|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Sweet mother of dear baby Jesus! I think this thread will outlive me.
|
On April 04 2015 04:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 04:04 Introvert wrote:
Idk from what I've read most objections are the same, or they are at least logical extensions of previous concerns. But there could be new things. I'm not up to date on Israel's exact position either.
I was mainly trying to point out there is an argument to be had, not a therapeutic bashing session. The main issue with them objecting now is that the negotiations have been going on for a long time and they had ample opportunities to provide input into the process. If they did and their suggestions were not viable, they could have been told that and at least they could have made their opinion known. Bringing up the complaints now, after the deal has been hashed out over the nearly a year’s worth of work is just a political stunt. Of course they can have input into the language and how the final treaty reads, but saying the deal is terrible is just a political maneuver.
didnt you just argue in this same thread that congress shouldnt be involved in the preliminary negotiations and should wait until its done?
On April 03 2015 22:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2015 22:09 BallinWitStalin wrote:On April 03 2015 21:10 coverpunch wrote:To me, still the most operative quote:Whatever satisfaction the administration may have felt, attention quickly turned to the next phase. Officials reiterated their belief that Congress has no formal role in approving a final deal and vowed to head off any congressional attempt to vote on it, especially before it is due to be completed and signed three months from now.It's in the same "huh?" vein as Airbnb being allowed to operate in Cuba but not New York City. Well that part makes a ton of sense, isn't Congress just supposed to "yea" or "nea" the final thing? Yes, they are supposed to. The theory behind the process is that negotiating with a foreign power is very difficult and its better done by a single appointed person, rather than congress as a whole. The congress has the ability to override bad treaties if they arise to protect the American people, but they are sort of expected to be a little out of the loop with the negotiations. Other democratic countries do the exact same thing. Blowing up the deal due to short term politics and over an election cycle will go very poorly if the Republicans plan to do that. Regardless of what “excuse” they put forth for doing so. And they will get input and the ability to assist with the draft of the treaty in some way, but its won’t be in the very public, I can score political points with my base sense. But every member of congress is not going to get to weigh in on the issue, that’s not how the process works.
|
On April 04 2015 04:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 04:10 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 04:04 Introvert wrote:
Idk from what I've read most objections are the same, or they are at least logical extensions of previous concerns. But there could be new things. I'm not up to date on Israel's exact position either.
I was mainly trying to point out there is an argument to be had, not a therapeutic bashing session. The main issue with them objecting now is that the negotiations have been going on for a long time and they had ample opportunities to provide input into the process. If they did and their suggestions were not viable, they could have been told that and at least they could have made their opinion known. Bringing up the complaints now, after the deal has been hashed out over the nearly a year’s worth of work is just a political stunt. Of course they can have input into the language and how the final treaty reads, but saying the deal is terrible is just a political maneuver. didnt you just argue in this same thread that congress shouldnt be involved in the preliminary negotiations and should wait until its done? Show nested quote +On April 03 2015 22:18 Plansix wrote:On April 03 2015 22:09 BallinWitStalin wrote:On April 03 2015 21:10 coverpunch wrote:To me, still the most operative quote:Whatever satisfaction the administration may have felt, attention quickly turned to the next phase. Officials reiterated their belief that Congress has no formal role in approving a final deal and vowed to head off any congressional attempt to vote on it, especially before it is due to be completed and signed three months from now.It's in the same "huh?" vein as Airbnb being allowed to operate in Cuba but not New York City. Well that part makes a ton of sense, isn't Congress just supposed to "yea" or "nea" the final thing? Yes, they are supposed to. The theory behind the process is that negotiating with a foreign power is very difficult and its better done by a single appointed person, rather than congress as a whole. The congress has the ability to override bad treaties if they arise to protect the American people, but they are sort of expected to be a little out of the loop with the negotiations. Other democratic countries do the exact same thing. Blowing up the deal due to short term politics and over an election cycle will go very poorly if the Republicans plan to do that. Regardless of what “excuse” they put forth for doing so. And they will get input and the ability to assist with the draft of the treaty in some way, but its won’t be in the very public, I can score political points with my base sense. But every member of congress is not going to get to weigh in on the issue, that’s not how the process works.
I said it shouldn’t be done through commit or by the entire congress. I never said that an individual congressmen/women shouldn’t bring up concerns with the process or make specific suggestions. There is a huge difference discussing the matter internally and voicing complaints openly to the press. Also complaining while providing zero alternative beyond military action is weak at best. Sorry if my posts were unclear.
|
On April 04 2015 04:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 04:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 04:10 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 04:04 Introvert wrote:
Idk from what I've read most objections are the same, or they are at least logical extensions of previous concerns. But there could be new things. I'm not up to date on Israel's exact position either.
I was mainly trying to point out there is an argument to be had, not a therapeutic bashing session. The main issue with them objecting now is that the negotiations have been going on for a long time and they had ample opportunities to provide input into the process. If they did and their suggestions were not viable, they could have been told that and at least they could have made their opinion known. Bringing up the complaints now, after the deal has been hashed out over the nearly a year’s worth of work is just a political stunt. Of course they can have input into the language and how the final treaty reads, but saying the deal is terrible is just a political maneuver. didnt you just argue in this same thread that congress shouldnt be involved in the preliminary negotiations and should wait until its done? On April 03 2015 22:18 Plansix wrote:On April 03 2015 22:09 BallinWitStalin wrote:On April 03 2015 21:10 coverpunch wrote:To me, still the most operative quote:Whatever satisfaction the administration may have felt, attention quickly turned to the next phase. Officials reiterated their belief that Congress has no formal role in approving a final deal and vowed to head off any congressional attempt to vote on it, especially before it is due to be completed and signed three months from now.It's in the same "huh?" vein as Airbnb being allowed to operate in Cuba but not New York City. Well that part makes a ton of sense, isn't Congress just supposed to "yea" or "nea" the final thing? Yes, they are supposed to. The theory behind the process is that negotiating with a foreign power is very difficult and its better done by a single appointed person, rather than congress as a whole. The congress has the ability to override bad treaties if they arise to protect the American people, but they are sort of expected to be a little out of the loop with the negotiations. Other democratic countries do the exact same thing. Blowing up the deal due to short term politics and over an election cycle will go very poorly if the Republicans plan to do that. Regardless of what “excuse” they put forth for doing so. And they will get input and the ability to assist with the draft of the treaty in some way, but its won’t be in the very public, I can score political points with my base sense. But every member of congress is not going to get to weigh in on the issue, that’s not how the process works. I said it shouldn’t be done through commit or by the entire congress. I never said that an individual congressmen/women shouldn’t bring up concerns with the process or make specific suggestions. There is a huge difference discussing the matter internally and voicing complaints openly to the press. Also complaining while providing zero alternative beyond military action is weak at best. Sorry if my posts were unclear.
well, my confusion arises from the fact that you are saying they shouldnt be involved in the negotiations and its expected they will be out of the loop with the negotiations, but then say thats the same time period they should be criticizing the negotiations. maybe i am mistaken, but that seems contradictory.
|
On April 04 2015 04:31 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 04:25 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 04:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 04:10 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 04:04 Introvert wrote:
Idk from what I've read most objections are the same, or they are at least logical extensions of previous concerns. But there could be new things. I'm not up to date on Israel's exact position either.
I was mainly trying to point out there is an argument to be had, not a therapeutic bashing session. The main issue with them objecting now is that the negotiations have been going on for a long time and they had ample opportunities to provide input into the process. If they did and their suggestions were not viable, they could have been told that and at least they could have made their opinion known. Bringing up the complaints now, after the deal has been hashed out over the nearly a year’s worth of work is just a political stunt. Of course they can have input into the language and how the final treaty reads, but saying the deal is terrible is just a political maneuver. didnt you just argue in this same thread that congress shouldnt be involved in the preliminary negotiations and should wait until its done? On April 03 2015 22:18 Plansix wrote:On April 03 2015 22:09 BallinWitStalin wrote:On April 03 2015 21:10 coverpunch wrote:To me, still the most operative quote:Whatever satisfaction the administration may have felt, attention quickly turned to the next phase. Officials reiterated their belief that Congress has no formal role in approving a final deal and vowed to head off any congressional attempt to vote on it, especially before it is due to be completed and signed three months from now.It's in the same "huh?" vein as Airbnb being allowed to operate in Cuba but not New York City. Well that part makes a ton of sense, isn't Congress just supposed to "yea" or "nea" the final thing? Yes, they are supposed to. The theory behind the process is that negotiating with a foreign power is very difficult and its better done by a single appointed person, rather than congress as a whole. The congress has the ability to override bad treaties if they arise to protect the American people, but they are sort of expected to be a little out of the loop with the negotiations. Other democratic countries do the exact same thing. Blowing up the deal due to short term politics and over an election cycle will go very poorly if the Republicans plan to do that. Regardless of what “excuse” they put forth for doing so. And they will get input and the ability to assist with the draft of the treaty in some way, but its won’t be in the very public, I can score political points with my base sense. But every member of congress is not going to get to weigh in on the issue, that’s not how the process works. I said it shouldn’t be done through commit or by the entire congress. I never said that an individual congressmen/women shouldn’t bring up concerns with the process or make specific suggestions. There is a huge difference discussing the matter internally and voicing complaints openly to the press. Also complaining while providing zero alternative beyond military action is weak at best. Sorry if my posts were unclear. well, my confusion arises from the fact that you are saying they shouldnt be involved in the negotiations and its expected they will be out of the loop with the negotiations, but then say thats the same time period they should be criticizing the negotiations. maybe i am mistaken, but that seems contradictory.
I don't see the contradiction of a single senator or representative being able to speak with the Secretary of State directly on the subject, but the Secretary of state does not need to seek approval for each stage of the negotiations from congress. You can have input without having total control or oversight.
|
On April 04 2015 04:15 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Sweet mother of dear baby Jesus! I think this thread will outlive me.
Only time will tell.
|
On April 04 2015 04:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 04:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 04:25 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 04:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 04:10 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 04:04 Introvert wrote:
Idk from what I've read most objections are the same, or they are at least logical extensions of previous concerns. But there could be new things. I'm not up to date on Israel's exact position either.
I was mainly trying to point out there is an argument to be had, not a therapeutic bashing session. The main issue with them objecting now is that the negotiations have been going on for a long time and they had ample opportunities to provide input into the process. If they did and their suggestions were not viable, they could have been told that and at least they could have made their opinion known. Bringing up the complaints now, after the deal has been hashed out over the nearly a year’s worth of work is just a political stunt. Of course they can have input into the language and how the final treaty reads, but saying the deal is terrible is just a political maneuver. didnt you just argue in this same thread that congress shouldnt be involved in the preliminary negotiations and should wait until its done? On April 03 2015 22:18 Plansix wrote:On April 03 2015 22:09 BallinWitStalin wrote:On April 03 2015 21:10 coverpunch wrote:To me, still the most operative quote:Whatever satisfaction the administration may have felt, attention quickly turned to the next phase. Officials reiterated their belief that Congress has no formal role in approving a final deal and vowed to head off any congressional attempt to vote on it, especially before it is due to be completed and signed three months from now.It's in the same "huh?" vein as Airbnb being allowed to operate in Cuba but not New York City. Well that part makes a ton of sense, isn't Congress just supposed to "yea" or "nea" the final thing? Yes, they are supposed to. The theory behind the process is that negotiating with a foreign power is very difficult and its better done by a single appointed person, rather than congress as a whole. The congress has the ability to override bad treaties if they arise to protect the American people, but they are sort of expected to be a little out of the loop with the negotiations. Other democratic countries do the exact same thing. Blowing up the deal due to short term politics and over an election cycle will go very poorly if the Republicans plan to do that. Regardless of what “excuse” they put forth for doing so. And they will get input and the ability to assist with the draft of the treaty in some way, but its won’t be in the very public, I can score political points with my base sense. But every member of congress is not going to get to weigh in on the issue, that’s not how the process works. I said it shouldn’t be done through commit or by the entire congress. I never said that an individual congressmen/women shouldn’t bring up concerns with the process or make specific suggestions. There is a huge difference discussing the matter internally and voicing complaints openly to the press. Also complaining while providing zero alternative beyond military action is weak at best. Sorry if my posts were unclear. well, my confusion arises from the fact that you are saying they shouldnt be involved in the negotiations and its expected they will be out of the loop with the negotiations, but then say thats the same time period they should be criticizing the negotiations. maybe i am mistaken, but that seems contradictory. I don't see the contradiction of a single senator or representative being able to speak with the Secretary of State directly on the subject, but the Secretary of state does not need to seek approval for each stage of the negotiations from congress. You can have input without having total control or oversight.
so, congress as a whole should not get involved before finality, but individual members should get involved, and although congress does not get involved until its final, congress as a whole should not be able to complain because its individual members could have gotten involved during the process? that about it?
|
On April 04 2015 05:06 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 04:41 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 04:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 04:25 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 04:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 04:10 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 04:04 Introvert wrote:
Idk from what I've read most objections are the same, or they are at least logical extensions of previous concerns. But there could be new things. I'm not up to date on Israel's exact position either.
I was mainly trying to point out there is an argument to be had, not a therapeutic bashing session. The main issue with them objecting now is that the negotiations have been going on for a long time and they had ample opportunities to provide input into the process. If they did and their suggestions were not viable, they could have been told that and at least they could have made their opinion known. Bringing up the complaints now, after the deal has been hashed out over the nearly a year’s worth of work is just a political stunt. Of course they can have input into the language and how the final treaty reads, but saying the deal is terrible is just a political maneuver. didnt you just argue in this same thread that congress shouldnt be involved in the preliminary negotiations and should wait until its done? On April 03 2015 22:18 Plansix wrote:On April 03 2015 22:09 BallinWitStalin wrote:On April 03 2015 21:10 coverpunch wrote:To me, still the most operative quote:Whatever satisfaction the administration may have felt, attention quickly turned to the next phase. Officials reiterated their belief that Congress has no formal role in approving a final deal and vowed to head off any congressional attempt to vote on it, especially before it is due to be completed and signed three months from now.It's in the same "huh?" vein as Airbnb being allowed to operate in Cuba but not New York City. Well that part makes a ton of sense, isn't Congress just supposed to "yea" or "nea" the final thing? Yes, they are supposed to. The theory behind the process is that negotiating with a foreign power is very difficult and its better done by a single appointed person, rather than congress as a whole. The congress has the ability to override bad treaties if they arise to protect the American people, but they are sort of expected to be a little out of the loop with the negotiations. Other democratic countries do the exact same thing. Blowing up the deal due to short term politics and over an election cycle will go very poorly if the Republicans plan to do that. Regardless of what “excuse” they put forth for doing so. And they will get input and the ability to assist with the draft of the treaty in some way, but its won’t be in the very public, I can score political points with my base sense. But every member of congress is not going to get to weigh in on the issue, that’s not how the process works. I said it shouldn’t be done through commit or by the entire congress. I never said that an individual congressmen/women shouldn’t bring up concerns with the process or make specific suggestions. There is a huge difference discussing the matter internally and voicing complaints openly to the press. Also complaining while providing zero alternative beyond military action is weak at best. Sorry if my posts were unclear. well, my confusion arises from the fact that you are saying they shouldnt be involved in the negotiations and its expected they will be out of the loop with the negotiations, but then say thats the same time period they should be criticizing the negotiations. maybe i am mistaken, but that seems contradictory. I don't see the contradiction of a single senator or representative being able to speak with the Secretary of State directly on the subject, but the Secretary of state does not need to seek approval for each stage of the negotiations from congress. You can have input without having total control or oversight. so, congress as a whole should not get involved before finality, but individual members should get involved, and although congress does not get involved until its final, congress as a whole should not be able to complain because its individual members could have gotten involved during the process? that about it?
More that the complaining is disingenuous and boils down to "They didn't listen to my suggestion how how to deal with this increasingly complex issue, so I don't like it."
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz are among 57 Republicans in Congress who are calling on the Supreme Court to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage.
The congressional Republicans said in a brief filed at the high court Friday that the justices should not impose "a federally mandated redefinition of the ancient institution of marriage" nationwide. The Republicans said the court should let voters and their elected legislatures decide what to do about marriage.
The court will hear arguments on April 28 in cases from McConnell's home state of Kentucky, as well as Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Same-sex couples can marry in 37 states.
Last month, 7 Republicans joined 211 Democrats and independents in Congress in support of same-sex marriage nationwide.
Source
|
When the Supreme Court finds in favor gay marriage, the Republican Party will have quite the hill to climb as 2016 approaches.
|
On April 04 2015 06:04 farvacola wrote:
When the Supreme Court finds in favor gay marriage, the Republican Party will have quite the hill to climb as 2016 approaches.
Considering they already struck a ban on it down once, I can't really seem switching it up just because congress asked nice.
|
On April 04 2015 06:04 farvacola wrote:
When the Supreme Court finds in favor gay marriage, the Republican Party will have quite the hill to climb as 2016 approaches.
did it really hurt them in 2014? i mean roe v. wade was how long ago and it still comes up every year.
|
On April 04 2015 06:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz are among 57 Republicans in Congress who are calling on the Supreme Court to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage.
The congressional Republicans said in a brief filed at the high court Friday that the justices should not impose "a federally mandated redefinition of the ancient institution of marriage" nationwide. The Republicans said the court should let voters and their elected legislatures decide what to do about marriage.
The court will hear arguments on April 28 in cases from McConnell's home state of Kentucky, as well as Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Same-sex couples can marry in 37 states.
Last month, 7 Republicans joined 211 Democrats and independents in Congress in support of same-sex marriage nationwide. Source
honestly, these kind of antics are going to hand the Presidency to the Democrats
anti-gay support is going the way of the dinosaur
|
On April 04 2015 06:12 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 06:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz are among 57 Republicans in Congress who are calling on the Supreme Court to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage.
The congressional Republicans said in a brief filed at the high court Friday that the justices should not impose "a federally mandated redefinition of the ancient institution of marriage" nationwide. The Republicans said the court should let voters and their elected legislatures decide what to do about marriage.
The court will hear arguments on April 28 in cases from McConnell's home state of Kentucky, as well as Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Same-sex couples can marry in 37 states.
Last month, 7 Republicans joined 211 Democrats and independents in Congress in support of same-sex marriage nationwide. Source honestly, these kind of antics are going to hand the Presidency to the Democrats anti-gay support is going the way of the dinosaur
welcome to the effect of the tea party, forcing the Republican party ever further away from the rest of the country.
|
Didn't the supreme court already decide a few years ago that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional?
|
I'll just say this. When a company like Wal-Mart is willing to speak out in tacit approval of gay rights as they have in criticizing Indiana's prior version of RFRA, it means it's time to focus on other stuff lol. The Republican Party leadership seems not to have gotten that message, and it'll hurt them more and more as the elections draws near.
|
On April 04 2015 06:15 Nyxisto wrote:
Didn't the supreme court already decide a few years ago that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional?
they addressed federal laws. now they are addressing state constitutional amendments.
|
I think its not much of an issue. The Republicans 2016 hopes turn on whether Hillary Clinton successfully navigates her scandals. That is all that really matters.
|
On April 04 2015 06:16 farvacola wrote:
I'll just say this. When a company like Wal-Mart is willing to speak out in tacit approval of gay rights as they have in criticizing Indiana's prior version of RFRA, it means it's time to focus on other stuff lol. The Republican Party leadership seems not to have gotten that message, and it'll hurt them more and more as the elections draws near.
Why do you cite walmart?
I ask because corporations in general tend to be pro-gay rights, and have been for quite awhile iirc, though not too vocal about it. I recall corporations often extending benefits to same sex partners considerably before it became law in many places.
I'm unfamiliar if walmart has any particular history on gay rights issues, or how its stances more generally are on political issues.
|
Walmart has always been markedly progressive on LGBT issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
