A new all time low for partisan politics

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Well I guess you can accuse the democrats of interfering with Obama's foreign policy too. Just this week 367 bipartisan House lawmakers sent a letter to Obama warning him not to make a deal with Iran without their approval and threatening to sabotage the deal, if he makes the deal without their approval and they don't like the deal.

Is there really a big difference between what they did and what the 47 Senators did? There really isn't.Sure you can argue that the 47 Senators sent the letter directly to Iran and that makes all the difference. But that is nonsense. Don't you think Iran reads the newspaper? Even if Republicans did not send that letter to Iran, Iran would still be aware that 367 congressmen sent a letter to Obama telling him they will sabotage the deal if they don't like it. Does the Republican letter to Iran really sabotage the deal any worse than the bipartisan letter to the President which 80% Sure you can argue that the 47 Senators sent the letter directly to Iran and that makes all the difference. But that is nonsense.of congressmen signed? Do you view those 80% of congressmen as traitors for undermining the President?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/politi...er-obama-iran/

Republicans break the law so to you the law becomes "Nonsense".

Another Rupert smokescreen. Yes there is a huge difference and you know that. Your long winded steaming horseshit pontification Is just that. A steaming pile of rationalizing dung. Let me steam up a window and draw you a picture. Sending a letter to a foreign leader while in a position unauthorized to do so is a violation of the Logan act. Sending a letter to the president whether it be 47 or 4700 people is not a violation of the Logan Act. Quite simple. Nonsense is just about every thing you post.

[Danzig]

The house letter is just political grandstanding. They have nothing to do with treaty ratification. President signs, and then it goes to the senate, where 2/3s have to agree.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

The house letter is just political grandstanding. They have nothing to do with treaty ratification. President signs, and then it goes to the senate, where 2/3s have to agree.

This is not political grandstanding at all. The President is trying to make this deal by executive action without getting congressional approval (from either the House or Senate). There are sanctions that are in place right now against Iran. These sanctions were put in place by Congress. This deal would involve lifting the sanctions. The President does not have the authority to lift the sanctions. That is what the letter to the President was explaining to him. He wants to make this deal without their input. They are explaining to him that he can't do that because they will not lift the sanctions if they don't like the deal. So he better get their approval before making the deal.

How is that grandstanding and why would democrats grandstand against the President? If the President makes this deal and congress does not like the deal, do you think that congress will agree to lift the sanctions against Iran? Of course not. They will refuse to lift the sanctions. So the letter is not grandstanding. They are telling the President what is going to happen if he makes a deal that they don't like without their approval. They're not bluffing either. So it is definitely not grandstanding.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Republicans break the law so to you the law becomes "Nonsense".

Another Rupert smokescreen. Yes there is a huge difference and you know that. Your long winded steaming horseshit pontification Is just that. A steaming pile of rationalizing dung. Let me steam up a window and draw you a picture. Sending a letter to a foreign leader while in a position unauthorized to do so is a violation of the Logan act. Sending a letter to the president whether it be 47 or 4700 people is not a violation of the Logan Act. Quite simple. Nonsense is just about every thing you post.

When did you start working for the Daily Kosk? You accuse me of putting up a smokescreen while you are spewing all this nonsense about the Logan Act. The only people talking about the Logan Act are left-wing nuts.

You obviously need a refresher course on the Logan Act. This is from CNN: As constitutional law professor Steve Vladeck of American University said, "Every time a member of Congress does something in the foreign policy sphere that's at odds with the president, someone trots out the Logan Act," Vladeck said.

And he doesn't believe the Logan Act would hold up in court if, say, the Justice Department decided to indict Cotton -- a move everyone agrees is practically and politically completely untenable.

You (and the rest of the hysterical left) bring up an obscure law that hasn't been used since 1803 and then you accuse me of a smokescreen. Ok, whatever you say.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politi...ter-logan-act/

With regard to the difference of sending a letter to Iran as compared to sending the letter to the President, yes it is technically different but the result is the same. Either way the Iranian understand that the President cannot really do this unilaterally as he wants to. If he does it unilaterally, congress may refuse to lift the sanctions. In addition, the next administration can undo the order. Explain to me how the result is any different under the two scenarios (sending the letter directly to the Iranians versus publicly sending it to Obama). Either way the Iranians learn that the deal can basically be revoked.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

When did you start working for the Daily Kosk? You accuse me of putting up a smokescreen while you are spewing all this nonsense about the Logan Act. The only people talking about the Logan Act are left-wing nuts.

You obviously need a refresher course on the Logan Act. This is from CNN: As constitutional law professor Steve Vladeck of American University said, "Every time a member of Congress does something in the foreign policy sphere that's at odds with the president, someone trots out the Logan Act," Vladeck said.

And he doesn't believe the Logan Act would hold up in court if, say, the Justice Department decided to indict Cotton -- a move everyone agrees is practically and politically completely untenable.

You (and the rest of the hysterical left) bring up an obscure law that hasn't been used since 1803 and then you accuse me of a smokescreen. Ok, whatever you say.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politi...ter-logan-act/

With regard to the difference of sending a letter to Iran as compared to sending the letter to the President, yes it is technically different but the result is the same. Either way the Iranian understand that the President cannot really do this unilaterally as he wants to. If he does it unilaterally, congress may refuse to lift the sanctions. In addition, the next administration can undo the order. Explain to me how the result is any different under the two scenarios (sending the letter directly to the Iranians versus publicly sending it to Obama). Either way the Iranians learn that the deal can basically be revoked.

Bye Rupert

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

When did you start working for the Daily Kosk? You accuse me of putting up a smokescreen while you are spewing all this nonsense about the Logan Act. The only people talking about the Logan Act are left-wing nuts.

You obviously need a refresher course on the Logan Act. This is from CNN: As constitutional law professor Steve Vladeck of American University said, "Every time a member of Congress does something in the foreign policy sphere that's at odds with the president, someone trots out the Logan Act," Vladeck said.

And he doesn't believe the Logan Act would hold up in court if, say, the Justice Department decided to indict Cotton -- a move everyone agrees is practically and politically completely untenable.

You (and the rest of the hysterical left) bring up an obscure law that hasn't been used since 1803 and then you accuse me of a smokescreen. Ok, whatever you say.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politi...ter-logan-act/

With regard to the difference of sending a letter to Iran as compared to sending the letter to the President, yes it is technically different but the result is the same. Either way the Iranian understand that the President cannot really do this unilaterally as he wants to. If he does it unilaterally, congress may refuse to lift the sanctions. In addition, the next administration can undo the order. Explain to me how the result is any different under the two scenarios (sending the letter directly to the Iranians versus publicly sending it to Obama). Either way the Iranians learn that the deal can basically be revoked.

There ya go again rupe, sounding like a ...