General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSchumer has decided to vote NO on Iran deal: NYC local news
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/07/27/schumer-iran-nuclear-deal-vote/Sen. Schumer, were hearing from our sources that you plan to vote no on the Iran deal, CBS2s Hazel Sanchez told the senator.
No, I havent made up my mind, Schumer responded. Ive spent a great deal of time studying this issue. Last week Ive had 10 different meetings with people on both sides of the issue including a classified briefing and its a very serious decision.
There are all kinds of questions about the deal. What happens with the deal? What happens without the deal?, Schumer added.
Schumer knows how he's going to vote--with AIPAC and the Republicans. This act of pretending to deliberate is to buy time--he wants the deal to fail, but he doesn't want to get the blame.
Completely unfit to be a Democrat, let alone leader of Senate Democrats.
When the deal survives his attempts to kill it and get us involved in another war for oil in the Middle East (Chuckie pimped the Iraq war) he should face severe consequences.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Why not just keep voting in these "Third-Wayers"? Their so good for the Democratic Party.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)big profits. Endless war, destruction, deaths and rebuilding is a big revenue stream. It's disgusting.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)He's terrible.
CrispyQ
(36,527 posts)It's such a fucking scam.
I hope Americans are awake & tired of this shit. I don't know. I've freinded several old HS classmates & they are predominately republican & religious.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)The fat RIGHT hand up his ass? Or, is it the fat LEFT hand up his ass?
Of course, he hasn't made up his mind
The asshats like him LOST their minds.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Especially when aIPAC has told him how to vote and there's a chance to start a war with a Muslim country.
still_one
(92,422 posts)for the deal
global1
(25,272 posts)he is about his country. Disgusting!!!!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)aIPAC instructs him to vote.
ALWAYS.
There's no way he votes against war and against AIPAC. He figures Obama will be gone by the time Senate Dems vote on who replaces Reid.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I believe they are.
I feel more ashamed everyday by our government representatives.
Nite Owl
(11,303 posts)If they are picking him as a leader they may follow him.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But there aren't enough war pigs and AIPAC loyalists in the House to drag us into war.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)President, well we saw how that herd mentality worked in 2002.
There are only 28 votes for the deal in the Senate now. With Schumer there'll be 60 against.
This is speculation, but many Senate Democrats still feel safer voting with aIPAC and for war than against.
PhilosopherKing
(317 posts)Should be primaried. No exceptions. Did we learn nothing from the Iraq war debacle?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Every dead Muslim to him is one less terrorist for the US and especially Israel to worry about.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That is ridiculous and false.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)or Palestinians/Lebanese that Israel has killed?
No. When US or especially Israeli policies lead to Arab suffering, he gloats.. He enjoys it.
The man has a giant black hole in his heart where compassion for Muslims as human beings should be.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)SCHUMER: The Palestinian people still dont believe in the Jewish state, in a two-state solution. More do than before, but a majority still do not. Their fundamental view is, the Europeans treated the Jews badly and gave them our land this is Palestinian thinking [ ] They dont believe in the Torah, in David [ ] You have to force them to say Israel is here to stay. The boycott of Gaza to me has another purpose obviously the first purpose is to prevent Hamas from getting weapons by which they will use to hurt Israel but the second is actually to show the Palestinians that when theres some moderation and cooperation, they can have an economic advancement. When theres total war against Israel, which Hamas wages, theyre going to get nowhere. And to me, since the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas, while certainly there should be humanitarian aid and people not starving to death, to strangle them economically until they see thats not the way to go, makes sense.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If so, is it perfect?
If not, what do you like/dislike about it?
Do you know whether Schumer has read it?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to the war Schumer, the Republicans and Israelis want.
No agreement is ever perfect, so that is a nonsensical standard.
Greybnk48
(10,176 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,382 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But he's playing this game so he can pretend it's one of principle and based on a rational appraisal of the deal.
BeyondGeography
(39,382 posts)I'm finding it more annoying than usual. Thank goodness for Pelosi.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)That's how awful Schumer is.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)the hint that he is voting on the direction of a foreign power is not a surprise either.
Sadly...
Ah yes, getting closer now... and to think I was expecting that because of Sanders.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)He is a servant of Wall Street. He would never consider voting against aIPAC or against war in the Middle East.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_politicians
If I called the Huckster today in print over this, yes, I am calling you on this too. Granted, his has far more influence and resonance, but... still ugly.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)He added that there were two groups within the White House. One would give Israel the usual pass and the other wants the US to put pressure on Israel (and Palestinians).
"We're pushing hard to make sure the right side wins and if not we'll have to take it to the next step," he said.
He concluded that God, himself, deputized him to be Israel's man in the Senate:
"You know, my name .... comes from the word shomer, guardian, watcher. My ancestors were guardians of the ghetto wall in Chortkov. And I believe Hashem [Orthodox for God] actually gave me that name. One of my roles, very important in the United States senate, is to be a shomer -- to be a or the shomer Yisrael. And I will continue to be that with every bone in my body ..."
His vote on this was decided long ago.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You really do not know how ugly that sounds right? And what that is. truly.
By the way, care to guess what is the Jewish vote in NEW YORK CITY? Nah... electoral politics could never, ever whatsoever have a thing to do with this. He is taking orders from Jerusalem.
Triple
Now I expect you to quadruple down on this.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Most American Jews want Congress to approve the deal.
The problem is not with Schumer's constituents.
It's his militarism and long-standing, perfect record of siding with Israel and aIPAC whenever they disagree with the US government.
He has never--never--sided with the US government when it disagreed with Israel.
Never.
He's exactly in the mode of the anti-Castro fucknut Cubans who place narrow, parochial interests over the interests of the country.
This is his character flaw, his designs on grandiosity. He's voting against the clear wishes of his constituents.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Amazing!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But he is a partisan of Israel moreso than he is a partisan Democrat, or partisan in supporting what's good for the United States.
He said he's on a mission from god to protect Israel, including from Obama when Obama wants to criticize settlements. How much clearer can he be?
Need more?
Check this out:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0410/Schumer_Obamas_Counterproductive_Israel_policy_has_to_stop.html
Do the interests of the US factor into his thinking?
No.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/anti-semitism-usa/adl-poll-anti-semitic-attitudes-america-decline-3-percent.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/#.Vbb9cRNViko
have a good one with that code.
I am not sure what is sad, the fact that you now have doubled down a few times, or the fact that nobody else is calling you on it. Have an excellent life
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)above that of Israel.
Schumer is the one who literally claimed to be on a mission from the supreme being of the entire universe to protect Israel.
He's the one who has never taken his own country's side in a dispute with Israel.
These are facts, this is how Schumer has boasted about his own behavior.
This is a guy who went to the matt to try to get the US to finance $10 Billion of illegal settlement construction, who eagerly voted for war with Iran while parroting everything Dick Cheney said.
He never gave diplomacy a second thought when it came to Iran.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)That is extremely ugly. You cannot say you disagree with his position, or that he is wrong and that he is a neocon. You have to add the cherry on top.
Not surprised by the way, just an utter gobsmacked moment. I expected this with Bernie Sanders, since he is also Jewish. Oh well... I wish I could say I was even an iota surprised.
For the record, he is wrong, if he decides to vote against the deal, but it has not one thing to do with Israel, and he is not taking orders from Bibi, see, i can say it without taking that extra step.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)You know those people who think God told them to oppose abortion and gay marriage?
That's Schumer on Israel.
When people say god has chosen them for a mission, their vote is typically not up for debate.
Are you saying it's anti-Semitic to quote him?
It's not that he's Jewish, it's that he suffers from crazy-ass delusions of grandeur rooted in fundamentalism.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)triple so...
So you cannot be critical of him without going there. Not that I would bother alerting... it does not work.
Triple oy.
I am done wasting my time... becuase that is what I am doing. Please continue to not just double or triple or quadruple down...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)sorry, if my ears perk at that ugliness. Higher power, sure, how many religious nuts do we have in the US that go there? And how many of them are not taking orders from a foreign government? If you are missing why this perks my ears up, well, you might want to read into it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Obama can't win over someone who thinks god wants him to push for a war.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)you did what you did... it is what it is.
Thanks. I mean that.
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #60)
6chars This message was self-deleted by its author.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)the more obvious got the post hidden.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The Armageddon Complex not being discussed is why all debate about Iran and this peace deal gets off the rail....Religious beliefs driving public policy is missing.
Also missing from the discussion are 200 Israeli nuclear bombs.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)He specifically says he has not made up his mind.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)still_one
(92,422 posts)vote, or event that he is "pretending to be undecided"
If you want to do something positive then encourage people to call or write to encourage him to vote for the deal, and to give peace a chance
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)He decided how he was going to vote months, if not years ago.
If he was going to vote yes, he'd stop dawdling and cut off the lobbying he's going to get from the other side.
still_one
(92,422 posts)have no doubt they will express their views to him, and he will weigh that in the process.
I am not going to sit and debate "how many teeth are in a horse's mouth with you". People in New York and else where can write or call Schumer to express their view on the deal, and encourage him to vote accordingly. That is the way it is done
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)but I think Obama might have made a big political mistake with this Iran deal, especially given that he coulda known his party would have trouble supporting it. Not good before the '16 election. But then again he might have done it just to say "I tried diplomacy first." While I would be very against ground troops in Iran, even if their nuclear facilities were struck, there would be no actual war, because Iran cannot get troops, missiles, etc. here, and I don't think the strike plans include decapitation of government leaders. Polls show both large support for the deal, but also a willingness to use force in certain circumstances.
Its easy to forget that even tho Netanyahu isn't terribly popular here, when Americans are asked if they sympathize with Israel or Palestinians (who in the mind of many Americans also are seen as stand-ins for Israel's other enemies as well), Israel wins by large ratios.
The better solution would've been somewhat better relations with Netanyahu over the years and engaging them with regard to Iran.
BeyondGeography
(39,382 posts)in certain circumstances." So what to the latter. 3/4 of Democratic voters are in favor of this deal. Hard to think of another issue where public sentiment and elected officials was so out of whack.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Engaging Netanyahu with regard to Iran?
Bibi never saw a Muslim he didn't want dead.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)while he's not very good with regard to Palestinians, that kind of hyperbole is ridiculous. Muslims get a better situation in Israel than religious/ethnic minorities in its neighboring countries. And Muslims have actually been in cabinet level positions in Israel's history, and not just as show horses like the Iranian dictatorship/theocracy does.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Iggo
(47,571 posts)Marie Marie
(9,999 posts)Wouldn't have been my first choice but hey, who am I?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)H2O Man
(73,623 posts)I recommended this OP, as sick as it makes me feel.
Schumer is a prime example of the type of elected official that I find it impossible to support.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)SCHUMER: The Palestinian people still dont believe in the Jewish state, in a two-state solution. More do than before, but a majority still do not. Their fundamental view is, the Europeans treated the Jews badly and gave them our land this is Palestinian thinking [ ] They dont believe in the Torah, in David [ ] You have to force them to say Israel is here to stay. The boycott of Gaza to me has another purpose obviously the first purpose is to prevent Hamas from getting weapons by which they will use to hurt Israel but the second is actually to show the Palestinians that when theres some moderation and cooperation, they can have an economic advancement. When theres total war against Israel, which Hamas wages, theyre going to get nowhere. And to me, since the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas, while certainly there should be humanitarian aid and people not starving to death, to strangle them economically until they see thats not the way to go, makes sense.
H2O Man
(73,623 posts)in being a neoconservative, with but one thing lacking -- a true sense of being "liberal" on domestic policy.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Laurian
(2,593 posts)emailing and calling his office tomorrow.
H2O Man
(73,623 posts)I shall be, also.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)still_one
(92,422 posts)I miss?
We will know soon enough.
However, I encourage everyone to call or write his office and urge him to support the deal
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)In discussing the agreement with
Jewish audiences in NYC, he's cited the failure of American Jews to speak out against Hitler.
Not real subtle, our Chuck.
He's learned absolutely nothing from his support of the Iraq war. He's ready to repeat it with Iran.
still_one
(92,422 posts)emails.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Republicans don't, Democrats don't.
His entire career is pretty solid evidence of how he'll vote.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)when I ran this at 4 in the morning soon after it broke, and I ran it as it was, not with any editorial comment on my part. .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027005278#post6
I never bothered posting here the actual story we ran, after I cozied up to the actual IG report, which is available at State. Mostly I did not feel like fighting the usual crew.
Yeah, yeah, but she called me on it, because sources are trustworthy in this case, but not in that case.
For the record, we tore the NYT apart, after we read the IG report... some of the most boring document I have read in a while... and that takes a lot to say... WHO reports on heat waves are so oh well... snappy and fast reading... Though I wonder if she did follow up with the Ombudsperson of the NYT? That would be oh Margaret Sullivan I urged her to do so.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index.html
still_one
(92,422 posts)"Ill summarize my prescription in four words: Less speed. More transparency."
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)some of it was very sloppy reporting. Some well... there is a history... some, we got the scoop, we got the scoop! They finally pulled back, after both big (newsweek) and small, (places like mine) called them on it, using well, documents.
Newsweek's takedown was a beauty by the way.
still_one
(92,422 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)He gets his money from the people who want someone who is perceived as being "on their side" --and he's preferable to a Republican representing NY-- and all will be well.
Don't get too excited about it, it makes no difference. It's just vote counting, and politics.
still_one
(92,422 posts)called Feinstein and Boxers office, my Senators, and they favored the deal
Thanks for the perspective
MADem
(135,425 posts)strategic position that hurts their fee-fees. He's the designated empathizer. For exhibiting that sincere and well-voiced care and concern, donors give money to his campaign, his PACs and the Senate PAC (which I think he's running--if not, he's got a hand on the purse-strings, there, and he can decide who gets how much).
That PAC money will help us elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to public office. I think it'll be OK. Worst case, Obama has to veto. Might not even come to that.
happens on every controversial issue, and makes dupes out of voters
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Obama has enough votes elsewhere to block the GOP.
For example, there is talk that Manchin will support the treaty. Normally Manchin couldn't be counted on for this vote, but considering the whole team, it is better for Manchin to cast that vote. There aren't a lot of Jews in West Virginia.
I'm not even sure how strong AIPAC is on this one. Behind closed doors they might agree this is a better deal than having Netanyahu go off half cocked. But AIPAC has to do the kabuki dance too.
So everybody, just chill a bit. Behind closed doors, most people know this thing needs to pass, but they are just negotiating their public posture.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)If he votes no, he's likely to get some of his fellow D's to vote no as well. I think there is a strong chance that Congress is going to vote down the plan and Obama is going to have to get his veto stamp out.
lamp_shade
(14,844 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I see what you did. True. It could be read that way too.
Response to geek tragedy (Original post)
Post removed
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Response to geek tragedy (Original post)
Skinner This message was self-deleted by its author.