Who do you agree with Mattis or Trump?

Anyone, anywhere that would side with Trump over Mattis about anything needs to park their car in a garage, keep it running, shut the door, and listen to the complete Dark Side of the Moon album.
 
WiolentOne said:
Says the mod that avoided the WR for almost a month.

What happened? Were you too busy on your computer build?









<{you!}>
Click to expand...
Yes, I was busy. What did happen? I noticed a lot of your friend's accounts disappeared while I was away.

<{you!}>
<36>
Meh, nevermind. That's off-topic. And clearly a sensitive subject for the emotional types.
 
This doesn't sound like a great precedent for Trump himself to set. Sure, he's under no obligation to maintain the policies of the previous administration. And the next administration won't have any obligation to maintain his policies. Why would any one make any deal with him towards the end of his term(s) now, knowing that the precedent has been set for the next administration to completely ignore any non-binding agreement he might have made.

Not to mention his top military advisor is saying to uphold the terms. Seems like a foolish precedent to set considering the only result is signaling to his base that he's still anti-Obama. Juice isn't worth the squeeze, imo.
 
I would side with Mattis since he's probably far better informed on the matter than Trump.

Additionally, I'm glad others have brought up the absurd position of scrapping a nuclear deal with one nation while trying to negotiate nuclear disarmament with another. Moreso, when both positions are taking place in the public sphere. All that does is convince both nations that there is no benefit to compromise. That said, maybe Iran really is violating the rules of the agreement, I don't know.
 
Shoemaker said:
I always liked that scene. I didn't make the connection until now, though. "No. Not only no, Colonel, but fuck no."
Click to expand...
"Instead we're standing here with your foot on your dick. No, not your dick, MY dick."

Always felt that Dowdy got a bit of a bad rap from that show though. Everything I've heard about him the Marines seem to love Dowdy too.
 
There seems to be something going on behind the scenes on this whole sideshow. Trump feels he needs to find Iran in breach because he campaigned on it being a bad deal - but something about if it's declared in breach it's up to the Senate to decide what to do - Senate could vote to stay in the deal for now. The play seems to be Corker will pull a couple GOP with him and side with all Dems to block walking away from Nuke Deal. Knowing this is going to happen, Trump picked the fight with Corker so Trump can claim Corker only voted against ending the deal because Trump insulted him, and he's retiring because he's a loser anyways and not because the deal isn't as bad as he claimed it was or that Iran wasn't really in breach as he is claiming.

Remember there was 47 Republicans who co-signed the Cotton letter to President of Iran saying the deal with worthless and Republicans wouldn't honor it. Don't know how many did that for show (like the endless repeal ACA votes) and who really were/are against it, but at the time seven Republicans didn't sign - Corker, Alexander, Collins, Murkowski, Cochran, Flake and Coats. Coats is out of the Senate, actually Trump's DNI now. Flake is up for re-election and probably votes with the party this time around. That leaves Corker pulling two of Collins, Murkowski, Alexander and/or Cochran. I could see Alexander being one given he's from Tennessee like Corker and usually Senators from the same state will vote the same way. Collins seems like the other obvious choice. Murkowski could be more up in the air especially if he vote isn't needed.

But more votes could even be there if Mattis, Dunford and Tillerson are all giving the Senate cover to vote to keep the status quo.
 
Last edited:
panamaican said:
I would side with Mattis since he's probably far better informed on the matter than Trump.

Additionally, I'm glad others have brought up the absurd position of scrapping a nuclear deal with one nation while trying to negotiate nuclear disarmament with another. Moreso, when both positions are taking place in the public sphere. All that does is convince both nations that there is no benefit to compromise. That said, maybe Iran really is violating the rules of the agreement, I don't know.
Click to expand...

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/9/27/16373166/trump-iran-deal-dunford-senate

Not according to the current highest ranked military officer of the US armed forces.
 
WiolentOne said:
Scrapping deals that neither he nor congress agreed to in the first place.

You should thank me for educating you. You thought it was a signed treaty. Wrong. :)

Hth
Click to expand...

so why would any country make an agreement with us, ever? they dont mean anything according to you
 
7437 said:
so why would any country make an agreement with us, ever? they dont mean anything according to you
Click to expand...



So if Trump makes an agreement (non-binding) with Russia without the approval of the Senate the next POTUS should still follow thru with Trumps agenda?

Lol put on your thinking cap on kid and stop embarrassing yourself.

Iran already knew that this agreement would be subject to change with the changing of the POTUS. They knew this was non-binding.

It's not a treaty. There's no officially signed documents.

Treaties approved by two thirds of the senate matter. Signed documents matter. Not this shit.

Educate yourself on the matter. Stop being a simpleton.
 
WiolentOne said:
So if Trump makes an agreement (non-binding) with Russia without the approval of the Senate the next POTUS should still follow thru with Trumps agenda?

Lol put on your thinking cap on kid.

Iran already knew that this agreement would be subject to change with the changing of the POTUS. They knew this was non-binding.

It's not a treaty. There's no officially signed documents. Treaties approved by the senate matter. Signed documents matter. Not this shit.

Educate yourself on the matter. Stop being a simpleton.
Click to expand...

Well, part of the ability for the U.S. to negotiate with other countries is the implicit understanding our future leaders will abide by the agreements of previous administrations.

Everyone knows that our structure allows Presidents significant leverage in this area and we've built good will by demonstrating over the years that our word is bond even as the individual administrations change. Without that goodwill, no one would ever agree to a deal, trade or otherwise, that lasts beyond the current administration's term.

At the extreme end, that would hamstring us on the global stage since it could take 2+ years to negotiate a deal that would only be in effect for ~1 year. No country would want to deal with the uncertainty. It's part of the reason 3rd world nations with unstable government remain 3rd world nations, no one wants to make a deal with a governing body when they can't be sure that it will be enforced down the line.
 
Third choice. I vehemently disagree with Mattis on this issue. If the President happens to agree with me, so much the better.
 
Last edited:
panamaican said:
Well, part of the ability for the U.S. to negotiate with other countries is the implicit understanding our future leaders will abide by the agreements of previous administrations.

Everyone knows that our structure allows Presidents significant leverage in this area and we've built good will by demonstrating over the years that our word is bond even as the individual administrations change. Without that goodwill, no one would ever agree to a deal, trade or otherwise, that lasts beyond the current administration's term.

At the extreme end, that would hamstring us on the global stage since it could take 2+ years to negotiate a deal that would only be in effect for ~1 year. No country would want to deal with the uncertainty. It's part of the reason 3rd world nations with unstable government remain 3rd world nations, no one wants to make a deal with a governing body when they can't be sure that it will be enforced down the line.
Click to expand...

That's simply not true. Please read Article II, section 2 of the US Constitution. Treaties need Senate approval. Treaties are not made at the whims of a 4 year POTUS. That's not how it works.

Agreements that go thru the proper process of being ratified by the Senate and legislative bodies, and signed by the POTUS are binding and upheld.

That is what other countries have trust in.

Not because Obama said so.
 
Maybe if Trump starts making agreements without the consent of Congress you simpletons will begin to understand why it's non-binding and the next possible liberal president has zero duty to continue to carry Trumps jock strap.

Simpletons the whole lot of you. Not a man of principle in sight.
 
WiolentOne said:
So if Trump makes an agreement (non-binding) with Russia without the approval of the Senate the next POTUS should still follow thru with Trumps agenda?

Lol put on your thinking cap on kid and stop embarrassing yourself.

Iran already knew that this agreement would be subject to change with the changing of the POTUS. They knew this was non-binding.

It's not a treaty. There's no officially signed documents.

Treaties approved by two thirds of the senate matter. Signed documents matter. Not this shit.

Educate yourself on the matter. Stop being a simpleton.
Click to expand...

Again, you keep talking about a local law issue to weasal out of an agreement.

You simply are pointing out that Trump can break it, and nobody is saying that he cant.

People are saying though that the credibility of the USA is going to the shitter which means people will stop believing in America.
 
Rod1 said:
Again, you keep talking about a local law issue to weasal out of an agreement.

You simply are pointing out that Trump can break it, and nobody is saying that he cant.

People are saying though that the credibility of the USA is going to the shitter which means people will stop believing in America.
Click to expand...

It's not merely a local law issue; it's called The US Constitution. I understand that Mexico isn't a nation of laws so it's hard for you to comprehendo but that's your problem, rodrigo.
 
Rod1 said:
Again, you keep talking about a local law issue to weasal out of an agreement.

You simply are pointing out that Trump can break it, and nobody is saying that he cant.

People are saying though that the credibility of the USA is going to the shitter which means people will stop believing in America.
Click to expand...

Every country worth a shit on this planet understands its not an official agreement if it's not ratified by the US Senate and signed by the POTUS.

"...but Obama said so"

just doesn't mean anything anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,719
Messages
55,437,235
Members
174,774
Latest member
Ruckus245

Share this page

Back
Top