Perhaps one could be interested in conveying the truth and still be concerned about Iran's destabilizing efforts and terrorism sponsorship? The truth is that unlike
@Palindrome falsely asserted, Obama didn't "give" Iran $4B (it was actually $1.7 billion but if you're making shit up why not embellish, right?), the U.S. returned their own money that we had frozen as part of an agreement to reduce their nuclear threat. That's a fact, and no amount of evil on the part of Iran changes that from being a fact.
I'd caution that you not conflate my or
@d08's attempts to maintain a fact based dialog with the idea that we somehow want Iran to stay as it is. In fact, you'll find that when you feel the need to make shit up to support your position it makes your argument weaker rather than stronger, most intelligent people stop listening to you when you're clearly fabricating support for your argument. So let's all agree that Iran does some bad stuff, none of us supports that bad stuff. There are a variety of ways to deal with that which smart well meaning people can disagree on. Some of us thought that freezing large parts of Iran's nuclear program and starting dialog with them was worth a try given that the alternative policy of the past 40 years has failed to accomplish anything other than making them a hostile nuclear state. You may disagree, and if you put together some cogent reasoning for another alternative I'd love to hear it. But "Iran bad, Obama bad, Obama gave the $4B in 2015 and THEN they started a civil war in Syria (that actually started in 2011)" isn't a cogent argument or even really a coherent one. Perhaps we can agree on that as well?
