• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama wishes to bypass congress on Iran deal

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Texashiker said:
I never said "not my president".

What I am saying is someone who was not elected by the people is trying to bypass our elected officials.
Click to expand...

This is demonstrably false. "He was elected by the electors!" Yes, and the electors vote their state's votes according to the popular vote of the state. That's how the system works. If Obama won the popular vote and the electors got together and decided to elect George Clooney President, you might have an argument. But they didn't; they did what the electors have always done, which is pledge their votes BASED ON THE POPULAR VOTE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE STATE THEY REPRESENT. Representative democracy, and all that. All this nonsense about "not elected by the people" is false, stupid, and undermines everything else you might be trying to say. I literally didn't read anything past this in your post because I couldn't believe that anyone would be so stupid as to claim this, and I figured anyone who WAS stupid enough to claim it wouldn't make any other point worth considering.
 
Texashiker said:
Answer the question, will presidents who win the popular vote be granted more leeway than those who do not win the popular vote?

What obama is doing poses an issue the republic needs to address.

No president should be allowed to negotiate with a nation that is under international sanctions without senate approval.
Click to expand...

#1 - WTF are you on?
#2 - No he isn't as has already been pointed out to you the law allows for this. Our system in action dip shit.
#3 - WTF are you on again?
 
Texashiker said:
obama is acting like a monarch. obama is trying to bypass the officials who are supposed to represent the people. Why do we even have a congress? Why is the senate even supposed to ratify treaties if the president can bypass the will of the people?

We might as well crown obama king and be done with it. Since yall do not mind obama bypassing congress, all hail your eternal leader.
Click to expand...

Please point to the treaty ratified by the Senate the President is trying to bypass....
 
Atomic Playboy said:
This is demonstrably false. "He was elected by the electors!" Yes, and the electors vote their state's votes according to the popular vote of the state.
Click to expand...

You are so full of crap.

Explain to me how the electoral college could vote the will of the people when the polls were not even closed, much less counted?

2012 election, as soon as voting started in California the electoral college results were posted. The polls were still hours from being closed.
 
Texashiker said:
You are so full of crap.

Explain to me how the electoral college could vote the will of the people when the polls were not even closed, much less counted?

2012 election, as soon as voting started in California the electoral college results were posted. The polls were still hours from being closed.
Click to expand...

Math.

Also, the results were not posted as voting started in California, that would have been around 12PM Eastern. The results of states were posted as it became effectively statistically impossible for Romney to win.
 
eskimospy said:
Math.

Also, the results were not posted as voting started in California, that would have been around 12PM Eastern. The results of states were posted as it became effectively statistically impossible for Romney to win.
Click to expand...

shhh... you're just confusing toothless with intellectual thinking and reasoning. That has no part in his thinking, which is a VERY loose definition of the word 'thinking'
 
eskimospy said:
Math.

Also, the results were not posted as voting started in California, that would have been around 12PM Eastern. The results of states were posted as it became effectively statistically impossible for Romney to win.
Click to expand...

The electoral college results were posted before the polls were closed.
 
Texashiker said:
You are so full of crap.

Explain to me how the electoral college could vote the will of the people when the polls were not even closed, much less counted?

2012 election, as soon as voting started in California the electoral college results were posted. The polls were still hours from being closed.
Click to expand...

Romney conceded the race when it became clear that Obama was going to win a majority of the electoral vote as determined by the popular vote on a state by state basis with regards to the number of electoral votes each state possessed. And that doesn't matter, because they STILL counted all the votes and the electors still voted in DECEMBER after the conclusion of all of the vote counting to elect Obama. You're acting as though CNN's projections on election night are the arbiter of judgment about who becomes President. I haven't been able to convince you of any other illogical position you've held; somehow, I don't think I have the capacity to teach math or civics to an unwilling mind over the internet.
 
Texashiker said:
The electoral college results were posted before the polls were closed.
Click to expand...

The projections certainly were. The electors didn't actually vote until December 17th and the results weren't presented to Congress until January, but understanding the process is so much less fun than complaining about your misrepresentation of what it is.
 
Texashiker said:
The electoral college results were posted before the polls were closed.
Click to expand...

No the projected results were posted as polls closed by state. Why are you incapable of understanding this?

The actual electoral college results are not posted until the electoral college meets weeks after the election as called for in the Constitution. Why do you hate the Constitution so much?
 
Atomic Playboy said:
The projections certainly were. The electors didn't actually vote until December 17th and the results weren't presented to Congress until January, but understanding the process is so much less fun than complaining about your misrepresentation of what it is.
Click to expand...

Does not change the fact obama is attempting to bypass congress with a new treaty with iran.

Why do we even need congress?

Lets just grant obama a kingship and be done with it. When the next president comes into office, he gets a complete monarchy for 4 years.
 
Texashiker said:
That is the problem, obama does not want the senate voting on a new treaty with iran.
Click to expand...

We have a new treaty in hand with Iran ready to be ratified?

Its amazing how this breakthrough moment in international relations seems to have eluded just about everyone but you.
 
Texashiker said:
Does not change the fact obama is attempting to bypass congress with a new treaty with iran.

Why do we even need congress?

Lets just grant obama a kingship and be done with it. When the next president comes into office, he gets a complete monarchy for 4 years.
Click to expand...

And again, you're shown how you are wrong and instead of admitting your error you choose to change the subject. You are such an intellectually dishonest individual.
 
Texashiker said:
can you read?

obama does not want the treaty ratified. He wants to bypass congress.
Click to expand...

I can read just fine. We aren't seeking a treaty with Iran, so your starting position is incorrect on its face. No treaty means nothing for the Senate to ratify. It also means that any agreement reached by the Obama administration as part of its constitutional power to conduct foreign affairs does not carry the force of law and require future administrations to be bound to it which would be the case if a treaty was ratified.
 
The first problem with your argument is that the President IS an elected official.

The second problem is that they are presenting a legal challenge / reason for the executive to do this. Which case Congress should choose whether to dispute it and get the courts involved.

If Congress has no recourse against executive action other than impeachment... then perhaps that's a failure of our system and they should have more options available.

A simple legal dispute should be pretty easy to solve. Shame on us if it isn't.
 
brycejones said:
I can read just fine. We aren't seeking a treaty with Iran, so your starting position is incorrect on its face. No treaty means nothing for the Senate to ratify. It also means that any agreement reached by the Obama administration as part of its constitutional power to conduct foreign affairs does not carry the force of law and require future administrations to be bound to it which would be the case if a treaty was ratified.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if you elect a person into a position that has had the specific power to do that since the founding of our country, MONARCHY.
 
brycejones said:
I can read just fine. We aren't seeking a treaty with Iran, so your starting position is incorrect on its face.
Click to expand...

Atomic Playboy said:
Yes, but if you elect a person into a position that has had the specific power to do that since the founding of our country, MONARCHY.
Click to expand...

From the linked article in the opening post,
“We wouldn’t seek congressional legislation in any comprehensive agreement for years,” one senior official said.
Click to expand...

And yall see nothing wrong with that kind of attitude?

The obama administration is just going to do what it wants and not worry about congress until years down the road.

Little bit of news, obama is only in office for another 2 years. Chances are he is not going to consult congress at all on iran.

obama is going to do what he wants with iran and let the next president sort out the details.
 
Texashiker said:
From the linked article in the opening post,


And yall see nothing wrong with that kind of attitude?

The obama administration is just going to do what it wants and not worry about congress until years down the road.

Little bit of news, obama is only in office for another 2 years. Chances are he is not going to consult congress at all on iran.

obama is going to do what he wants with iran and let the next president sort out the details.
Click to expand...

No I don't. I disagreed with the previous administration profoundly on foreign policy but one of the big parts of the job of President is carrying out the foreign affairs of the county and that involves making all sorts of agreements formal and informal with many countries/groups etc all over the world. A treaty is a specific kind of agreement not all agreements are treaties.
 
Texashiker said:
Yes what?

Am I wrong or is this how a republic is supposed to work?
Click to expand...

it's how a republic is supposed to work.

Man elected by Electors is assigned the ability to do A by Other Group of Electors without further consent of the Other Group of Electors, does A without further consent of the Other Group of Electors, and then TH complains that Man does A without further consent of the Other Group of Electors. that's exactly how republics are supposed to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top