General Discussion

TheKentuckian

(26,314 posts)

65. What does non proliferation have to do with trade? This is the dumbest tact yet.

Tue May 12, 2015, 11:49 PM

May 2015

How is it beyond your reckoning that a person can support one set of aims and oppose goals in another completely distinct area? Personality and policies are not one and the same.

In what way does what you are arguing make any sense?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

116 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Y'all don't get it [View all] WestSideStory May 2015 OP

That makes no sense... brooklynite May 2015 #1

+1 daleanime May 2015 #16

If Mr. Obama becomes a lame duck out of this then he did roguevalley May 2015 #69

Yes, but H2O Man May 2015 #107

No ... sendero May 2015 #2

+ 1 cali May 2015 #5

I don't think that is even close to right Egnever May 2015 #15

no,the vast majority would not have cali May 2015 #29

Why would you think that? Egnever May 2015 #68

Of course the fight is not over.. sendero May 2015 #74

...^ that 840high May 2015 #45

+2 L0oniX May 2015 #55

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words May 2015 #3

Tiger Beat logic Skittles May 2015 #12

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words May 2015 #25

the usual Skittles May 2015 #27

Several of the usual suspects LondonReign2 May 2015 #43

Tiger Beat... bunnies May 2015 #59

When I was a kid, David Cassidy (aka "Keith Partridge") was all the rage among young girls Art_from_Ark May 2015 #70

You are so right. bunnies May 2015 #109

Oh, yeah, John Stamos and Scott Baio Art_from_Ark May 2015 #116

Exactly! Jamastiene May 2015 #83

right Skittles May 2015 #115

No. The poster was trying to point out that if you trust the President to negotiate something okaawhatever May 2015 #35

Yeah, but we didn't have Warren and Sanders playing politics with Iran. Hoyt May 2015 #49

Why? They aren't even similar areas. It is entirely possible to trust a person in one area but not TheKentuckian May 2015 #61

I stopped reading at this: Save this dumbass argument for the morons. nt okaawhatever May 2015 #63

Seems to me if you want to make an argument leftofcool May 2015 #76

You should have kept reading. 99Forever May 2015 #88

Actually, it is not that no one has a problem with nuclear weapons deals Jamastiene May 2015 #81

You have to support and trust Elizabeth Warren treestar May 2015 #94

that makes no sense cali May 2015 #4

3d chess eh Jesus Malverde May 2015 #6

methinks your logic is backward rurallib May 2015 #7

You ever watch House of Cards? WestSideStory May 2015 #11

no - nor do I have any intention to. rurallib May 2015 #14

Does that include Obama? Cal Carpenter May 2015 #18

What utter nonsense. Maedhros May 2015 #8

He was a lame duck after the 2014 election fadedrose May 2015 #9

Oh... It's Sooooo Tempting... WillyT May 2015 #10

Not really, but... JaneyVee May 2015 #13

"Turned their backs on Obama" = voting on the policy rather than the party/polotician LondonReign2 May 2015 #44

why is OFA relevant at all? grasswire May 2015 #52

Mailing lists, voter registration, volunteers, etc. JaneyVee May 2015 #60

but you say in your post that OFA members will punish anyone who ... grasswire May 2015 #67

Tiger Beat fandom Jamastiene May 2015 #84

but this is really creepy grasswire May 2015 #100

I agree. Jamastiene May 2015 #113

You make a really good point JustAnotherGen May 2015 #77

there's another threat grasswire May 2015 #101

How? How is it a threat? JustAnotherGen May 2015 #103

Right, that's what it is, a Republican plot. bemildred May 2015 #17

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words May 2015 #39

I get annoyed when people try to talk down to me. bemildred May 2015 #41

Bored with posting on the cave? n/t PowerToThePeople May 2015 #19

heh nt grasswire May 2015 #53

"A bit schizophrenic" is just rhetoric, but a bit far. More like "a bit inconsistent", ergo Iran, with their trust. Fred Sanders May 2015 #20

What does non proliferation have to do with trade? This is the dumbest tact yet. TheKentuckian May 2015 #65

Oy veh. cyberswede May 2015 #21

The tide has turned. 99Forever May 2015 #22

I'm "a bit schizophrenic" if I disagree with Obama on TPP? Jackpine Radical May 2015 #23

He's right 100% of the time! Duh! One poster tonight even said that the Democrats in the Senate and neverforget May 2015 #30

Rush must be mad at the Tea Party for not passing TPP or something. Jackpine Radical May 2015 #98

oh geez, gmafb nt steve2470 May 2015 #24

Huh? You and big business disappointed ? Boo hoo Person 2713 May 2015 #26

The Senate Democrats should have afforded the President a vote. WestSideStory May 2015 #28

what a heaping pile of horse shit cali May 2015 #32

Yeah they should have vote with the "lily white Caucus" Republicans neverforget May 2015 #38

so is the NAACP racist too? cali May 2015 #47

Not to cast aspersions on your asparagus, but dmr May 2015 #50

This post and the thought process to get to it is weapons grade, hate mongering stupid TheKentuckian May 2015 #66

They did. Jamastiene May 2015 #85

! rurallib May 2015 #87

wow m-lekktor May 2015 #31

oh, schizophrenic? Raine1967 May 2015 #33

Maybe they meant -Schadenfreude- they got everything else wrong,so maybe they meant that instead Person 2713 May 2015 #42

Well, I knew I was crazy. This thread confirms it. bigwillq May 2015 #34

and ,if you are against TPP, apparently RACIST as well! m-lekktor May 2015 #36

Well that be a twoffer! nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #56

A Republican plan to get Obama to do their bidding? DJ13 May 2015 #37

Any opposition to Obama's policies is racism LondonReign2 May 2015 #40

Well, don't you get it? bigwillq May 2015 #46

Thanks Britney WhaTHellsgoingonhere May 2015 #48

Your use of the word "schizophrenic" is inaccurate, bigoted, and insensitive. CBGLuthier May 2015 #51

Unrec L0oniX May 2015 #54

Absolutely absurd MissDeeds May 2015 #57

and lay low..........OOPS! Phlem May 2015 #58

Don't make this about the man. This is about a trade agreement that no one has any Baitball Blogger May 2015 #62

Full control huh? bluesbassman May 2015 #64

Bunch of hooey Tsiyu May 2015 #71

I see. Obama embraces the Republicans and the Democrats vote against them both. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2015 #72

If Republicans were in control today, why didn't they get what they wanted? n/t eridani May 2015 #73

Bingo MaggieD May 2015 #75

I Will No Longer Settle For The Lesser Of Two Evils - Go Bernie Go cantbeserious May 2015 #78

If I don't support LWolf May 2015 #79

I'll take my diagnosis from a qualified psychiatrist. Jamastiene May 2015 #80

BS. The TPP should have come to us written on toilet paper. NaturalHigh May 2015 #82

Since the bunny with a pancake on its head isn't available, Alkene May 2015 #86

^^^ This should be an OP ^^^ Octafish May 2015 #90

They're full of win when it comes to taking a popular Dem president down a notch. ucrdem May 2015 #89

can't argue the substance of TPP, eh? TheSarcastinator May 2015 #91

I've been arguing the substance since January. Check my journal. nt ucrdem May 2015 #92

You've been catapulting propaganda and utilizing fear tactics to try and persuade. stillwaiting May 2015 #96

Jan. 30: "The point of TPP is to boost US exports. That's why PBO is behind it." ucrdem May 2015 #97

We disagree on the point of the TPP. stillwaiting May 2015 #99

No Alittleliberal May 2015 #106

Except... Oilwellian May 2015 #93

If Republicans were given full control of the federal government ... dawg May 2015 #95

Oh for fuck's sake WilliamPitt May 2015 #102

I am a Democrat first ... Trajan May 2015 #104

Incorrect. Orsino May 2015 #105

Obama has been a great President CanonRay May 2015 #108

The president is not always right. Blue_In_AK May 2015 #110

Globalization is a wedge issue in the republican party, too. Their base hates the UN, the WTO, pampango May 2015 #111

Maybe you need to get out more. nolabels May 2015 #112

Huh? Puddy May 2015 #114