pastajoe

If the Republicans are going to spin this as a payment for hostages, I wish they would be intellectually honest and speak about when the Iranians released the hostages minutes after Reagan was sworn in as president, and then later received military weapons from the US when an arms embargo was still in place. A clear quid pro quo agreement. But St. Ronald gets a pass. Now Trump is claiming to have seen video of the money transfer, when it fact it was video of the Americans who were released. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/04/questions-abound-as-trump-claims-to-have-watched-video-leaked-by-iran-of-the-money-transfer/?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_trump-transfer-835am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory This is what George Will has labeled "immunity through profusion". "He seems to understand that if you produce a steady stream of sufficiently stupefying statements, there will be no time to dwell on any one of them, and the net effect on the public will be numbness and ennui." He points out the troubling but overlooked statements Trump made about Russia not being in the Ukraine, when they've been in Crimea and over the eastern border since 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trumps-shallowness-runs-deep/2016/08/03/f7311b20-58d3-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Some are assuming the Iran payment was done to get the release of the captives. It's just as possible that it's the opposite. The US settled the long-standing dispute and agreed to return Iran's own money. Then the US says to Iran, if you want the money now, you're going to have to release those captives or the money stays. Or it could just be a logistical coincidence between two countries making incremental moves to improve relations. There's no way to prove any of the theories so it can be spun however anyone wants. I'm just sayin'.

The quid pro quo was the agreement to circumvent the arms embargo and sell them military arms. It is not ransom when you give someone back their own money that you've held for over 30 years as part of a international judicial settlement. It's reasonable that the Iranians would want hard cash instead of wire transactions after years of sanctions, given their mistrust of the West. The release of the captives could simply be a good will measure by Iran in hopes of improving relations, having seen that the U.S. is willing to address disputes. It's a win-win.

So they supported the person they knew before the person they didn't know and he couldn't convince them that he had better proposals so that they would switch, and you call it fixed. Almost 4 million more individual votes and 400 more pledged delegates, yet all the super delegates were supposed to switch to him? Now that would be fixed, going against the will of the majority. You're still around stages 2 and 3 (denial and anger) of the 7 stages of grief. I wish you well getting through them.

Perhaps you're unaware that sum was actually part of a $1.7 billion settlement to Iran for a decades-long legal dispute that was before an international tribunal in The Hague. Also it remains illegal for the U.S. to conduct a monetary transaction with Iran in American dollars. The money was owed to the Islamic republic following a failed arms deal dating back to 1979, when Iran purchased American fighter jets. So it was never our money, we gave back their money. How about that coincidence when the Iranians released the hostages literally minutes after Reagan was sworn in, and then the Reagan administration illegally sold arms to Iran and used the profits to fund the Nicaraguan rebels.

I'm trying to figure out what 6 letter word fits "###### you". Drumpf?

I don't see the relevance to the issue of his dead Muslim son and Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric.

It was speculated in a round table discussion on CNN last night. There are also articles that have speculated the same. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/06/12/trump_is_looking_for_a_way_out_130849.html http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/carl-hiaasen/article92690592.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/21/news/mark-cuban-donald-trump/ http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a45882/trump-tv-network/

I've heard some speculate that he really doesn't want to win and be stuck in such a demanding job for the next 4 years. He wants to lose a close election so for the rest of his life he can claim the election was rigged to boost his ego but be free from the responsibilities. I'm just sayin'.

It's getting hard to keep up with all the Trumpisms, there's new ones every day from him and his apologists. Donald Trump’s spokeswoman blamed the policies of President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the death of Army Capt. Humayun Khan, despite the fact that Khan died in 2004. “It was under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that changed the rules of engagement that probably cost his life,” spokeswoman Katrina Pierson said in an interview Tuesday with CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer. Khan died during the presidency of George W. Bush, while Obama was a state senator in Illinois. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-spokeswoman-blames-obama-for-2004-death-of-capt-khan-226598 During an animated discussion about his former boss Tuesday night on CNN, former Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski suggested that President Barack Obama might be concealing his true birthplace by withholding his transcripts from his time at Harvard University. The discussion began when Angela Rye, a former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus, responded on "CNN Tonight with Don Lemon" to Lewandowski's criticism of President Barack Obama calling Trump "unfit" for office earlier in the day by remarking upon the Republican nominee's history with the so-called birther movement. “Did he ever release his transcripts from Harvard?” Lewandowski asked, after Rye referenced Trump's past remark that Obama got into Harvard as a result of affirmative action. Rye hit back, referring to Trump's refusal to release his tax returns. “You raised the issue. I’m just asking," Lewandowski said. "You raised the issue. Did he, did he ever release his transcripts or his admission to Harvard University. You raised the issue, so just yes or no? The answer is no.” Rye then referred to the fact that Obama was the first black editor of Harvard Law Review, as Lemon tried to steer the conversation by asking Lewandowski why it was germane to bring up Obama's Harvard transcripts. “Look, the only reason it’s germane is because she brought the issue up and said Donald Trump raised the issue of his Harvard transcripts," Lewandowski, a paid CNN contributor, said. "And I just simply said … have those ever been released, and the question was did he get in as a U.S. citizen or was he brought into Harvard University as a citizen who wasn’t from this country?” http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/obama-birther-corey-lewandowski-226607

Hey Melania, get your own speechwriter. Trump and his supporters are keeping the Khan story alive by continuing to criticize the family and losing another week playing defense. If Trump's first response had been to acknolowedge their loss and leave it at that, this story would have faded. But his ego won't allow him and his supporters to just let it go. Even shouting down a military mother who questioned Pence on Trump's responses. Thin skinned and unstable, and now there's stories of growing frustration by his advisors who can't keep him on message.

It is not true. You can read about Clinton's plans for the VA on her website. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/veterans/

He wanted to have access to DNC data on registered voter rolls, donor rolls, and the publicity and media exposure from being in a major party and televised debates. Unless some younger leader steps up to take Bernie's place, I suspect the movement will stick around but lose impact as has happened to the Tea Party movement. Especially if some of their grievances are addressed by a Madame president.

Trump is so uniquely offense that this is a time when moral equivilency doesn't work, and he needs to be called out like Joe McCarthy.

Kasich is the only "significant leadership", the others are past their expiration date. Rubio endorsed him (cowardly via video) at convention. I'll agree with you when I hear the real leadership, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, say he is as unqualified as they said Obama was.

Again there is no moral equivalence. One is saying don't politicize their deaths, the other is making a misinformed emotional claim Clinton is to blame for the deaths. Nine committee investigations which all concluded that Clinton did not order Stevens to go there, she was not to blame for the facility's vulnerability, or the U.S. response to the attacks. There was no stand down order. Unfortunately there are people misinforming Sean Smith's mother for political gain.

I stand by my statement on Trump's racist Birther movement vs Clinton's questioning qualifications. If your claim that Republicans were wrongly smeared because they just questioned Obama's lack of qualifications, it would have more legitimacy if they applied the same standard to Trump's lack of qualifications, as Clinton has.

Questioning one's qualifications is not the same as questioning one's citizenship because of one's race. There is no moral equivalence, and it's unwise to attempt to advocate it.

I've been wondering, if Trump won would / should Obama go to the inauguration? I understand the visual of the peaceful transfer of power. But the Birther movement was an unprecedented attack of veiled racism that went beyond the usual political debate. He probably would go, but I wouldn't blame him if he didn't.

You mean the same federal firewalls that let the Chinese hack sensitive security clearance files of 21 million people from the Office of Personnel Management last year? In retrospect, since there's no proof that her personal server was hacked, she may have done a better job protecting her data than the government or the campaign servers have. It's pretty clear which candidate our enemies want to win.

Anybody going to the White Lives Matter rally? Sounds like a great idea. (Now that's sarcasm, Donald). http://www.wben.com/White-Lives-Matter-Organizer-We-re-NOT-Part-of-KKK/22827847 Buffalo, NY (WBEN) An organizer of White Lives Matter says the movement is not linked to the Ku Klux Klan. The group is holding a rally Saturday at Cazenovia Park in South Buffalo. Rebecca Barnett says the rally is to address issues and problems in the country. "The destruction of our nation caused by the federal government, Black Lives Matter, and several other organizations including the influx of refugees and illegal immigrants when we can't take care of our own people," explains Barnett. Barnett says the movement is not linked to the KKK. "We do have supporters who are Ku Klux Klan members. We are aligned with several organizations such as National Socialist Movement, so we represent people who support veterans' rights, the second amendment and the Confederate flag, and who love our country as a whole," says Barnett. "We are White Lives Matter. We are a movement. This particular movement is not solely based on one organization whether it's Ku Klux Klan or any other." The rally is set for 3pm.

For someone who's a self professed do'er more than a speaker, that was a great speech by Hillary. She'll never be at Bill or Obama's level of speaker, but she clearly displayed why she is the right person for the job and Trump is not.

Those people are idiots. Disrespecting the very people who ensure their freedoms.

You'd have to be pretty bitter to not be moved by their story and how it represents the best of America.