Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: Deal or not, many U.S. states will keep sanctions grip on Iran.....

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 07:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Deal or not, many U.S. states will keep sanctions grip on Iran.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    When 50 states have 50 different foreign policies, then we cease to be the United States and become 50 independent nations.
    Mornin DH. That is true.....only close to 24 here. So they don't even make up half of the country.

  2. #12
    Tavern Bartender
    Kinky tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    34,254

    Re: Deal or not, many U.S. states will keep sanctions grip on Iran.....

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Deal.....what deal says some States. Looks like Team BO and the Fed will have an issue with some states when it comes to removing sanctions. What do you think of Kansas and Mississippi looking to put new sanctions on Iran? What say ye?



    As the United States and Iran come closer to a historic nuclear deal, many U.S. states are likely to stick with their own sanctions on Iran that could complicate any warming of relations between the long-time foes.

    In a little known aspect of Iran's international isolation, around two dozen states have enacted measures punishing companies operating in certain sectors of its economy, directing public pension funds with billions of dollars in assets to divest from the firms and sometimes barring them from public contracts. In more than half those states, the restrictions expire only if Iran is no longer designated to be supporting terrorism or if all U.S. federal sanctions against Iran are lifted - unlikely outcomes even in the case of a final nuclear accord. Two states, Kansas and Mississippi, are even considering new sanctions targeting the country.

    The prospect of unwavering sanctions at the state level, or new ones, just as the federal government reaches a landmark agreement with Iran risks widening a divide between states and the federal government on a crucial foreign policy issue. Though U.S. states have often coordinated their measures with federal sanctions on Iran, their divestment actions sometimes take a tougher line on foreign firms with Iran links than is the case under federal policy.....snip~

    Deal or not, many U.S. states will keep sanctions grip on Iran | Reuters
    That's actually very interesting. And those states are all across the political spectrum.

    Is there a precedence for states doing this sort of thing?
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 07:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Deal or not, many U.S. states will keep sanctions grip on Iran.....

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    The issue is absolutes in the mist of a foreign policy that is filled with anything but absolutes. Technically speaking so long as Iran is listed as sponsoring "terrorism" as defined we should not be negotiating a deal with this in the first place.

    As to not derail the conversation on this "deal" ending up as Executive Action vs. Senate approved Treaty, lets assume for a moment that Obama's deal through whatever means ends up so. For sanctions to be lifted under this deal, we also have to assume it would all sidestep Federal Law on deals with nations that support Terrorism.

    If you recall, just last month, Iran and Hezbollah were both recently omitted from the "Terror Threat List." Just in time to start talking to Iran about this framework for a deal. Therefor this issue may already be resolved from Obama's point of view putting more strain on Congress and Treaty process vs. Federal Law on dealing with State sponsored terrorism.



    Honestly I do not know, but we can safely assume that how far these States are willing to go means further opening the door to legal challenge. And odds are they will lose.

    Well, whatever Federal and International Sanctions came off....would apply to these states. Which I am sure they would want to get back to making money. So IMO they would accept such.....so I don't see why they would try to impose anything else on their own.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 07:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Deal or not, many U.S. states will keep sanctions grip on Iran.....

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    That's actually very interesting. And those states are all across the political spectrum.

    Is there a precedence for states doing this sort of thing?

    Not that I was aware of until today.....and if they are against such. How many are going to waste money running into the courts?

  5. #15
    Sage
    BrewerBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    6,887

    Re: Deal or not, many U.S. states will keep sanctions grip on Iran.....

    I don't see how this will have teeth. It would only affect money the state directly controls. I don't see how it will affect the businesses in those states.

  6. #16
    A sinister place...
    OrphanSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,821

    Re: Deal or not, many U.S. states will keep sanctions grip on Iran.....

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Well, whatever Federal and International Sanctions came off....would apply to these states. Which I am sure they would want to get back to making money. So IMO they would accept such.....so I don't see why they would try to impose anything else on their own.
    I guess to make a political point about this "deal." What else could it be about?
    "Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people." - Penn Jillette.

  7. #17
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    01-17-17 @ 11:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    1,552

    Re: Deal or not, many U.S. states will keep sanctions grip on Iran.....

    it's political exhibitionism. this is kind of like when VA's attorney general decided to file a separate suit from the other 13 states (or however many it was) that brought suit against the ACA. he just wanted his name in the paper so to help him (thankfully unsuccessfully) run for governor. politicians who do **** like this know it's meaningless, but it catches attention and their constituents get to pound on their chests and say "look how tough we are standing up to the evil feds". they get their names out there as people who will "take on big government" or some other fluffy BS.

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 07:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Deal or not, many U.S. states will keep sanctions grip on Iran.....

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    I guess to make a political point about this "deal." What else could it be about?
    Okay, but why would Democratic led and controlled states being saying the same thing?


  9. #19
    Student Iron River's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    11-11-16 @ 11:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    251

    Re: Deal or not, many U.S. states will keep sanctions grip on Iran.....

    This story looks manufactured by Reuters to help 0bam look put upon by state Republicans.


    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    I say it is outright amazing that Republicans, who generally favor trade with just about anyone, are willing to restrict trade because of a pending "deal" that their political counterparts are negotiating. Then enter Kansas and Mississippi looking for "new sanctions on Iran," and we seal the debate here on Republican political will over Republican economics.
    This has little to do with economics and more to do with reason and logic.

    How far this is going drives the point home on how far a political ideology is willing to go to stay as adversarial as possible.
    From what I read this story is about nothing. The states were asked about what they would do and a few state politicians said "X"

    I look at this in similar context to how I look at the States that have, or are trying, to ban government employees from saying "global warming" or "climate change." We are going to look extremely foolish down the road for making these purposefully combative State laws vs. Federal actions just because of the (D) or (R) behind someone's name.
    But you have no problem with 0bama banning any of his team from say islamic terrorism or mentioning islam in anything but the most favorable light??

    Come to think of it, what this really drives home is how far removed from reality politicians are. We say all day long that we do not like elements of the "deal" with Iran but doing this just screams political uselessness. In this case we are talking about a framework for a "deal" not yet signed but Republicans, and these States, are trying to submarine before the fact.
    What actions have these states taken? Have they passed any new laws in this regard??

    Am I the only one that thinks politicians are going bat **** crazy the further we go?
    The dems have gotten crazier and crazier for sure and there are some crazy RINOs out there too.

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 07:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Deal or not, many U.S. states will keep sanctions grip on Iran.....

    Quote Originally Posted by bg85 View Post
    it's political exhibitionism. this is kind of like when VA's attorney general decided to file a separate suit from the other 13 states (or however many it was) that brought suit against the ACA. he just wanted his name in the paper so to help him (thankfully unsuccessfully) run for governor. politicians who do **** like this know it's meaningless, but it catches attention and their constituents get to pound on their chests and say "look how tough we are standing up to the evil feds". they get their names out there as people who will "take on big government" or some other fluffy BS.
    This is more than just political exhibitionism.....it has Bi-partisan support.



    Among around a dozen states contacted directly by Reuters, legislators in Georgia, Florida, and Michigan said they had no intention of changing their Iran policies even in light of a federal deal. State officials in Connecticut and Illinois said new local legislation would be needed to change their divestment policies, even if a deal were signed. Officials in New York and Oregon told Reuters they would look to changes in law at the federal level in the case of a nuclear deal to determine how it would affect their policies.

    Officials at Iran's mission to the United Nations did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters on the state policies. White House spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan did not respond directly to a Reuters query about states' sanctions policies, but stressed that only sanctions related to Iran's nuclear program would be affected by a deal.

    The first divestment campaigns gathered steam in 2008 and 2009, and received a federal stamp of approval in 2010 with passage of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, which encouraged states to pass such measures.....snip~

    Deal or not, many U.S. states will keep sanctions grip on Iran | Reuters

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •