Reply With Quote
God you are one stupid mother er in this forum. Do you know how to count?
Wow can't believe such a small country controls the most powerful country in the world. Scary stuff.
Top democrats already falling like flies. Looks like the israel lobby pressure on their home towns is just too much. s are in a pressure cooker.
Obama most likely won't even get enough votes to be able to veto. This deal was supposed to be his legacy. A failure now.
I hope I'm wrong and enough votes are in favor. Because its sad that the US is a puppet of such small groups of ppls.
Oh and this failure would hurt Hillary a lot. She was on board with this plan. Bad terrible news for democrats all across the board.
Lets see if they have a semblance of a backbone. I doubt it
God you are one stupid mother er in this forum. Do you know how to count?
Either contribute or STFu shill
They will likely have enough votes to sustain the veto.
when push comes to shove, most democrats will fold IMO
let's hope enough have some backbone to save the deal.
what's sad is that this is a 100% partisan vote now, not a vote focused on whether its a good deal or not.
sad
How Chuck Schumer could sink the Iran nuclear deal
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/5/9101063/...umer-iran-deal
Congress, my colleague Andrew Prokop has written, will probably not kill the Iran deal. It would require a lot of Democrats to vote against their president on his legacy foreign policy achievement, which is possible but seems unlikely.
So assume that the most likely, default scenario is that Congress makes a big deal out of passing a measure formally disapproving of the Iran deal. Obama will veto it, and then Congress will fail to secure the necessary two-thirds majority to override his veto.
This way, Congress doesn't have to own the nuclear deal ("we voted against it!"), thus allowing them to avoid any blame if the deal turns out to be a disaster. But they can also avoid killing the deal, which would require them to take the blame for any consequences that causes.
The whole thing is perfectly constructed to give Congress just enough of a role to avoid political blame without requiring substantive foreign policy contributions. However, there is one way in which those incentives might get screwy: If it starts to look like Congress is going to get the two-thirds majority to kill the deal after all, and if it looks like killing the deal will become politically popular, then lawmakers will have an incentive to join the "winning side" and vote against the deal.
If it does happen, the road to such an outcome almost certainly runs through Chuck Schumer's office. Schumer turning against the Iran deal is probably the one thing that would be most likely to open a floodgate of Democratic opposition.
If Schumer votes to oppose the deal, that will send a signal to other Democrats that it's safe for them to oppose the deal as well. Somewhat freed from the bonds of party loyalty, many might do that, especially in the Senate; the deal is controversial, and no one wants to take the blame if it falls apart or becomes politically toxic.
A Schumer "no" vote would also make it harder for Democrats to take a stand in support of the deal. Schumer has strong "pro-Israel" credentials. If this prominent Democrat comes out and declares the deal bad for Israel, other Democrats are going to feel pressure not to contradict him.
The Repugs have no alternative except attacking Iran, militarily, paid to do the bidding of Israel's extreme right wing.
veto? who vetoed the deal?
Congress will vote on approving or killing the agreement.
David duke was owning the out of Israel on the Alex jones show..Alex was in damage control mode
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...08-19-15-56-34
Iran gets to inspect Iran's nuclear sites.
en. Bob Menendez (D., N.J.) came out against the recently inked Iran deal on Tuesday and said he would vote to reject it, dealing a major blow to the White House, which has been aggressively lobbying key Democrats to support the accord.
“I have looked into my own soul and my devotion to principle may once again lead me to an unpopular course, but if Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it,” Menendez said in a major address Tuesday afternoon, according to an advance copy of the text obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
“It is for these reasons that I will vote to disapprove the agreement and, if called upon, would vote to override a veto,” Menendez said.
Menendez joins a growing list of Democratic lawmakers expressing opposition to the deal. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) also has come out against the deal.
The senator, who has led the charge to impose harsh economic sanctions on Iran, said the deal would do little to rein in Iran’s nuclear weapons program and went on to lash out at President Barack Obama’s portrayal of the deal.
“President Obama continues to erroneously say that this agreement permanently stops Iran from having a nuclear bomb,” he said. “Let’s be clear, what the agreement does is to recommit Iran not to pursue a nuclear bomb, a promise they have already violated in the past. It recommits them to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), an agreement they have already violated in the past. It commits them to a new Security Council Resolution outlining their obligations, but they have violated those in the past as well.”
The deal “leaves Iran with the core element of a robust nuclear infrastructure,” Menendez said, contradicting remarks by senior Obama administration officials.
Menendez also pushed back against Obama’s claim that those who oppose the deal favor war with Iran.
“The president and Secretary Kerry have repeatedly said that the choice is between this agreement or war,” he said. “I reject that proposition, as have most witnesses, including past and present administration members involved in the Iran nuclear issue, who have testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and who support the deal but reject the binary choice between the agreement or war.”
After outlining the conditions required for a good deal, Menendez flatly declared that the deal fails to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon at any time it chooses.
“The agreement that has been reached failed to achieve the one thing it set out to achieve—it failed to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state at a time of its choosing. In fact, it authorizes and supports the very road map Iran will need to arrive at its target,” he said.
You want to place a bet on whether or not they have the votes to override a veto?
Its sad that Menendez and Schumer are bought and paid for by the Jewish shills..
.as if I'm supposed to accept their words over that of the nuclear scientists (those scientists who created the first ever nuclear bombs) and the US military brass....retired and current...I'm supposed to accept Schumer and Menendez and the obstructionist GOP over these PROVEN SCIENTIFIC AND MILITARY MINDS?
yeah right...get the outta here
Totally agree
Right now? Nah. In a month or so? Even money.
We'll see where we're at in a month.
Yup.
saw that today. Sounds real honest. Iran is a country that can be trusted. Lol
Iran hasn't attacked or invaded another country in hundreds of years.
uS on the other hand is a country that can be trusted
Still waiting for the conversation to turn to whether or not the specifics of the plan are feasible. Is the extended cleanup period enough time to hide evidence of high grade fissile material from the EU investigators?
the Fox/Repug "24-day" broken record is as big a LIE as "death panels"
Breaking news: Rumors of a secret side deal with Iran in order to make the main deal work
Obama legacy is a disgrace
lol you are correct both the US nor Iran can be trusted. Better scrap the deal.Iran hasn't attacked or invaded another country in hundreds of years.
uS on the other hand is a country that can be trusted
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
