Question on the Iran Nuclear Deal.....

[JimBowie1958]

If the GOP does not like the deal, almost from the inception of its framework, and do not trust Obama as they say repeatedly, then why did the GOP vote almost without exception to give Obama the Fast Trackish authority to push this through? They have only 60 days to review this massive 'agreement' (not a treaty) and will have to over-ride the Presidents certain veto.

So why on Earth did the GOP vote to give up the Senate's Constitutional role of final say with an up or down vote?

The Republicans gave Obama this authority because......

Option 4 is supposed to read; "Republicans really like the deal, but want to avoid sharing blame from Isreal and this gives them CYA."

My apologies

 

[JimBowie1958]

The odds of the GOP being able to over-ride a certain veto also suggest that Republican opposition is pure political rhetoric that they laugh about as fodder for the rank and file when they are behind closed doors.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Knowing that the hack and his arrogance will disregard any objections anyway, they probably want it over with with quickly so they can use it against the hack and his party.
It's public knowledge that repubs are against any deal with the Muhammed Manson family.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Knowing that the hack and his arrogance will disregard any objections anyway, they probably want it over with with quickly so they can use it against the hack and his party.
It's public knowledge that repubs are against any deal with the Muhammed Manson family.

As well they should be.

Iran getting the Bomb ten years from now is still a very bad idea methinks.

 

[emilynghiem]

Can I ask where is the poll option
that after the disaster with Carter allowing Korea to "develop nuclear power for civilian uses only"
but that was abused to become a greater military threat,
then Republicans and others DO NOT TRUST IRAN with having any nuclear access
their anti-US leaders are more likely to abuse for greater military threats and attacks.

Where is that option?

I am an anti-war Democrat, and I don't trust Iran to respect the agreement
because the US policy on military and use of arms has been abused in their eyes.

Arms should only be authorized for leaders, nations, groups and individuals
who commit to democratic due process of law. And even the US has failed at that,
so this leaves nobody with authority to enforce proper use of defense for security, not aggression.

The problem is the US govt and leadership is not consistent with authority of law.
This weakens our standing to enforce laws for other groups and nations.

How can we hold any other party to enforce civil standards if
our politicized govt doesn't even stick to given Constitutional standards and ethics.

The contract is too weak to enforce with the lack of moral authority.
A whole new process is needed to form an enforceable agreement,
where the real leaders with compelling authority form the agreement, not a bunch of politician puppets
who can't be trusted to respect and comply with each other either.

The real leadership can more likely be found among the citizens fighting for the people's interests.
Not the politicians looking to sell each other out. The same problem occurs when making
deals that don't represent the Palestinian people -- the power moguls and warmongers HIJACK
the process for their own image of control and don't really represent the people who want peace.

If we got the real leaders together who are sincere about the future of our countries
and not playing politics to backstab the next chance they get,
we might form a truly good faith agreement where people of all nations support
each other in making it work, and to form a longterm plan for stable development.

It has to come from the people, not the politicians playing games for expedience and image
while they have other agenda.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Can I ask where is the poll option
that after the disaster with Carter allowing Korea to "develop nuclear power for civilian uses only"
but that was abused to become a greater military threat,
then Republicans and others DO NOT TRUST IRAN with having any nuclear access
their anti-US leaders are more likely to abuse for greater military threats and attacks.

Where is that option?

Well, had I thought of it, it wouldn't have fit on the line anyway.

 

[emilynghiem]

Can I ask where is the poll option
that after the disaster with Carter allowing Korea to "develop nuclear power for civilian uses only"
but that was abused to become a greater military threat,
then Republicans and others DO NOT TRUST IRAN with having any nuclear access
their anti-US leaders are more likely to abuse for greater military threats and attacks.

Where is that option?

Well, had I thought of it, it wouldn't have fit on the line anyway.

How about
* they don't trust Iran with nuclear power after Korea abused theirs
* they don't trust Iran to comply with the restrictions given by the US or Obama

 

[JimBowie1958]

Can I ask where is the poll option
that after the disaster with Carter allowing Korea to "develop nuclear power for civilian uses only"
but that was abused to become a greater military threat,
then Republicans and others DO NOT TRUST IRAN with having any nuclear access
their anti-US leaders are more likely to abuse for greater military threats and attacks.

Where is that option?

Well, had I thought of it, it wouldn't have fit on the line anyway.

How about
* they don't trust Iran with nuclear power after Korea abused theirs
* they don't trust Iran to comply with the restrictions given by the US or Obama

So if they don't trust IRan, why would that give fast track like agreement powers to Obama to do the deal? That makes no sense. We don't trust Hitler so we are going to fast track a treaty with him?

No, that is just too absurd.

The GOP leaders are so corrupt they have devolved into stupid beasts. <- my theory