Sure the typos are unfortunate, but are you denying the historical fact Reagan paid randsom to Iran for our hostages? He admitted doing so himself, sounds like you're in full denial.
Man, you are something else. Here, check for typos in these articles, maybe, just maybe some of them are legit.How sure can you be that those are factual if the writer can't even proofread his work? Are you kidding me? Unfortunate? I've have heard about a court case or two that appeared to be clear cut thrown out over typos.
And yet, when it comes to Iran at least, ransom payments are standard operating procedure. It goes back to the Reagan administration. In the early 1980s, Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy in Lebanon, had taken several Americans hostage. In 1984, the Reagan administration began what it had hoped was an opening to Iranian moderates (sound familiar?). Eventually, that secret diplomacy turned into a deal to exchange anti-tank missiles from Israel for the release of hostages in Lebanon. The profits from the arms sale later went to fund the Nicaraguan Contras, but that's another story.
Reagan didn't get his story straight at first. In an address in November 1986 he acknowledged the arms sale, but insisted it was not part of a deal to free the hostages. By March 1987, Reagan came clean to the American people and acknowledged the arms-for-hostages deal with Iran.
The Reagan Administration, using an Israeli-operated supply line set up through highly secret negotiations with the regime of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, last year began supplying U.S.-made missiles and weapons parts to Iran in exchange for Iran's aid in freeing Americans held hostage in Lebanon, government sources said Wednesday.
The scandal stained the president’s reputation, after he went before the American people and proclaimed, “We did not—repeat—did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we.” But four months later, he admitted that “what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs.”
The final outcome of the arms-for-hostages disaster was two U.S. citizens released (the Reverend Benjamin Weir and the Reverend Lawrence Jenco) and two new hostages taken (Frank Reed and Joseph Cicippio).
In exchange for no net gain in released U.S. citizens, Reagan authorized the delivery to Iran—from U.S.-supplied Israeli stockpiles—the following advanced weapons:
August 20, 1985: 96 TOW missiles
September 14, 1985: 408 TOW missiles
November 24, 1985: 18 HAWK missiles
February 18, 1986: 500 TOW missiles
February 27, 1986: 500 TOW missiles
May 25, 1986: HAWK spare parts
August 3, 1986: HAWK spare parts
October 28, 1986: 500 TOW missiles
Let’s see if I can remember this correctly: Ronald Reagan not only agreed to pay ransom for 66 Americans being held hostage in the Mideast (Iran). It’s believed he negotiated for Iran to hold the hostages until just after he was inaugurated as president. And then because he couldn’t give Iran what they wanted (arms) he laundered the weapons through Central America... about which his underlings, working in the basement of the White House, then lied to Congress. But not before shredding some evidence and concealing other evidence in their underwear (Fawn Hall). After which the chief operative said Reagan knew everything.
And as far as the current situation which you - along with others here at Trump Central - have completely misrepresented, you probably want to read this:
Why the U.S. Owed Iran That $400 Million
http://time.com/4441046/400-million-iran-hostage-history/
The Republicans could run a Mother Theresa and the Democrats would find something. Birth control. Abortion, Who knows?
Nope, the facts are that Reagan paid randsom for hostages, which is wrong, and this case is something different, hence not comparable to what Reagan did. They are similar, but this has been public record since January that the $400M has been agreed upon. It is Iranian money that is being refunded on a purchase that never took place. The international courts arbritrated in the case, which again, has been public and transparent from the start.Lemme get this straight, pretending it's the same thing, the argument from lefties is that Reagan did something like this, so it's ok?
I will not be voting for Donald Trump for president. This is not a decision I make lightly, for I am a lifelong Republican. But Donald Trump does not reflect historical Republican values nor the inclusive approach to governing that is critical to healing the divisions in our country.
When the primary season started, it soon became apparent that, much like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Mr. Trump was connecting with many Americans who felt that their voices were not being heard in Washington and who were tired of political correctness. But rejecting the conventions of political correctness is different from showing complete disregard for common decency. Mr. Trump did not stop with shedding the stilted campaign dialogue that often frustrates voters. Instead, he opted for a constant stream of denigrating comments, including demeaning Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) heroic military service and repeatedly insulting Fox News host Megyn Kelly.
With the passage of time, I have become increasingly dismayed by his constant stream of cruel comments and his inability to admit error or apologize. But it was his attacks directed at people who could not respond on an equal footing — either because they do not share his power or stature or because professional responsibility precluded them from engaging at such a level — that revealed Mr. Trump as unworthy of being our president.
My conclusion about Mr. Trump’s unsuitability for office is based on his disregard for the precept of treating others with respect, an idea that should transcend politics. Instead, he opts to mock the vulnerable and inflame prejudices by attacking ethnic and religious minorities. Three incidents in particular have led me to the inescapable conclusion that Mr. Trump lacks the temperament, self-discipline and judgment required to be president.
The first was his mocking of a reporter with disabilities, a shocking display that did not receive the scrutiny it deserved. I kept expecting Mr. Trump to apologize, at least privately, but he did not, instead denying that he had done what seemed undeniable to anyone who watched the video. At the time, I hoped that this was a terrible lapse, not a pattern of abuse.
The second was Mr. Trump’s repeated insistence that Gonzalo Curiel, a federal judge born and raised in Indiana, could not rule fairly in a case involving Trump University because of his Mexican heritage. For Mr. Trump to insist that Judge Curiel would be biased because of his ethnicity demonstrated a profound lack of respect not only for the judge but also for our constitutional separation of powers, the very foundation of our form of government. Again, I waited in vain for Mr. Trump to retract his words.
Third was Donald Trump’s criticism of the grieving parents of Army Capt. Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq. It is inconceivable that anyone, much less a presidential candidate, would attack two Gold Star parents. Rather than honoring their sacrifice and recognizing their pain, Mr. Trump disparaged the religion of the family of an American hero. And once again, he proved incapable of apologizing, of saying he was wrong.
I am also deeply concerned that Mr. Trump’s lack of self-restraint and his barrage of ill-informed comments would make an already perilous world even more so. It is reckless for a presidential candidate to publicly raise doubts about honoring treaty commitments with our allies. Mr. Trump’s tendency to lash out when challenged further escalates the possibility of disputes spinning dangerously out of control.
I had hoped that we would see a “new” Donald Trump as a general-election candidate — one who would focus on jobs and the economy, tone down his rhetoric, develop more thoughtful policies and, yes, apologize for ill-tempered rants. But the unpleasant reality that I have had to accept is that there will be no “new” Donald Trump, just the same candidate who will slash and burn and trample anything and anyone he perceives as being in his way or an easy scapegoat. Regrettably, his essential character appears to be fixed, and he seems incapable of change or growth.
At the same time, I realize that Mr. Trump’s success reflects profound discontent in this country, particularly among those who feel left behind by an unbalanced economy and who wonder whether their children will have a better life than their parents. As we have seen with the dissatisfaction with both major- party nominees — neither of whom I support — these passions are real and the public will demand action.
Some will say that as a Republican I have an obligation to support my party’s nominee. I have thought long and hard about that, for being a Republican is part of what defines me as a person. I revere the history of my party, most particularly the value it has always placed on the worth and dignity of the individual, and I will continue to work across the country for Republican candidates. It is because of Mr. Trump’s inability and unwillingness to honor that legacy that I am unable to support his candidacy.
These pesky establishment Republicans, they're like gnats. I wish they'd go away. So annoying, constantly pointing out Donald's shortcomings.
Remember the SN-Trump company line when reading this. None of this matters, everything she writes should be disregarded because she's a Senate Republican who's clearly just looking out for her own personal interests.
GOP senator Susan Collins: Why I cannot support Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e-11e6-9d2f-b1a3564181a1_story.html?tid=a_inl
The reason it doesn't resonate, at least with me, is the fact that if it was another guy, they would be ripping him just as much. Maybe different stuff, but just as much. I was a Cruz guy. Voted for him in the PA primary. But if he was the nominee? It might be as bad if not worse. The establishment hated Cruz as much if not more. And Democrats, ****, they never debate ideas. They just don't. All they do is rip apart the Republican candidate. The Republicans could run a Mother Theresa and the Democrats would find something.
These pesky establishment Republicans, they're like gnats. I wish they'd go away. So annoying, constantly pointing out Donald's shortcomings.
Remember the SN-Trump company line when reading this. None of this matters, everything she writes should be disregarded because she's a Senate Republican who's clearly just looking out for her own personal interests.
GOP senator Susan Collins: Why I cannot support Trump
Sure the typos are unfortunate, but are you denying the historical fact Reagan paid randsom to Iran for our hostages? He admitted doing so himself, sounds like you're in full denial.
Um, that's politics. The same can be said about Republicans.
What's different with Trump, and you seem oblivious to it, is that his own party is ripping him, including Cruz! And it's not merely the fact that he isn't part of "the establishment" and he makes crude remarks.
First, he is NOT a conservative. He was a democrat less than a decade ago. He is a moderate republican with some radical ideas, none of which involve reducing federal spending.
Secondly, it's not the crude remarks, it's his lack of judgement and impulse control that enable him to make those remarks.
This is some righteous indignation over Donald Trump.
So again, this is a lot less about Trump for me than it is you. It is about the idea of sending a message to the people in power, the only real way we have to send that message short of some type of a revolution. We have been told our whole lives that voting is the way to do that. Well, here we are. Here is our chance.
I don't give a **** if he is not conservative. One would think that would make you at least consider him.
Trump IS the candidate, it IS about him whether you want it to be or not. Furthermore, he isn't third party. He is a candidate for one of the two establishment parties.
The most conservative, anti-establishment idea that was floated this election was Kasich's plan to cut current social security benefits. I loved it! I might be the most conservative anti-establishment person here.