• 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!

Back us not Brussels on Iran, US ambassador tells Theresa May

apdst said:
Not a legally binding treaty, though.

Read our Constitution and learn how our system works before trashing our country.
Click to expand...
have neither the need nor desire to trash your country. Trump needs no help in making it a pariah state, that can't be trusted.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
FOR SHAME SIR!!!!

Don't you know that it is a violation of "The Internet Code of Conduct" to actually introduce actual facts into a discussion with someone whose opinions have no basis in reality, fact, knowledge, or coherent thought?

Go sit in the corner and press [Ctrl][Alt][Del] 10,000 times.
Click to expand...

The rest of what the poster indicated about treaties needing to be ratified is correct as I identified. I'm sorry that part wasn't interesting to you.

Do you think that a President must keep to an agreement that was made by a predecessor without Senate ratification or should a President be bound by the agreement of all their predecessors?
 
digsbe said:
Obama made a horrible deal with Iran bypassing Congress, yet it's the "US turning it's back on allies" when said allies reject the correct response by president Trump on Iran and somehow it's his fault...
Click to expand...

What was wrong with the deal? Iran agreed to go above and beyond what they agreed under the non proliferation treaty,which the U.S itself has been slow to fufill.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
The rest of what the poster indicated about treaties needing to be ratified is correct as I identified. I'm sorry that part wasn't interesting to you.

Do you think that a President must keep to an agreement that was made by a predecessor without Senate ratification or should a President be bound by the agreement of all their predecessors?
Click to expand...

If a company hires a new CEO does that mean that the new CEO can simply abrogate all of the company's existing contracts?

If a company hires a new CEO and that new CEO abrogates all (or even some) of the company's existing contracts on the basis of "Well, I didn't sign those contracts.", what do you think that will do to the company's ability to enter into new contracts?

Substitute "country" for "company", "elects" for "hires", and "President" for "CEO" and you will have my answer to "Do you think that a President must keep to an agreement that was made by a predecessor without Senate ratification or should a President be bound by the agreement of all their predecessors?".".

The key word is "must" and I will agree that that might be a bit too strong. However, I will say that I do NOT think that a President should capriciously resile from[SUP](1)[/SUP] an agreement that was made by a predecessor even if made without Senate ratification and a President should be bound by the agreement of all their predecessors unless there is solid evidence that the other side to the agreement is not abiding by it[SUP](2)[/SUP] AND especially should not do so out of petty spite for the former holder of the office of President of the United States of America[SUP](3)[/SUP].

Mr. Trump fails on ALL OF [SUP](1)[/SUP], [SUP](2)[/SUP], and [SUP](3)[/SUP].
 
Red_Dave said:
What was wrong with the deal?
Click to expand...

Oh come on now!!

Isn't it obvious?

"The Deal" was negotiated by Mr. Obama.

What more do you need to know about it to know that it was terrible?

Red_Dave said:
Iran agreed to go above and beyond what they agreed under the non proliferation treaty, ...
Click to expand...

Totally irrelevant.

"The Deal" was negotiated by Mr. Obama.

What more do you need to know about it to know that it was terrible?

Red_Dave said:
...which the U.S itself has been slow to fufill.
Click to expand...

Is "slow to fulfill" the new way of saying "didn't do a damn thing that it had agreed to do from the moment that Mr. Trump was sworn into office and also using every diplomatic/economic threat it has to hand to get the other parties to the deal to break it as well"?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
If a company hires a new CEO does that mean that the new CEO can simply abrogate all of the company's existing contracts?

If a company hires a new CEO and that new CEO abrogates all (or even some) of the company's existing contracts on the basis of "Well, I didn't sign those contracts.", what do you think that will do to the company's ability to enter into new contracts?

Substitute "country" for "company", "elects" for "hires", and "President" for "CEO" and you will have my answer to "Do you think that a President must keep to an agreement that was made by a predecessor without Senate ratification or should a President be bound by the agreement of all their predecessors?".".

The key word is "must" and I will agree that that might be a bit too strong. However, I will say that I do NOT think that a President should capriciously resile from[SUP](1)[/SUP] an agreement that was made by a predecessor even if made without Senate ratification and a President should be bound by the agreement of all their predecessors unless there is solid evidence that the other side to the agreement is not abiding by it[SUP](2)[/SUP] AND especially should not do so out of petty spite for the former holder of the office of President of the United States of America[SUP](3)[/SUP].

Mr. Trump fails on ALL OF [SUP](1)[/SUP], [SUP](2)[/SUP], and [SUP](3)[/SUP].
Click to expand...

If I asked enough irrelevant questions, would they ever become automatically relevant?

Many others on the board like to point out that government can't be run like a business, well in this case, government has a set of rules that are well known.

When pallets of non-US currency had to be secured to complete the deal in order to skirt banking and currency laws, how legitimate is the deal?

Here are the 6 requirements for a contract:

An offer
An acceptance
Competent parties who have the legal capacity to contract
Lawful subject matter
Mutuality of obligation
Consideration

Mr Obama did not have the legal capacity to make a permanent agreement with Iran. Unlike contract law, he did have the capacity to make a temporary agreement which this was. There is no grandfathering for a Presidential agreement if a successor decides to no longer abide by the temporary agreement. I don't know about the other signatories to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, but were Canada a party, it would have to have been ratified/voted on by Parliament. Strange how people see autocratic behavior in some Presidents but not in others.

If you don't like this process, complain to your Congressperson.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I don't know about the other signatories to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, but were Canada a party, it would have to have been ratified/voted on by Parliament.
Click to expand...

Actually it wouldn't HAVE TO be.

However the Prime Minister would actually have to answer questions from Members of Parliament about either why they signed "The Deal" or why they backed out of "The Deal".

The fact that the "Head of Government" actually has to address, and respond to, the legislature of the country is one of those strange anomalies involved in NOT being "a republic modelled on the United States of America".

AliHajiSheik said:
Strange how people see autocratic behavior in some Presidents but not in others.
Click to expand...

I tend to make the distinction on whether the decision was "smart" or "stupid" rather than whether it was "autocratic" or not. Since the structure of the US government does NOT make the President as answerable to the "elected representatives of the people" as does the structure of the governments of some other countries, then that makes the structure of the US government more "autocratic" than the structure of those other countries.

AliHajiSheik said:
If you don't like this process, complain to your Congressperson.
Click to expand...

Complaints stapled to cheques for large "donations to election funds" tend to receive a whole lot more attention than complaints which are only accompanied by a signature. It's "The American Way".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Actually it wouldn't HAVE TO be.

However the Prime Minister would actually have to answer questions from Members of Parliament about either why they signed "The Deal" or why they backed out of "The Deal".

The fact that the "Head of Government" actually has to address, and respond to, the legislature of the country is one of those strange anomalies involved in NOT being "a republic modelled on the United States of America".



I tend to make the distinction on whether the decision was "smart" or "stupid" rather than whether it was "autocratic" or not. Since the structure of the US government does NOT make the President as answerable to the "elected representatives of the people" as does the structure of the governments of some other countries, then that makes the structure of the US government more "autocratic" than the structure of those other countries.



Complaints stapled to cheques for large "donations to election funds" tend to receive a whole lot more attention than complaints which are only accompanied by a signature. It's "The American Way".
Click to expand...

I understand your thinking of whether you consider something smart or stupid, but the process and the authority does not have to make that distinction. The President has the powers of that position and it is balanced by the powers of Congress to have some checks on the Presidential Power. There is no such check on any Parliament that I'm familiar. I understand we disagree, but that is the system that the US operates. The power of a President to decide something you do like is countered by the power of the next President to decide something you don't like--unless enshrined in law.

Following the law is important and if Mr. Obama didn't have support, then the agreement really should not have been made. He did so under the assumption that Mrs Clinton would be his successor, although there would be no obligation on her should she have won.
 
Athanasius68 said:
That was a gamble Mr. Obama and the international community took.
Click to expand...

It wasn't really a gamble. President Obama was avoiding a rigged system. Republcians wouldn't approve a cancer cure if President Obama proposed it. Hey I know, let me prove my point. Republicans shot down President Obama's jobs bill when UE was over 9% because of concerns for the deficit. But with UE at a 25 year low, magic presto, republican add trump's "jobs bill" to the deficit. And remember when conservatives obediently parroted President Obama was "undermining our allies". Do Trump's actions meet that super flexible standard? yes, yes they do.
 
digsbe said:
Obama made a horrible deal with Iran bypassing Congress, yet it's the "US turning it's back on allies" when said allies reject the correct response by president Trump on Iran and somehow it's his fault...
Click to expand...

Digs, see how you have to contort yourself and babble on to absolve Trump of any wrong doing. When you strip away all the hyperbole (and babble) you’ve literally only said “trump was right, everybody else is wrong”. It’s no shock you conclude that but you need to understand, that is just your opinion. The part that made you torture the facts (and grammar) was that Trump most definitely turned his back on our allies. That is a just fact. Our allies wanted the deal. Trump didn’t. And while the subtlety will be lost on you, Trump trashed an existing deal that our allies worked on with President Obama so there is no way to coherently state that “our allies are turning their back on the US”. But see how you tried?

In the future a simple “nuh uh, trump is right” is all you need to post to show your obedience.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I understand your thinking of whether you consider something smart or stupid, but the process and the authority does not have to make that distinction. The President has the powers of that position and it is balanced by the powers of Congress to have some checks on the Presidential Power.
Click to expand...

True.

AliHajiSheik said:
There is no such check on any Parliament that I'm familiar.
Click to expand...

I'll stick strictly to the Canadian situation.

Parliament can toss the Prime Minister out of office after a ten minute debate if it so chooses (and do so WITHOUT "triggering a constitutional crisis) PLUS it can choose anyone it feels like to be the next Prime Minister. This is somewhat stronger than the situation in the US.

AliHajiSheik said:
I understand we disagree, but that is the system that the US operates.
Click to expand...

We do not "disagree" and I acknowledge the system that the US operates under.

AliHajiSheik said:
The power of a President to decide something you do like is countered by the power of the next President to decide something you don't like--unless enshrined in law.
Click to expand...

Just to point out one "minor" difference between "The Canadian System" and "The American System", in Canada


That means that the legislative bodies do NOT have to "approve" any treaty that Canada enters into and the Prime Minister (although, technically, it's the Governor General) has the sole power to bind Canada to treaties.


AliHajiSheik said:
Following the law is important and if Mr. Obama didn't have support, then the agreement really should not have been made.
Click to expand...

That's two different points. The first is whether the President has the power to enter into agreements with other countries which fall short of being "treaties" - and he does. The second is whether Mr. Obama "should" have entered into the agreement in the first place.

The answer to the second point really depends on whether you want to consider "domestic politics" or "actual effect". On the first, he probably SHOULD NOT have entered into the agreement. On the second he probably SHOULD have entered into the agreement.

If we want to flip over to Mr. Trump, then on the first point he probably SHOULD have resiled from the agreement and on the second he probably SHOULD NOT have resiled from the agreement.

This is why they allow betting on horse races.


AliHajiSheik said:
He did so under the assumption that Mrs Clinton would be his successor, although there would be no obligation on her should she have won.
Click to expand...

And, of course, the possibility that the JCPOA would actually accomplish what he was trying to do (eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons program [which it did do] and make it harder for Iran to [secretly] start it up again [which it also did do]) is totally irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom