Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
... “It is not good to undermine the president’s authority to conduct foreign policy. But it’s not a good thing to undermine Congress’ authority to make laws, either. And to threaten even more undermining in the future, as Obama has done. . . . Congress is pushing back. It’s a shame it’s come to this, but that’s the way things work.” ...
So, no... it's not the "feth everything Obama does" climate that generated this response... it's two sides having a hissy fit, that's globally being watch by everyone.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/10 22:09:52
I can't remember a precedent for an opposition party inviting a foreign head of state to denounce their own country's foreign policy to thunderous applause.
I mean, what can you even say to that?
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: I can't remember a precedent for an opposition party inviting a foreign head of state to denounce their own country's foreign policy to thunderous applause.
I mean, what can you even say to that?
Mexican President?
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
At least in this case it is just the congress critters stating they plan on exercising their advise and consent role, though the means by which they are doing so is pretty gakky. In Kennedy's case, he was basically looking for a quid pro quo with the bad guys. THAT is a real gak head move.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/10 22:29:41
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Robert Reich wrote:For the first time in American diplomatic history, one political party is devising its own foreign policy with its own entreaties to foreign governments. Not content with having Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu address Congress and the American people and tell them the President’s approach to Iran is wrong, Republican senators yesterday sent an “open letter” to Iran's leaders advising them that President Obama doesn’t have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. The letter warned Tehran that any nuclear deal needs congressional approval in order to last beyond Obama's term and that without that step Iran will be left a "mere executive agreement" between Obama and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Republicans are not only making common cause with hardliners in Iran, they’re also undermining our President’s capacity to deal with foreign governments and compromising his authority as Commander-in-Chief. In so doing, they’re jeopardizing the safety and security of the United States. In my forty-five years of political involvement, I don’t remember any act by a major party that comes as close as the Republicans' recent actions to what might be called treason.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
... “It is not good to undermine the president’s authority to conduct foreign policy. But it’s not a good thing to undermine Congress’ authority to make laws, either. And to threaten even more undermining in the future, as Obama has done. . . . Congress is pushing back. It’s a shame it’s come to this, but that’s the way things work.” ...
So, no... it's not the "feth everything Obama does" climate that generated this response... it's two sides having a hissy fit, that's globally being watch by everyone.
The fact that these Republicans are being so brazen about it in a matter of foreign policy is, I feel, crossing the line. It is a matter of "feth everything the other side does" just because they can. Don't get me wrong, the Democrats are just as guilty of the same fundamental behavior.
[rant] It is way past time for everyfethingmember of Congressto GO. Not one of them is worth keeping because they're all willingly a part of the problem. This "hissy fit" between the Republicans and the Democrats is destroying our country, and they don't give a damn about it because stupid voters keep stupidly voting for them so they can keep on cashing their checks. We're here whining about Hillary's email, when every one of us should be writing, daily, to all of our representatives telling them to get off their fething asses and do their fething jobs, and that job involves COMPROMISE. It does not involve pig-headedly stubbornly opposing everything the other side does just to appease some random loudmouthed pundit's listeners on the TV/radio so you can get a few more votes in the next election. It will involve hard decisions. It may mean you don't get reelected because you pissed in your constituents' Wheaties to make those decisions. But to do anything less is a violation of the oath you swore when elected. Because you are there to make the hard decisions. You are there to work for the good of the United States of America, and not the good of your pocketbook or your party before all. Feth these politicians, feth them all. Feth them for making this a public spectacle in front of the world. [/rant]
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/11 00:53:25
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Thank you for admitting, again, that you are part of the problem in the US.
Dogma, sometimes you infuriate me to no end and other times I just want to reach through this computer and give you a big hug and a high five.
This time, it's the latter.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Ouze wrote: I can't remember a precedent for an opposition party inviting a foreign head of state to denounce their own country's foreign policy to thunderous applause.
At least in this case it is just the congress critters stating they plan on exercising their advise and consent role, though the means by which they are doing so is pretty gakky
Sidestepping the Executive means that you give it neither advice nor consent.
That is just a tit-for-tat argument and a gakky one at that.
There is talk that this letter is in violation of the Logan Act (the same thing Speaker Pelosi was accused of), but I don't necessarily think that is the case. First of all, there hasn't been an indictment under Logan Act since 1803 and it's difficult to say that members of Congress wouldn't be acting without the authority of the United States (I would say no). While I think the letter is wrong in just about every way, I wouldn't go so far as to call in treasonous.
Now, Bobby Jindal signing the letter as Governor... that might not have been such a good idea on his part. I don't think he gets to play by the same set of rules as members of Congress...
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
At least in this case it is just the congress critters stating they plan on exercising their advise and consent role, though the means by which they are doing so is pretty gakky
Sidestepping the Executive means that you give it neither advice nor consent.
Sending a "letter" is side stepping the Executive?
Huh... so what was Obama *changing* the PPACA laws because it was politically convenient then?
At least in this case it is just the congress critters stating they plan on exercising their advise and consent role, though the means by which they are doing so is pretty gakky
Sidestepping the Executive means that you give it neither advice nor consent.
[
Sidestepping the congress critters (as Pres Obama had indicated he wanted to do) is gonna draw plays like this, where again, they state they intend to exercise their advise and consent role.
Frankly it was a gakky move in response to a gakky move.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
That is just a tit-for-tat argument and a gakky one at that.
That was my point. There are numerous cases with Senators from the opposing party would "chum up with the adversary" in order to antagonize the President.
There is talk that this letter is in violation of the Logan Act (the same thing Speaker Pelosi was accused of), but I don't necessarily think that is the case. First of all, there hasn't been an indictment under Logan Act since 1803 and it's difficult to say that members of Congress wouldn't be acting without the authority of the United States (I would say no). While I think the letter is wrong in just about every way, I wouldn't go so far as to call in treasonous.
Now, Bobby Jindal signing the letter as Governor... that might not have been such a good idea on his part. I don't think he gets to play by the same set of rules as members of Congress...
At least in this case it is just the congress critters stating they plan on exercising their advise and consent role, though the means by which they are doing so is pretty gakky
Sidestepping the Executive means that you give it neither advice nor consent.
[
Sidestepping the congress critters (as Pres Obama had indicated he wanted to do) is gonna draw plays like this, where again, they state they intend to exercise their advise and consent role.
Frankly it was a gakky move in response to a gakky move.
fething each other over domestically under your party flags is one thing (and still a crap thing at that). fething each other over in internstional manners under the US flag is another.
Sidestepping the congress critters (as Pres Obama had indicated he wanted to do) is gonna draw plays like this, where again, they state they intend to exercise their advise and consent role.
Over a year ago, and that was largely in response to GOP hostility which continues to this day.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/03/11 02:09:43
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
What were the legal foundation for these unilateral changes to the PPACA?
You first need to establish how Obama "side-stepped" Congress by changing PPACA via Executive action but, as I said, that's another thread. I mean, on its face, Executive action against the Legislature is distinct from the inverse.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/11 02:17:40
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
What were the legal foundation for these unilateral changes to the PPACA?
You first need to establish how Obama "side-stepped" Congress by changing PPACA via Executive action but, as I said, that's another thread. I mean, on its face, Executive action against the Legislature is distinct from the inverse.
whembly wrote: Again... what's wrong with a letter from Congress advising the Iranian government that it is in their best interests to consent to a deal that could be ratified by the Senate?
The letter itself seems largely benign... unless I'm missing something here.
There are plenty of means of communicating with the Iranian government that aren't public letters, telephones for instance. Publishing an open letter has absolutely nothing to do with ‘advising’ the Iranian government, it’s about playing to the voting public.
Interrupting government negotiations with other countries in order to play politics with voters is really, really bad. Presenting a united front is one of the absolute, most basic parts of being a decent and constructive elected representative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: In Kennedy's case, he was basically looking for a quid pro quo with the bad guys. THAT is a real gak head move.
It was a real gak head move. Teddy Kennedy was a real gak head.
But he was also one, single Democrat, acting on his own in his gak head moves. Both parties have, and will always have gak heads. All bar seven sitting Republicans signed this most recent gak head move.
That's pretty much where we're at - all bar seven Republicans are as gakky as one of the most notorious Democratic gaks in recent history.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/11 03:03:19
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I can totally see the Iranians scoff at this... because, really... it's largely benign.
IRAN: Really? Some chump is trying to force feed me some remedial US civics class now?
What it *does* do, which is crappy, is forces the President to openly acknowledge that he has no intention of submitting any agreements to Congress for ratification... Which... weakens the President... how? Anyone paying attention would know that Obama probably woundn't be able to get Congress to ratify anything short of full-nuclear disarmament.
But, what's really going on here, is that there's a "separation of power" war. That's why there's a pissing match going on here...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/03/11 03:25:53
I've a more... left-leaning... friend on FB, who posted a link to an article of some sort (no idea on how "good" or "bad" the source is, and frankly I dont care enough to really investigate tonight) that apparently there's a new petition picking up some steam for those 47 republican senators to be brought up on treason charges
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I've a more... left-leaning... friend on FB, who posted a link to an article of some sort (no idea on how "good" or "bad" the source is, and frankly I dont care enough to really investigate tonight) that apparently there's a new petition picking up some steam for those 47 republican senators to be brought up on treason charges
Yeah, I addressed that a couple of posts ago.
The claim is that these Senators are running afoul of the Logan Act, which states:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
The problem is the law itself is pretty vague in its wording, so you'd need a pretty damn strict interpretation of the law. It's one of those things that gets quoted from time to time, but it's nothing more than sabre rattling really. It's extremely difficult to indict anyone under the Act, let alone a sitting United States Senator... Fun fact: the law was passed in 1799 and was last used to indict someone in 1803, so good luck to anyone that attempts to use it a legal basis for an accusation of treason.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/11 08:29:39
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Yes, I read the letter. Did you read my post, and then think about what I wrote?
Because the 'its just a totally benign warning' makes no fething sense on any level, once you remember that telephones exist. Had the Republicans honestly been intending to remind the Iranians that whatever deal was made with Iran would need the approval of congress, then that can be achieved with a phone call. I know the senate is typically pretty old, but I think most of them are probably familiar with the telephone.
No, the Republicans put this in an open letter because they want to make a public show to their domestic audience of how they intend to stop Obama effecting an agreement with Iran. Which is just fething outrageous.
IRAN: Really? Some chump is trying to force feed me some remedial US civics class now?
Yes, if it was actually intended for Iran then it would have been some incredibly patronising bs.
But it was, of course, not meant for Iran at all. The open letter, like all open letters, was meant for domestic public consumption.
But, what's really going on here, is that there's a "separation of power" war. That's why there's a pissing match going on here...
Exactly, there's a pissing match. Not so much over seperation of power, but just a simple pissing match between Republicans and Democrats.
Except that one side has chosen to drag international negotiations in to that pissing match, and do it in the most public way possible. That you don't see that as extraordinary is kind of disappointing. Cheering for your team doesn't mean you have to cheer for everything they do.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
What it *does* do, which is crappy, is forces the President to openly acknowledge that he has no intention of submitting any agreements to Congress for ratification... Which... weakens the President... how?
It weakens the state, whether or not it weakens the President does not matter.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is uncomfortable with the letter that GOP senators sent to Iran Monday. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), a frequent critic of President Barack Obama's foreign policies, expressed his disapproval Tuesday of a letter that GOP senators sent to Iran trying to undermine the president's nuclear negotiations.
Forty-seven out of the Senate's 54 GOP members, led by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), sent an open letter to the "leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran" Monday that warned them not to make any deal with Obama -- because it could be overturned once he leaves office.
Speaking to reporters at the International Association of Fire Fighters presidential forum Tuesday morning, King said that while he agreed with "the entire tone of the letter," he likely would not have signed it had he been in the Senate.
"I believe in a strong presidency. I don't know if I would have signed the letter. I don't trust the president on this, quite frankly, though I don't know if I'd go public with it to a foreign government," he said, adding that it sets the wrong "precedent" to publicly go to a foreign government to undermine the president of the United States while he or she is dealing with that country.
The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, which leans conservative, also called the senators' letter a "distraction" Monday.
"Democratic votes will be needed if the pact is going to be stopped, and even to get the 67 votes to override a veto of the Corker-Menendez bill to require such a vote," wrote the editors, referring to a bill that would require Obama to submit to Congress the text of any potential deal with Iran for a hearing and a vote. "Monday’s letter lets Mr. Obama change the subject to charge that Republicans are playing politics as he tries to make it harder for Democrats to vote for Corker-Menendez."
The U.S. and five other countries are negotiating with Iran to curb its nuclear program in exchange for loosened economic sanctions.
In their letter to Iran, the Republican senators warned that any such deal would have to pass both houses of Congress.
Obama sharply denounced the letter Monday.
"It's somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran," Obama said, referring to figures in Iran who also oppose a nuclear deal. "It's an unusual coalition."
In a statement Monday evening, Vice President Joe Biden, who previously served in the Senate, called the senators' letter "beneath the dignity of an institution I revere."
"In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country -- much less a longtime foreign adversary -- that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them," Biden wrote. "This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments -- a message that is as false as it is dangerous."
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
What it *does* do, which is crappy, is forces the President to openly acknowledge that he has no intention of submitting any agreements to Congress for ratification... Which... weakens the President... how?
It weakens the state, whether or not it weakens the President does not matter.
Anyone paying attention would know that Obama probably woundn't be able to get Congress to ratify anything short of full-nuclear disarmament.
I sincerely doubt that anything Obama, or the Democrats, supported would garner significant conservative or GOP support.
Thank you for admitting, again, that you are part of the problem in the US.
I don't think addressing reality necessarily makes someone part of the problem, but hey- what do I know?
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
