Iran nuclear deal: European nations 'siding with ayatollahs' - Pompeo

[BigDave]

Europe is scared shitless of Iran they're completely gutless

 

[meaner gene]

Nope. An EO is an EO. A treaty is a treaty. Two completely different things entirely.

Shimmer, it's a floor wax, it's a desert topping.

 

[colfax_m]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

You really are stupid.

For starters, a President can do an EO on his own.........hence the name. Before something becomes a treaty it MUST go to the Senate and be voted on, and get a 2/3rds majority or it dies.

Barry's EO never went to the Senate.

Yes, I understand that. But how does that make the treaty effect any different?

 

[Nostra]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

You really are stupid.

For starters, a President can do an EO on his own.........hence the name. Before something becomes a treaty it MUST go to the Senate and be voted on, and get a 2/3rds majority or it dies.

Barry's EO never went to the Senate.

Yes, I understand that. But how does that make the treaty effect any different?

Apparently you didn't understand that. I'm done educating the ignorant on this. If you want to know WTF a treaty is, go get an education.

 

[toomuchtime_]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

A treaty has to be approved by two thirds of the Senate and it becomes US law.

 

[colfax_m]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

You really are stupid.

For starters, a President can do an EO on his own.........hence the name. Before something becomes a treaty it MUST go to the Senate and be voted on, and get a 2/3rds majority or it dies.

Barry's EO never went to the Senate.

Yes, I understand that. But how does that make the treaty effect any different?

Apparently you didn't understand that. I'm done educating the ignorant on this. If you want to know WTF a treaty is, go get an education.

I know what a treaty is, but there is no effective different.

You’re dancing around trying to avoid this. Both a treaty and an executive agreement have full force of law. Makes no real difference how you get there.

 

[colfax_m]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

A treaty has to be approved by two thirds of the Senate and it becomes US law.

And how does that make any effective difference?

 

[Nostra]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

You really are stupid.

For starters, a President can do an EO on his own.........hence the name. Before something becomes a treaty it MUST go to the Senate and be voted on, and get a 2/3rds majority or it dies.

Barry's EO never went to the Senate.

Yes, I understand that. But how does that make the treaty effect any different?

Apparently you didn't understand that. I'm done educating the ignorant on this. If you want to know WTF a treaty is, go get an education.

I know what a treaty is, but there is no effective different.

You’re dancing around trying to avoid this. Both a treaty and an executive agreement have full force of law. Makes no real difference how you get there.

Have fun down your rabbit hole.

 

[colfax_m]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

You really are stupid.

For starters, a President can do an EO on his own.........hence the name. Before something becomes a treaty it MUST go to the Senate and be voted on, and get a 2/3rds majority or it dies.

Barry's EO never went to the Senate.

Yes, I understand that. But how does that make the treaty effect any different?

Apparently you didn't understand that. I'm done educating the ignorant on this. If you want to know WTF a treaty is, go get an education.

I know what a treaty is, but there is no effective different.

You’re dancing around trying to avoid this. Both a treaty and an executive agreement have full force of law. Makes no real difference how you get there.

Have fun down your rabbit hole.

It’s a pretty straightforward question which you don’t seem to want to acknowledge honestly.

It’s a shallow talking point.

It’s not a treaty.

Okay, so what? Who cares?

 

[toomuchtime_]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

A treaty has to be approved by two thirds of the Senate and it becomes US law.

And how does that make any effective difference?

The question of whether a president can withdraw from a treaty without the consent of the Senate has never been tested in the courts but he certainly can withdraw from an executive agreement.

 

[Nostra]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

You really are stupid.

For starters, a President can do an EO on his own.........hence the name. Before something becomes a treaty it MUST go to the Senate and be voted on, and get a 2/3rds majority or it dies.

Barry's EO never went to the Senate.

Yes, I understand that. But how does that make the treaty effect any different?

Apparently you didn't understand that. I'm done educating the ignorant on this. If you want to know WTF a treaty is, go get an education.

I know what a treaty is, but there is no effective different.

You’re dancing around trying to avoid this. Both a treaty and an executive agreement have full force of law. Makes no real difference how you get there.

Have fun down your rabbit hole.

It’s a pretty straightforward question which you don’t seem to want to acknowledge honestly.

It’s a shallow talking point.

It’s not a treaty.

Okay, so what? Who cares?

I honestly acknowledge I'm not following you down your rabbit hole. No reason to debate someone so uninformed he has no clue if there is a difference between a treaty and an EO.

 

[colfax_m]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

A treaty has to be approved by two thirds of the Senate and it becomes US law.

And how does that make any effective difference?

The question of whether a president can withdraw from a treaty without the consent of the Senate has never been tested in the courts but he certainly can withdraw from an executive agreement.

The question is nonjusticiable according to Goldwater v Carter.

Many presidents have unilaterally withdrawn from a treaty without consent of the senate. Especially this one.

 

[colfax_m]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

You really are stupid.

For starters, a President can do an EO on his own.........hence the name. Before something becomes a treaty it MUST go to the Senate and be voted on, and get a 2/3rds majority or it dies.

Barry's EO never went to the Senate.

Yes, I understand that. But how does that make the treaty effect any different?

Apparently you didn't understand that. I'm done educating the ignorant on this. If you want to know WTF a treaty is, go get an education.

I know what a treaty is, but there is no effective different.

You’re dancing around trying to avoid this. Both a treaty and an executive agreement have full force of law. Makes no real difference how you get there.

Have fun down your rabbit hole.

It’s a pretty straightforward question which you don’t seem to want to acknowledge honestly.

It’s a shallow talking point.

It’s not a treaty.

Okay, so what? Who cares?

I honestly acknowledge I'm not following you down your rabbit hole. No reason to debate someone so uninformed he has no clue if there is a difference between a treaty and an EO.

Other than how they’re approved, there is no real difference.

Thanks for playing. Hope you learned something.

 

[Nostra]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

You really are stupid.

For starters, a President can do an EO on his own.........hence the name. Before something becomes a treaty it MUST go to the Senate and be voted on, and get a 2/3rds majority or it dies.

Barry's EO never went to the Senate.

Yes, I understand that. But how does that make the treaty effect any different?

Apparently you didn't understand that. I'm done educating the ignorant on this. If you want to know WTF a treaty is, go get an education.

I know what a treaty is, but there is no effective different.

You’re dancing around trying to avoid this. Both a treaty and an executive agreement have full force of law. Makes no real difference how you get there.

Have fun down your rabbit hole.

It’s a pretty straightforward question which you don’t seem to want to acknowledge honestly.

It’s a shallow talking point.

It’s not a treaty.

Okay, so what? Who cares?

I honestly acknowledge I'm not following you down your rabbit hole. No reason to debate someone so uninformed he has no clue if there is a difference between a treaty and an EO.

Other than how they’re approved, there is no real difference.

Thanks for playing. Hope you learned something.

I would say I learned you are an idiot, but I already knew that.

 

[colfax_m]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

You really are stupid.

For starters, a President can do an EO on his own.........hence the name. Before something becomes a treaty it MUST go to the Senate and be voted on, and get a 2/3rds majority or it dies.

Barry's EO never went to the Senate.

Yes, I understand that. But how does that make the treaty effect any different?

Apparently you didn't understand that. I'm done educating the ignorant on this. If you want to know WTF a treaty is, go get an education.

I know what a treaty is, but there is no effective different.

You’re dancing around trying to avoid this. Both a treaty and an executive agreement have full force of law. Makes no real difference how you get there.

Have fun down your rabbit hole.

It’s a pretty straightforward question which you don’t seem to want to acknowledge honestly.

It’s a shallow talking point.

It’s not a treaty.

Okay, so what? Who cares?

I honestly acknowledge I'm not following you down your rabbit hole. No reason to debate someone so uninformed he has no clue if there is a difference between a treaty and an EO.

Other than how they’re approved, there is no real difference.

Thanks for playing. Hope you learned something.

I would say I learned you are an idiot, but I already knew that.

I wouldn’t exactly rely on you as a proper judge of intelligence. Just saying, you gotta know what intelligence is before you start judging others.

 

[toomuchtime_]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

A treaty has to be approved by two thirds of the Senate and it becomes US law.

And how does that make any effective difference?

The question of whether a president can withdraw from a treaty without the consent of the Senate has never been tested in the courts but he certainly can withdraw from an executive agreement.

The question is nonjusticiable according to Goldwater v Carter.

Many presidents have unilaterally withdrawn from a treaty without consent of the senate. Especially this one.

As I said, the question has never been tested in court. I wonder if this was an oversight by the framers of the Constitution. Since the Constitution state a ratified treaty has the status of law and laws cannot be changed without the consent of Congress, it seems logical that withdrawal from a ratified treaty should require the approval of the Senate. In any case, Obama didn't try to make it a treaty because he didn't want an extended debate and because he knew it would never be ratified. Since both Kerry and Obama admitted there were secret side agreements made with Iran that they refused to reveal to Congress, and extended debate on the agreement would probably have doomed it.

 

[colfax_m]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

A treaty has to be approved by two thirds of the Senate and it becomes US law.

And how does that make any effective difference?

The question of whether a president can withdraw from a treaty without the consent of the Senate has never been tested in the courts but he certainly can withdraw from an executive agreement.

The question is nonjusticiable according to Goldwater v Carter.

Many presidents have unilaterally withdrawn from a treaty without consent of the senate. Especially this one.

As I said, the question has never been tested in court. I wonder if this was an oversight by the framers of the Constitution. Since the Constitution state a ratified treaty has the status of law and laws cannot be changed without the consent of Congress, it seems logical that withdrawal from a ratified treaty should require the approval of the Senate. In any case, Obama didn't try to make it a treaty because he didn't want an extended debate and because he knew it would never be ratified. Since both Kerry and Obama admitted there were secret side agreements made with Iran that they refused to reveal to Congress, and extended debate on the agreement would probably have doomed it.

But it has been tested in court, and that test came back “figure it out for yourself”. There is no judicial remedy.

I agree with you that it seems logical, but it’s not explicitly stated in the constitution. An amendment would settle the issue, but for now presidents can and do withdraw unilaterally from treaties.

 

[Nostra]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

You really are stupid.

For starters, a President can do an EO on his own.........hence the name. Before something becomes a treaty it MUST go to the Senate and be voted on, and get a 2/3rds majority or it dies.

Barry's EO never went to the Senate.

Yes, I understand that. But how does that make the treaty effect any different?

Apparently you didn't understand that. I'm done educating the ignorant on this. If you want to know WTF a treaty is, go get an education.

I know what a treaty is, but there is no effective different.

You’re dancing around trying to avoid this. Both a treaty and an executive agreement have full force of law. Makes no real difference how you get there.

Have fun down your rabbit hole.

It’s a pretty straightforward question which you don’t seem to want to acknowledge honestly.

It’s a shallow talking point.

It’s not a treaty.

Okay, so what? Who cares?

I honestly acknowledge I'm not following you down your rabbit hole. No reason to debate someone so uninformed he has no clue if there is a difference between a treaty and an EO.

Other than how they’re approved, there is no real difference.

Thanks for playing. Hope you learned something.

I would say I learned you are an idiot, but I already knew that.

I wouldn’t exactly rely on you as a proper judge of intelligence. Just saying, you gotta know what intelligence is before you start judging others.

Which one of us had to ask the other what the difference between a treaty and an EO is?

'nuff said.

 

[colfax_m]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

You really are stupid.

For starters, a President can do an EO on his own.........hence the name. Before something becomes a treaty it MUST go to the Senate and be voted on, and get a 2/3rds majority or it dies.

Barry's EO never went to the Senate.

Yes, I understand that. But how does that make the treaty effect any different?

Apparently you didn't understand that. I'm done educating the ignorant on this. If you want to know WTF a treaty is, go get an education.

I know what a treaty is, but there is no effective different.

You’re dancing around trying to avoid this. Both a treaty and an executive agreement have full force of law. Makes no real difference how you get there.

Have fun down your rabbit hole.

It’s a pretty straightforward question which you don’t seem to want to acknowledge honestly.

It’s a shallow talking point.

It’s not a treaty.

Okay, so what? Who cares?

I honestly acknowledge I'm not following you down your rabbit hole. No reason to debate someone so uninformed he has no clue if there is a difference between a treaty and an EO.

Other than how they’re approved, there is no real difference.

Thanks for playing. Hope you learned something.

I would say I learned you are an idiot, but I already knew that.

I wouldn’t exactly rely on you as a proper judge of intelligence. Just saying, you gotta know what intelligence is before you start judging others.

Which one of us had to ask the other what the difference between a treaty and an EO is?

'nuff said.

Socratic method.

This might be over your head.

 

[toomuchtime_]

A president can unilaterally withdraw from any treaty. There is now pretty well established precedent.

Is that like the argument that any state admitted to the union can unilaterally withdraw from the USA?

So you admit the Iran deal wasn't a treaty.

Who cares?

I'm guessing the moron who has been trying to convince us for the past 2 pages it IS a treaty, Dummy.

It was your nit pick. But it doesn’t really make any real difference.

The difference between a Treaty signed on behalf of the USA, and an Executive Order, isn't a "nit pick", moron.

So what is effective difference?

A treaty has to be approved by two thirds of the Senate and it becomes US law.

And how does that make any effective difference?

The question of whether a president can withdraw from a treaty without the consent of the Senate has never been tested in the courts but he certainly can withdraw from an executive agreement.

The question is nonjusticiable according to Goldwater v Carter.

Many presidents have unilaterally withdrawn from a treaty without consent of the senate. Especially this one.

As I said, the question has never been tested in court. I wonder if this was an oversight by the framers of the Constitution. Since the Constitution state a ratified treaty has the status of law and laws cannot be changed without the consent of Congress, it seems logical that withdrawal from a ratified treaty should require the approval of the Senate. In any case, Obama didn't try to make it a treaty because he didn't want an extended debate and because he knew it would never be ratified. Since both Kerry and Obama admitted there were secret side agreements made with Iran that they refused to reveal to Congress, and extended debate on the agreement would probably have doomed it.

But it has been tested in court, and that test came back “figure it out for yourself”. There is no judicial remedy.

I agree with you that it seems logical, but it’s not explicitly stated in the constitution. An amendment would settle the issue, but for now presidents can and do withdraw unilaterally from treaties.

So was it an oversight by the framers of the Constitution or did they intend to give the President more power over foreign relations? Perhaps they never realized future presidents would be able to entirely bypass Congress and make executive agreements so just the exercise of a Senate debate would weed out any bad treaty ideas. That would certainly have been the case with JCPOA. As soon as Amazon delivers my new time machine I am going to go back and ask them.