该用户的聊天记录定位。
I think it’s pretty unlikely to be clarified P2 and gained further confidence (contrary to market sentiment) from the clarification on troops
I think it’s pretty unlikely to be clarified P2 and gained further confidence (contrary to market sentiment) from the clarification on troops
I think that the primary risk is potential UMA swarming
I think that the primary risk is potential UMA swarming
I know the game I’m playing I understand it’s risks and rewards
I know the game I’m playing I understand it’s risks and rewards
I really don’t consider this whole what do you mean scam! Thing worth engaging with I mean we’ve all seen some of these resolves lmao
I really don’t consider this whole what do you mean scam! Thing worth engaging with I mean we’ve all seen some of these resolves lmao
I won’t say who for now, I start beef over nonsense not markets 😂 but a top 15 Y holder on June
I won’t say who for now, I start beef over nonsense not markets 😂 but a top 15 Y holder on June
Because that’s what it is and I’ve seen this before? Mind you that before I started engaging with this nonsense the arguments being made were DRAMATICALLY different, I point by point disassembled the most outlandish and baseless of those claims (roughly 80%~ of the claims being made) and rather than acquiesce the goalposts were moved, I’ve also seen people ceding privately that this is a scam and one of the top Y holders (who has no idea about anything related the topic) conveyed at the beginning of this to me that he was going to “steal my money” sooooooooooooo
Because that’s what it is and I’ve seen this before? Mind you that before I started engaging with this nonsense the arguments being made were DRAMATICALLY different, I point by point disassembled the most outlandish and baseless of those claims (roughly 80%~ of the claims being made) and rather than acquiesce the goalposts were moved, I’ve also seen people ceding privately that this is a scam and one of the top Y holders (who has no idea about anything related the topic) conveyed at the beginning of this to me that he was going to “steal my money” sooooooooooooo
?????
?????
Because the way you’re presenting basic information isn’t true and the MOU clearly outlined a permanent cessation of hostilities and was understood prior to announcement to be a central point to this MOU
Because the way you’re presenting basic information isn’t true and the MOU clearly outlined a permanent cessation of hostilities and was understood prior to announcement to be a central point to this MOU
It absolutely doesn’t as it’s not any agreement of any kind but a framework that Vance is claiming the Americans have for an actual agreement which WOULD qualify and it echoes many previous American claims that they’ve been progressively distancing themselves from about substantial progress on the nuclear file
It absolutely doesn’t as it’s not any agreement of any kind but a framework that Vance is claiming the Americans have for an actual agreement which WOULD qualify and it echoes many previous American claims that they’ve been progressively distancing themselves from about substantial progress on the nuclear file
Senior Iranian figures made no such statements, and Vance claimed it as a precondition for a further deal with a gentlemens agreement developed around this point, you’re just grossly distorting things into completely different things (poorly mind you)
Senior Iranian figures made no such statements, and Vance claimed it as a precondition for a further deal with a gentlemens agreement developed around this point, you’re just grossly distorting things into completely different things (poorly mind you)
Which is in no way shape or form a thing that has been agreed in the text or reported in press you’re doing Y a disservice arguing this poorly
Which is in no way shape or form a thing that has been agreed in the text or reported in press you’re doing Y a disservice arguing this poorly
Obviously not
Obviously not
They’re the markets people are focusing on less and require you to load a separate (less traded) page that’s why they proposed them
They’re the markets people are focusing on less and require you to load a separate (less traded) page that’s why they proposed them
Twice
Twice
Alright I’m taking a break from active arguing for a bit will pickup again a bit later
Alright I’m taking a break from active arguing for a bit will pickup again a bit later
I would personally prefer to not throw money into the UMA dispute pot and am fine with my clarification odds atm
I would personally prefer to not throw money into the UMA dispute pot and am fine with my clarification odds atm
They clarify more consistently on double proposes but it’s a weak point imo
They clarify more consistently on double proposes but it’s a weak point imo
It’s going to go to a vote in UMA / it’s going to get clarified or not get clarified there’s no point
It’s going to go to a vote in UMA / it’s going to get clarified or not get clarified there’s no point
Nobody wants to do the dispute stuff I will 100% dispute it and it’s just donating money to UMA
Nobody wants to do the dispute stuff I will 100% dispute it and it’s just donating money to UMA
It’s a spoken statement they’re often a lot more chaotic than written statements but context is critical here isolating the quote and extrapolating it to have any significance in this market is absurd
It’s a spoken statement they’re often a lot more chaotic than written statements but context is critical here isolating the quote and extrapolating it to have any significance in this market is absurd
I already did and will if future proposals are made
I already did and will if future proposals are made
There’s absolutely nothing of substance here, absolutely nothing, pack it up man this is ridiculous
There’s absolutely nothing of substance here, absolutely nothing, pack it up man this is ridiculous
Reporter question - "A US official described having secured some of these quote unquote gentlemen agreements with Iran on certain aspects of the negotiation so when it comes to HEU can you walk us through whats been secured even in these kind of gentlemen agreements on how exactly they're going to get rid of the stockpile are there agreements on low grade enrichment, how long is the moratorium on enriching uranium for Iran and are any of these gentlemen agreements written down anywhere?" Vance response - "So some of them are written down but fundamentally whether they're written down or spoken this is why we structured the deal that we did because we don't trust words we trust action and we trust conduct so we're going to reward conduct and we're not going to reward any words whether they're written on a sheet of paper or not there's a lot of discussion the MOU this gentlemen agreements the final deal words don't matter ladies and gentlemen we're about verification and so what we're going to do is to say if they do the things that they've promised to do they've promised not to enrich, they've promised to let inspectors in to destroy that highly enriched stockpile and of course it's not usable anymore you take it somewhere else they've promised a number of things and that's why the deal contemplates a number of benefits if they do those things but it doesn't do anything if they don't actually meet those promises" The full quote is abundantly clear he made it in response to a questions about the gentlemen agreements made and in the same breath as the enrichment statement references the clearly outlined preexisting HEU stockpile clearly outlining this quote as referencing future negotiations which is why precisely ZERO outlets have reported this statement by Vance to mean an Iranian agreement not to enrich, it’s a very significant claim and would represent a substantial departure in the Iranian negotiating position
Reporter question - "A US official described having secured some of these quote unquote gentlemen agreements with Iran on certain aspects of the negotiation so when it comes to HEU can you walk us through whats been secured even in these kind of gentlemen agreements on how exactly they're going to get rid of the stockpile are there agreements on low grade enrichment, how long is the moratorium on enriching uranium for Iran and are any of these gentlemen agreements written down anywhere?" Vance response - "So some of them are written down but fundamentally whether they're written down or spoken this is why we structured the deal that we did because we don't trust words we trust action and we trust conduct so we're going to reward conduct and we're not going to reward any words whether they're written on a sheet of paper or not there's a lot of discussion the MOU this gentlemen agreements the final deal words don't matter ladies and gentlemen we're about verification and so what we're going to do is to say if they do the things that they've promised to do they've promised not to enrich, they've promised to let inspectors in to destroy that highly enriched stockpile and of course it's not usable anymore you take it somewhere else they've promised a number of things and that's why the deal contemplates a number of benefits if they do those things but it doesn't do anything if they don't actually meet those promises" The full quote is abundantly clear he made it in response to a questions about the gentlemen agreements made and in the same breath as the enrichment statement references the clearly outlined preexisting HEU stockpile clearly outlining this quote as referencing future negotiations which is why precisely ZERO outlets have reported this statement by Vance to mean an Iranian agreement not to enrich, it’s a very significant claim and would represent a substantial departure in the Iranian negotiating position
Because those 4 which are easily dismantled are the crux of the argument and none have been properly engaged with merely moving goalposts rather than addressing the central question of a consensus of reporting to resolve the market
Because those 4 which are easily dismantled are the crux of the argument and none have been properly engaged with merely moving goalposts rather than addressing the central question of a consensus of reporting to resolve the market
Or is it the smoking gun of peoples opinions?
Or is it the smoking gun of peoples opinions?
Or is it the smoking gun of misquoting via omission or blatant misrepresentation of what was said by various people?
Or is it the smoking gun of misquoting via omission or blatant misrepresentation of what was said by various people?
Or the distortion of further enrichment meaning enrichment of uranium as opposed to its oft used by Iranians international atomic agencies and independent watchdogs as meaning enriching to a higher threshold?
Or the distortion of further enrichment meaning enrichment of uranium as opposed to its oft used by Iranians international atomic agencies and independent watchdogs as meaning enriching to a higher threshold?
What data points when this began many supposed data points were egregious misquotes or lacking in context, what point specifically is the smoking gun? The Reuters article contradicted by later Reuters reporting published mere hours after the announcement of the MOU based on claims made by the Iranian official clearly referencing article 9 of the MOU?
What data points when this began many supposed data points were egregious misquotes or lacking in context, what point specifically is the smoking gun? The Reuters article contradicted by later Reuters reporting published mere hours after the announcement of the MOU based on claims made by the Iranian official clearly referencing article 9 of the MOU?
Sure without any agreement around the status of the deal, agreeing there will be an agreement around enrichment is not agreeing to not enrich lol
Sure without any agreement around the status of the deal, agreeing there will be an agreement around enrichment is not agreeing to not enrich lol
I outlined it namely that he’s specifically critiquing the proposal as a member outside of government with his own interpretation of what it means by extrapolating on the current status of Iranian enrichment rather than any sort of authoritative claim made by Iran it’s little more than this individuals opinion and based on a document like this being given so many statements by various figures it’s not surprising there’d be things like this
I outlined it namely that he’s specifically critiquing the proposal as a member outside of government with his own interpretation of what it means by extrapolating on the current status of Iranian enrichment rather than any sort of authoritative claim made by Iran it’s little more than this individuals opinion and based on a document like this being given so many statements by various figures it’s not surprising there’d be things like this
Iran has in no way shape or form announced any intention of ceasing uranium enrichment which is why for hours all of these arguments have been reliant on such egregious misquoting, misrepresentation of basic facts and information, completely wrong understanding of the meaning of words etc
Iran has in no way shape or form announced any intention of ceasing uranium enrichment which is why for hours all of these arguments have been reliant on such egregious misquoting, misrepresentation of basic facts and information, completely wrong understanding of the meaning of words etc
This is what you’re citing where he specifically as a parliamentarian outside of the “ruling” government btw, is criticizing the flaws and ambiguities in the deal as he sees it? This is the 7th moved goalpost smoking gun with no relevance?
This is what you’re citing where he specifically as a parliamentarian outside of the “ruling” government btw, is criticizing the flaws and ambiguities in the deal as he sees it? This is the 7th moved goalpost smoking gun with no relevance?
The agreement only emphasizes the sanctions Iran is currently facing and has not secured any commitment from the US not to impose new sanctions in the future. Maintaining the Status Quo is in the U.S.'s Favor: Iran has proposed that until a final agreement, current U.S. sanctions and the American military presence in the region be maintained, which is a disaster. Denial of Nuclear Sovereignty (Articles 8 & 9) Freeze on Enrichment: Iran has committed to maintaining the status quo on the nuclear front until the final agreement, which means a complete halt to enrichment and no reconstruction of sites. Supervision Beyond the Law: It is proposed that the fate of “all nuclear-related matters” (even radiopharmaceuticals, nuclear power, and agriculture) be determined with the agreement of the U.S., which is effectively turning Iran into an “American colony.” Deception in the Reconstruction Fund (Article 6) No Guarantee of Resources: The fund's $300 billion in resources must be provided by the US and “regional partners.” If the partners (like Saudi Arabia) do not provide the money, the US has no obligation to make up the difference. Control over spending: The fund's spending is subject to “agreement between the parties,” meaning the US can prevent the spending of money on projects it dislikes (like the missile industry) or impose its own contractors. Lack of enforcement mechanisms (Paragraph 14) A Repeat of the JCPOA Experience: The Security Council resolution (like Resolution 2231) will not be binding on the U.S. (as it can withdraw), but it creates international obligations for Iran. Addressing Missile Issues: Taking the deal to the Security Council gives the US the opportunity to include missile issues and resistance groups in the annexes of the resolution. Edited
The agreement only emphasizes the sanctions Iran is currently facing and has not secured any commitment from the US not to impose new sanctions in the future. Maintaining the Status Quo is in the U.S.'s Favor: Iran has proposed that until a final agreement, current U.S. sanctions and the American military presence in the region be maintained, which is a disaster. Denial of Nuclear Sovereignty (Articles 8 & 9) Freeze on Enrichment: Iran has committed to maintaining the status quo on the nuclear front until the final agreement, which means a complete halt to enrichment and no reconstruction of sites. Supervision Beyond the Law: It is proposed that the fate of “all nuclear-related matters” (even radiopharmaceuticals, nuclear power, and agriculture) be determined with the agreement of the U.S., which is effectively turning Iran into an “American colony.” Deception in the Reconstruction Fund (Article 6) No Guarantee of Resources: The fund's $300 billion in resources must be provided by the US and “regional partners.” If the partners (like Saudi Arabia) do not provide the money, the US has no obligation to make up the difference. Control over spending: The fund's spending is subject to “agreement between the parties,” meaning the US can prevent the spending of money on projects it dislikes (like the missile industry) or impose its own contractors. Lack of enforcement mechanisms (Paragraph 14) A Repeat of the JCPOA Experience: The Security Council resolution (like Resolution 2231) will not be binding on the U.S. (as it can withdraw), but it creates international obligations for Iran. Addressing Missile Issues: Taking the deal to the Security Council gives the US the opportunity to include missile issues and resistance groups in the annexes of the resolution. Edited
Flaws and ambiguities in the text of the agreement, which, if finalized, is a pure disaster Ambiguity in concepts and timing (Articles 3, 4, and 13) Unspecified Final Agreement: Clause 3 states that there is a 60-day period for the final agreement, but its “renewable” nature leaves the exact timeline for reaching a result unknown. This is despite the fact that many of Iran's concessions (such as the lifting of sanctions and the withdrawal of U.S. forces) are contingent on reaching this “final agreement.” Withdrawal of US Forces: The withdrawal of forces is postponed to 30 days after the final agreement (the timing of which is unknown). Additionally, the phrase “Iran's periphery” is a qualitative and ambiguous concept, and it is not specified what radius it covers. Conflict in Implementation: According to Article 13, four articles are to be implemented in the first phase, but in Article 11, the release of funds is conditioned on “progress in negotiations,” which is an internal contradiction in the text. Iran's Cash Concessions vs. America's Promises in the Future (Paragraphs 5 and 11) Ceding Control of the Strait of Hormuz: Iran has committed to opening the strait immediately after the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding. This paragraph allows even Israeli and American commercial ships to pass without any restrictions, disregarding Iran's exclusive management and right to collect tolls. Release of Assets: Unlike previous versions that emphasized immediate release, this version contains the vague phrase “progress in negotiations.” There is also no guarantee of receiving “cash,” and the funds could remain frozen in third-party accounts (as in the Qatar experience). Recognition of Sanctions and U.S. Influence (Articles 7 and 9) Failure to Prohibit New Sanctions:
Flaws and ambiguities in the text of the agreement, which, if finalized, is a pure disaster Ambiguity in concepts and timing (Articles 3, 4, and 13) Unspecified Final Agreement: Clause 3 states that there is a 60-day period for the final agreement, but its “renewable” nature leaves the exact timeline for reaching a result unknown. This is despite the fact that many of Iran's concessions (such as the lifting of sanctions and the withdrawal of U.S. forces) are contingent on reaching this “final agreement.” Withdrawal of US Forces: The withdrawal of forces is postponed to 30 days after the final agreement (the timing of which is unknown). Additionally, the phrase “Iran's periphery” is a qualitative and ambiguous concept, and it is not specified what radius it covers. Conflict in Implementation: According to Article 13, four articles are to be implemented in the first phase, but in Article 11, the release of funds is conditioned on “progress in negotiations,” which is an internal contradiction in the text. Iran's Cash Concessions vs. America's Promises in the Future (Paragraphs 5 and 11) Ceding Control of the Strait of Hormuz: Iran has committed to opening the strait immediately after the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding. This paragraph allows even Israeli and American commercial ships to pass without any restrictions, disregarding Iran's exclusive management and right to collect tolls. Release of Assets: Unlike previous versions that emphasized immediate release, this version contains the vague phrase “progress in negotiations.” There is also no guarantee of receiving “cash,” and the funds could remain frozen in third-party accounts (as in the Qatar experience). Recognition of Sanctions and U.S. Influence (Articles 7 and 9) Failure to Prohibit New Sanctions:
Who says we have the literal quote? You can listen the reporters question and Vance’s response or you can read the transcript I wasted 5 minutes manually putting together, it’s very clearly being distorted to mean something far different than what Vance actually said which is why American media isn’t reporting Vance claimed an existing agreement where Iran agrees to pause enrichment (which would be a substantial breakthrough)
Who says we have the literal quote? You can listen the reporters question and Vance’s response or you can read the transcript I wasted 5 minutes manually putting together, it’s very clearly being distorted to mean something far different than what Vance actually said which is why American media isn’t reporting Vance claimed an existing agreement where Iran agrees to pause enrichment (which would be a substantial breakthrough)
Understand it as*
Understand it as*
It’s just ridiculous to read what a phrase means use the definition you understand it and not adjust when it’s pointed out conclusively that the prior understanding is baseless
It’s just ridiculous to read what a phrase means use the definition you understand it and not adjust when it’s pointed out conclusively that the prior understanding is baseless
I’ve already gone into this point multiple times that “further uranium enrichment” specifically refers to additional upblending U235 above 60% which is already Iranian law and is commonly used phraseology in the context of nuclear negotiations used by both Iran and the IAEA in reference to Irans nuclear program additionally includes international think tanks and NGOs
I’ve already gone into this point multiple times that “further uranium enrichment” specifically refers to additional upblending U235 above 60% which is already Iranian law and is commonly used phraseology in the context of nuclear negotiations used by both Iran and the IAEA in reference to Irans nuclear program additionally includes international think tanks and NGOs
Yes in reference to the gentlemen agreement question which was the question asked and this is further evidenced by him elaborating on the HEU inside Iran which is outlined very clearly in the deal as pending future settlement of the deal, distorting words to this degree just doesn’t work when they’re right there. Reporter question - "A US official described having secured some of these quote unquote gentlemen agreements with Iran on certain aspects of the negotiation so when it comes to HEU can you walk us through whats been secured even in these kind of gentlemen agreements on how exactly they're going to get rid of the stockpile are there agreements on low grade enrichment, how long is the moratorium on enriching uranium for Iran and are any of these gentlemen agreements written down anywhere?" Vance response - "So some of them are written down but fundamentally whether they're written down or spoken this is why we structured the deal that we did because we don't trust words we trust action and we trust conduct so we're going to reward conduct and we're not going to reward any words whether they're written on a sheet of paper or not there's a lot of discussion the MOU this gentlemen agreements the final deal words don't matter ladies and gentlemen we're about verification and so what we're going to do is to say if they do the things that they've promised to do they've promised not to enrich, they've promised to let inspectors in to destroy that highly enriched stockpile and of course it's not usable anymore you take it somewhere else they've promised a number of things and that's why the deal contemplates a number of benefits if they do those things but it doesn't do anything if they don't actually meet those promises"
Yes in reference to the gentlemen agreement question which was the question asked and this is further evidenced by him elaborating on the HEU inside Iran which is outlined very clearly in the deal as pending future settlement of the deal, distorting words to this degree just doesn’t work when they’re right there. Reporter question - "A US official described having secured some of these quote unquote gentlemen agreements with Iran on certain aspects of the negotiation so when it comes to HEU can you walk us through whats been secured even in these kind of gentlemen agreements on how exactly they're going to get rid of the stockpile are there agreements on low grade enrichment, how long is the moratorium on enriching uranium for Iran and are any of these gentlemen agreements written down anywhere?" Vance response - "So some of them are written down but fundamentally whether they're written down or spoken this is why we structured the deal that we did because we don't trust words we trust action and we trust conduct so we're going to reward conduct and we're not going to reward any words whether they're written on a sheet of paper or not there's a lot of discussion the MOU this gentlemen agreements the final deal words don't matter ladies and gentlemen we're about verification and so what we're going to do is to say if they do the things that they've promised to do they've promised not to enrich, they've promised to let inspectors in to destroy that highly enriched stockpile and of course it's not usable anymore you take it somewhere else they've promised a number of things and that's why the deal contemplates a number of benefits if they do those things but it doesn't do anything if they don't actually meet those promises"
Vance is very clearly saying that the gentlemen’s agreement, the understanding precipitating the MOU is that the final agreement will settle the enrichment **AND** enriched material question, he outlines both as a response to the question it’s very clearly not a P2 argument
Vance is very clearly saying that the gentlemen’s agreement, the understanding precipitating the MOU is that the final agreement will settle the enrichment **AND** enriched material question, he outlines both as a response to the question it’s very clearly not a P2 argument
Nope, that’s not in the MOU
Nope, that’s not in the MOU
No it’s not
No it’s not
There isn’t I have gone through for hours the various supposed “sources” being cited and claims being made
There isn’t I have gone through for hours the various supposed “sources” being cited and claims being made
No, it’d first off be words made by JD Vance not the Iranians, and it’s a response to a question around gentlemen agreements and the statement he was made in the same breath as statements made about pending future negotiations which also leaves the enrichment file also outlined in the MOU as pending a final settlement, it’s an egregious misquote
No, it’d first off be words made by JD Vance not the Iranians, and it’s a response to a question around gentlemen agreements and the statement he was made in the same breath as statements made about pending future negotiations which also leaves the enrichment file also outlined in the MOU as pending a final settlement, it’s an egregious misquote
I know a lot of people in this space and I’ve already stated that I will cover full cost of a dispute if it’s made in the last 30 minutes of the dispute window and clearly communicated to me that they intend for me to cover it in a public server and agree to give the reward if the dispute is successful
I know a lot of people in this space and I’ve already stated that I will cover full cost of a dispute if it’s made in the last 30 minutes of the dispute window and clearly communicated to me that they intend for me to cover it in a public server and agree to give the reward if the dispute is successful
<@708165458263670815> Responded here ^
<@708165458263670815> Responded here ^
Reporter question - "A US official described having secured some of these quote unquote gentlemen agreements with Iran on certain aspects of the negotiation so when it comes to HEU can you walk us through whats been secured even in these kind of gentlemen agreements on how exactly they're going to get rid of the stockpile are there agreements on low grade enrichment, how long is the moratorium on enriching uranium for Iran and are any of these gentlemen agreements written down anywhere?" "So some of them are written down but fundamentally whether they're written down or spoken this is why we structured the deal that we did because we don't trust words we trust action and we trust conduct so we're going to reward conduct and we're not going to reward any words whether they're written on a sheet of paper or not there's a lot of discussion the MOU this gentlemen agreements the final deal words don't matter ladies and gentlemen we're about verification and so what we're going to do is to say if they do the things that they've promised to do they've promised not to enrich, they've promised to let inspectors in to destroy that highly enriched stockpile and of course it's not usable anymore you take it somewhere else they've promised a number of things and that's why the deal contemplates a number of benefits if they do those things but it doesn't do anything if they don't actually meet those promises" So this is the actual quote which I manually put together wasting a bunch of time on the question from the reporter is about the gentlemen agreements with Iran and the specifics of the deal, Vance responds by saying that they don't trust words but actions he references the destruction of the HEU stockpile in the same breath as he references the supposed "commitment against enrichment" clearly elaborating on the as of yet pending nature of this agreement it's far from a "bullish" statement for Y
Reporter question - "A US official described having secured some of these quote unquote gentlemen agreements with Iran on certain aspects of the negotiation so when it comes to HEU can you walk us through whats been secured even in these kind of gentlemen agreements on how exactly they're going to get rid of the stockpile are there agreements on low grade enrichment, how long is the moratorium on enriching uranium for Iran and are any of these gentlemen agreements written down anywhere?" "So some of them are written down but fundamentally whether they're written down or spoken this is why we structured the deal that we did because we don't trust words we trust action and we trust conduct so we're going to reward conduct and we're not going to reward any words whether they're written on a sheet of paper or not there's a lot of discussion the MOU this gentlemen agreements the final deal words don't matter ladies and gentlemen we're about verification and so what we're going to do is to say if they do the things that they've promised to do they've promised not to enrich, they've promised to let inspectors in to destroy that highly enriched stockpile and of course it's not usable anymore you take it somewhere else they've promised a number of things and that's why the deal contemplates a number of benefits if they do those things but it doesn't do anything if they don't actually meet those promises" So this is the actual quote which I manually put together wasting a bunch of time on the question from the reporter is about the gentlemen agreements with Iran and the specifics of the deal, Vance responds by saying that they don't trust words but actions he references the destruction of the HEU stockpile in the same breath as he references the supposed "commitment against enrichment" clearly elaborating on the as of yet pending nature of this agreement it's far from a "bullish" statement for Y
Trump allows enrichment is NOT P2
Trump allows enrichment is NOT P2
Once again addressed that point he very clearly doesn’t say what those narrowly quoting him are presenting him as saying and the context makes that abundantly clear https://www.facebook.com/CBSNews/videos/vice-president-jd-vance-says-tehran-has-promised-not-to-enrich-uranium-and-has-p/1020741833704014/
Once again addressed that point he very clearly doesn’t say what those narrowly quoting him are presenting him as saying and the context makes that abundantly clear https://www.facebook.com/CBSNews/videos/vice-president-jd-vance-says-tehran-has-promised-not-to-enrich-uranium-and-has-p/1020741833704014/
He’s probably in too deep to flip but I’m confident he has the capacity to understand the inherent weakness of the position he’s presenting
He’s probably in too deep to flip but I’m confident he has the capacity to understand the inherent weakness of the position he’s presenting
Polymarket