DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on September 09, 2015, 01:49:41 PM
-
Remember how then Senate Majority leader Reid, had bill after bill after bill after bill, on a myriad of issues, imparticularly the budget, that he wouldn't even allow the Senate to vote up or down on. Yea, they passed "comprehensive immigration reform", then hypocritically condemned the House for not allowing their members to vote up or down on, despite their actions of doing it countless times, under Reid
Fast forward to now.....Senate is debating the horrible Iran "deal". GOP is now in the majority, and we're about to see bipartisan opposition of the "deal", as a minimum of 4 Democrats oppose the bill, and many others have voiced significant reservations. The "deal" is to then be voted up or down, but it appears Senate Minority leader Reid is now setting up a fillibuster, to prevent the "deal" from even being voted on, that both a majority of the Senate and the country DOES NOT SUPPORT.
Who again is obstructing?
-
Again, the reason this deal is going to pass is because the Republicans collaborated to make it easy to pass this while still not requiring them to vote for it.
It is the best deal they are going to get. If the US were to turn it down, which WILL NOT HAPPEN, only the US sanctions could be kept in place.
Iran is not any sort of threat to the US. Israel is not the fifty first state. Netanyahu deserves to see this passed for coming over here and tryoing to fuck with the government of my country.
Iran is not going to nuke Israel, nor will it try to conquer Israel.
-
Iran is not going to nuke Israel, nor will it try to conquer Israel.
Khamenei: Israel won't survive next 25 years
http://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-israel-wont-survive-next-25-years/
-
Again, the reason this deal is going to pass is because the Republicans collaborated to make it easy to pass this while still not requiring them to vote for it.
NEWS FLASH....IT DIDN'T PASS Congress. There was not a majority of the Senate that supported it, including some of the most staunchest leftest Dems. Not only did it NOT pass, the Demawon'ts wouldn't even allow it to be voted on
It was in no way "the best deal". Obama had the leverage to impose a far more stringent set of parameters, and would have had global support. But instead, he pissed it away, to get something Iran would sign, and claim "victory"..........for Iran maybe. And no, they don't have to be a threat to the Continental U.S. You think nuking Iran would then have Iran and its terrorist sponsored offshoots stop there?? This "deal" has pretty much guaranteed a war now in the region. And it'll be sooner, not later. Bravo Oblather
Getting back to the point however, that even here in the U.S., you have Obama's sychophants, led by Reid & Pelosi, trying to protect him from embarrasing failure, after failure, after failure.
-
There would be a war if they did NOT pass this deal.
We do not need any more useless wars in the Middle East. Iraq was a huge mistake.
Notice that Obama got the Hell out of Libya as soon as the danger of Qadaffi strafing ins people was over. They did not stay.
Again, the approval was configured so that it woudl pass and the Repub;ican's could still say that they had nothing to do with it, so theyould hit rich (and stupid) Jews up for money.
If Deborah Wasserman Schultz is for this deal, that means that it is good for Israel. She is the official SuperJew.
-
There would be a war if they did NOT pass this deal.
EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. Iran was in no financial shape to expand any war than the proxy wars they had going on. The Deal that COULD have been reached, given the leverage we DID have, would have made that a long lasting feature. Instead, we just gave them a windfall of $$$$$$'s, that they can now buy....pretty much anything they want, using that money to shore up any and all defenses, while getting the best of the best weaponry from folks like Russia. And at the end of the tunnel, nukes in less than 15years. NONE of that would have occured, but now this "deal" guarantees it, ........ AND WAR
And again, THIS WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED A BIPARTISAN SENATE VOTE. So, Reid has to pull out the political clown car, so Obama doesn't even have to veto, what a majority of the country, ALSO doesn't support
-
The present government of Iran has been at war or supporting insurgency outside its borders the entire time it has existed.
Making more money available to this government is very likely to increase their capability to kill near and far, and they would think it a waste to not kill where they can.
-
You guys are simply WRONG.
Congress finagled so that it could be approved by a minority of the Senate. Ted Cruz, although he is a dipshit, and stupidly opposes the deal, revealed this. It was done so that Republican'ts could claime they voted against it and get access to the fat coffers of rich Jewish fanatics, like Adelman.
What clearly won't last 25 years is Khamenei.
-
I really don't know how you get "approved" with "minority". The ONLY means by which something is "approved" is with a majority vote....period. This deal was NEVER approved by the Senate
Republicans were going to get whatever donations, regardless. The only folks that this circus tactic by Reid protected, was the embarrassment to Obama for not having to formally veto it, and those dems who had severe reservations to "the deal", but now don't have to face angry constituents, because they didn't have to vote
-
So riddle me this.......How is it that the Senate voted 98-1 to demand a say over this Iran "deal", with yes votes coming from all 42 Senators who've now joined a filibuster to prevent their own legislative body from having that say
-
Shenanigans is a good word for it.
Procedural devices that frustrate the majority show little confidence that the public can be convinced to do right.
Elitism, President Obama can again be accused of this .
-
Indeed. .... especially when you consider how the Dems & MSM would go apesnot if it was the GOP pulling this procedural crap to try and protect a Republican President from yet another embarrassment of policy. The thing is, it doesn't require a veto.....the embarrassment is on full display, with the polls demonstrating how wrong he was in this "deal"
-
The Republicans went along with finagling the deal so it could be passed by a third plus one. So they are clearly accomplices in it passing. It was a wily trick to counter Netanyahu's plan to steer our government in his direction. Sneaky times call for sneaky measures.
Outwitting a sly trickster like Netanyahu was required and masterful.
-
The ONLY means by which something is "approved" is with a majority vote....period. This deal was NEVER approved by or PASSED the Senate. EVERY REPUBLICAN WOULD HAVE VOTED AGAINST IT, as did Democrats. How the hell is that finagling it??
So, again, how is it that the Senate voted 98-1 to demand a say over this Iran "deal", with yes votes coming from all 42 Senators who've now joined a filibuster to prevent their own legislative body from having that say??
This is ALL Democrat fingerprints
-
The vote was finagled in such a way as 34 votes passed it. This was done3 with the express approval of rthe Republicans, who really wanted it to pass, but did not want to vote for it.
At any rate, there is no stopping it now. It is a done deal. And the best one they could get.
The alternative would be war.
-
What part of not passing are you not getting? But by all means, please share how you're so intimately privvy to the inner goings-on of the Senate GOP leadership. And no, your say so or it's just "obvious" doesn't cut it. Try linking zome report from some news source that chronicles this supposed diabolical plan, you keep fantasizing about.
-
The Republicans went along with finagling the deal so it could be passed by a third plus one. So they are clearly accomplices in it passing. It was a wily trick to counter Netanyahu's plan to steer our government in his direction. Sneaky times call for sneaky measures.
Outwitting a sly trickster like Netanyahu was required and masterful.
This seems to be an agreement on your part that little respect for the common man is found in this administration.
You just want Republicans to share this.
Ok, yes there isn't enough respect for the common man in the Republican camp either.
More than the Democrats still might not be ,..enough.
-
The Iran deal was the very best deal possible. The only alternative was no deal at all, and Iran could start working on their nukes right away.
By the way, they are not very good at this, The US produced two different kinds of A bombs in four years, and no one had ever done it before, Nearly Every procedure was untried and untested. Now the technology is understood, and the obstacles are simply getting enough U-238 or Plutonium. Iran has been thinking about this for over 20 years. Every three months, Israel tells us they are only three or six months from having their bomb.
But it never, ever happens.
Years go by and there are no results.
So either they are faking building a bomb just to pester the Israelis, or they are amazingly incompetent.
-
What ,in particular, makes this deal better than no deal?
The entire Iranian program was under cover until intelligence dug it out.
Why should they not enjoy their new freedom from embargo and build bombs too?
They haven't promised to stop enriching uranium and they probably have facilities we haven't found yet.
-
What ,in particular, makes this deal better than no deal?
Exactly. Iranians would still be trying to acquire their nukes via their enriched uranium efforts, but at an exponentially higher cost to their economy and sponsored terrorist efforts. They'd be under a global microscope, would have no credibility in anything they claim, and at the 1st sign of them trying to weaponize anything, would quickly be taken out. Instead now we have precisely the opposite, where they even get to "inspect themselves". EVERY one of the concrete pledges Obama made as a cornerstone to ANY "deal" with Iran, completely scrapped. And as such, gives Israel every justification for a preemptive attack now, that wouldn't have been the case under the no-deal scenario......unless of course, Iran attacks 1st
NO deal was far superior to this "deal"
And repeating the point of the tread, the Democrats led by Reid, even prevented a vote on a resolution that not only a majority of the Senate agreed with, but so does a majority of the country, in denouncing this "deal". Remember the reckless words of Pelosi laying the irresponsible claim that "we need to pass it, to see what's in it". Here, the Democrats wouldn't even allow it to be passed
-
Iran would only attack Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran.
Israel would only attack Iran to prevent an Iranian attack on Israel.
Both would be preemptive attacks. And both would violate some third country's airspace.
Look at a map.
-
1 little, yet extremely important wrinkle in your scenario, I'm afraid. Only ONE of those nations has publically declared death to the other country. Here's a hint, it's NOT the one who already has nukes
In other words, a pre-emptive attack by Iran would be for the express purpose of trying to bring about death to the country of Israel, and it would include any nukes they had managed to make. A preemptive attack by Israel would be for the express purpose of trying to take out Iran's nuclear threat to themselves, and the region in general, and would be limited to conventional ordinance
1 would be absolutely justified now, thanks to Oblather
-
Iran would only attack Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran.
This is not what they say in Iran , and it is not what they have done either.
They see a lot of virtue in attacking , so why not first?
-
Iran has not attacked Iran, what the Hell are you talking about?
Hezbollah is hardly any sort of major threat.
This deal is done. Nothing the Republican'ts can do but bitch about it.
They sort of lost. But they managed to get it approved without actually having to vote for it.
As I said, this was a clever ruse.
-
And one more time, what part of it not having majority support to get approved, are you having trouble with??
-
It did not require a majority because the process was finagled with before they voted on it, so that it would pass (as it has) without the Republican'ts having to vote for it.
You do not seem to be paying attention.
Now the deal is done, and they do not have the voted to override the President's veto to say they do not like it.
It's a DONE DEAL! The Fat Lady has sung! It is ALL OVER!
-
There was no finagaling......it was a resolution that the entire senate could vote up or down on, regarding their non-support of the "deal". IT HAD EVERY REPUBLICAN SUPPORTING IT, and some prominent Democrats as well. The DEMOCRATS however, used a fillibuster to even prevent it from coming to a vote
in other words, ANY APPROVAL OF THE "DEAL" REQUIRED MAJORITY SUPPORT. AND WHILE the "Deal" DID NOT HAVE MAJORITY SUPPORT, A RESOLUTION DENOUNCING THE "DEAL" DID, and THAT is what the DEMS, ALL BY THEMSELVES, WITH NO HELP FROM ANY REPUBLICAN, PREVENTED FROM EVEN BEING VOTED ON
SO ONE MORE TIME.....IT DID NOT PASS, BECAUSE THE DEMS WOULDN'T EVEN ALLOW IT TO BE VOTED ON. There was no finagling on any Republican's part, since they ALL supported the resolution, and NONE supported the fillibuster. The worst part is that although Democrats also disagreed and supported the resolution, Reid had enough Democrats who even didn't support the deal, still support a fillibuster that prevented a vote on a resolution that didn't support the deal
So, don't ever let us catch ANY Democrat crying about Republicans using some parlimentary procedure in not allowing the Senate to vote,.....on anything. Not one credible leg to stand on
-
There was no finagaling......
There has been some finagling.
It is not extraordinary.
You should review what the NPR and John Kerry said about it.
https://reason.com/blog/2015/07/16/doesnt-matter-if-iran-deal-goes-to-un-be
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/07/29/john_kerry_explains_why_iran_deal_is_not_a_treaty_you_cant_pass_a_treaty_anymore.html
REP. REID RIBBLE: For 228 years, the Constitution allowed treaties to [pass] with the advice and consent of 67 U.S. Senators. Why is this not considered a treaty?
SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY: Well Congressman, I spent quite a few years trying to get a lot of treaties through the United States Senate, and it has become physically impossible.
That's why. Because you can't pass a treaty anymore. It has become impossible to schedule, to pass, and I sat there leading the charge on the Disabilities Treaty which fell to basically ideology and politics. So I think that is the reason why.
-
Iran has not attacked Iran, what the Hell are you talking about?
Hezbollah is hardly any sort of major threat.
This deal is done. Nothing the Republican'ts can do but bitch about it.
They sort of lost. But they managed to get it approved without actually having to vote for it.
As I said, this was a clever ruse.
Iran is attacking Iranians all the time , and they are constantly making war on their neighbors right now.
I really do not see why this treaty is "alternative" to war.
There is nothing preventing Iran from making war and bombs as much as ever , only with less hindrance.
As far as I know , this lite treaty does not feature any quality that will make it better for peace than the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact.
-
There was no finagaling......
There has been some finagling.
It is not extraordinary.
You should review what the NPR and John Kerry said about it.
With all due respect, Plane, this doesn't demonstrate that the GOP finagled anything. The Senate is supposed to ratify any treaties. That's a primary Constitutional function. Just because the Democrats want to throw that function away, and give it to a Democrat President, in the form of a "deal", doesn't take away the fact that this never passed the Senate, because a treaty was never brought to the Senate, which is what Kerry largely infers into why this was merely a deal and not a formal treaty.
The only thing the Senate could do at that point was to write up a resolution either supporting or disapproving the deal. They did the latter. They had full GOP support, and even some high ranking Democrats, making it a bi-artisan resolution. And what'd we get? Reid and the DEMOCRATS, with no finagling by any Republicans, fillibustering even the oppotunity to vote on nothing more than a resolution
-
This is not worded as a treaty, even thought it is clearly a treaty.
No matter who the next president is, he/she will honor this as though it were a treaty.
It is a DONE DEAL The fat lady has sung. Bitch all you want, but you lost and it's over.
-
This is not worded as a treaty, even thought it is clearly a treaty.
No matter who the next president is, he/she will honor this as though it were a treaty.
It is a DONE DEAL The fat lady has sung. Bitch all you want, but you lost and it's over.
Note that John Kerry says it is not a treaty.
Because they cannot get a consensus or a majority or even a strong minority to agree to sign off on this being a good idea , there was never any attempt to make it have the status of a treaty.
It stands as an executive order and can be countermanded next week if the president sees any advantage to do so.
This is a pact between executives , and hasn't got the features of a treaty .
Of course if it were a treaty , the Iranians would still not feel more bound to the treaty than to their own manifest destiny.
Remember the original problem is Iranian irrationality, not changed a whit by any of this.
-
It is a treaty, and the next president will honor it, because the only alternate choice it to reject it and have the Iranians start immediately working on their nukes.
This was an agreement between six nations, and the US is only one of them.
It's a done deal and the Republicans managed to not have to vote for it.
If it works, that is the last they will say about it.
-
NEWS FLASH. ..... IT'S NOT A TREATY. Only the Senate can ratify and APPROVE a treaty. No ratification, no treaty. And no obligation for any future president to agree to either. Those are just the facts
-
FLAsh flash
It will be treated as a treaty. Being as no renegotiation of the deal is possible without the other four or five countries, and they are happy with it as it is, the only alternative is to drop it and have no treaty, leaving Iran to work on its bomb.
Supposedly. They have allegedly been from three to six months to completion for six years or so now.
All a bomb does is give Iran leverage and assurance that they will not be attacked.
Actually dropping a bomb would be a disaster for anyone who tried it.
-
No it won't. It's just a piece of paper....especially to the likes of Iran. There are "deals" made on the show of Survivor that are more binding. Given Iran's track record of deceit & lying, they'll drop it like a bad habit, when it suits them, if not sooner. Point is, its not a treaty, and as such there is no obligation for any future president to agree to either. Those are just facts.
Now, you can try to rationalize why a future President should still support the "deal", but that's mere speculation, vs the facts that have been presented to you
-
It is not legally a treaty .
The reason it is not a treaty is that it is impossible to convince more than a few Americans of any rank that it should be a treaty.
If it delays the Iranian atomic bomb effort , that is a success , but why should we expect this ?