Bernie Is Currently Holding a Foreign Policy Town Hall Focusing on the Iran Deal

[Ccarmona]

It’s on You Tube and other outlets. No other politician, or news program has taken more than five minutes, let alone an hour, to discuss this topic.

[Me.]

1. Now?

Not before it was canceled?

[sheshe2]

4. Also note...

His no vote on Russian Sanctions was because of Iran's nuclear treaty and only now speaks out after the fact.

WASHINGTON, June 15 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement Thursday after he voted against a bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran and Russia:

"I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable for Russia to interfere in our elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep concerns about the policies and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria. I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a more even-handed role in the Middle East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities, but also Saudi Arabia's decades-long support for radical extremism."
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-on-iran-and-russia-sanctions

[Me.]

8. I Forgot About That Vote

[ehrnst]

10. That's right.

Now if a Democratic Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee were to take time off right now to hold a town hall, I would watch that.

I imagine that since none have announced or even hinted that they are planning a run for POTUS in 2020, they wouldn't feel a need to.

[emulatorloo]

36. 'because reasons' n/t

[Ccarmona]

2. Yes Now

I’m watching it.

[Hortensis]

44. Ccarmona, there's power in numbers, specifically

in his case numbers of senators. There are people who listen to Sanders. So why isn't he standing with his colleagues, making his statements with them in the big national media? It's not too late. There are so many huge dangers, far worse than most people realize, and so much to do. We must get control of congress, and of Trump, before something really bad happens. To us.

And, sure, this kind of thing on YouTube can be good, but not when it results from self isolation.

[grantcart]

3. I remember President Obama discussing it at some length.

[Hekate]

5. Rachel Maddow has not discussed it? You surprise me, sir.

I'm sure if you check, you'll find that she has, and that Democratic politicians have also. Not to mention President Obama himself, as he attempted to educate Congress and America about this issue as he pushed for passage.

[jalan48]

6. Bernie acting way more Presidential than Trump. I hope we survive the next 2 1/2 years until our

own regime change.

[bettyellen]

26. Lord that's a low bar.

[comradebillyboy]

28. The bar has always been set low for him.

[bettyellen]

33. The bar was never that low for one candidate and sky high for another. It's unpresidented!

[jalan48]

29. I know. Hard to believe we lost to him.

[bettyellen]

32. I'm more surprised Russians helped him by hacking voter data bases and funneling money to the RNC...

But white men voted with their fears and emotions. They were so easily duped!

[jalan48]

35. Yes, if the white men had just listened to the white women (the heart and soul of our Party IMHO),

Hillary would have won.

[ehrnst]

38. Actually, the most reliable base, and heart and soul of our Party, is Black women.

And they made their choice known, along with the white women. Neither was fooled by the propaganda.

If the white men in the party had just listened to them, Hillary would have won.

[KitSileya]

45. White women are not the base of the Democratic party.

53% of white women voted for the racist misogynist, and can therefore not feel proud of their ilk. Black women, on the other hand, voted for Hillary Clinton both in the primary and in the general election, in the latter case to the tune of 93%. If anything, we should all listen to black women, as they have shown that they are not easily swayed by populism and pretend economic insecurity that is really racism and misogyny. They are excellent judges of political character, for sure.

[jalan48]

46. Thank you for this information.

[ehrnst]

39. We didn't actually.

It was stolen, using several tactics.

She got the vote, even with voter suppression on the part of the GOP.

[Arazi]

7. Thanks for bringing this

[ehrnst]

9. I have to wonder what your definition of politician is, or a

Because these people sort of count, don't you think?

Senator Ben Cardin:

President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is bad policy and calls into question America’s international credibility. Mr. Trump has now set the international community on a slippery slope, imperiling the national security interests of the United States and our allies.

Iran is complying with its end of the nuclear bargain, according to international observers and American intelligence officials. But the United States is now breaking the deal, poised to reimpose sanctions that were lifted on Iran for the promise of ceasing their nuclear-weapons program. By breaking the deal, President Trump has breathed air into Tehran’s inevitable argument to the international community: we kept our end of the deal, but America is not good for its word and cannot be trusted. It is in fact America who has violated its obligations under the deal.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/senator-ben-cardin-donald-trump-foreign-policy

Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Senator Tim Kaine:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement that Trump's decision would cost the U.S. "its international credibility and the power of our voice at the table."

“The president’s decision to abdicate American leadership during a critical moment in our effort to advance a denuclearization agreement with North Korea is particularly senseless, disturbing and dangerous," Pelosi said.

Her party's 2016 vice presidential nominee, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, said that the president’s actions would create a “new global nuclear crisis” as the U.S. seeks to address one with North Korea.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democrats-pan-trump-s-withdrawal-iran-deal-senseless-disturbing-dangerous-n872421

Senator Bob Menendez, Senator Chris Murphy, Rep. Adam Schiff:

Senator Bob Menendez, the top Democrat on the Senate foreign relations committee, said he believed Mr Trump’s decision to take the US out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) made it more likely, not less, that Iran would develop a nuclear weapon.

“With this decision President Trump is risking US national security, recklessly upending foundational partnerships with key US allies in Europe and gambling with Israel’s security,” he said.

Chris Murphy, a Democrat on the Senate foreign relations committee, termed Mr Trump’s announcement as “terrible news”.

“Pulling out of the Iran deal is like a soccer player deliberately kicking the ball into their own team’s goal,” Mr Murphy said, according to the Associated Press. “There is nothing but downside for the US, especially since Trump has zero plan for what comes next.”

Democratic congressman Adam Schiff said the decision was an error of “historic proportions”.

“Scuttling an agreement that had halted the Iranian nuclear program and put in place an intrusive regimen of inspections without a credible Plan B is a mistake of historic proportions,” said Mr Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/iran-nuclear-deal-latest-trump-us-democrats-republicans-a8342236.html


I hope this clarifies things for you.

[Ccarmona]

12. Feel Better Now?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

15. Exactly. Don't bother. TL;DR

[emulatorloo]

37. Yes, don't confuse me with the facts! Bernie is the ONLY ONE talking about this!1!!111

despite links to the contrary.

[ehrnst]

54. I am chastened...

[ehrnst]

55. Oh hai!

[ehrnst]

16. Was being corrected upsetting to you?

Clearly you missed several instances that you claimed weren't happening.

[Squinch]

52. The more you know...

[Squinch]

51. Clearly those don't count. Because only Bernie did it awesomely.

Don't you know this yet?

[ehrnst]

11. And I don't know what "news programs" spend an hour on one topic,

let alone a whole hour with a politician taking questions from the public.... however these have given it more than "five minutes"

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-iran-might-respond-to-u-s-withdrawing-from-the-nuclear-deal#transcript

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/trump-retreat-iran-deal-damage-trust-u-s-dealmaking-eu-ally-says

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-former-defense-secretary-robert-gates-on-face-the-nation-may-13-2018/

Where do you get your news? Nevermind, I think I know.

The town hall will be live streamed on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter in partnership with The Guardian, The Intercept, NowThis, The Young Turks, Act.tv and MoveOn.org.

[Ccarmona]

13. Now You Must Really Feel Good

[ehrnst]

17. Not as good as you feel angry, apparently.

But the point of your post wasn't really about facts, so I can understand why you would be angry at facts being brought in by myself and others in the thread.

[sunRISEnow]

14. He is campaigning.

[ehrnst]

18. Looks like it. (nt)

[sunRISEnow]

19. This is not an accusation or anything. We know campaigning. It is part of the process.

The other day, Weaver pretty much said it is inevitable Sanders is running in 2020. I am waiting to hear for what party, is all.

[ehrnst]

20. He stated why he registered as a Democrat back in 2016

The money and the media attention:

"..in terms of media coverage -- you have to run within the Democratic Party," the Vermont independent said at MSNBC's Democratic town hall in Columbus, Ohio.

The senator also said that the only way he could have launched a third-party bid was if he were a billionaire.

"If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic party," he said.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-says-he-ran-as-democrat-for-the-media-attention/

Not sure what's changed other than he is a millionaire now, so I think that he'll jump on before the deadline.

[sunRISEnow]

21. Then I would like to see how the Democratic would respond if he wants to be a Democrat again.

I think most of the Democratic base would have an issue with this behavior on Sanders part using our party to bash and attack us. We will see. I think he would have to go Independent after walking from the party following his loss in the primary of 2016.

That divides the party and causes a loss. Bernie stated way back when he would not create that loss of vote. He did accept the offer to vote Democratic in 1991 if the party did not run a viable candidate against him. He gets it will be a loss for all of us.

I really can not see the sense in Bernie even entertaining the consideration to run for President in 2020. It is a lose, lose, lose all the way around. For the Democratic Party. For Sanders. For the people.

[ehrnst]

22. I think he will run

no matter what.

[sunRISEnow]

23. I think so, too. Regardless.

[sunRISEnow]

24. Also, as Democrats, I think we have the right to know as soon as possible, what party he chooses.

[ehrnst]

27. What is the absolute deadline for signing up as a Dem candidate in 2020?

I think you have your answer.

But listening to his words, and Weaver's, gives you a heads up.

[sunRISEnow]

30. That would be unethical and Bernie runs on his ethics.

[ehrnst]

31. Indeed. (nt)

[NCTraveler]

25. Maybe he can talk about why he supported an embassy in Jerusalem last year. nt.

[Autumn]

40. I'm sure that he wasn't the only one affiliated with the Democratic party who

supported and embassy in Jerusalem last year. Or every year before that. The shocker will be if you can find me one who hasn't.

[NCTraveler]

41. Exactly.

The hypocrisy of this is on display for all willing to see.

[Nanjeanne]

42. I think you are referring to the resolution

the Senate passed in 2017 that was a recognition of the state of Israel and contained a number of clauses including support for two state solution. It was passed by 90 Senators. No one voted No. a few D and R Senators did not vote.

[NCTraveler]

43. It directly called for an embassy in Jerusalem.

Disturbing hypocrisy. Far too many just put their blinders on and cheer the hypocrisy.

[Nanjeanne]

48. Yes it did. It was a resolution marking the 50th year since Jerusalem reunification. Every Dem

and every Rep voted for the resolution that stated a number of things:

Recognizes the 50th anniversary of Jerusalem's reunification and extends the Senate's friendship and hopes for peace to Jerusalem's residents and Israel's people.

Reaffirms support for Israel's commitment to religious freedom and administration of holy sites in Jerusalem.

Supports strengthening the mutually beneficial American-Israeli relationship.

Commends Egypt and Jordan, former combatant states of the Six Day War, for embracing a vision of peace and coexistence with Israel and continuing to uphold their respective peace agreements.

Reaffirms: (1) that it is long-standing U.S. bipartisan policy that the permanent status of Jerusalem remains a matter to be decided between the parties through final status negotiations towards a two-state solution; and (2) the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 as U.S. law, and calls upon the President and all U.S. officials to abide by its provisions.

If it's blinders and hypocrisy - then every Democrat in the Senate in 2017 that doesn't support the moving of the Embassy now is a hypocrit with blinders on. Including President Obama who also said the Embassy should be moved - however later remarked that it was not the correct time to do it. That has been the position of every single President. Not now - not without negotiations for peace between the Israelis and Palastinians. Since passage, the law has never been implemented, because of opposition from Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, who view it as a Congressional infringement on the executive branch's constitutional authority over foreign policy; they have consistently claimed the presidential waiver on national security interests. Only Trump implemented it.

And just an FYI - Senator Sanders (then Congressman) voted against the S. 1322 (104th): Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. If you read the differences between the 1995 Act and the 2017 Resolution - you will see how they differ and perhaps you can actually understand the difference in Sander's vote. I bolded some of it just to help. Although I won't hold my breath on that one

The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 is a public law of the United States passed by the 104th Congress on October 23, 1995. It was passed for the purposes of initiating and funding the relocation of the Embassy of the United States in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, no later than May 31, 1999, and attempted to withhold 50 percent of the funds appropriated to the State Department specifically for "Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad" as allocated in fiscal year 1999 until the United States Embassy in Jerusalem had officially opened. The act also called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city and for it to be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel. Israel's declared capital is Jerusalem, but this is not internationally recognized, pending final status talks in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The United States has withheld recognition of the city as Israel's capital. The proposed law was adopted by the Senate (93–5), and the House (374–37).

[NCTraveler]

50. I fully understand the difference.

And the staggering hypocrisy.

Just as you could have put a different section in bold that would have blown up your whole last paragraph. Deception isn’t cool.

[Nanjeanne]

53. Please add in the info I left out. I thought I had copied the whole summary of the bill vs res.

I truly had no intention of deceiving you. I truly believe that the resolution you use as a means for showing Sanders is showing staggering hypocrisy is a resolution that has been supported by every Senator in the Senate in 2017 and also has been "tabled" as not doable given the lack of peace in the Mideast. Sanders might very well agree with that stance, under certain conditions and two-state solution that has been negotiated. How is that hypocritical? Just actually trying to have an honest discussion but that just seems impossible for someone who actually writes - Staggering hypocrisy. I guess just by Sanders - or by every other Democrat? Because - as mentioned - they all voted for that 2017 resolution but many have spoken out against Trump's move now. That's rhetorical - no need to answer.

[Uncle Joe]

34. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the reminder Ccarmona

[pampango]

47. Anyone (Bernie included) talking about it is good news. The more the better.

[pnwmom]

49. Why can't you promote Bernie without denigrating other progressives or exaggerating

what he has done?

It simply isn't true that no other politician or news program has spent more than 5 minutes on the topic.

TOWN HALL: Is the Iran deal right for America? | WOAI
news4sanantonio.com/news/local/town-hall-is-the-iran-deal-right-for-america

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-former-defense-secretary-robert-gates-on-face-the-nation-may-13-2018/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-iran-might-respond-to-u-s-withdrawing-from-the-nuclear-deal#transcript

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/trump-retreat-iran-deal-damage-trust-u-s-dealmaking-eu-ally-says

[Blue_Tires]

56. Are you going to actually discuss what he said?

Or is it some state secret?