Dems are prepared to buck the WH on Iran nuke deal: Politico

[tinydancer]

According to this article it looks like the Republicans will get their veto proof majority.

Really interesting turn of events. Despite being pissed off last week at the letter, the Dems are sticking to their guns. Looks like a dozen Democrats are going to side with the Republicans.

"Though several Democratic senators told POLITICO they were offended by the missive authored by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), none of them said it would cause them to drop their support for bills to impose new sanctions on Iran or give Congress review power over a nuclear deal."

Democrats prepared to buck White House on Iran nuclear deal - Burgess Everett - POLITICO

 

[HenryBHough]

There is still a lingering survivalist strain of Democrat what wants to survive their next election. Dwindling but tenacious.

 

[Preacher]

Dead on arrival. Man this congress is so useful since they took office! LOL...

 

[1stRambo]

According to this article it looks like the Republicans will get their veto proof majority.

Really interesting turn of events. Despite being pissed off last week at the letter, the Dems are sticking to their guns. Looks like a dozen Democrats are going to side with the Republicans.

"Though several Democratic senators told POLITICO they were offended by the missive authored by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), none of them said it would cause them to drop their support for bills to impose new sanctions on Iran or give Congress review power over a nuclear deal."

Democrats prepared to buck White House on Iran nuclear deal - Burgess Everett - POLITICO

Yo, side with Republicans? There should be more siding with Republicans! Just shows the Socialist side of the Democrat Party!!!

"GTP"

 

[occupied]

Congress taking unto itself the power to veto an international agreement is probably unconstitutional, vote yes, it gets overturned and they didn't have to vote in favor of the deal. It's a win-win for conservadems.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"veto proof majority"

koshergrl is still dumb as a stump.

Or can she explain exactly what a "veto proof majority" is?

 

[HenryBHough]

Presidents, even putative presidents, veto.

Congress simply votes not to ratify.

If you paid for citizenship classes you have grounds for a full refund.

 

[1stRambo]

Congress taking unto itself the power to veto an international agreement is probably unconstitutional, vote yes, it gets overturned and they didn't have to vote in favor of the deal. It's a win-win for conservadems.

Yo, keep Dreaming Fool!

"GTP"

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Congress taking unto itself the power to veto an international agreement is probably unconstitutional, vote yes, it gets overturned and they didn't have to vote in favor of the deal. It's a win-win for conservadems.

Congress doesn't get to veto any treaty, they just approve it or not. That's kind of actually in the Constitution. The dems are just now realizing Cotton was 100% correct and any of their actions from here on out prove that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Senate does not a veto majority because they can't veto it.

The senators can refuse to ratify it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Congress taking unto itself the power to veto an international agreement is probably unconstitutional, vote yes, it gets overturned and they didn't have to vote in favor of the deal. It's a win-win for conservadems.

Congress doesn't get to veto any treaty, they just approve it or not. That's kind of actually in the Constitution. The dems are just now realizing Cotton was 100% correct and any of their actions from here on out prove that.

Here we go again.

Amazing how all RWs are constitutional scholars when they can't even frikken spell it.

 

[HenryBHough]

Amazing how all RWs are constitutional scholars when they can't even frikken spell it.

I'd be concerned about your level of reading comprehension if I believed you could pick up a copy of The U.S. Constitution without it burning your paws.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Iran laughs at the fucking faggot left in this country.

 

[occupied]

Congress taking unto itself the power to veto an international agreement is probably unconstitutional, vote yes, it gets overturned and they didn't have to vote in favor of the deal. It's a win-win for conservadems.

Congress doesn't get to veto any treaty, they just approve it or not. That's kind of actually in the Constitution. The dems are just now realizing Cotton was 100% correct and any of their actions from here on out prove that.

It's not a treaty. It could be made into a treaty if congressional republicans weren't so intent on forcing Iran to get a nuke so they can justify another war. The deal is no more than an escape hatch for Iran to pause or scale back their program without seeming to unconditionally cave in to sanctions. We are giving them a way out of a US policy that virtually guarantees a future war. If they do not hold up their end we can easily go back to the freeze out path to war again. I do not see all the hyperbole as if Obama were shipping them a weapon fed-ex. I see nothing irreversible.

 

[tinydancer]

The two bills that I've been reading about have bi partisan support. Corkers and Kirks.

"Corker’s bill that would allow Congress to vote to override Obama’s Iran deal is seen as the one Republican leaders are most likely to schedule for action on the Senate floor, probably sometime in April.

Another bill, proposed by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), could also be an option if Congress begins to doubt Iran’s commitment to finalizing a deal or upholding one. Kirk’s bill would trigger sanctions if Iran walks away from talks or reneges on a deal. He said 68 senators have signaled support for it, a number he predicted would grow “once we actually vote.”

Democrats prepared to buck White House on Iran nuclear deal - Burgess Everett - POLITICO

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama promised to stand with Jihadists

 

[occupied]

The two bills that I've been reading about have bi partisan support. Corkers and Kirks.

"Corker’s bill that would allow Congress to vote to override Obama’s Iran deal is seen as the one Republican leaders are most likely to schedule for action on the Senate floor, probably sometime in April.

Another bill, proposed by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), could also be an option if Congress begins to doubt Iran’s commitment to finalizing a deal or upholding one. Kirk’s bill would trigger sanctions if Iran walks away from talks or reneges on a deal. He said 68 senators have signaled support for it, a number he predicted would grow “once we actually vote.”

Democrats prepared to buck White House on Iran nuclear deal - Burgess Everett - POLITICO

The first one seems to be unconstitutional because it usurps executive power, guess they want to force the supreme court to make precedent .

The second, it seems to me, would be the stick portion of any deal, There has to be implicit negative repercussions just so they know what happens if they break the deal. The truth is the rest of world wants to start trading with Iran and they will sooner or later and American sanctions will mean jack shit.

 

[Manonthestreet]

repubs are forcing them to get a nuke eh......... I've been hearing libs tell us for 10 yrs they didnt and never would build one..........

 

[HenryBHough]

Obama promised to stand with Jihadists

This could be the first time in His adult life that He has spoken truth!

But those folks probably have never heard:

"If you like your........"

 

[occupied]

repubs are forcing them to get a nuke eh......... I've been hearing libs tell us for 10 yrs they didnt and never would build one..........

I never held that belief. Let me explain something you may not realize, nuclear bombs are useless if you use them. Nuclear bombs are the most effective deterrent to invasion ever invented. Blow one up and whole world will come down on your ass. Just have them and no one will invade you. The Iranians are aware of this fact even you aren't. We continually threaten them along with Israel and have backed them into a corner where they must develop one before they get wiped out like Iraq. You guys making war inevitable forces their hand.