START Treaty Passing in this Congress?

[ElephantMcDonk]

START Treaty Passing in this Congress?

The Republican Amendment failed 60-32 earlier today. A treaty requires 2/3 vote from the Senate. I assume that means 67 votes and not 66.

If this is the case, then it seems for the treaty to pass, it needs 7 of the other 8 votes as YES votes, if everyone else votes as they did today.

Does anyone know who the 8 were that didn't vote or any useful information on the likelihood of it getting done in this Congress?

In my opinion, the Republicans simply want to play politics with it. As opposed to truly being concerned about the parts of the treaty they say they need amended, I instead believe they want this accomplishment to go to the next Congress and not appear to be being bullied. This, as opposed to actually being opposed to the legislation or thinking it a good idea to force Russia to go back the table with Obama to make marginal changes, instead of ratifying it. It's total garbage politics and I hope it doesn't play out that way.

In the end, the Republicans in Congress are going to have to play nice with Obama if they want to get reelected. Trying to play games where they look good and he looks bad is political jeopardy. They'll be trying to thread a needle they're incapable of threading imo.

Any thoughts?

 

[Intense]

The Voice Of Russia

US Senate continues START debate
December 19 2010 20:32
The US Senate is into a third day of debate on whether it ratifies the latest Russian-American strategic arms reduction treaty, signed at a summit in Prague on April 8th. The Democrats are poised to say ‘yea’, while the Republicans insist the treaty must be cleansed of any link between strategic weapons and missile defence first. →

Democratic senator Kerry rebukes Republicans for delaying START ratification
December 19 2010 12:36
The US Democratic senator John Kerry has accused his Republican colleagues of deliberately delaying the ratification of the new strategic arms reduction treaty (START) with Russia. On Saturday the Republicans tried to amend the treaty by excluding from the preamble to the treaty a reference to interconnection between offensive and defensive arms. Their proposal was rejected. The U.S. →

Moscow wants START ratified, Iran engaged diplomatically
December 18 2010 19:29
At long last, the US Senate has opened a debate on ratifying the latest Russian-American strategic arms reduction treaty, signed at a summit on Prague on April 8th. The contention is over the preamble, which the Republican members want changed in a way that eliminates an agreed link between strategic weapons and missile defence. →

President Obama presses Senate into ratifying START
December 18 2010 14:00
The US President Barack Obama insists that the Senate should ratify the new START treaty, or else America could forget about improving relations with Russia. President Obama says that Washington needs Moscow’s aid in settling numerous problems, specifically those related to Afghanistan and Iran’s nuclear programme. →
START Treaty: Voice of Russia

Russia want's it, the Democrats want it.
are we supposed to take comfort in that?

It's not working for me. Obama sucks at Monopoly, Risk, Stratego, why should we expect anything different here?

 

[ElephantMcDonk]

You provided no new information. I'm looking for insight as to whether or not it will pass in this session. Today they had 60-32 against the amendment that would have killed the treaty until the next Congress, as it would require changes.

The treaty needs 67 yea votes. It needs 34 no votes to fail. I'm curious if there's someone who actually has some insight as to whether it will pass or not. Can they come up with 67 votes?

 

[Big Fitz]

The libs are doing their damndest to destroy missile defense before they can't. This is a last shot.

 

[Sallow]

The libs are doing their damndest to destroy missile defense before they can't. This is a last shot.

How can you "destroy" something that does not work?

 

[Intense]

You provided no new information. I'm looking for insight as to whether or not it will pass in this session. Today they had 60-32 against the amendment that would have killed the treaty until the next Congress, as it would require changes.

The treaty needs 67 yea votes. It needs 34 no votes to fail. I'm curious if there's someone who actually has some insight as to whether it will pass or not. Can they come up with 67 votes?

That's because it is still unknown. Should I tell you what you want to hear or what you don't want to hear? Why are you so anxious about being sold out? What is enough damage? When is enough, enough?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yes, you need 67 to ratify. Second, if Russia thinks this is a good deal then we need to be running the other way.

 

[Intense]

Yes, you need 67 to ratify. Second, if Russia thinks this is a good deal then we need to be running the other way.

Agreed.

 

[Intense]

The libs are doing their damndest to destroy missile defense before they can't. This is a last shot.

How can you "destroy" something that does not work?

I'm sorry, are you out of knee pads and white surrender flags again?

 

[Sallow]

Yes, you need 67 to ratify. Second, if Russia thinks this is a good deal then we need to be running the other way.

Why?

If Russia thought this was a bad deal..there wouldn't be a deal.

 

[Sallow]

The libs are doing their damndest to destroy missile defense before they can't. This is a last shot.

How can you "destroy" something that does not work?

I'm sorry, are you out of knee pads and white surrender flags again?

No.

Are you hitting the stupid pills again?

The technology doesn't work. Throwing money out isn't going to make bullet hitting bullet technology any better.

 

[Intense]

How can you "destroy" something that does not work?

I'm sorry, are you out of knee pads and white surrender flags again?

No.

Are you hitting the stupid pills again?

The technology doesn't work. Throwing money out isn't going to make bullet hitting bullet technology any better.

Hmmmmmm....... Tying our hands behind our backs is better how? Technology changes. Stupid remains stupid. Surrender is not an option, persevering is. You show weakness when strength is required. That is a more destabilizing factor. You negotiate from strength, not weakness. If you can't handle that, stall it until the grown ups join in.

 

[Sallow]

I'm sorry, are you out of knee pads and white surrender flags again?

No.

Are you hitting the stupid pills again?

The technology doesn't work. Throwing money out isn't going to make bullet hitting bullet technology any better.

Hmmmmmm....... Tying our hands behind our backs is better how? Technology changes. Stupid remains stupid. Surrender is not an option, persevering is. You show weakness when strength is required. That is a more destabilizing factor. You negotiate from strength, not weakness. If you can't handle that, stall it until the grown ups join in.

5,000 Nuclear warheads is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Intense]

Yes, you need 67 to ratify. Second, if Russia thinks this is a good deal then we need to be running the other way.

Why?

If Russia thought this was a bad deal..there wouldn't be a deal.

How's that? We think it's a bad deal and will possibly be stuck with it. How is Russia any different in that sense?

 

[Mad Scientist]

How can you "destroy" something that does not work?

I'm sorry, are you out of knee pads and white surrender flags again?

No.
Are you hitting the stupid pills again?
The technology doesn't work. Throwing money out isn't going to make bullet hitting bullet technology any better.

Apparently, Obama has been hitting the "stupid pills":
Obama: NATO to erect missile shield for Europe - The Economic Times

Two key unanswered questions about the missile shield _ will it work and can the Europeans afford it? _ were put aside for the present in the interest of celebrating the agreement as a boost for NATO solidarity.
``It offers a role for all of our allies,'' Obama told reporters Friday. ``It responds to the threats of our times. It shows our determination to protect our citizens from the threat of ballistic missiles.''

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yes, you need 67 to ratify. Second, if Russia thinks this is a good deal then we need to be running the other way.

Why?

If Russia thought this was a bad deal..there wouldn't be a deal.

Come on Sallow, you're slipping, lol! You just proved my point in reverse.

 

[The T]

No.

Are you hitting the stupid pills again?

The technology doesn't work. Throwing money out isn't going to make bullet hitting bullet technology any better.

Hmmmmmm....... Tying our hands behind our backs is better how? Technology changes. Stupid remains stupid. Surrender is not an option, persevering is. You show weakness when strength is required. That is a more destabilizing factor. You negotiate from strength, not weakness. If you can't handle that, stall it until the grown ups join in.

5,000 Nuclear warheads is nothing to sneeze at.

You have two people in a room with horrendous gas vapor just waiting for a spark to do it's duty as prescribed by the laws of physics...

You have one Russian, One American in that room...

The Russian has a book of matches...the American just one.

Whom wins here?

-PONDER-

 

[Missourian]

How can you "destroy" something that does not work?

I'm sorry, are you out of knee pads and white surrender flags again?

No.

Are you hitting the stupid pills again?

The technology doesn't work. Throwing money out isn't going to make bullet hitting bullet technology any better.

I suspect this same argument was made to the Wright Brothers.

 

[8537]

Hmmmmmm....... Tying our hands behind our backs is better how? Technology changes. Stupid remains stupid. Surrender is not an option, persevering is. You show weakness when strength is required. That is a more destabilizing factor. You negotiate from strength, not weakness. If you can't handle that, stall it until the grown ups join in.

5,000 Nuclear warheads is nothing to sneeze at.

You have two people in a room with horrendous gas vapor just waiting for a spark to do it's duty as prescribed by the laws of physics...

You have one Russian, One American in that room...

The Russian has a book of matches...the American just one.

Whom wins here?

-PONDER-

Jesus Fucking Christ. Nobody wins there, Thomas. In that scenario, it only requires one match to blow both people into tiny bits....

a fairly good analogy for the START treaty that Reagan signed, and that his now being renegotiated.

 

[The T]

5,000 Nuclear warheads is nothing to sneeze at.

You have two people in a room with horrendous gas vapor just waiting for a spark to do it's duty as prescribed by the laws of physics...

You have one Russian, One American in that room...

The Russian has a book of matches...the American just one.

Whom wins here?

-PONDER-

Jesus Fucking Christ. Nobody wins there, Thomas. In that scenario, it only requires one match to blow both people into tiny bits....

a fairly good analogy for the START treaty that Reagan signed, and that his now being renegotiated.

Very Good Karly-Bub...YOU get a fucking GOLD STAR For the day...Now run along and tell your mommy and daddy that YOU did good.