Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week)   Once again, Democrats find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. 🙄   ( theweek.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Iraq War, George W. Bush, President Trump, 2003 invasion of Iraq, President Obama, Iran, President of the United States, new minor sanctions  
•       •       •

5453 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Aug 2017 at 8:32 PM (11 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-08-01 04:31:57 PM  
FTA

But there is no comprehensible reason for sanctioning Iran. Democrats are putting the greatest diplomatic legacy of President Obama - the nuclear bargain with Iran - at extreme risk for no reason whatsoever.

Obama did place sanctions on Iran for their missile testing after the nuclear agreement was signed, so claiming that Dems are crapping over Obama's legacy is pretty wrong
 
2017-08-01 04:36:11 PM  
 
2017-08-01 04:59:40 PM  
I'm wondering how much latitude dems had on the Iran part of this bill. Would it have been worth scuttling the whole thing just to leave Iran out of it?
 
2017-08-01 06:09:33 PM  
Don't worry. Trump won't sign the sanctions bill because of pee Poe.
 
2017-08-01 06:40:45 PM  
This is the Democrats fault now?  How exactly are they going to vote AGAINST sanctions?  Not possible.

Funny how the article fails to mention who inserted Iran into the bill to begin with.  Must just be an oversight.
 
2017-08-01 07:28:31 PM  
Greenlight has both a period and an emoji? The darkness is upon us.
 
2017-08-01 07:46:43 PM  
I read the first paragraph and a half and got the sense that Democrats are failing Obama on Iran because they agree with sanctioning Russia.

Wat?
 
2017-08-01 08:35:25 PM  
FTFA: But there is no comprehensible reason for sanctioning Iran.

This is why I don't blame Sanders for voting against this bill.
 
2017-08-01 08:36:21 PM  
Get that fxucking emoji outta here.
 
2017-08-01 08:40:04 PM  
I would assume thier security clearance makes them privy to much of the inner workings of these regimes and informs thier decision making. Geopolitical considerations aren't always about internal politics or a president's legacy.
 
2017-08-01 08:41:43 PM  
The only acceptable emoji is the poop emoji.  Especially when the subject is politics.
 
2017-08-01 08:43:39 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: This is the Democrats fault now?  How exactly are they going to vote AGAINST sanctions?  Not possible.

Funny how the article fails to mention who inserted Iran into the bill to begin with.  Must just be an oversight.


Who was it? I honestly don't know.
 
2017-08-01 08:44:38 PM  
While the dems are pretty good at the whole snatching defeat thing, I don't know about this one.
 
2017-08-01 08:45:34 PM  

August11: Greenlight has both a period and an emoji? The darkness is upon us.


Drew is dead!
 
2017-08-01 08:45:48 PM  
No farking emojis gottdammitt
 
2017-08-01 08:49:12 PM  
Someone greened themselves.
 
2017-08-01 08:49:16 PM  
Smitty and The Week appear to be overlooking the fact that more Republican Senators than Democrats voted for the bill. WUWT?
 
2017-08-01 08:54:01 PM  
Oh, and in case anyone's looking for the actual bill, it's HR 3364 Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.
 
2017-08-01 08:54:42 PM  

symptomoftheuniverse: No farking emojis gottdammitt


cdn.dribbble.com
 
2017-08-01 08:56:01 PM  
Emojis in my headline?
It's more likely than you think!
 
2017-08-01 08:56:32 PM  
The United States-Iran relationship is one of our most damning failures in global policy and has been for decades.  They have a young and cosmopolitan population well suited to global leadership but we enable their sabre-rattling and totalitarian leaders at every turn with warmongering and interference in their politics.

Nobody here even thinks about what sanctions are or what they do or how global trade has curtailed a global cycle of war since the inception of civilization.  They just think, oh, I voted for sanctions, I'm tough on something without risking a drop of blood.  Now I get to put that in a campaign ad.

No shiat Iran would want nuclear weapons.  I would too, because the United States is completely out of its mind.
 
2017-08-01 09:01:16 PM  
Thing is, I thought the Iran sanctions were stupid too. But it was very much important to get a Russia sanctions bill that Lord Dampnut couldn't veto, and the stupid Iran sanctions were the price to get Republicans on board.

It mostly hurts us anyway, not so much Iran - the EU and China will ignore this, and Iran will still have their fair share of foreign grade.. The real danger is the prospect of Iran using this to back out of the nuclear deal - we're probably safe from that, because if they did, the EU and China likely would resume their own sanctions, but that's what we get for letting Republicans hold political office.
 
2017-08-01 09:03:48 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: FTFA: But there is no comprehensible reason for sanctioning Iran.

This is why I don't blame Sanders for voting against this bill.


I don't blame anyone for voting either way.

There is a reasonable case that unnecessary sanctions on Iran are an acceptable price to pay to put sanctions on Russia that are out of Trump's control.

There are also reasonable arguments that can be made for Iran sanctions related to its missile program and outside the nuclear deal (which as noted in this thread, Obama had previously imposed on Iran, the day after nuclear sanctions lifted).

There are also good arguments that not worsening relations with Iran are worth giving up Russia sanctions. The main one being this is a deliberate push away from Iran for the Republicans hoping that is splits the nuclear deal and leads to war.

I honestly have no idea how I would vote on this if it came up. Not could I fault someone for voting either way.
 
2017-08-01 09:05:25 PM  

symptomoftheuniverse: No farking emojis gottdammitt

i.imgur.com
If I wanted to be on Reddit I would go to Reddit. Which I think I will.
 
2017-08-01 09:17:05 PM  

Kuoxasar: The United States-Iran relationship is one of our most damning failures in global policy and has been for decades.  They have a young and cosmopolitan population well suited to global leadership but we enable their sabre-rattling and totalitarian leaders at every turn with warmongering and interference in their politics.

Nobody here even thinks about what sanctions are or what they do or how global trade has curtailed a global cycle of war since the inception of civilization.  They just think, oh, I voted for sanctions, I'm tough on something without risking a drop of blood.  Now I get to put that in a campaign ad.

No shiat Iran would want nuclear weapons.  I would too, because the United States is completely out of its mind.


Iran had a parliamentary democracy until Operation Ajax in 1953, when we helped establish a tinpot dictator who'd whore out Iranian oil. And Iranians hated him so much that they brought back their long-banished fundies to help force him out.
 
2017-08-01 09:18:33 PM  
So....there's an emoji rule on Fark? I have no idea how to make them, but that's interesting to note for no particular reason...
 
2017-08-01 09:21:14 PM  

dywed88: rzrwiresunrise: FTFA: But there is no comprehensible reason for sanctioning Iran.

This is why I don't blame Sanders for voting against this bill.

I don't blame anyone for voting either way.

There is a reasonable case that unnecessary sanctions on Iran are an acceptable price to pay to put sanctions on Russia that are out of Trump's control.

There are also reasonable arguments that can be made for Iran sanctions related to its missile program and outside the nuclear deal (which as noted in this thread, Obama had previously imposed on Iran, the day after nuclear sanctions lifted).

There are also good arguments that not worsening relations with Iran are worth giving up Russia sanctions. The main one being this is a deliberate push away from Iran for the Republicans hoping that is splits the nuclear deal and leads to war.

I honestly have no idea how I would vote on this if it came up. Not could I fault someone for voting either way.


This is easily fixed. Just send a letter to the Mullahs stating that this won't last forever and we are working on a solution to our two countrie's differences. Have 47 Democratic senators sign it.

We all have it on good authority that this type of action is A-ok, right Tom Cotton?
 
2017-08-01 09:31:47 PM  

Kuoxasar: The United States-Iran relationship is one of our most damning failures in global policy and has been for decades.  They have a young and cosmopolitan population well suited to global leadership but we enable their sabre-rattling and totalitarian leaders at every turn with warmongering and interference in their politics.

Nobody here even thinks about what sanctions are or what they do or how global trade has curtailed a global cycle of war since the inception of civilization.  They just think, oh, I voted for sanctions, I'm tough on something without risking a drop of blood.  Now I get to put that in a campaign ad.

No shiat Iran would want nuclear weapons.  I would too, because the United States is completely out of its mind.


Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty, and was adamant that it was still in compliance.

If Iran wants nukes, it needs to leave the treaty. Even North Korea had the sense to drop out before hand.
 
2017-08-01 09:41:34 PM  
Conservative and Liberal Farkers can agree: get emojis the f*ck out of headlines.
 
2017-08-01 09:50:26 PM  
I dunno, I giggle at the 🍆 emoji every time
 
2017-08-01 09:51:09 PM  

Frank N Stein: Conservative and Liberal Farkers can agree: get emojis the f*ck out of headlines.


img.fark.net
 
2017-08-01 10:00:35 PM  
Democrats are putting the greatest diplomatic legacy of President Obama - the nuclear bargain with Iran - at extreme risk for no reason whatsoever.

Dear God, they actually believe that.
 
2017-08-01 10:05:45 PM  

jjorsett: Democrats are putting the greatest diplomatic legacy of President Obama - the nuclear bargain with Iran - at extreme risk for no reason whatsoever.

Dear God, they actually believe that.


img.fark.net
 
2017-08-01 10:07:42 PM  

jjorsett: Democrats are putting the greatest diplomatic legacy of President Obama - the nuclear bargain with Iran - at extreme risk for no reason whatsoever.

Dear God, they actually believe that.


Why would we not?
 
2017-08-01 10:09:06 PM  

dumbobruni: Kuoxasar: The United States-Iran relationship is one of our most damning failures in global policy and has been for decades.  They have a young and cosmopolitan population well suited to global leadership but we enable their sabre-rattling and totalitarian leaders at every turn with warmongering and interference in their politics.

Nobody here even thinks about what sanctions are or what they do or how global trade has curtailed a global cycle of war since the inception of civilization.  They just think, oh, I voted for sanctions, I'm tough on something without risking a drop of blood.  Now I get to put that in a campaign ad.

No shiat Iran would want nuclear weapons.  I would too, because the United States is completely out of its mind.

Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty, and was adamant that it was still in compliance.

If Iran wants nukes, it needs to leave the treaty. Even North Korea had the sense to drop out before hand.


Of course the Iranians insist they were developing nuclear power, something which is specifically protected by the non-proliferation treaty. And what they were doing could technically be for that purpose.

There is no point leaving the treaty until you are taking steps that can only be towards nuclear weapons.
 
2017-08-01 10:17:38 PM  
With the bar set so low for measuring Trump "success" these days, one wonders why it is so high for Democrats on this issue.
 
2017-08-01 10:21:53 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: This is the Democrats fault now?  How exactly are they going to vote AGAINST sanctions?  Not possible.

Funny how the article fails to mention who inserted Iran into the bill to begin with.  Must just be an oversight.


And we're done here, last one out, etc. etc.
 
2017-08-01 10:32:11 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: FTFA: But there is no comprehensible reason for sanctioning Iran.

This is why I don't blame Sanders for voting against this bill.


He's great at being princi
 
2017-08-01 10:32:30 PM  
farking phone. I quit.
 
2017-08-01 10:41:07 PM  

Charletron: farking phone. I quit.


Hurrah!
 
2017-08-01 10:48:36 PM  
Can anyone tell me which emoji is in the headline. I'm just seeing a box.
 
2017-08-01 10:50:34 PM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: Can anyone tell me which emoji is in the headline. I'm just seeing a box.


The rolling eyes emoji.

FARK - Brought to you by The Emoji Movie, the #2 movie in America!
 
2017-08-01 11:06:41 PM  
'The invasion of Iraq was a bloody catastrophe, wasting trillions of dollars, killing hundreds of thousands, leading directly to the creation of ISIS, and leaving a corrupt, barely functioning state in thrall to Iran - indeed, dependent on that neighbor for its very existence. '

Heh, no actually Obama's ineptness and desire to secure defeat at any cost is what caused that one.
 
2017-08-01 11:22:34 PM  
Even if we accepted this narrative as true (initial posts explained why we wouldn't) WE HAVE BIGGER FISH TO FRY.  Iran is the shiatty country that buys things from Russia, Russia is a problem.

No, it's not ideal, but neither is The Tangelo Terror, Captain Combover, The Cheeto-faced, Ferret-wearing shiatgibbon himself and his puppet strings held by a pack of Russian Kleptocrats.  I'm willing to forgive the two "no" votes in the senate for their "principled" (yeah right) stand but realpolitik is reality.
 
2017-08-01 11:23:15 PM  

shinji3i: symptomoftheuniverse: No farking emojis gottdammitt
[i.imgur.com image 610x457]
If I wanted to be on Reddit I would go to Reddit. Which I think I will.


Pfft on Reddit.  Imgur is life!
 
2017-08-01 11:25:29 PM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: Can anyone tell me which emoji is in the headline. I'm just seeing a box.


The blank box emoji.
 
2017-08-01 11:27:48 PM  

randomjsa: 'The invasion of Iraq was a bloody catastrophe, wasting trillions of dollars, killing hundreds of thousands, leading directly to the creation of ISIS, and leaving a corrupt, barely functioning state in thrall to Iran - indeed, dependent on that neighbor for its very existence. '

Heh, no actually Obama's ineptness and desire to secure defeat at any cost is what caused that one.


We invaded Iraq 6 years before Obama even became president. Try again.
 
2017-08-01 11:43:39 PM  

misanthropicsob: Charletron: farking phone. I quit.

Hurrah!


Aaaaand i'm back. 100% fueled by your butthurt and ready to farkin' go baby
 
2017-08-01 11:43:51 PM  

randomjsa: 'The invasion of Iraq was a bloody catastrophe, wasting trillions of dollars, killing hundreds of thousands, leading directly to the creation of ISIS, and leaving a corrupt, barely functioning state in thrall to Iran - indeed, dependent on that neighbor for its very existence. '

Heh, no actually Obama's ineptness and desire to secure defeat at any cost is what caused that one.


Damn Obama and his time machine!!!!!
 
2017-08-01 11:44:33 PM  
I'm more worried about what I'm hearing about the party's shift rightward by treating women's reproductive rights as a negotiable position on a case-by-case basis when they're running candidates in Derpistan.

What's so farking hard? Jobs, economy, rule of law, legal weed, student loan forgiveness, education subsidies, single payer healthcare, etc.

You didn't lose because you didn't derp loud enough for the other party's base. You lost because you under-promised and under-sold to your base.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report