• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
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
 
What say ye?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Am I the only one that thinks politicians are going bat **** crazy the further we go?
 
So, it pretty much only looks to be limited to state pension funds - eh?
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

Am I the only one that thinks politicians are going bat **** crazy the further we go?



Mornin OS. :2wave: What about the issue of Iran being on the list for sponsoring Terrorism. Wouldn't they being breaking the Federal Law, doing business with Iran?

I was wondering how Kansas and Mississippi could come up with their own sanctions over FP?
 
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?

Good morning MMC,

In my view this is the type of action you get when you have a President who basically says I don't give a **** what anyone else thinks or wants, I'm just going to bull ahead and do what I want. It's not just Obama - I've seen it in politics here in Canada as well. When one person tries to determine all that is right or all that will be done, those that also have a role, a role that is being undermined and belittled, get their backs up and fight back any way they can. It's human nature.

It's also funny that Obama makes a big show of wanting to negotiate and work with America's long standing enemies but he hasn't a ****ing clue how to negotiate and work with his own political enemies.
 
Kansas "putting sanctions" on Iran :lamo
 
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
When 50 states have 50 different foreign policies, then we cease to be the United States and become 50 independent nations.
 
Mornin OS. :2wave: What about the issue of Iran being on the list for sponsoring Terrorism. Wouldn't they being breaking the Federal Law, doing business with Iran?

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.

I was wondering how Kansas and Mississippi could come up with their own sanctions over FP?

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.
 
Forums poster Deuce also has sanctions on Iran.

And Chick-Fil-A.
 
When 50 states have 50 different foreign policies, then we cease to be the United States and become 50 independent nations.

Mornin DH. :2wave: That is true.....only close to 24 here. So they don't even make up half of the country.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?

IRAN-NUCLEAR-STATES.jpg
 
This story looks manufactured by Reuters to help 0bam look put upon by state Republicans.


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.
 
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
 
Okay, but why would Democratic led and controlled states being saying the same thing?

Perhaps similar reasoning, Obama did not exactly have overwhelming success getting Congressional Democrats to like this framework for a deal with Iran either. I am having a hard time looking at how this is all playing out in other means, just seems like too many are against the idea. What surprises me though is Republicans looking to restrict businesses because of Obama's goals. Democrats surprise me on this matter for other reasons.
 
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

why would bi-partisan support indicate it's more than political exhibitionism? both democrats and republicans like to get their names in the paper (not that what you've quoted here really indicates anything out of the ordinary for most of the states listed).
 
This story looks manufactured by Reuters to help 0bam look put upon by state Republicans.

Perhaps, but we have some awkward political goings on here. From both Republicans and Democrats.

This has little to do with economics and more to do with reason and logic.

If you find logic and reasoning with our foriegn policy these days, be sure to point that out to the rest of us. Please!

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 would not be so dismissive, especially in light of how much other activity is going on because of Obama wanting to deal with Iran.

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??

Why would you make that conclusion? I offered nothing to suggest being supportive of Obama trying to desensitize language concerning Islamic extremism and terrorism.

What actions have these states taken? Have they passed any new laws in this regard??

The dems have gotten crazier and crazier for sure and there are some crazy RINOs out there too.

That is the point, we are talking about activity that equates to going off the deep end. Unsure we are talking in after the fact terms here.
 
Perhaps similar reasoning, Obama did not exactly have overwhelming success getting Congressional Democrats to like this framework for a deal with Iran either. I am having a hard time looking at how this is all playing out in other means, just seems like too many are against the idea. What surprises me though is Republicans looking to restrict businesses because of Obama's goals. Democrats surprise me on this matter for other reasons.


Well once I saw Illinois, California, Oregon, New York, and Michigan.....I was wondering what they thought they were doing. I could see there are Demos against the Deal. But not states and governors that supported BO no matter what.

The Repubs I was looking at the money they would spend running into court to fight any of it.
 
why would bi-partisan support indicate it's more than political exhibitionism? both democrats and republicans like to get their names in the paper (not that what you've quoted here really indicates anything out of the ordinary for most of the states listed).

Due to the Governors that supported and backed BO.....caused me to question.
 
Back
Top Bottom