Foolish, but is it treason?


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, it turns out that some sitting U.S. senators decided to write a letter to Iran to basically tell them that the President can't back up any treaty he might make with them.

This was probably an illegal act, but is it treason?

It also turns out that Iran is aware of the flaws of this argument.

Have we really gotten to the point politically where members of a party are willing to break the law, try to go behind the president's back, and have to be schooled in both constitutional and international law by foreign officials?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No it's not treason, and the Logan Act has never been enforced anyway.

And it doesn't even approach the level of sabotage Kissinger and Nixon did to the Vietnam peace talks in '68. And even then, President Johnson nixed the obvious suggestion to have them both arrested.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, the post Southernization GOP has a long history of torpedoing long term foreign diplomacy interests for domestic political gain.

Nixon and Vietnam, Reagan and Iran, etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think that giving the Iranian president information attainable in any us history text book or civics class is treason.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, what if it's wrong information as Iran's Foreign Minister pointed out?

It is sorta sad that Iran's Foreign Minister has a better grasp of the US Constitution and decorum than the GOP.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

"Treason" gets thrown around a lot on Internet messageboards, but it's actually fairly clear-cut. It's the only crime that is actually defined in the Constitution itself, precisely to prevent the sort of politically motivated treason charges ("He put the stamp on the envelope with the King's head upside down! Treason!") that were common in 17th and 18th century British politics.

Article III, section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. The GOP is technically not at war with the United States....

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm, let's see... The President has in general been using the Constitution for toilet paper, arrogating to himself the power to act unilaterally in areas that are explicitly reserved to be under the purview of Congress. Now he has his nose bent out of shape because some Senators have written the Iranians basically letting them know that the President can't make a valid treaty without their consent.

My response is three fold. The first is that the Senators haven't told the Iranians anything they couldn't have learned for themselves by reading the Constitution. Secondly they have likely put the Iranians on notice as to some of the aspects of what they would consider a valid treaty should have. Again, nothing too horribly out of the ordinary there.

Last but not least, Article III section 3 states, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. ..."

The reason why that is worded that way is because the definition of "treason" that the Founding Fathers had potentially been subject to while they were under English law could be somewhat flexible. Treason could potentially have (and had actually been held to be in some cases where people had been executed for it) such things as sleeping with the Queen (even in one case where somebody had slept with her before it was known that she was eventually going to marry the King and was legally just another woman like any other) or in disagreeing with the King over various matters of theology. The Founding Fathers didn't want people to potentially be put to death under the government they were forming for specious reasons that were made up after the fact.

Now, let us look at some of the relevant facts pertaining to the case in point. The current government in power in Iran is known to be a sponsor of state supported terrorism. The current government of Iran is on record as stating that one of our treaty allies has no right to exist. The current government of Iran wants to be able to make nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile our President is widely perceived as being at best wishy washy on attempting to prevent the Iranians from making nuclear weapons. It has also been observed that the President will lie to people in order to advance various agenda items that appeal to him. Therefore his public pronouncements can not be taken at face value. ("If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.")

With all that as background, the Senators have put the Iranians on notice that they will not give their consent to any treaty that they think will make it too easy for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Now I am going to challenge people to actually sit down, take a deep breath and attempt to think logically. In the matter of attempting to prevent a government that is on record as proclaiming the United States is "the great Satan" from developing nuclear weapons, who is actually "adhering to their (the United States') Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"? The Senators who have essentially said that they don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons? Or the President who doesn't seem to care about such "trivial" matters?

Oh, silly me, I forgot that the Senators are Republicans and the President is a Democrat. Therefore the Senators must be guilty of something. Off with their heads. Who cares why.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
"Treason" gets thrown around a lot on Internet messageboards

Not as often as it used to, around here. :(


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Article III, section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. The GOP is technically not at war with the United States....

Yeah, pretty much this. It's not treason.

Self-aggrandizing and buffoonish — particularly getting a few technical legal details wrong in a written document that someone had plenty of time to adequately research — but not treason.


It's a lot closer to treason than the vast majority of those called traitors back in the Bush/Iraq War days. The Dixie Chicks were called traitors for making some comments at a concert.

But yeah, it's not actually literally treason, anymore than it was back then.

OTOH, one political party informing a foreign country during sensitive negotiations not just that things could change in a later administration, but that they fully intend to cancel any deals made should their party gain power. The one is common knowledge, though not quite so simple as they make it sound, as the Iranian response makes clear. The other is a direct attempt to derail the negotiations.
It also sends a huge warning to anyone we have agreements with that are short of formal treaties - The Republican party is quite willing to drop them at the drop of a hat.

Edit: It may or may not be illegal under the Logan act, but that's not likely to enforced and would probably face serious constitutional challenge. It's been used so little in the last 200 years there's very little modern judicial opinion on it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Gotta love our political system. One side actively undermines foreign policy and threatens secession and the other side has their patriotism constantly called into question.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cutlass wrote:
Hmmm, let's see... The President has in general been using the Constitution for toilet paper, arrogating to himself the power to act unilaterally in areas that are explicitly reserved to be under the purview of Congress

As opposed to every other president for the last... ever?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cutlass wrote:
Hmmm, let's see... The President has in general been using the Constitution for toilet paper, arrogating to himself the power to act unilaterally in areas that are explicitly reserved to be under the purview of Congress
As opposed to every other president for the last... ever?

Not just every President since the Civil War, but the lion's share of all the members of the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and all the various unelected bureaucrats in their increasingly multitudinous offices. Still doesn't make it right or something that people should automatically be given a pass on. It would appear though that Obama is being especially egregious in this regard. Of course, he wouldn't be able to get away with anywhere near as much as he has if Boehner and McConnell weren't running interference for him.

There is a lot more going on than the overly simplistic public side show of Democrat vs Republican, but trying to get to all the details can be problematic, time consuming, and most definitely not explainable in sound bites.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cutlass wrote:
Hmmm, let's see... The President has in general been using the Constitution for toilet paper, arrogating to himself the power to act unilaterally in areas that are explicitly reserved to be under the purview of Congress
As opposed to every other president for the last... ever?

I was just about to point this out myself...

Though I'll add.... How is this different from ANY politician in the past several decades?

Much as I love America, I hate it all the same. The idea is still sound. The execution still only gets a 4.2/10. Too much corruption and bribe-taking in... Everything. Oh, I'm sorry, they call it "Lobbying" these days don't they?


Artemis Moonstar wrote:


Much as I love America, I hate it all the same. The idea is still sound. The execution still only gets a 4.2/10. Too much corruption and bribe-taking in... Everything. Oh, I'm sorry, they call it "Lobbying" these days don't they?

What do you mean these days?

For the first hundred years of our govenment half of the federal budget went to killing the native americans and taking their land.

We had everything from our foreign polcy to our very constitution itself dictated by the interests of big slavery.

Railroads were given free land (see point 1) by congress and then Congressmen got free land from the railroads to make sure the rails would run through certain areas

Bribery is hardly anything new. They've ALWAYS called it lobbying.


Reminds me of the time I tried to sell top secret package delivery systems to Vlad Korboff.

All I asked for was a complete set of Lenin's Collected Works and a date with Anna Chapman. Alas, Citizen Koroboff couldn't come through or else I totally would've Benedict Arnolded.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cutlass wrote:
Hmmm, let's see... The President has in general been using the Constitution for toilet paper, arrogating to himself the power to act unilaterally in areas that are explicitly reserved to be under the purview of Congress.

Thats hyperbole, kinda gross, and its taking a long term historical trend done by every administration and applying it to just one individual. Given that that individual is subject to a lot of unfounded grar it completely undermines any legitimate point you might have when you make it sound like one person has done this rather than one person being part of a historical trend.

Quote:
Now he has his nose bent out of shape because some Senators have written the Iranians basically letting them know that the President can't make a valid treaty without their consent.

Unless of course the other 53 senators get ticked off enough by this to just up and approve it.

Quote:
My response is three fold. The first is that the Senators haven't told the Iranians anything they couldn't have learned for themselves by reading the Constitution.

Agreed (and mentioned above)

Quote:
Secondly they have likely put the Iranians on notice as to some of the aspects of what they would consider a valid treaty should have. Again, nothing too horribly out of the ordinary there.

As there is no agreement yet, this isn't the case. Its yet another example of this congress shutting down ANYTHING the president tries to do.


*shrug* Meh. I've kind of given up on caring for correct terminology and going back further than most people were alive. At this point, 'Murica's gonna do what 'Murica's gonna do, and to hell with the people they need to continue to be a government.

Sure I'll get outraged, I'll rant, I'll rave. But when it comes to fighting it? Not much the people can do outside of a revolution these days, since the people have given up more than a few rights for the illusion of safety during the Bush era... Besides, some of the stuff that's getting floated around are actually good for me personally (free 2 years of college, obamacare), so I'll advocate for some of the modern ideals.

Still, on topic, I wonder if anyone in the government actually READS (and memorizes) the laws and system they're supposed to be part of. Because sometimes... It's just embarrassing to be an American. This is one of those times... So much for our 'representatives'... Oi.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Two comments for BigNorseWolf:

1. Treaty ratification requires 2/3 of the Senators. There are 100 Senators. 53 is less than 67 so they can't ratify a treaty to spite the 47 Senators they don't like. On the other hand, 47 is more than the 33 votes that would be needed to block the ratification of a treaty. So they have the votes to ensure that any treaty they don't like won't get ratified. But hey, it's so much fun to rant, why let minor details get in the way?

2. Poor President Obama. The nasty Republicans won't let him do anything. If you honestly believe that I doubt we have a common enough view of reality to have a meaningful discussion. That also assumes that just because a President wants to do something that it should be done. In the vast majority of cases for the past several decades at least the reply to that should be a negative.

Just mull on this. Boehner was somewhat worried that nasty conservative Republicans were so dissatisfied with his performance that they might replace him as Speaker of the House. But it turned out he didn't have to worry. Nancy Pelosi agreed to back Boehner as Speaker, thus guaranteeing he will remain in that post. So, given that Pelosi is now openly backing Boehner, how effective do you think he was at actually opposing anything the Democrats really wanted to do? Hint: don't rely on mainstream sources for your information to answer that question.

Liberty's Edge

She backed him because there was no way any Democrat could win the Speaker's chair and the other GOP candidates were bugnuts.

I realise stuff you've said is comforting for you to believe in, but it has as much to do with reality as reality television.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cutlass wrote:

Two comments for BigNorseWolf:

1. Treaty ratification requires 2/3 of the Senators. There are 100 Senators. 53 is less than 67 so they can't ratify a treaty to spite the 47 Senators they don't like. On the other hand, 47 is more than the 33 votes that would be needed to block the ratification of a treaty. So they have the votes to ensure that any treaty they don't like won't get ratified. But hey, it's so much fun to rant, why let minor details get in the way?

1) Its 2/3rds of the senators present. You can have a quorum with half the senators and then have them ratify the treaty.

2) Nothing I've said has come remotely close to ranting.

3) You do not get to accuse others of ranting when you drop well reasoned gems like " using the Constitution for toilet paper"

Quote:
2. Poor President Obama. The nasty Republicans won't let him do anything. If you honestly believe that I doubt we have a common enough view of reality to have a meaningful discussion.

You could always come back to reality. Its here waiting for you whether you believe in it or not.

Quote:
That also assumes that just because a President wants to do something that it should be done.

Not at all. But when he can't even get a vote to appoint much needed judges or to pay the money congress legally mandated that he spend in the first place or keep the government running then something has gone horribly wrong.

Quote:

Just mull on this. Boehner was somewhat worried that nasty conservative Republicans were so dissatisfied with his performance that they might replace him as Speaker of the House. But it turned out he didn't have to worry. Nancy Pelosi agreed to back Boehner as Speaker, thus guaranteeing he will remain in that post. So, given that Pelosi is now openly backing Boehner, how effective do you think he was at actually opposing anything the Democrats really wanted to do? Hint: don't rely on mainstream sources for your information to answer that question.

This has something to do with the girl scouts doesn't it?

Webstore Gninja Minion

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A preemptive warning to keep it civil in here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cutlass wrote:

Two comments for BigNorseWolf:

1. Treaty ratification requires 2/3 of the Senators. There are 100 Senators. 53 is less than 67 so they can't ratify a treaty to spite the 47 Senators they don't like. On the other hand, 47 is more than the 33 votes that would be needed to block the ratification of a treaty. So they have the votes to ensure that any treaty they don't like won't get ratified. But hey, it's so much fun to rant, why let minor details get in the way?

1) Its 2/3rds of the senators present. You can have a quorum with half the senators and then have them ratify the treaty.

You're not going to get it that way, though it's theoretically possible.

More importantly, they're essentially right. There won't be an actual treaty if they don't want one and they don't want one.
But, as the Iranian Foreign Minister said

Quote:
majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as “mere executive agreements” and not treaties ratified by the Senate. He reminded them that “their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such ‘mere executive agreements’ that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.”

Casually breaking such agreements has consequences.


thejeff wrote:


More importantly, they're essentially right. There won't be an actual treaty if they don't want one and they don't want one.

Do they not want a treaty or do they not want obama to get anything?

They need to keep feeding the grarg machine back home to make it through the primaries, and they do that by opposing obama. On everything.

They very well could let something like the quorum happen, the same way they could have stopped healthcare but let it happen with a no vote: they maintain the narrative of the weak willed dictator cramming legislation down their throats but still get a treaty in place.

Quote:
But, as the Iranian Foreign Minister said
Quote:
majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as “mere executive agreements” and not treaties ratified by the Senate. He reminded them that “their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such ‘mere executive agreements’ that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.”
Casually breaking such agreements has consequences.

That sounds more likely. The republicans can rumble about it and nothing gets done. Fits into the dictator narrative (despite it being common practice)


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:


More importantly, they're essentially right. There won't be an actual treaty if they don't want one and they don't want one.

Do they not want a treaty or do they not want obama to get anything?

They need to keep feeding the grarg machine back home to make it through the primaries, and they do that by opposing obama. On everything.

They very well could let something like the quorum happen, the same way they could have stopped healthcare but let it happen with a no vote: they maintain the narrative of the weak willed dictator cramming legislation down their throats but still get a treaty in place.

A little of both. Part of the problem is there's a lot of crazy in the Republican Congress. Pols who don't realize it's all supposed to be a game. That all the crazy is just supposed to be election rhetoric.

The old establishment Republicans want to feed the grarg machine, oppose Obama and win what concessions they can, but not actually break the country in the process. There's a decent chunk of the tea party wing who thinks that's insane. That the country is in dire peril and government is so bad anyway that breaking it is preferable. That's why you see things like Boehner having to deal with Pelosi to keep things funded.

That said, IIRC, they couldn't have stopped healthcare. I'm not sure which no vote you're talking about, but I don't think there was anything they could have done to stop the ACA passing.


Just watched the daily show. Apparently Reagan used 1,600 of executive not-treaties.

The jeff: they stopped the filibuster, which they probably could have kept going.


Speaking of lobbying, article I ran across from First Look:

Immediately After Launching Effort to Scuttle Iran Deal, Senator Tom Cotton to Meet with Defense Contractors


Is anyone surprised?


Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Is anyone surprised?

A little. Isreals a friend, using them to slight obama is one thing, but Iran? That's digging deeeeep to throw some muck.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Is anyone surprised?
A little. Isreals a friend, using them to slight obama is one thing, but Iran? That's digging deeeeep to throw some muck.

I am more surprised that Obamacare actually managed to go through, though I don't expect it to last long after his departure from office(so I'm getting my medical stuff taken care of while I have the chance). I've long since decided to stop being surprised when politicians do something like that.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not treason if you choose to view it instead as another Civil War strike - these aren't really Americans we're talking about here, these are Confederates.


Artemis Moonstar wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Is anyone surprised?
A little. Isreals a friend, using them to slight obama is one thing, but Iran? That's digging deeeeep to throw some muck.
I am more surprised that Obamacare actually managed to go through, though I don't expect it to last long after his departure from office(so I'm getting my medical stuff taken care of while I have the chance). I've long since decided to stop being surprised when politicians do something like that.

I wouldn't worry too much about that. Now that people have had a chance to try it, and see that it's not hell on earth, but actually kind of helpful, repealing it is off the table as an option. The right knows that doing so now would be a lasting blow to their electoral chances that they can ill afford given the shifting demographics in the future.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
It's not treason if you choose to view it instead as another Civil War strike - these aren't really Americans we're talking about here, these are Confederates.

Or Kenyan Muslim fluoridation lizards. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And here I thought Obama was the Antichrist...


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Just watched the daily show. Apparently Reagan used 1,600 of executive not-treaties.

The jeff: they stopped the filibuster, which they probably could have kept going.

wiki wrote:
On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote)

They didn't stop the filibuster, the Democrats overcame it. Unless you're talking about some other vote.


Didn't the Republicans break a record on filibusters during Obama's time as president?


Icyshadow wrote:
Didn't the Republicans break a record on filibusters during Obama's time as president?

I believe so, though it's subtler than that as many times votes happened under an agreement they'd need 60 votes rather than against an actual filibuster. For various reasons I don't quite understand, but usually involving the ability to vote on amendments. Those agreements were driven by the threat of a filibuster, but weren't actually filibustered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting history in this thread.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Just watched the daily show. Apparently Reagan used 1,600 of executive not-treaties.

The jeff: they stopped the filibuster, which they probably could have kept going.

wiki wrote:
On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote)
They didn't stop the filibuster, the Democrats overcame it. Unless you're talking about some other vote.

I know their records are a little more complex, but for snarkiness sake:

You're forgetting that there were like five to ten Democrats who caucused with the GOP at that time.


Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Just watched the daily show. Apparently Reagan used 1,600 of executive not-treaties.

The jeff: they stopped the filibuster, which they probably could have kept going.

wiki wrote:
On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote)
They didn't stop the filibuster, the Democrats overcame it. Unless you're talking about some other vote.

I know their records are a little more complex, but for snarkiness sake:

You're forgetting that there were like five to ten Democrats who caucused with the GOP at that time.

You mean there were Republicans who switched parties to maintain their committee chairs but continued to vote the way they always had?

*cough* ARLEN SPECTER *cough cough*


thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Just watched the daily show. Apparently Reagan used 1,600 of executive not-treaties.

The jeff: they stopped the filibuster, which they probably could have kept going.

wiki wrote:
On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote)

Huh. Could have sworn they stopped fighting. I didn't remember them having that big a majority in the senate.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cutlass wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cutlass wrote:
Hmmm, let's see... The President has in general been using the Constitution for toilet paper, arrogating to himself the power to act unilaterally in areas that are explicitly reserved to be under the purview of Congress
As opposed to every other president for the last... ever?

Not just every President since the Civil War, but the lion's share of all the members of the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and all the various unelected bureaucrats in their increasingly multitudinous offices. Still doesn't make it right or something that people should automatically be given a pass on. It would appear though that Obama is being especially egregious in this regard. Of course, he wouldn't be able to get away with anywhere near as much as he has if Boehner and McConnell weren't running interference for him.

There is a lot more going on than the overly simplistic public side show of Democrat vs Republican, but trying to get to all the details can be problematic, time consuming, and most definitely not explainable in sound bites.

I don't think you quite understand the purpose of the Executive. It's job is to ... Execute. Using executive orders isn't that unusual. Reagan Our God May He Ever Rest In Peace, used a lot more orders than Obama did at this point in his Presidency. It's only a thing right now, because of the insane level of politicization that his Administration has been subjected to from the get-go. Where at the point that if Obama did as much as to re-arrange the toilets in the White House, the Republicans would start uttering "Sic Semper Tyrannis".


I'll have you know, those toilets are where they are by an amazing and long-standing tradition! (Also, it's really expensive to tear up the bathrooms.) :)

Liberty's Edge

BigDTBone wrote:
Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Just watched the daily show. Apparently Reagan used 1,600 of executive not-treaties.

The jeff: they stopped the filibuster, which they probably could have kept going.

wiki wrote:
On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote)
They didn't stop the filibuster, the Democrats overcame it. Unless you're talking about some other vote.

I know their records are a little more complex, but for snarkiness sake:

You're forgetting that there were like five to ten Democrats who caucused with the GOP at that time.

You mean there were Republicans who switched parties to maintain their committee chairs but continued to vote the way they always had?

*cough* ARLEN SPECTER *cough cough*

And people like Mary Landrieu.


Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Just watched the daily show. Apparently Reagan used 1,600 of executive not-treaties.

The jeff: they stopped the filibuster, which they probably could have kept going.

wiki wrote:
On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote)
They didn't stop the filibuster, the Democrats overcame it. Unless you're talking about some other vote.

I know their records are a little more complex, but for snarkiness sake:

You're forgetting that there were like five to ten Democrats who caucused with the GOP at that time.

In the Senate? The House is possible, they had a larger majority there - and no filibuster.

I don't think any Democrats caucused with the GOP though. Often voted with them, yes.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Just watched the daily show. Apparently Reagan used 1,600 of executive not-treaties.

The jeff: they stopped the filibuster, which they probably could have kept going.

wiki wrote:
On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote)
Huh. Could have sworn they stopped fighting. I didn't remember them having that big a majority in the senate.

58 Democrats, 2 Independents, for a few months, since Franken faced a recount challenge and then Kennedy died. They also needed to bring Byrd in from his death bed to vote.

And they needed Lieberman's vote, which pushed the whole bill in a much more conservative direction. A couple other actual Democratic Senators also helped drag the thing right - Baucus prominent among them. A few more Democrats or no filibuster and we would have had a much better law.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cutlass wrote:


Just mull on this. Boehner was somewhat worried that nasty conservative Republicans were so dissatisfied with his performance that they might replace him as Speaker of the House. But it turned out he didn't have to worry. Nancy Pelosi agreed to back Boehner as Speaker, thus guaranteeing he will remain in that post. So, given that Pelosi is now openly backing Boehner, how effective do you think he was at actually opposing anything the Democrats really wanted to do? Hint: don't rely on mainstream sources for your information to answer that question.

Did you consider that Pelosi backed him for the tactical advantages for the Democrats of him remaining in that spot? At the very least the Democrats get another year of news pundits and comedians like Jon Stewart showcasing him for the feckless figurehead of a Speaker he's been for the bulk of his tenure. And he's in love with being Speaker enough to go with it. (Because after all if he did give up the Speaker chair, there's no place for his career to go but further south.)

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Just watched the daily show. Apparently Reagan used 1,600 of executive not-treaties.

The jeff: they stopped the filibuster, which they probably could have kept going.

wiki wrote:
On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote)
They didn't stop the filibuster, the Democrats overcame it. Unless you're talking about some other vote.

I know their records are a little more complex, but for snarkiness sake:

You're forgetting that there were like five to ten Democrats who caucused with the GOP at that time.

In the Senate? The House is possible, they had a larger majority there - and no filibuster.

I don't think any Democrats caucused with the GOP though. Often voted with them, yes.

As I said, for snarkiness sake.

There were a number of senators with Ds after their names whose voting record looked more like a Republican.


Ladies and gentlemen, let me give you some advice here:

Don't. Just don't.

And for those of you who are raging about those 'treasonous' Republicans, you might want to consider the actions of a certain Ted Kennedy. He had actively contacted the Soviet Union to assist in derailing then-President Reagan's policy. THAT is damn close to the legal definition, right there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artyom wrote:

Ladies and gentlemen, let me give you some advice here:

Don't. Just don't.

And for those of you who are raging about those 'treasonous' Republicans, you might want to consider the actions of a certain Ted Kennedy. He had actively contacted the Soviet Union to assist in derailing then-President Reagan's policy. THAT is damn close to the legal definition, right there.

Is Ted Kennedy the same as 47 republicans? Is that a fat joke?

1 to 50 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Foolish, but is it treason? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.