Rendered at 05:41:32 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
erentz 26 minutes ago [-]
This would be an incredible $1,800 from each taxpayer sent overseas to the Iranian regime. On top of what’s already been spent and the inflation caused. In any other time in history just this alone (ignoring all the other scandals) would lead to something like a landslide 100 seat swing in the house. The fact polls show we’ll be lucky to see 10 seats switch shows how incredibly broken our information environment has become.
mdp2021 2 hours ago [-]
I would campaign that the deal be fulfilled with private money instead of public funds.
(Or, act to show - roots and consequences - that this should be the proper procedure.)
ciconia 14 minutes ago [-]
I got news for you: that private money - a big chunk of it comes from public funds.
mdp2021 11 minutes ago [-]
(You won't solve any problem if you try to solve all of them at once - unless you tackle common roots.)
3eb7988a1663 3 hours ago [-]
Surely such a deal would have to be approved by Congress, right? Would they really have the votes?
WarOnPrivacy 2 hours ago [-]
> Surely such a deal would have to be approved by Congress, right?
That's the law. But Congress is abdicating much of it's power. The SCotUS defers to the WhiteHouse (ex:sides with the admin 90% of the time). The mechanisms that foster ethics in the 3 branches are being intentionally sabotaged by the majority in power.
joxdosba 1 hours ago [-]
What is congress going to do? Say “never negotiate with the US”?
It’s not like congress can very feasibly reject this deal in the end, Iran would just extort the gulf countries and it’d be even harder to sell an intervention.
3eb7988a1663 1 hours ago [-]
Iran has been bombed at least twice during negotiations. Surely there is some skepticism that the US will not keep the deal.
There is no winning move -which is why this never should have been started. Congress absolutely can and should reject the deal. I thought we were worried about the deficit? Or is that just when the next guy is in charge?
joxdosba 1 hours ago [-]
If the congress rejects this deal, it cripples the US ability to negotiate in the future and essentially just forces an unconditional US surrender as nobody has appetite for a ground invasion of Iran.
Congress can only sabotage deals like this at an immense cost to the US’s future ability to negotiate anything with anyone, and it certainly can’t sabotage it’s way into a more favourable deal.
jusssi 4 minutes ago [-]
I think you're underestimating both the amount of damage Trump has already done for the future ability to negotiate, and the desire of everyone else to be not bombed by the US.
Everyone already knows, any deal with the US does not bind the US, only the other party. But it still might be preferrable to the alternative of no deal at all.
nixon_why69 1 hours ago [-]
The article says "funded by the gulf coast coalition" so it doesn't sound like they're planning on asking Congress.
No way congress passes that appropriation. They wouldn't pass the first JCPOA which is why Trump could shred it so easily.
joxdosba 1 hours ago [-]
>No way congress passes that appropriation
No way congress passes an appropriation you just invented, which even the most optimistic Iranian propagandists are not claiming to be happening?
I mean yeah. Most random things you can come up with are likely to be things that congress will never pass.
nixon_why69 59 minutes ago [-]
Who invented? It's the headline of the article, attributed to Vance. Yes, there's been a lot of conflicting messaging about it.
joxdosba 55 minutes ago [-]
It’s the Trump admin signature big number that goes on all documents, not a reference to real money that exists or is genuinely expected to exist.
nixon_why69 53 minutes ago [-]
Sure, I'm just saying congress wouldn't fund that if asked.
joxdosba 33 minutes ago [-]
Of course they wouldn’t, the admin is claiming the seemingly non-existent ”gulf coast coalition” will fund it.
2 hours ago [-]
bediger4000 2 hours ago [-]
Why was it bad for Obama to release much less than this to assure the earlier joint agreement? We heard a lot about how bad that was. Pallets of cash they said, real bad.
newtonianrules 1 hours ago [-]
Because Democrats are held to different standards. I mean just look at the last year.
seanmcdirmid 10 minutes ago [-]
Trump has never felt any shame for hypocrisy. Or any shame at all actually.
(Or, act to show - roots and consequences - that this should be the proper procedure.)
That's the law. But Congress is abdicating much of it's power. The SCotUS defers to the WhiteHouse (ex:sides with the admin 90% of the time). The mechanisms that foster ethics in the 3 branches are being intentionally sabotaged by the majority in power.
It’s not like congress can very feasibly reject this deal in the end, Iran would just extort the gulf countries and it’d be even harder to sell an intervention.
There is no winning move -which is why this never should have been started. Congress absolutely can and should reject the deal. I thought we were worried about the deficit? Or is that just when the next guy is in charge?
Congress can only sabotage deals like this at an immense cost to the US’s future ability to negotiate anything with anyone, and it certainly can’t sabotage it’s way into a more favourable deal.
Everyone already knows, any deal with the US does not bind the US, only the other party. But it still might be preferrable to the alternative of no deal at all.
No way congress passes that appropriation. They wouldn't pass the first JCPOA which is why Trump could shred it so easily.
No way congress passes an appropriation you just invented, which even the most optimistic Iranian propagandists are not claiming to be happening?
I mean yeah. Most random things you can come up with are likely to be things that congress will never pass.