• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership [W:251]

Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Moot said:
What century did you say you were from?

Or maybe you take yourself too seriously, Thrilla. That would explain a lot, too.
Click to expand...

Thrilla said:
of course, that's probably why you levied this personal attack, knowing i would get bent out of shape... .that's what trolls do.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Both of you need ot cut out the baiting or flaming or further action will occur
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Samhain said:
You mean like when Nancy Pelosi met with Assad in 2007? ...
Click to expand...

That would be the same year leadership republicans like Frank Wolf and Darrell Issa met with Assad around the same time as the Pelosi visit, right?
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

donsutherland1 said:
Had the Senate informed the President that it would still play its role rather than sending a letter to a hostile state, I don't think that would have been unreasonable. Afterward, if an agreement is reached and the Senate chose to carry out a vote, again that would be entirely reasonable and not inconsistent with its role vis-a-vis such agreements. That's not what was done and it does not promote an environment conducive to diplomatic efforts.
Click to expand...
as I said, I disagree with the Senate sending the letter, however, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the President has flatly denied the Senate playing any role in this.. even after the agreement is made.


To what specific terms are the Senators objecting? None. No such terms exist, because there is no agreement right now. Had an agreement been reached and had the Senate found it defective, then that would be the appropriate time for the Senate to act. Moreover, the Senate could well express its position i.e., by a sense of the Senate resolution or other legislation even if the President did not submit the agreement to the Senate for its consideration.
Click to expand...
well, as none of are privy to any terms, none of us can answer the question with any accuracy.

the proper time for the Senate to act in it's constitutional role is prior to a agreement being made, not after..."advise and consent" can only come prior to an agreement being entered into.
furthermore, in the event Obama actually submits the agreement for their reading pleasure, you are arguing the Senate should simply voice their opinion through a non-binding resolution that carries no legal weight in any jurisdiction,...
as Obama has previously stated that he will not be submitting the agreement " for years", I guess you are left with advising the Senate to pass a non-binding resolution about something they will have little or no knowledge of, and that has already gone into effect (including the lifting of sanctions that were passed by Congress)

you're basically arguing that Obama is correct in denying the Senate their constitutional power and duty... they should simply sit down and shut up and deal with it.
while we agree on the actions of the Senate pertaining to he letter, I'm pretty sure that's where our agreement ends.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Montecresto said:
How so. It seems perfectly fine for DP posters to show up daily "bashing" one party or the other. It only becomes anti-American when you "bash" both.
Click to expand...

you'd have a point ....if you were simply bashing parties.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Kobie said:
The Senate has essentially stated that any agreement, no matter what it is, will be deemed unacceptable. It is a clear attempt to undermine the president, no matter the outcome.
Click to expand...

that is simply untrue....he Senate has stated no such thing.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Mycroft said:
Face it...

Obama could have avoided all this conflict he's generated since the last election if he had only faced reality instead of deciding to work against the wishes of Congress from the get-go. I think it's already been said in this thread, but "you reap what you sow".
Click to expand...

there's a lot of reaping an sowing going on for both sides, but yes... Obama is most assuredly reaping what he has sown.
when you flat out deny the Senate their constitutional duties.. they tend to fight back against it... though , in this particular case, their tactic was pretty stupid.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Thrilla said:
from the State dept.. 1975.. read it slowly.


wake me when the prosecutions begin....:lamo
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where I called for prosecutions. The Logan Act hasn't been used in forever so the idea of prosecution is far-fetched...saying that they are borderline violating the act is different than stating they should be prosecuted.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Thrilla said:
you'd have a point ....if you were simply bashing parties.
Click to expand...

I'm criticizing the leadership, understand, of both parties. And particularly with regards to FP.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Mithros said:
You're right with those two examples, they are examples. But the law really isn't aimed at private citizens. That's why the important part isn't the talking with foreign governments or leaders, it's talking to foreign governments or leaders with intent to influence an ongoing international dispute. Basically, it's to ensure that we have one face when negotiating internationally. The party that's not in charge is not permitted to conduct discussions with foreign leaders for the purpose of undercutting current negotiations.

We sat through this when Bush was making a disaster on the national stage. Like it or not, he was president. All negotiations had to go through the state department. Elections have consequences, you don't get to pretend that the president isn't there just because you disagree with him.
Click to expand...
You neglected to mention these Bush 'disasters' but here is the guy now doing the negotiations with Iran.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5qP2oPdtQ
He feels he is comparable to Ronald Reagan.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

iliveonramen said:
I'm not sure where I called for prosecutions. The Logan Act hasn't been used in forever so the idea of prosecution is far-fetched...saying that they are borderline violating the act is different than stating they should be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

fair enough... though i disagree they are even borderline violating the act, due to the inherent authority their office provides.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

cpwill said:
No. The President has the greatest freedom of maneuver in foreign policy, but foreign policy is not the executives sole prerogative any more than domestic policy is Congress's. You may have noticed how both the House and the Senate have a Foreign Relations Committee?
Click to expand...

I'm mentioned multiple times that the Senate advises and consents on foreign policy. If you're going to just quote segments of a long going conversation to argue against some extreme position I didn't take then don't respond.

Yeah. It's Republicans who decided to make foreign policy a partisan matter and establish the precedent of publicly disagreeing with a Presidents' policy platform in a way that might damage it's implementation.
Click to expand...
Republican Congress members visited as well on "fact finding" missions (as per the article). There's also a large difference...in that the Democratic Congress wasn't actively trying to undermine the Bush administration. The "foul" here was that Bush wanted no engagement with Syria yet Republican Congressmembers were visiting.

Republicans warned Iran that the administration is attempting to sideline Congress in a questionable manner, making any deal with him shaky in order to make it harder for the President to give them nukes. Nancy Pelosi went to meet with a leader whose forces were actively aiding in the murder of US troops in Iraq and who was a major terrorist sponsor on top of being a massive human rights abuser in order to help protect him from administration pressure. Forgive me if I take Democrats being shocked - shocked! - to find gambling going on in Ricks Catina with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

As did....REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS DURING THAT SAME TIME! Read your own article.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Thrilla said:
fair enough... though i disagree they are even borderline violating the act, due to the inherent authority their office provides.
Click to expand...

So at what point do Congress members go from advising and consenting to actually conducting US foreign policy outside of the executive branch? You would agree that's not the role of Congress correct?
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

donsutherland1 said:
No agreement exists right now. The parties are still negotiating.

Having said that, I believe the better course would have been the Senate's declaring its intent to take up any agreement for review rather than the clumsy approach that was pursued via the letter.
Click to expand...

I agree..which is my main issue....if Congress doesn't like whatever agreement is finalized they can take action through legislation. They can advise the President and the administration on what they will not agree to. There role in foreign policy is not to actively undermine current negotiations.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

EMNofSeattle said:
not true, I have feeling there was plenty of trust for Bill Clinton, Bill was willing to back off of touchy issues, Obama runs full steam ahead with what he wants.
Click to expand...

I see people talk about the Clinton years as if it was different....impeachment proceedings, government shut downs, constant attacks on the president. Take off the rose colored glasses, the Clinton Presidency and Republican Congress was the most antagonistic relationship between the two branches since Harry Truman.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

j-mac said:
Isn't THAT the problem? "We have to pass it, before we can see what's in it"...? How many times will we run to kick the football while Lucy pulls it away at the last moment....?
Click to expand...

I would say it's a problem except that the agreement is still being hammered out. It's an active negotiation between Iran and 6 other countries.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

iliveonramen said:
So at what point do Congress members go from advising and consenting to actually conducting US foreign policy outside of the executive branch? You would agree that's not the role of Congress correct?
Click to expand...

"conducting foreign policy" is a bit of a muddy term really... I mean, it's outside of Senate powers to negotiate agreements with foreign nations... but it's not outside of their powers to have communications with those foreign nations as part of their legislative duties.... I think it pretty much depends on the substance of their communications.

in regards to the letter they (stupidly) sent, there are no negotiations, no demands, no terms... nothing of the sort. So , while it's stupid, it can't be construed as "conducting foreign policy" outside of their legislative duties....

the best argument about the letter is that it's stupid and misguided... and it seems to be backfiring on them due to that.... but legally speaking, there's no case against it.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

iliveonramen said:
I see people talk about the Clinton years as if it was different....impeachment proceedings, government shut downs, constant attacks on the president. Take off the rose colored glasses, the Clinton Presidency and Republican Congress was the most antagonistic relationship between the two branches since Harry Truman.
Click to expand...

but they were able to work together to get some things done...
the same thing with Reagan and the Democratic led congress... antagonistic, but they got **** done at the end of the day.

this stuff is a bit different... we're witnessing a new level of antagonistic behavior here, by both Congress and the President..... unfortunately, none of them are competent enough to end it and get **** done.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

iliveonramen said:
I agree..which is my main issue....if Congress doesn't like whatever agreement is finalized they can take action through legislation. They can advise the President and the administration on what they will not agree to. There role in foreign policy is not to actively undermine current negotiations.
Click to expand...

how does the Senate go about "advising and consenting" to a finalized agreement that is not submitted to them for consideration?.. how does that work?

you guys are operating under the assumption that the President is going to get the deal done, then submit it to the Senate for consideration for further action or legislation.
it's an odd assumption due to the President openly declaring he will not be submitting the agreement to the Senate, and furthermore, that he will be reversing existing law pertaining to sanctions, all on his own executive authority.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Thrilla said:
how does the Senate go about "advising and consenting" to a finalized agreement that is not submitted to them for consideration?.. how does that work?

you guys are operating under the assumption that the President is going to get the deal done, then submit it to the Senate for consideration for further action or legislation.
it's an odd assumption due to the President openly declaring he will not be submitting the agreement to the Senate, and furthermore, that he will be reversing existing law pertaining to sanctions, all on his own executive authority.
Click to expand...

Other than actually voting on an agreement Congress has the power to pass

-resolutions and policy statement
-legislative directives
-legislative restrictions/funding denials

they can also provide
-informal advice
-legislative pressure

as well as exercise it's power of oversight.

Congresses' that have different views than a President have been doing this for hundreds of years and it's worked out pretty well.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Thrilla said:
but they were able to work together to get some things done...
the same thing with Reagan and the Democratic led congress... antagonistic, but they got **** done at the end of the day.

this stuff is a bit different... we're witnessing a new level of antagonistic behavior here, by both Congress and the President..... unfortunately, none of them are competent enough to end it and get **** done.
Click to expand...

A Democratic controlled congress has never acted the same way Republican led congresses have. The closest was when Democrats had power under George W Bush but the common variable here? A Republican led Congress.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

iliveonramen said:
A Democratic controlled congress has never acted the same way Republican led congresses have.
Click to expand...
The closest was when Democrats had power under George W Bush but the common variable here? A Republican led Congress.
Click to expand...
Not true.
David Bonior, Nancy Pelosi, Tip O'Neill, Teddy Kennedy ... not to mention ex-POTUS Carter
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

bubbabgone said:
Not true.
David Bonior, Nancy Pelosi, Tip O'Neill, Teddy Kennedy ... not to mention ex-POTUS Carter
Click to expand...

What do you mean by that? There's a very large difference from disagreeing with a President and what is currently occurring.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Yep. The extremists in the GOP and their friends in the conservative entertainment media will never pass up the chance to throw red meat to their foaming at the mouths base. And their base eats it up every single time. But as I pointed out earlier as long as the extremists in the GOP and the conservative entertainment media keeps the base agitated all the time, and about every issue, that prohibits the GOP from being a serious political party anymore.

The GOP has become like the boy who cried wolf. About every single issue.
Click to expand...

Given the latest Hillary scandal it is obvious that there is plenty of substance to the Republicans investigations.

Now a bunch of Proggressives want these GOP Congressmen prosecuted...LOL !
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

iliveonramen said:
Other than actually voting on an agreement Congress has the power to pass

-resolutions and policy statement
-legislative directives
-legislative restrictions/funding denials

they can also provide
-informal advice
-legislative pressure

as well as exercise it's power of oversight.

Congresses' that have different views than a President have been doing this for hundreds of years and it's worked out pretty well.
Click to expand...

none of this addressed what i was talking about.
 
iliveonramen said:
What do you mean by that? There's a very large difference from disagreeing with a President and what is currently occurring.
Click to expand...

Its not the first time Politicians have gone around the President to communicate with our enemies.

Didn't Pelosi gp around Bush to communicate with Assad in Syria ?

And Ted Kennedy went around Reagan to communicate with Ortega ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom