Iranian Nuke Deal Veto

[tsans]

This is driving me crazy. Will someone please explain to me how the President can Veto a Senate rejected Treaty/Agreement.
I heard Obama say he would veto a Senate rejection, and I have heard Senators talk about trying to get a Veto proof majority.
If I remember my Civics class correctly, the President only has three options, Sign, Veto, or Pigeon Hole. Only Congress can Ratify a Treaty, and this fits the Bill (pun intended)
If Congress does not Ratify this, like the Geneva Convention, does the President think that his veto would circumnavigate Congressional rejection.
In his mind isn't that like two negatives make a positive?

 

[Straight Shooter]

This is driving me crazy. Will someone please explain to me how the President can Veto a Senate rejected Treaty/Agreement.
I heard Obama say he would veto a Senate rejection, and I have heard Senators talk about trying to get a Veto proof majority.
If I remember my Civics class correctly, the President only has three options, Sign, Veto, or Pigeon Hole. Only Congress can Ratify a Treaty, and this fits the Bill (pun intended)
If Congress does not Ratify this, like the Geneva Convention, does the President think that his veto would circumnavigate Congressional rejection.
In his mind isn't that like two negatives make a positive?

The nuclear deal is an agreement and not a treaty therefore there's no need for ratification by the Senate. But Obama reached a deal with Congress where they can vote to void any deal with Iran. If Congress votes down the deal the president can veto it. It then goes back to Congress where they'll have to get a two-thirds vote in both chambers to override the president's veto. But from everything I've read it seems unlikely that will happen because not enough Democrats will abandon the president

 

[Little Red Wagon Repairman]

But from everything I've read it seems unlikely that will happen because not enough Democrats will abandon the president

I agree with that too. Some have other motivations and loyalties of their own though. Who knows what Chucky does but there aren't enough Chuckys to make a difference.

 

[Supafly]

The GOP asswipes don't even read the deal, they are babbling random bullshit about "better deals" and some even tried to argue with an MIT professor in the hearing about about fantasy EMP guns. These clown are no competition for any reasonable candidate, and they will crash and burn in the elections

Here is how uninformed yet loudmouthing they are...

Please, any person with a heart is whispering, foll, sit down. You don't know jack and want to run a country? Oh, the pity.

In this article there is the full segment.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/56795...mp-mockery-nail-gop-uninformed-iran-naysaying

 

[mikexmoran]

I agree with that too. Some have other motivations and loyalties of their own though. Who knows what Chucky does but there aren't enough Chuckys to make a difference.

I don't know - Everyone seems to be full on left or full on right about this. Typical presidential mistake of aligning with other countries before aligning with congress. Congress is pretty reactionary on this.
So, I don't know, but I'll leave it to all of you experts.

With that said, Chuck is the guy to watch out for in the next 8 years. He is smart, dishonest, and cagey. He isn't the guy who will draw the headlines to what he is doing, but he is the guy who will be pulling many strings. I suspect he will be controlling the Democratic party going forward. it will be interesting. I believe he is a Frank Underwood type. Maybe a bit smarter and a little less ego driven.

 

[Little Red Wagon Repairman]

The GOP asswipes don't even read the deal, they are babbling random bullshit about "better deals" and some even tried to argue with an MIT professor in the hearing about about fantasy EMP guns. These clown are no competition for any reasonable candidate, and they will crash and burn in the elections

Here is how uninformed yet loudmouthing they are...

Please, any person with a heart is whispering, foll, sit down. You don't know jack and want to run a country? Oh, the pity.

In this article there is the full segment.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/56795...mp-mockery-nail-gop-uninformed-iran-naysaying

Who would you feel is the most ethical and trustworthy Presidential candidate we can pick regardless of party? Are character and openness something we should consider before voting?

 

[smithus]

They can make a fortune from attacking Iran and taking ownership of its resources

 

[pool_hustler]

Who would you feel is the most ethical and trustworthy Presidential candidate we can pick regardless of party?

Jim Webb

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Jim Webb or Donald Trump.

How any sane person can view Iran getting any kind of nuclear deal as a good thing is beyond me. The president and the supreme leader still lead the "death to America" chant at every opportunity.

 

[mikexmoran]

Who would you feel is the most ethical and trustworthy Presidential candidate we can pick regardless of party? Are character and openness something we should consider before voting?

If we were to have two candidates based on that criteria, my picks would be Carson and Sanders.

 

[Rey C.]

I heard on the radio this morning that one (important) part of this deal has been kept secret. As I understand it, the U.S. has agreed to let the International Atomic Energy Agency oversee the inspections in Iran. But the deal that Obama has with Congress is that any and all details of the agreement (including any side deals) be made available for Congressional review. He didn't do this. It seems that, by chance, a couple of Congressmen were informed that not only could they not see this side deal that the IAEA has with Iran, no American can see it. :wtf:

Too much of what Obama has done seems to rely on "just vote for bill X and then I'll tell you what's in it": ObamaCare, the TPP and now this. It would be great to have a deal. But if it's a joke or not enforceable, then don't do it. Despite what Obama and Kerry claim, once the international sanctions are off Iran, no matter what Iran does afterward, getting the sanctions back in place will be no easy feat, IMO.

 

[Jack Davenport]

This was a Herschel Walker deal. USA=Minnesota Vikings. Iran=Dallas Cowboys

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Jim Webb

I am the most partisan democrat you'll find and even I think this deal is horrible!

 

[BeatMan]

 

[Straight Shooter]

I am the most partisan democrat you'll find and even I think this deal is horrible!

I've yet to find a credible alternative put forward by the critics of this deal.

 

[Jagger69]

I've yet to find a credible alternative put forward by the critics of this deal.

This is my dilemma as well. Is the proposed deal perfect? Not even close. However, under the agreement, the sanctions are going to be lifted by the other nations who have signed onto it so, sure, we can take our ball and go home, but then what? No oversight on the Iranians at all? Let their nuclear program develop as it wishes? That sounds like the surest, quickest way to make sure they get nukes as quickly as possible. After that, the only option is war.

In retrospect, these talks should never have taken place. The sanctions should remain in place until Iran screams "UNCLE!!". When we saw all those Iranians celebrating in the streets, they were celebrating the lifting of the sanctions, not the deal. The current regime there is under tremendous pressure to get these sanction lifted....their economy is in chaos. We had 'em by the balls if we would have just had the fortitude to keep going. Now, we get a half-measure compromise deal that simply kicks the nuclear can down the road. We could have done better, didn't and, at the end of the day, Iran comes out the winner in my view.

I'm going to hold my nose and opt in favor of the deal, hope we catch those lousy fucks cheating and then reimpose the sanctions. Does anyone trust Iran? I damned sure don't.

 

[Straight Shooter]