions on Iran’s weapons acquisition will evaporate.

    Monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program is not sufficient.
     
  17. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #17
    And what is your alternative?

    Keeping in mind, of course, that without the accord, Iran not only keeps its nuclear infrastructure, it also keeps thousands of advanced centrifuges, it keeps a massive stockpile of enriched uranium. It keeps its plutonium reactor. And it gets to do all this without having a single international inspector on the ground inside Iran.

    Thats what the accord buys us.

    Iran doesn't need the money freed up by this deal to develop its nuclear program. North Korea didn't - and they were far more isolated than Iran ever was.

    Tough talk is all very well. But unless you've got a good alternative, its a little pointless.
     
  18. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #18
    If you're going to answer why you think an agreement is bad, at least make an effort and don't just copy and paste from the United With Israel website. It looks like nothing more than Bibi's mouthpiece, spewing the same "War is coming" and "Danger!" messages that he has for the best part of two decades.
     
  19. Oudinot macrumors regular

    Oudinot

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL USA
    #19
    I believe our sanctions were a lot more effective than reported. More sanctions would possibly have led to greater concessions by the Iranians. Kerry and obama couldn't trade their way out of a paper bag with a bar of gold and a Colt 45.
     
  20. Oudinot macrumors regular

    Oudinot

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL USA
    #20
    Was too busy to list all the above and concerned I might miss something. What, pray tell, is your problem. You must be anti-Semitic.
     
  21. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #21
    Let's not lose sight of whose administration was actually able to put together the international coalition that imposed those sanctions. (Hint: his initials are BHO)

    Sanctions were working. But they could not work indefinitely. We (the US) were not bearing any cost of them - we already had sanctions on Iran. But most of the other countries involved (China, Russia, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.) were paying a very high price for them. Inevitably the sanctions regime would have fallen apart, especially if it appeared to our coalition partners that we were not negotiating in good faith. Iran would have resumed trade, and we'd be left with nothing to negotiate with.

    Thats why I asked what your alternative is. But quite frankly, Israel is not a good faith negotiator in this discussion. The reality is there would have been no concession the Iranians could realistically have made that would satisfy Netanyahu.

    The United States power is not infinite. We have only so much ability to influence what other countries do. And, like it or not, hating on the Islamic Republic of Iran is simply not as important to people in Delhi or Shanghai; Toulouse or Moscow as it is to the people on Fox News or Bibi Netanyahu.
     
  22. Oudinot macrumors regular

    Oudinot

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL USA
    #22
    It's amazing to me how screwed up some people are. Iran is a terrorist country and we can't trust them any more than the scorpion crossing the river. They support terrorism and openly say death to America. They want to wipe Israel off the face of the world. Yet those, like obama (anti Semitic at best) profess that we should kiss their rear ends and they will like us. BS. They want to destroy the U.S. and raise the flags of Islam over the White House, while we all kneel to the East, and recite sharia law. What's 150 Billion among friends. After all they have a war to fight! We could not negotiate something better than this because obama didn't want anything better.

    Kerry couldn't do anything since he is a dud. He showed that during Vietnam. The free world will rue the day that this deal goes through. The people that run Iran are animals and should be locked up.
     
  23. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #23


    Again, what is a realistic alternative to the Iran Nuclear agreement?

    I've explained, very clearly, why the specific sanctions regime put together by the Obama administration could not last indefinitely. (It relied on China and Russia's cooperation. You think herding cats is hard.)

    And what does "terrorist nation" mean? Does every Iranian baby get sent to a little indoctrination camp? Do Iranians wake up every morning dreaming of blowing themselves (plus a few assorted Zionists and American/British imperialists) sky high?

    Of course not. Iran is a mostly Shiite muslim Islamic Republic. It undoubtedly has funded groups like Hamas, as well as conducted its own illegal intelligence operations. But it also has a Jewish community. Some Iranian leaders have engaged in inflammatory rhetoric.(Something no US politician would ever do....) But its actions speak louder than its words. Read Peter Beinert's essay on this subject for more:

    I don't want to be eternally in a state of undeclared war with Iran. And thats the neoCon/Bibi Netanyahu endgame.
     
  24. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #24
    That is both a personal attack and trolling. It's also plagiarism, because you didn't use a quote tag or post a link to the source. It may be a ridiculous propaganda site, but you still ripped off their words. You need to credit them.
     
  25. Oudinot macrumors regular

    Oudinot

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL USA
    #25

    God help us from fraking liberals. I don't care what you explained, it's wrong. Iran supports terrorism financially and otherwise. Yes their children are brought up to hate The good ole USA. Shiite or Sunni, what's the difference. They all believe Israel and the U.S. are evil and want to kill us. I don't need to read some schmucks book all I need to see is the new reports were the jerk leader says "death to America" repeatedly. I don't even need an interrupter. Just admit that you are an anti-Semitic and explain to me how bad the South is again. You speak with forked tongue stranger.
     

Share This Page