|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 09 2018 04:12 ticklishmusic wrote:
If the US wants to basically withdraw from international trade over this, I'm not sure what to say. The US is shooting itself in the foot by pulling out of the Iran deal, it would be shooting itself in the head if it tried a US vs world trade war.
It's quite possible Trump is stupid enough to not understand how interconnected trade and economics are though and that he can just go ahead and sanction Volkswagen or something with no impact to the US.
Also, meanwhile in Congress...
snip twit
What's most amusing is that Congress never ratified the agreement back in the day when Obama made it so it is just an executive decision instead of a treaty. Had they actually ratified the agreement then Trump wouldn't be able to unilaterally end it.
|
On May 09 2018 05:09 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 04:12 ticklishmusic wrote:
If the US wants to basically withdraw from international trade over this, I'm not sure what to say. The US is shooting itself in the foot by pulling out of the Iran deal, it would be shooting itself in the head if it tried a US vs world trade war.
It's quite possible Trump is stupid enough to not understand how interconnected trade and economics are though and that he can just go ahead and sanction Volkswagen or something with no impact to the US.
Also, meanwhile in Congress...
snip twit What's most amusing is that Congress never ratified the agreement back in the day when Obama made it so it is just an executive decision instead of a treaty. Had they actually ratified the agreement then Trump wouldn't be able to unilaterally end it.
it is almost like congress lost all of there ability to lead. They are just there for soundbites now.
We have a two branch system of government now it seems
|
On May 09 2018 05:09 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 04:12 ticklishmusic wrote:
If the US wants to basically withdraw from international trade over this, I'm not sure what to say. The US is shooting itself in the foot by pulling out of the Iran deal, it would be shooting itself in the head if it tried a US vs world trade war.
It's quite possible Trump is stupid enough to not understand how interconnected trade and economics are though and that he can just go ahead and sanction Volkswagen or something with no impact to the US.
Also, meanwhile in Congress...
snip twit What's most amusing is that Congress never ratified the agreement back in the day when Obama made it so it is just an executive decision instead of a treaty. Had they actually ratified the agreement then Trump wouldn't be able to unilaterally end it.
Can't they now revoke the sanctions? They were imposed by Congress, with a clause that allowed the president to waive them. If they just revoke the sanctions, the "deal" is back in place, right? If the Republicans actually want the deal back, of course...
|
The republicans don't actually want any of that. The only thing they want is to complain a lot, get reelected because people like that, and then be able to give more money to their corporate owners.
|
On May 09 2018 05:30 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 05:09 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 09 2018 04:12 ticklishmusic wrote:
If the US wants to basically withdraw from international trade over this, I'm not sure what to say. The US is shooting itself in the foot by pulling out of the Iran deal, it would be shooting itself in the head if it tried a US vs world trade war.
It's quite possible Trump is stupid enough to not understand how interconnected trade and economics are though and that he can just go ahead and sanction Volkswagen or something with no impact to the US.
Also, meanwhile in Congress...
snip twit What's most amusing is that Congress never ratified the agreement back in the day when Obama made it so it is just an executive decision instead of a treaty. Had they actually ratified the agreement then Trump wouldn't be able to unilaterally end it. Can't they now revoke the sanctions? They were imposed by Congress, with a clause that allowed the president to waive them. If they just revoke the sanctions, the "deal" is back in place, right? If the Republicans actually want the deal back, of course...
theoretically, they probably could. the republicans don't actually want the deal back though; well, not really. what they want, more than anything else, is to NOT be responsible for the outcome, whatever the outcome is. so to that end they decry whatever decision is made, without taking substantive action of their own, so that they won't be held responsible if it goes wrong.
that behavior of the republicans is an outgrowth of the collective effects of some of the standards cognitive biases on the electorate.
|
On May 09 2018 05:34 Simberto wrote:
The republicans don't actually want any of that. The only thing they want is to complain a lot, get reelected because people like that, and then be able to give more money to their corporate owners.
This is an accurate representation of the current congress. Complain about executive power, but turn over power to the executive branch so you don’t have to do anything of substance. The Iran deal is another example. Congress punted to the executive branch and then used the deal as bullet point to run for reelection.
|
Many Democrats also opposed the deal (including Schumer). While arguing the merits would clearly be a slog (look at all these posts!) this should at least be a reminder that if you want a deal, you better go through proper Senate procedure. This says nothing about any potential treaty with NK, be cause that would actually be a treaty, properly ratified. Meanwhile Trump isn't breaking the deal, except insofar far as he is taking action he is lawfully allowed to take. If the Europeans so value their airplane sales, so be it.
I hope these lessons last, but I suspect they won't.
|
On May 09 2018 05:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 05:34 Simberto wrote:
The republicans don't actually want any of that. The only thing they want is to complain a lot, get reelected because people like that, and then be able to give more money to their corporate owners. This is an accurate representation of the current congress. Complain about executive power, but turn over power to the executive branch so you don’t have to do anything of substance. The Iran deal is another example. Congress punted to the executive branch and then used the deal as bullet point to run for reelection.
Yes, I would consider Iran to be the US's most vigilant enemy. Also they are the descendants of the Persians who are themselves the descendants of the Babylonians, so just generally speaking they are the most stable national entity in the Middle East even if they are mostly self-interested. Trump withdrew from that Iran accord because I think that they consider them to be a nuclear threat. That said, Russia continue to maintain diplomatic relations with Iran so I guess that the sanctions will hurt but not as much as one may think.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html
Sometimes I think that Trump made that move just to contradict Obama, who was a major pusher for putting that deal in place a few years ago. Nowadays, even as a "reasonably Republican" guy, I consider Trump to be too hawkish & isolationist. I guess the historical analogy to make there would be that Trump is like Woodrow Wilson in pursuing a "moral diplomacy" take on foreign affairs where he only supports countries that he considers aligned with his own interests, specifically, countries that have democratic elections, such as France, which elected Macron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_diplomacy
|
On May 09 2018 06:22 Introvert wrote:
Many Democrats also opposed the deal (including Schumer). While arguing the merits would clearly be a slog (look at all these posts!) this should at least be a reminder that if you want a deal, you better go through proper Senate procedure. This says nothing about any potential treaty with NK, be cause that would actually be a treaty, properly ratified. Meanwhile Trump isn't breaking the deal, except insofar far as he is taking action he is lawfully allowed to take. If the Europeans so value their airplane sales, so be it.
I hope these lessons last, but I suspect they won't.
When did anyone say that the NK thing is going to be a treaty? From all the talks I have heard about NK the US congress doing anything has never been brought up.
Is it just implied they are going to take this up or did they say it somewhere?
|
Proper Senate procedure has never been Senate Republicans strong point, so I find your argument a bit hard to swallow. The recent attempt to repeal the ACA and the tax bill demonstrated that proper protocol only apply they if benefits them politically. This is just more political point scoring by the Republicans, who see foreign policy as a way to get reelected.
|
On May 09 2018 06:22 Introvert wrote:
Many Democrats also opposed the deal (including Schumer). While arguing the merits would clearly be a slog (look at all these posts!) this should at least be a reminder that if you want a deal, you better go through proper Senate procedure. This says nothing about any potential treaty with NK, be cause that would actually be a treaty, properly ratified. Meanwhile Trump isn't breaking the deal, except insofar far as he is taking action he is lawfully allowed to take. If the Europeans so value their airplane sales, so be it.
I hope these lessons last, but I suspect they won't.
Wait, are you telling me that after pages of hearing about how stupid and ineffective Republicans are for not being able to stop Trump that Trump and the Senate leader for the Democrats are both opposed the deal?
|
On May 09 2018 06:32 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 05:46 Plansix wrote:On May 09 2018 05:34 Simberto wrote:
The republicans don't actually want any of that. The only thing they want is to complain a lot, get reelected because people like that, and then be able to give more money to their corporate owners. This is an accurate representation of the current congress. Complain about executive power, but turn over power to the executive branch so you don’t have to do anything of substance. The Iran deal is another example. Congress punted to the executive branch and then used the deal as bullet point to run for reelection. Yes, I would consider Iran to be the US's most vigilant enemy. Also they are the descendants of the Persians who are themselves the descendants of the Babylonians, so just generally speaking they are the most stable national entity in the Middle East even if they are mostly self-interested. Trump withdrew from that Iran accord because I think that they consider them to be a nuclear threat. That said, the EU & Russia continue to maintain diplomatic relations with Iran so I guess I don't know how that will pan out. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.htmlSometimes I think that Trump made that move just to contradict Obama, who was a major pusher for putting that deal in place a few years ago. Nowadays, even as a "reasonably Republican" guy, I consider Trump to be too hawkish & isolationist. I guess the historical analogy to make there would be that Trump is like Woodrow Wilson in pursuing a "moral diplomacy" take on foreign affairs where he only supports countries that he considers aligned with his own interests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_diplomacy
I have not seen any substantive evidence provided by any group that I would trust saying Iran is in violation of the agreement. Trump campaigned on the promise to end the deal based on nothing by his dislike for it. Again, it is difficult to swallow the idea that this is a well thought out decision based on clear evidence of violations given Trump’s previous statements and his current staff.
|
On May 09 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 06:22 Introvert wrote:
Many Democrats also opposed the deal (including Schumer). While arguing the merits would clearly be a slog (look at all these posts!) this should at least be a reminder that if you want a deal, you better go through proper Senate procedure. This says nothing about any potential treaty with NK, be cause that would actually be a treaty, properly ratified. Meanwhile Trump isn't breaking the deal, except insofar far as he is taking action he is lawfully allowed to take. If the Europeans so value their airplane sales, so be it.
I hope these lessons last, but I suspect they won't. Wait, are you telling me that after pages of hearing about how stupid and ineffective Republicans are for not being able to stop Trump that Trump and the Senate leader for the Democrats are both opposed the deal?
Let's put it this way. There is a reason the administration chose not to submit it as a treaty needing 67 votes.
As for the part about NK, no, there are no specifics. But the argument that the North Koreans won't trust us anymore is predicated on the idea that the only option is an "executive agreement" which is wrong.
edit: and I don't know the exact vote tallies the deal got, but they lost a good number of Democrats anyways.
|
On May 09 2018 06:44 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:22 Introvert wrote:
Many Democrats also opposed the deal (including Schumer). While arguing the merits would clearly be a slog (look at all these posts!) this should at least be a reminder that if you want a deal, you better go through proper Senate procedure. This says nothing about any potential treaty with NK, be cause that would actually be a treaty, properly ratified. Meanwhile Trump isn't breaking the deal, except insofar far as he is taking action he is lawfully allowed to take. If the Europeans so value their airplane sales, so be it.
I hope these lessons last, but I suspect they won't. Wait, are you telling me that after pages of hearing about how stupid and ineffective Republicans are for not being able to stop Trump that Trump and the Senate leader for the Democrats are both opposed the deal? Let's put it this way. There is a reason the administration chose not to submit it as a treaty needing 67 votes. As for the part about NK, no, there are no specifics. But the argument that the North Koreans won't trust us anymore is predicated on the idea that the only option is an "executive agreement" which is wrong.
So somehow trump is going to negotiate a deal that will get 15 dems on board? Even though there has been no ground work there? (If there was any, trump would have tweeted about it)
This is going to be an agreement with the US, nothing more. I will bet you 5 bucks
|
On May 09 2018 06:44 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:22 Introvert wrote:
Many Democrats also opposed the deal (including Schumer). While arguing the merits would clearly be a slog (look at all these posts!) this should at least be a reminder that if you want a deal, you better go through proper Senate procedure. This says nothing about any potential treaty with NK, be cause that would actually be a treaty, properly ratified. Meanwhile Trump isn't breaking the deal, except insofar far as he is taking action he is lawfully allowed to take. If the Europeans so value their airplane sales, so be it.
I hope these lessons last, but I suspect they won't. Wait, are you telling me that after pages of hearing about how stupid and ineffective Republicans are for not being able to stop Trump that Trump and the Senate leader for the Democrats are both opposed the deal? Let's put it this way. There is a reason the administration chose not to submit it as a treaty needing 67 votes. As for the part about NK, no, there are no specifics. But the argument that the North Koreans won't trust us anymore is predicated on the idea that the only option is an "executive agreement" which is wrong.
I see now that Democrats that wanted to stop the deal in the first place are now saying Trump doesn't have a plan and that's their concern. Don't they have one since if they had their way there wouldn't be a deal in the first place?
|
Whos job is it to come up with treaties? The executive or the legislative ?
I know legislative has to ratify it, but do they also have to write it?
|
On May 09 2018 06:44 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:22 Introvert wrote:
Many Democrats also opposed the deal (including Schumer). While arguing the merits would clearly be a slog (look at all these posts!) this should at least be a reminder that if you want a deal, you better go through proper Senate procedure. This says nothing about any potential treaty with NK, be cause that would actually be a treaty, properly ratified. Meanwhile Trump isn't breaking the deal, except insofar far as he is taking action he is lawfully allowed to take. If the Europeans so value their airplane sales, so be it.
I hope these lessons last, but I suspect they won't. Wait, are you telling me that after pages of hearing about how stupid and ineffective Republicans are for not being able to stop Trump that Trump and the Senate leader for the Democrats are both opposed the deal? Let's put it this way. There is a reason the administration chose not to submit it as a treaty needing 67 votes. As for the part about NK, no, there are no specifics. But the argument that the North Koreans won't trust us anymore is predicated on the idea that the only option is an "executive agreement" which is wrong. edit: and I don't know the exact vote tallies the deal got, but they lost a good number of Democrats anyways.
Could you imagine the how weak our country would look if our president and state department worked out a multilateral deal with all our EU allies and Iran, only to have Congress vote it down because they didn't like every part of the final terms?
But personally, I agree with you. Obama should have let Congress shot down the Iran deal in a vote. It would have put our allies on notice in 2015 that the Senate is no longer backing the executive branch and State Department. That we are, in fact, not to be trusted to keep our word when it comes to international agreements.
On May 09 2018 06:54 IyMoon wrote:
Whos job is it to come up with treaties? The executive or the legislative ?
I know legislative has to ratify it, but do they also have to write it?
The executive branch generally works out the treaties with foreign powers and then submits them to the senate for approval. It is then up to the Senate to decide if they want to under cut the executives efforts or back them. The Senate leadership in congress was very hands off during the Obama years, claiming he was "Imperial" and didn't want input. Personally, I believe that the Senate leadership made a mission of running against Obama in every way, including his foreign policy. And in 2015, they were in full election mode and couldn't vote for a deal that Obama worked out with Iran. So they turned it into a political football.
|
On May 09 2018 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 06:44 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:22 Introvert wrote:
Many Democrats also opposed the deal (including Schumer). While arguing the merits would clearly be a slog (look at all these posts!) this should at least be a reminder that if you want a deal, you better go through proper Senate procedure. This says nothing about any potential treaty with NK, be cause that would actually be a treaty, properly ratified. Meanwhile Trump isn't breaking the deal, except insofar far as he is taking action he is lawfully allowed to take. If the Europeans so value their airplane sales, so be it.
I hope these lessons last, but I suspect they won't. Wait, are you telling me that after pages of hearing about how stupid and ineffective Republicans are for not being able to stop Trump that Trump and the Senate leader for the Democrats are both opposed the deal? Let's put it this way. There is a reason the administration chose not to submit it as a treaty needing 67 votes. As for the part about NK, no, there are no specifics. But the argument that the North Koreans won't trust us anymore is predicated on the idea that the only option is an "executive agreement" which is wrong. I see now that Democrats that wanted to stop the deal in the first place are now saying Trump doesn't have a plan and that's their concern. Don't they have one since if they had their way there wouldn't be a deal in the first place?
I think you are being tounge in check? I don't know I'd they had one. I don't think anyone did.
|
On May 09 2018 06:56 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:44 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 06:22 Introvert wrote:
Many Democrats also opposed the deal (including Schumer). While arguing the merits would clearly be a slog (look at all these posts!) this should at least be a reminder that if you want a deal, you better go through proper Senate procedure. This says nothing about any potential treaty with NK, be cause that would actually be a treaty, properly ratified. Meanwhile Trump isn't breaking the deal, except insofar far as he is taking action he is lawfully allowed to take. If the Europeans so value their airplane sales, so be it.
I hope these lessons last, but I suspect they won't. Wait, are you telling me that after pages of hearing about how stupid and ineffective Republicans are for not being able to stop Trump that Trump and the Senate leader for the Democrats are both opposed the deal? Let's put it this way. There is a reason the administration chose not to submit it as a treaty needing 67 votes. As for the part about NK, no, there are no specifics. But the argument that the North Koreans won't trust us anymore is predicated on the idea that the only option is an "executive agreement" which is wrong. I see now that Democrats that wanted to stop the deal in the first place are now saying Trump doesn't have a plan and that's their concern. Don't they have one since if they had their way there wouldn't be a deal in the first place? I think you are being tounge in check? I don't know I'd they had one. I don't think anyone did.
Yeah haha. I'm just saying the main complaint about Trump's action in Iran seems to be he doesn't have a plan to get out of it. Seems odd then that the Democrat leaders who wanted to prevent the deal in the first place wouldn't have an alternative ready to go.
It's almost as if both sides wanted to bitch about the deal, and say they opposed it, but also didn't have an alternative. Trump's the bad guy because he's making what Republicans and Democrat leadership wanted happen and they are mad he didn't come up with a plan for getting out of something they didn't want to be in.
Both sides look like idiots and Trump like the useful fool for doing what both parties wanted and having to take all the blame.
|
I think the master plan was to sanction Iran until the end of existence because working out a deal with them was to challenging and made Israel angry. But Iranian people elected politicians who promised to try to work with the US around 2013. Obama talked to their president around that time, which was the first direct contact the US political leadership had with Iranian leadership in 30 years.
Congress had no plan because no one wants peace with Iran. Our politicians got very used to threatening "military options for Iran" every 4 years, Democrats and Republicans alike. The status quo is good for reelections, so screw the Iranian people who wanted to kill the golden goose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
