EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 8992
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
KwarK
United States44197 Posts
| ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On October 14 2017 07:01 Plansix wrote: And good luck getting NK to play ball now. Wow. I totally missed this angle. Killing the Iran deal out of spite guarantees that zero deals of any kind will be made with NK. Even further, any efforts to round up allies to oppose NK nukes will be further compromised by the appreciable risk that DJT would just up and pull out on the deal after it was made. I really do need to move out of DTLA. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On October 14 2017 07:04 KwarK wrote: Trump publicly disavowing American treaty obligations against the advice of his own state department does not set a good precedent for future negotiations. Contractors won't deal with Trump unless he pays in full in advance because he changes the terms following completion of the work and withholds payment. He's attempting to use the same business model for international diplomacy. Should've called his book 'the art of making people never want to deal with you again' | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On October 14 2017 07:04 KwarK wrote: Trump publicly disavowing American treaty obligations against the advice of his own state department does not set a good precedent for future negotiations. Contractors won't deal with Trump unless he pays in full in advance because he changes the terms following completion of the work and withholds payment. He's attempting to use the same business model for international diplomacy. Don't forget he's gutting the State Department. That's probably his main concession to Putin. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24143 Posts
On October 14 2017 01:22 Nevuk wrote: I actually doubt this. People virtue signal etc. Right up until it hits their wallets. His rich supporters won't care, but much of his base is poorer. If Louisiana Republicans can blame Obama for Katrina, you can't expect reality to dictate their opinions. No one ever bothered to try to correct those people either, so I wouldn't be surprised if you polled it again and got a higher percentage blaming Obama. On October 14 2017 03:03 Mohdoo wrote: The whole war on Christmas thing is brain dead, but people getting whiny about someone saying Merry Christmas is also brain dead. Perhaps even more brain dead. You have to be mind bogglingly shitty to correct someone to say "actually, I don't celebrate christmas" I don't correct them, I just say "Hail Satan" and then they get all offended like they don't support religious freedom. Am I the only one that got a kick out of Trump bragging about protecting the first amendment after calling for NFL players ("son's of bitches") to be fired for using theirs, and that the news media should be banned from television? How incredibly deluded do his supporters (even the occasional ones) have to be in order to give his rank incompetence and vile hypocrisy a pass? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
mikedebo
Canada4341 Posts
On October 14 2017 07:06 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Should've called his book 'the art of making people never want to deal with you again' "The Art of the Repeal" | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On October 14 2017 05:45 Danglars wrote: Iran has provably not been following it. We set limits, they exceeded limits, among others. They continue to violate their word on the testing of ballistic missiles (UN agreement). The inspection mechanism is weak. So only the uninformed or those that want to make political hay pretend they are abiding by it. Source? What do you know that the rest of the White House barring Trump don't know? | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On October 14 2017 07:16 Artisreal wrote: he usually doesn't answer these kinds of questions "Wow, how condescending and elitist can you get? Good luck getting my vote! Consider me officially offended! How's that elitism working for the DNC?" | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 14 2017 07:16 Artisreal wrote: he usually doesn't answer these kinds of questions Because he knows he is wrong, but wants to claim Trump did a good job. Or he is just trolling. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
but you gotta blame obama rather than put the blame where it belongs | ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
On October 14 2017 07:45 zlefin wrote: the unwilingness of congressal republicans to do the right thing and approve it as a treaty enabled trump's actions today (wherein they instead score political points by lying about the deal at the expense of america's national security). So pretty clear which side is to blame still. but you gotta blame obama rather than put the blame where it belongs If memory serves it was never even submitted as a treaty (if Obama did that and it failed then that would have A) been the end of the deal, and B) recognized Congress's authority on the matter). But for your constant talk of logic this post doesn't contain any. Obama knew it couldn't get 67 votes, so he didn't bother. Congress did some gymnastics and came up with a plan where it would take 67 Senators to disapprove, a deal Obama happily took. That cockamamie bill (or more than one bill, I don't remember) contains the language Trump used today. Only one person is at fault for being so devoted to this deal that he ignored the treaty clause: the president. edit: btw, Trump didn't even throw the deal out. in typical Trump fashion, he only went part of the way. he only "Decertified." | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 14 2017 07:57 Introvert wrote: If memory serves it was never even submitted as a treaty (if Obama did that and it failed then that would have A) been the end of the deal, and B) recognized Congress's authority on the matter). But for your constant talk of logic this post doesn't contain any. Obama knew it couldn't get 67 votes, so he didn't bother. Congress did some gymnastics and came up with a plan where it would take 67 Senators to disapprove, a deal Obama happily took. That cockamamie bill (or more than one bill, I don't remember) contains the language Trump used today. Only one person is at fault for being so devoted to this deal that he ignored the treaty clause: the president. edit: btw, Trump didn't even throw the deal out. in typical Trump fashion, he only went part of the way. he only "Decertified." I'm not surprised you need to dissemble to cover for the misconduct of the republicans, and are unable to own up to their gross failure to do their job. It coudln't get 67 votes because, exactly as I had already stated, the rpeublicans chose ot play cheap politics at the expense of america's national security. so it remains entirely the fault of the republicans. If they weren't damaging the country for petty partisanship, then it would've been submitted as a treaty, and approved as one. so do try to keep up, instead of pretending with nonsense points like you just did wherein you falsely try to put the onus on obama rather than the actual guilty party. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 14 2017 07:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Source? What do you know that the rest of the White House barring Trump don't know? I'm referring to their past heavy water production violations. If you need more info on why I think the deal is bad, period, you can check a decent wrapup here. Also, watch the video and tell me what you think about Trump's justifications. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 14 2017 07:57 Introvert wrote: If memory serves it was never even submitted as a treaty (if Obama did that and it failed then that would have A) been the end of the deal, and B) recognized Congress's authority on the matter). But for your constant talk of logic this post doesn't contain any. Obama knew it couldn't get 67 votes, so he didn't bother. Congress did some gymnastics and came up with a plan where it would take 67 Senators to disapprove, a deal Obama happily took. That cockamamie bill (or more than one bill, I don't remember) contains the language Trump used today. Only one person is at fault for being so devoted to this deal that he ignored the treaty clause: the president. edit: btw, Trump didn't even throw the deal out. in typical Trump fashion, he only went part of the way. he only "Decertified." Yeah, you can never have the full win with Trump. And that would be " | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Howie_Dewitt
United States1416 Posts
On October 14 2017 08:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/RichardEngel/status/918968614136500225 Manafort is so boned lmao | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 14 2017 07:34 Introvert wrote: Good thing we have a constitution so that Trump can't violate treaties. Unfortunately for Obama and those in favor of the deal, this was an "executive agreement" not a treaty. The legislation passed by Congress with the intent of doing an end run around the treaty clause enables Trump' s actions today. That is because congressional republicans didn't want to approve Obamas deal, but also didn't want to be the ones to kill it. They don't have a problem with the deal except that Obama made it. A few have objections, but not strong enough to be the ones who kill the deal with Iran. So they punted and put the burden on the executive branch. So now they have to deal with it now because Trump is a child. | ||
| ||
