@DCGoldPants Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 This stuff should stop at the shoreline. As far as the framers. I don't think they intended to see a 2-party system like this rip the country apart the way it has. Seems to really have picked up the pace of awfulness since the early 1980's. Nobody is going to charge them with Treason. I think it was highly inappropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I don't have the numbers at hand - but I wonder if that jewish population even votes GOP or anything? From what I remember, they are largely centered in high urban areas (which predominently vote Democrat). I doubt this one issue would move them - especially when the GOP is still largely controlled by the Christian right - which has taught against the jewish faith for many decades. Confess that I'm just going from vague impressions, myself, but the impression I've got is that the Jewish vote is pretty thoroughly Democrat. Now, it wouldn't surprise me if maybe the Jewish money might go R. But that's a whole lot of conjecture. (And probably based on not much more than bad stereotypes, at that.) ---------- Yes, I agree with you, the GOP has been really sucking up to Israel, last decade or so. I wonder if they're fishing for votes? Or money? Or just because they want another war in the middle east? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I don't have the numbers at hand - but I wonder if that jewish population even votes GOP or anything? From what I remember, they are largely centered in high urban areas (which predominently vote Democrat). I doubt this one issue would move them - especially when the GOP is still largely controlled by the Christian right - which has taught against the jewish faith for many decades. I have no idea so I don't really want to comment on the actual issue because I'll probably get exposed as being an idiot It does seem like the GOP heavily courts the Pro-Israel Jewish people. I have no idea what makes a jewish person pro/anti Israel (in terms of how they deal with Iran, or the Palestinians, etc) but it certainly seems that way to me. Maybe the whole idea is just a BS narrative the media/political parties put out. It's become increasingly harder to tell when you're not actually involved in the subject at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I guess what I don't get, other than implying that these 47 Senators (edit - and 1 loon Governor) will never allow the current President to enter into any treaties (especially ones that might have a historical significance to his enduring legacy), is what was the purpose of the letter? A expression of displeasure with Obama's actions so far as far as keeping the Senate in the negotiation loop, and of course to make sure Iran knows that displeasure can have consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I don't have the numbers either. But I know from my years in Hebrew School and being part of a Temple, American Jews mostly support Dems. Foreign born Jews living hear seem to lean more GOP. That's why the whole Bibi thing was crazy. He's not popular with American Jews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I wonder if they're fishing for votes? Or money? Or just because they want another war in the middle east? Can't have a rapture without an Israel fit for the battle of Armageddon. Just ask Kirk Cameron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins3D Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Absolutely. Let's have the 47 arrested and allow them to make their defense in the third branch. That's not abuse of power because hey, that's how the system is supposed to work right? Checks and balances and all that. If they are innocent they have nothing to worry about. Isn't that what law and order republicans like to say? Wouldnt you have to have a crime to charge them with first? No law has been broken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 A expression of displeasure with Obama's actions so far as far as keeping the Senate in the negotiation loop, and of course to make sure Iran knows that displeasure can have consequences. And he's got a bridge he's selling, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share Posted March 10, 2015 A expression of displeasure with Obama's actions so far as far as keeping the Senate in the negotiation loop, and of course to make sure Iran knows that displeasure can have consequences. Absolutely nothing wrong with an expression of displeasure at Obama's policies. But keep it in house. This whole things just stinks and reeks of partisan nonsense. It is unprecedented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I think a better debate would be ACTUALLY ABOUT the pro's and con's of negotiating with Iran. But I doubt that ever happens.This country has been debating the worth if negotiating with countries, such as Iran, for generations. This isn't being discussed now because it's overshadowed by the despicable act of 47 republican senators that decided to undermine the office of the president and embarrass the country. News is all about new and what the GOP did is reach a new and exciting low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Absolutely nothing wrong with an expression of displeasure at Obama's policies. But keep it in house. This whole things just stinks and reeks of partisan nonsense. It is unprecedented. as would be a major arms treaty by executive order.......it is not done for good reason How we got to this point matters, as does the fact it is about something outside our house. that that many Senators have signed is not a good sign for passing senate review. add Senator Biden has some opinions out there on the matter http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/more-on-the-senates-role-in-the-impending-iran-deal/ That argument, in a nutshell, is that the President lacks the authority under the U.S. Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in this context. Almost all major arms control agreements have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement. Past presidents surely must have made minor arms control agreements pursuant to Executive agreement at some point (I have not researched the point), but at a minimum the scope of the President’s domestic constitutional authority to make a binding executive agreement with Iran on control of its nuclear weapons is an open question. It is also true that the Senate has long taken the view that at least major arms control treaties must pass through the Senate for its consent. A good statement of this view can be seen in a letter, co-written in 2002 by Senator Biden to Secretary of State Powell, outlining “Senate prerogative regarding international arms control agreements” in a context similar (though not identical) to the current one. (The context was President Bush’s nuclear arms reduction agreement with Russia, which Biden, a lion of Senate prerogatives, insisted be approved via the treaty process.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 The GOP and a large number of people have serious issues with what Obama is doing. And he is completely ignoring those concerns and not allowing the GOP input. They are upping the ante. It's politics today. Maybe he should pause and let the Senate so their job and advise him Tell me what happened the last time a democrat negotiated a no nukes deal with a terrorist state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Do the Camp David Accords count? I don/'t know if Egypt was a terrorist state, and there weren't any nukes.. but they certainly were at war with Israel and have not been since. It's the only negotiated peace we wer involved with that i can recall in the middle east that has done any sort of sticking. i wonder what the world would be like if Sadat had not been killed? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Isn't this a multi-nation negotiation happening right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I would not automatically jump to that conclusion. That might be what motivates a good chunk of their base. And the leaders certainly do cater to that. But I don't see any reason at all to just assume that President Hillary wouldn't have been treated even worse. Not automatically jumping to a conclusion. I've been watching these behaviors for six years. I thought the circus of the Clinton witch hunt was bad and I thought the Dems were pretty rotten to Bush, but this Congress has been exponentially worse and is now outright breaking precedent in foreign affairs twice in a way that can not possibly be in the best interest of the United States. There's got to be something worse than politics going on here. Then again, maybe the Republicans really are that cynical and evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 The GOP and a large number of people have serious issues with what Obama is doing. And he is completely ignoring those concerns and not allowing the GOP input. They are upping the ante. It's politics today. Maybe he should pause and let the Senate so their job and advise him Tell me what happened the last time a democrat negotiated a no nukes deal with a terrorist state? Is the problem Obama not letting the GOP "advise" him or is it the fact that he's not doing exactly what they want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Isn't this a multi-nation negotiation happening right now? Yep. Russia,China,Germany etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Advising means giving your two cents and understanding the decision is not yours to make. When a group of politically driven idiots decide to undercut their own President as he deals with a hostile nation, they aren't making an argument for themselves as advisors. I don't even think they want things to go their way because to reach this level of disrespect the priority is clearly politics, not country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Yes. I believe most of the liberals here are booger eating morons. I like almost all of them. But I think most of them are dumber than a box of rocks. Tisk tisk, disrespecting your fellow posters like that. Personally I feel that most of the republicans on this board are better informed and much smarter than the tea party morons I meet in the real world. The major failure of republicans on this board is that they are too biased to see how insane their party has become and get defensive every time someone points a finger at a republican idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Advising means giving your two cents and understanding the decision is not yours to make. When a group of politically driven idiots decide to undercut their own President as he deals with a hostile nation, they aren't making an argument for themselves as advisors. I don't even think they want things to go their way because to reach this level of disrespect the priority is clearly politics, not country. ya left out consent, which clearly is different than simply advising. add The Senate of the First Congress set the precedent for how it would handle treaty consideration. When President George Washington visited the Senate Chamber in August 1789 to seek advice and consent on a pending treaty, he became frustrated when the senators referred the treaty to committee for further discussion. Another 130 years would pass before another president of the United States personally delivered a treaty to the Senate. and they wanted to make him king earlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 The GOP and a large number of people have serious issues with what Obama is doing. And he is completely ignoring those concerns and not allowing the GOP input. They are upping the ante. It's politics today. Maybe he should pause and let the Senate so their job and advise him Tell me what happened the last time a democrat negotiated a no nukes deal with a terrorist state? Yeah, cause no one disagreed with Bush about going to war in Iraq, right? I can say that because I own a mirror. I Supported Bush (my problem with Iraq is that the aftermath was poorly managed.) and remember CLEARLY that half the nation wanted (and probably still do) him charged with war crimes. Executive Orders ? Obama 203 - 2 terms W. Bush 291- 2 terms Clinton 364 - 2 terms Bush 166 - 1 term Reagan 381 - 2 terms Yeah, Obama is a friggin dictator. (I miss that roll eyes smiley) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Tisk tisk, disrespecting your fellow posters like that. Personally I feel that most of the republicans on this board are better informed and much smarter than the tea party morons I meet in the real world. The major failure of republicans on this board is that they are too biased to see how insane their party has become and get defensive every time someone points a finger at a republican idiot. I'm confident he and anyone reading it took it as a tongue in cheek attempt at a joke. Nobody here thinks I consider them a moron. I wouldn't engage them if I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Then by all means lets get back to the rest of that post. The GOP and a large number of people have serious issues with what Obama is doing. And he is completely ignoring those concerns and not allowing the GOP input. They are upping the ante. It's politics today. Maybe he should pause and let the Senate so their job and advise him What is the republican response to the 97% of actual climate scientists who say that global warming is real and is man made? Do they engage those of us who say this is a real and important issue by putting a thoughtful science minded person in charge and considering other views? NASA trouble: Science denier Ted Cruz will oversee Senate committee for oversight. Climate Change Denier James Inhofe to Lead Environment Committee | The New Republic **** the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Tell me what happened the last time a democrat negotiated a no nukes deal with a terrorist state? I'm not 100% certain, but I believe the "terrorist state" was North korea. And what happened was: 1) North Korea shut down the reactor they were operating. And halted construction on the two they were building. 2) And the US began delivering food to NK. 3) A Republican got elected President. 4) He announced that he was reneging on the deal, and halted food shipments. 5) NK restarted their reactor, and resumed construction on the two others. (And completed, and started them.) 6) No negotiations were held, for several years. 7) NK developed, and tested, nuclear weapons. 8) The President then agreed to a deal which was essentially identical to the one that was in place, when he took office. Was that the one you were referring to? ---------- Mike, You considered changing the title of the thread to "Let's throw out lots of unrelated things I don't like about The Other Political Party"? That way, you won't be hijacking your own thread, and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I like the response be Iranian Foreign Minister. Maybe there's hope for peace between us after all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.