RastaMentality
Banned
LOL
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Obama's support was more broad and diverse though.
At first I thought that chart was a joke and the lines where turning around and going backwards.
Prediction: Sanders won't unexpectedly win Iowa then drop one of the hottest political campaign speeches in history.
wannacracker
Bernie might can win both Iowa and New Hampshire though, that's about as good or better. It's definitely a possibility that Hillary's team had better be preparing for. Winning both probably won't be enough for Bernie to win the nomination but he'll have a puncher's chance.
Unless he's able to change the dynamic of the race wins in Iowa and New Hampshire won't mean squat. A win in New Hampshire is especially meaningless as his home state is right next door, he practically has home field advantage, if he is unable to win there he should just end the campaign after the result is called.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Feeling bummed about new polls? Here have some hopium from NBC/Marist/Telemundo
Clinton 53
Trump 40
Clinton 50
Rubio 44
Clinton 49
Bush 45
Clinton 52
Cruz 41
Biden 56
Trump 38
Biden 50
Rubio 42
Biden 50
Bush 42
Biden 54
Cruz 39
Also among Latinos, Clinton beats Trump 69-22 and Biden beats Trump 71-20.
Someone needs to get them the memo that Trump is winning this thing.
Clinton 53
Trump 40
Clinton 50
Rubio 44
Clinton 49
Bush 45
Clinton 52
Cruz 41
Biden 56
Trump 38
Biden 50
Rubio 42
Biden 50
Bush 42
Biden 54
Cruz 39
Also among Latinos, Clinton beats Trump 69-22 and Biden beats Trump 71-20.
Someone needs to get them the memo that Trump is winning this thing.
I selectively choose to believe this poll over any others.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Sorry for the day-late reply. I'm not used to this thread moving as quickly as it has in the last 36 hours.
"The US doesn't have them" is no answer. The president is responsible for the current situation, in which he is required to produce a document that he allegedly can't. He signed Corker-Cardin into law, no doubt after reading it and having it vetted by his legal team. His Secretary of State was responsible for the US' participation in the Iran negotiations, aware of the law's requirements once it was enacted. If he doesn't have the IAEA agreement, then that's a problem, not a solution.
What's more, even if it's impossible for the president to provide the IAEA deal, there is no "impossibility" exception to Corker-Cardin. Instead, his failure to provide the deal--for whatever reason--means the period for review never commences. As a consequence, the president is (1) prohibited--by the law he agreed to--to provide any "statutory sanctions relief," or (2) acting completely outside of Corker-Cardin, and so relying on his own authority without Congress' implicit consent.
And what you bolded was a hypothetical. You framed your response to me as a general rule that it is never worth it to try to swing votes in Congress once sufficient support (or opposition, in this case) is apparent. That's a bad rule, and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. The only way you could seriously believe it is if you believed that there could never be undisclosed information about a bill or treaty or what-have-you that, if it were made known, would change a person's vote. I chose a hypothetical scenario that you were clearly quite opposed to--I remember how eager you were to discount the AP's story. If you don't find that scenario disturbing enough, or if, like ivysaur12 and pigeon, you don't think such vote-changing provisions are likely included in the IAEA agreement, then just imagine another undisclosed side-agreement with terms so bad that no Democrat could ever support them (perhaps it requires Iran to give Iranian corporations free speech rights, for instance).
I can no more tell you what parts of the deal would change opinions than you can tell me that there are none. I haven't seen it. Neither have you. Neither have any of the members of Congress who are voting on whether to approve the Iran deal or not. Being unable to consult the agreement itself and argue that it contains only acceptable provisions, you and APK are forced to argue that, ultimately, this part of the deal just isn't that important:
That's a politically convenient fiction, but it's a fiction nevertheless. We know that because President Obama highlighted this aspect of the nuclear deal in his speech July 14th:
We know it from how it was discussed by John Kerry and other State Department personnel before it became politically inconvenient to tell the truth:
We know it because 354 members of the House of Representatives wrote to Kerry in 2014 explaining why it's important (again, before the question became an issue of partisan dispute):
Perhaps most of all, we know it because of the role Iranian compliance with the IAEA's requirements has in the JCPOA. One of the key dates in the JCPOA is known as "Implementation Day." "Implementation Day" (PDF), as used in the JCPOA, is
The actions to be taken by the United States in section 17 of Annex V (PDF) (16 relates to the EU) are:
The nuclear-related measures whose verification by the IAEA triggers the requirement that the U.S. take the actions described above include (section 15.9 in Annex V) Iran's completion of "the modalities and facilities-specific arrangements to allow the IAEA to implement all transparency measures provided for in Annex I." Included in that description is section 66 of Annex I (PDF), which requires Iran to "complete all activities as set out in paragraphs 2, 4, 5, and 6 of the 'Roadmap for Clarification of Past and Present Outstanding Issues.'” Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Roadmap refer to "a separate arrangement that would allow [Iran and the IAEA] to address the remaining outstanding issues, as set out in the annex of the 2011 Director’s General report." Paragraph 5 refers to "another separate arrangement regarding the issue of Parchin." (Paragraph 6 refers back to the activities described in paragraphs 1 - 5.)
In sum, the above means that if Iran doesn't comply with the separate agreements with the IAEA, then the IAEA won't be able to verify Iran's compliance, and "Implementation Day" will never arrive. In other words, compliance with the IAEA's side agreements is a necessary prerequisite to having the sanctions described above lifted (along with the EU and UN sanctions described elsewhere). That suggests that the IAEA's PMD and Parchin agreements are pretty important, and belies recent attempts to paint them as anything but.
"The US doesn't have them" is no answer. The president is responsible for the current situation, in which he is required to produce a document that he allegedly can't. He signed Corker-Cardin into law, no doubt after reading it and having it vetted by his legal team. His Secretary of State was responsible for the US' participation in the Iran negotiations, aware of the law's requirements once it was enacted. If he doesn't have the IAEA agreement, then that's a problem, not a solution.
What's more, even if it's impossible for the president to provide the IAEA deal, there is no "impossibility" exception to Corker-Cardin. Instead, his failure to provide the deal--for whatever reason--means the period for review never commences. As a consequence, the president is (1) prohibited--by the law he agreed to--to provide any "statutory sanctions relief," or (2) acting completely outside of Corker-Cardin, and so relying on his own authority without Congress' implicit consent.
And what you bolded was a hypothetical. You framed your response to me as a general rule that it is never worth it to try to swing votes in Congress once sufficient support (or opposition, in this case) is apparent. That's a bad rule, and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. The only way you could seriously believe it is if you believed that there could never be undisclosed information about a bill or treaty or what-have-you that, if it were made known, would change a person's vote. I chose a hypothetical scenario that you were clearly quite opposed to--I remember how eager you were to discount the AP's story. If you don't find that scenario disturbing enough, or if, like ivysaur12 and pigeon, you don't think such vote-changing provisions are likely included in the IAEA agreement, then just imagine another undisclosed side-agreement with terms so bad that no Democrat could ever support them (perhaps it requires Iran to give Iranian corporations free speech rights, for instance).
I can no more tell you what parts of the deal would change opinions than you can tell me that there are none. I haven't seen it. Neither have you. Neither have any of the members of Congress who are voting on whether to approve the Iran deal or not. Being unable to consult the agreement itself and argue that it contains only acceptable provisions, you and APK are forced to argue that, ultimately, this part of the deal just isn't that important:
That's a politically convenient fiction, but it's a fiction nevertheless. We know that because President Obama highlighted this aspect of the nuclear deal in his speech July 14th:
Barack Obama said:
We know it from how it was discussed by John Kerry and other State Department personnel before it became politically inconvenient to tell the truth:
PBS Newshour said:
U.S. Dept. of State said:
We know it because 354 members of the House of Representatives wrote to Kerry in 2014 explaining why it's important (again, before the question became an issue of partisan dispute):
81% of the House of Representatives said:
Perhaps most of all, we know it because of the role Iranian compliance with the IAEA's requirements has in the JCPOA. One of the key dates in the JCPOA is known as "Implementation Day." "Implementation Day" (PDF), as used in the JCPOA, is
The actions to be taken by the United States in section 17 of Annex V (PDF) (16 relates to the EU) are:
The nuclear-related measures whose verification by the IAEA triggers the requirement that the U.S. take the actions described above include (section 15.9 in Annex V) Iran's completion of "the modalities and facilities-specific arrangements to allow the IAEA to implement all transparency measures provided for in Annex I." Included in that description is section 66 of Annex I (PDF), which requires Iran to "complete all activities as set out in paragraphs 2, 4, 5, and 6 of the 'Roadmap for Clarification of Past and Present Outstanding Issues.'” Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Roadmap refer to "a separate arrangement that would allow [Iran and the IAEA] to address the remaining outstanding issues, as set out in the annex of the 2011 Director’s General report." Paragraph 5 refers to "another separate arrangement regarding the issue of Parchin." (Paragraph 6 refers back to the activities described in paragraphs 1 - 5.)
In sum, the above means that if Iran doesn't comply with the separate agreements with the IAEA, then the IAEA won't be able to verify Iran's compliance, and "Implementation Day" will never arrive. In other words, compliance with the IAEA's side agreements is a necessary prerequisite to having the sanctions described above lifted (along with the EU and UN sanctions described elsewhere). That suggests that the IAEA's PMD and Parchin agreements are pretty important, and belies recent attempts to paint them as anything but.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Mephistopheles said:
Well why didn't you just say so?
Mephistopheles, since you're a day late you may not have seen the Reuters article stating that IAEA personnel will be present when Iran takes samples at Parchin. In other words the bogus AP article and the idea of Iran self-inspection is a big nothingburger... but truthers will continue to believe it.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I'm not relying on the AP article or the AP's claims about the IAEA agreements. My arguments are that (1) the president's failure to provide the IAEA side agreements means the review period under Corker-Cardin has not yet begun; and (2) the issues purportedly resolved by the IAEA side agreements are important components of the entire Iran deal.
I missed this since you didn't actually quote me, so the quotation wasn't highlighted. I'm not merely stating with whom I agree. I'm providing arguments for the conclusions I think are correct. If you think they're incorrect, provide your arguments. Otherwise, why even comment?
Hobbestetrician
Member
Avon Barksdale
Member
If any more Republicans plan on entering the race, they better file soon.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
A telemundo poll? Trump is gonna have a field day with this.
brainchild
Banned
Just got the notification
Keep in mind this aggregate tracks over 130 polls from all the major pollsters. As the trend shows, Bernie's support continues to eat away at Hillary's in the national polls.
Can the streams cross? And if they do, how soon do you think they will? I'm going to predict that if the streams haven't crossed by the first debate, it will happen that week. I just don't see Bernie's momentum slowing down yet, and it seems to be having an adverse effect on Hillary's. I guess we'll see in a few weeks!
Keep in mind this aggregate tracks over 130 polls from all the major pollsters. As the trend shows, Bernie's support continues to eat away at Hillary's in the national polls.
Can the streams cross? And if they do, how soon do you think they will? I'm going to predict that if the streams haven't crossed by the first debate, it will happen that week. I just don't see Bernie's momentum slowing down yet, and it seems to be having an adverse effect on Hillary's. I guess we'll see in a few weeks!
Officerrob
Banned
He will just ignore it like he does almost all general election polling
I wouldn't put any money on that if I was you
Your wrong about Iowa. She sunk over £20m into the state. Once that memo had been released contemplating leaving Iowa she had no choice but to go all in. The problem was that Obama changed the landscape of the caucus massively, pulling in vast amounts of new voters who had never engaged before.
She also didn't abandon Sotuh Carolina - if you remember, that's where Bill Clinton had gotten into such an awful mess, with his infamous melt down on camera about how the press was treating Obama versus Hillary and the race card. They ended up pulling out after that disaster.
You are absolutely right about 2008 being a disaster - it's amusing how little anyone, including the press and a lot of democrats, knew about the actual process. Obama won because his team had some freaking amazing rules lawyers in it, not becusse he crushed Hilary Into the ground even despite her terrible campaign team and lack of understanding of the rules.
(She got more votes and more states on Super Tuesday, yet less delegates - the system really didn't work like people thought it did, Particulary the caucus states where it was possible to run massive wins with very small numbers of people compared to what you got in return for millions of votes in California for example).
The democrat 2008 primaries really were an amazing spectacle to watch for people who love politics.
I know I'm a broken record on this, and apologise for those reading me post similar things repeatedly, but I cannot help but intervene.
Hilary is a very good debater. She handed Obama, and the rest of the field, their asses multiple times in 2008. She *shines* in debates, it's where her strengths come out. Despite what sanders supporters seem to think, Hilary is a detailed policy person - she knows it, she understands it and she's able to sell it. This weird illusion people have of Hilary being a right wing automaton just doesn't bear out when you look at how she campaigned in 2008 - her health care solution was better than Obama's and more left wing than his (and he ended up adopting it in the end).
Sanders has never participated in political debates at this level, not even once. She's been doing it since 1992. I'm not saying she is going to crush him (she won't), but it would be an incredible shock if he crushed her based on everything we know and her past performance.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
It's really surreal seeing someone so misogynistic and racist on the fucking tonight show being cheered on by a crowd. It may as well be David Duke sitting up there and no one seems to care.
Just unreal.
Just unreal.
brainchild
Banned
Wait a minute now. Yes, while it's true that this is Bernie's first foray into running for POTUS, he's no stranger to political debates on the issues.
Anyway, here's a video comparing Bernie voting against the war on Iraq with Hillary voting for it. Setting aside Bernie's PRESCIENT statements here, who do you think made the better argument?
https://youtu.be/2ySJLIc5BJM
And I agree, Hillary's a great debater, but Bernie's in a different class. Not only is he great with policies, but he has charisma, he's transparent, he's quick-witted, he has integrity, and shows respect for his colleagues (he may criticize their policies very harshly, but he respects them as his colleagues). All of these attributes are evident when he speaks in debates. By comparison, Hillary is a dull mouthpiece who knows how to appease her supporters and says what's 'right', not what she feels. Her disingenuous fervor seeps off her like smoke from a burnt wire. I'm sorry, but you can't even compare the two.
Coriolanus
Banned
The only thing that can be said about the future Bernary is that they will either be very interesting or exceedingly boring. Both have oodles of experience at the pulpit. Will be merely a matter of how hard they decide to wrassle
#commonsensegaf
#commonsensegaf
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
One would wonder if Sanders has any flaws at all. This glorious man sounds like he's too good to be true.
On a related note. I spend too much time on Breitbart and newsmax (aka Trump fansite 1a and 1b) so I decided to check out Sanders reddit page for the first time and it was not all that different to be honest. Sanders fans, to their credit, are much more logical and educated in their beliefs and don't just blindly follow any crappy poll that shows what they want like Trump followers.
It's still ideology comes first, second, third, and fourth. No pragmatism, no realism, and as soon as your candidate has to actually govern beyond your polarized base (as Obama did when he got elected) then you're basically dead to them (as Obama seems to be). I saw some post from some idiot treating BLM like an enemy just because they dared protest at a Sanders rally.
It's why the far right and the far left are equally unappealing to me. Might as well be joining a cult because it requires the same strict adherence to homogeneous thinking.
BertramCooper
Banned
C'mon. You're too smart to be buying this bullshit from the House GOP.
The IAEA doesn't hand over this stuff to anyone. That's how this system works. Every single country on the planet who works with the IAEA, including the US, has similar safeguards agreements in place. How can Obama "fail to provide" something he's not privy to? What you're asking for would completely discredit the IAEA and render it useless.
And under the law they passed, the GOP has no right to see the IAEA safeguards agreement. They didn't ask for it.
brainchild
Banned
My problem is that, as a Sanders supporter, I get lumped in with the crazies, and it's annoying. I'm not an idealist, I'm a realist. I don't believe that Bernie can do no wrong. I'm not very confident in him winning the election, and frankly, his age concerns me. Nevertheless, I DO rationally support him.
It's not an ideology for me; I believe he is one of the very few politicians that has what it takes to spearhead a political revolution in this country. I know that sounds like utopian-speake, but it's not. It's just going to take a cohesive and concerted effort to pull this off, but I'm ready for it, and I'm doing my part as a volunteer to turn this dream into a reality. We may not succeed, but I sure as hell ain't gonna give up without trying first!
So after eight years of Obama and the GOP foaming at the mouth to take back the WH, a candidate with not much charisma, a seemingly increasingly lacking ability to connect with voters/display authenticity, and is only best when she talks strictly policy is going ot be able to withstand the GOP relentlessly attacking Dems next year.
Draft Biden, pls.
Tarkus
Member
I've had this IPA. It's a bit harsh and will smash you quickly
Coriolanus
Banned
You kinda had a point, but then you went completely off the deep end when trying to categorize Sanders as far left. You've some degree of global awareness. You know better.
Stop trying to mock your future allies. Do not emulate behaviour which you find most displeasing when commited by others.
Or don't stop. I'm not your mom. Certainly cant force you to. But ye gods does it get Zzz when hillgaf bitches about standers.
No, your problem is that your words are at odds with each other.
The top post here is an attempt to lead to your argument using initial agreement and then a series of judgements about Bernie Sanders from your rosy perspective. I've watched several videos of Bernie speaking and arguing; he's not charismatic. There are charismatic politicians out there, but Bernie is not one of them. I can grant that he's transparent, but "quick-witted" has yet to be testedyou can say he actually failed in this regard, given the manner in which he reacted to unplanned events like Netroots and Seattle. I heard quite a clamor about Bernie's vocal opposition to mass incarceration, the legislation on which he voted Aye foris that integrity? Respect for colleagues is common amongst all congressmembers, this sort of trait is not distinctive. Publicly we hear them shitting all over each other, but just as Ginsberg can be good friends with Scalia, the members of Congress are not nearly as rude to each other as you imagine.
I don't think any of the attributes you've listed are on display when Bernie is debating, interviewing, or arguing. You're building a myth of a person.
Which is why it's essentially an ideology. You feel like you're not crazy, but the amount of admiration you're showing for a career politician is leaning close to idolatry. Calling Bernie on a different level from Hillary, and then sideswiping at her character. The need to demean the opponent to raise your choice higher. You've fallen exactly into the pitfalls of the 'crazy' Bernie supporters.
The fact that you think he can spearhead a political revolution is unrealistic in itself. It is utopian idealism. You're overreaching with a dream that doesn't factor in half the country's opposition to your ideas. It doesn't work with a Republican Congress. It places an immense burden on Bernie to live up to a dream, not a reality.
Also, consider the irony of your position. The accusation that "Hillary is a dull mouthpiece who knows how to appease her supporters and says what's 'right', not what she feels." is also applicable to Bernie; in this respect he's actually been much more populist than she has. The substitution of "Bernie" into "Hillary" in the above sentence is what an opponent can throw straight back at you. It is because you think Bernie is 'right' that you don't consider what he's saying to be pandering, but from another standpoint, what he's doing is not that different from what Trump is doing: saying things that sound appealing to a particular crowd. Do you think the people who follow Trump don't also think the same way you do, which is that the "majority of the country" agrees with them?
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I'm smart enough to know I should look into it myself before making up my mind. So, I did.
The IAEA did not act on its own in this case. Until the middle of June (i.e., about a month after Corker-Cardin became law), the State Department insisted that Iran would have to disclose information concerning the past military dimensions of its nuclear program. The IAEA, U.S., and EU negotiated the Iran agreement in tandem and, since May, under the shadow of Corker-Cardin. And, as I pointed out last night, the IAEA side agreements play an important role in the overall Iran deal--the side agreements don't exist in a vacuum. So to complain that it isn't customary for the IAEA to share its agreements with one country with another simply ignores the context surrounding these particular IAEA agreements.
Finally, Corker-Cardin doesn't require Congress to "ask for" documents before the president has an obligation to provide them. It simply imposes the obligation. The definition of "agreement" in the statute is broad enough to encompass the IAEA side agreements. (See my initial post on this topic, linked above.)
Apparently the government just rolled out a new site that's sort of a rebuilt College Scorecard showing data related to earnings, prices, demographics, etc. for colleges.
The Department of Education on the new data:
Vox has an article up about the new college scorecard and the data.
Personally, I think tools like these provided to the public using government resources and data is great. Particularly for college education.
The Department of Education on the new data:
Vox has an article up about the new college scorecard and the data.
Personally, I think tools like these provided to the public using government resources and data is great. Particularly for college education.
BertramCooper
Banned
Imposes an obligation the president couldn't possibly fulfill? This is an absurd argument.
If the bill had been crafted by Republicans to specifically to make it impossible for the 60-day clock to ever start ticking and Dems were simply too dumb to notice, this argument would make more sense. But that's clearly not what happened. House Republicans have realized they're going to lose on the Iran deal, so they're grasping at straws in order to prolong the debate. The bill states fairly clearly what materials the president and the State Department were required to give to Congress. A safeguards agreement between Iran and the IAEA (which is certainly connected to the deal but doesn't directly involve the United States in this specific case) clearly does not fall under it.
And again, you're willfully ignoring the way the IAEA functions. How do you think the U.S. would respond if another country's government demanded to see our safeguards agreement with the IAEA? Not a single country would ever open up their nuclear facilities for IAEA oversight if other countries could access their safeguards agreements.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Something constitution trumps international law! Amerika über alles!
And_Gignac
Member
The dem debates are going to be super boring, I think. Sanders wants to just "discuss the issues" (instead of attacking the character of Clinton) and Hillary will continue to be condescending with Bernie because she doesn't want to piss off the hard left base. Biden would make them more entertaining, of course.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
You had a point until you decided that anyone that bitches about Sanders is Hillgaf. I have no great affinity for her whatsoever. I'd just as easily support Biden right now, who cares.
I'm just someone who sees Sanders and Trump as people who promise the moon to their supporters and their supporters fall for it.
I don't know why you say that, there's no precedent for this strategy. House Republicans would not, for example, hold 56 doomed votes on repealing Obamacare and bring numerous failed court cases against it, years after implementation. Similarly, there's no way this would happen on the Iran deal. It's just crazy to think so and would imply they are irresponsible governors.
Coriolanus
Banned
Y'know, in the *very* unlikely event that Sanders beats Hills, this Corbyn Labour Victory thread is a pretty good window into the future of what poligaf discourse should look like.
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
Anyone catching Trump's rally in Iowa? On Fox News right now. No structure; he's just rambling and jumping from topic to topic. More shit about building the wall, about how "gangs in Chicago" are full of bad dudes, all illegals need to go back, common core means you're "taught by Washington", and so on and so forth. Reminds everyone how he's leading like every minute.
At one point, about Clinton, he's like she may not make it to the starting gate folks. She may not. Right? I don't know. Who cares?
Classic.
But once again it is interesting how strongly he reaffirmed that hedge funds are going to pay more taxes. I think a lot of people in the crowd would normally say they're against higher taxes, regardless, but maybe some minds are being changed here.
At one point, about Clinton, he's like she may not make it to the starting gate folks. She may not. Right? I don't know. Who cares?
Classic.
But once again it is interesting how strongly he reaffirmed that hedge funds are going to pay more taxes. I think a lot of people in the crowd would normally say they're against higher taxes, regardless, but maybe some minds are being changed here.
Retromelon
Member
Trump is by far the best candidate on either side at channeling the rage of the base and telling them what they want to hear. All the people that bet on Jeb right now are looking like idiots. Bush is an afterthought
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
The law does state fairly clearly what materials are required. You seem to think it must name a particular document to include that document within its requirements, but that's not so. The law mandates that the president transmit to Congress "an agreement," along with "all related materials and annexes," and the period for Congressional review is triggered by that transmission. "Agreement" is defined as specifically including "any joint comprehensive plan of action entered into or made between Iran and any other parties, and any additional materials related thereto, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements[.]" The IAEA side agreements are "side agreements" or "implementing materials" or "related agreements" or, at worst, "additional materials related" to the JCPOA. As a consequence, they must be transmitted to Congress, else the president has not transmitted "an agreement" sufficient to trigger the Congressional review period.
You complain that it's impossible for the president to deliver the IAEA agreement to Congress, but that's his problem. He signed the law. If he wanted an impossibility exception, he could have demanded one be added to the bill before he signed it. If he didn't want to have to produce IAEA side agreements, he could have required that such agreements be specifically exempted from the bill before he turned it into law. He didn't do those things. In addition, his administration was heavily involved in negotiating the JCPOA alongside the IAEA and EU. They could have insisted that the IAEA and Iran permit Congress to review their side agreements, as required by the law. Or, at the very least, they could have ensured that whatever the IAEA and Iran were doing was completely separate from the JCPOA, so that they could at least have an arguable basis for refusing to produce that arrangement. Again, they did neither. You keep going on about how sharing agreements isn't the normal course of dealing with the IAEA, but continue ignoring that none of this is the normal course of dealing with the IAEA. The IAEA typically isn't entering its agreements in the context of--and as an integral part of--broader multinational negotiations.
Finally, you allege that this is merely the Republicans, having "realized they're going to lose on the Iran deal, . . . grasping at straws in order to prolong the debate," but they have been making this case since within days of the president delivering the JCPOA to Congress.
Coriolanus
Banned
Prediction: if that whole deal ever goes to court, it'll be decided that the executive fulfilled its obligations according to law to the best of its abilities and that's that.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Assuming a court were to address the merits (and I think there are serious technical issues that could prevent it), I think that's the least likely outcome. There is no "good enough" excuse for failing to comply with the law--that's especially so where the entire problem is of the president's own making. He signed the law. His administration negotiated the deal with full knowledge of what the law required.
Is Craig a U.S. citizen? (Technically it was to a SuperPAC, not Sanders' campaign. I just think it would be hilarious for Sanders to be the poster boy for the evils of foreign-funded corporate speech liberals have been worried about since Citizens United.)
BertramCooper
Banned
Coriolanus
Banned
Yes, but you thought along the same lines on obamacare. They fucked up writing the law, so fuckem. And yet here we are.
5bux via paypal?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked