Nouseforaname Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 this is a 10 year “Arm and Train” deal. I’ve seen it referred to as an “executive agreement” meaning it can be revoked by a future administration. Anyone familiar with how money appropriation for executive agreements works? Does this bypass the need of a Congressional vote for funding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Clavin Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 27 minutes ago, Hedge said: this is a 10 year “Arm and Train” deal. I’ve seen it referred to as an “executive agreement” meaning it can be revoked by a future administration. Anyone familiar with how money appropriation for executive agreements works? Does this bypass the need of a Congressional vote for funding? Not overly familiar...but if it's an "executive agreement," it's basically an end-around to bypass the requirement for Congress to ratify treaties...which means it's non-binding. Funding? I'd guess it can go either way. White House could ask for funding. But the executive also has a healthy amount of discretionary funding it could use, as well as some ability to shift around funds within departments (e.g. when Trump used part of DoD's drug enforcement budget to fund the wall.) It's just you're typical pile of steaming political horseshit that allows people to do what they want because Democracy is too important to be left to the people. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 43 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said: Not overly familiar...but if it's an "executive agreement," it's basically an end-around to bypass the requirement for Congress to ratify treaties...which means it's non-binding. Funding? I'd guess it can go either way. White House could ask for funding. But the executive also has a healthy amount of discretionary funding it could use, as well as some ability to shift around funds within departments (e.g. when Trump used part of DoD's drug enforcement budget to fund the wall.) It's just you're typical pile of steaming political horseshit that allows people to do what they want because Democracy is too important to be left to the people. Well, it's non-binding if the president signs it. Were it to be signed by the Health Department Secretary or perhaps the Deputy Undersecretary for Eastern European Relations (or whatever title in the State Department the 3rd person down in charge of EE affairs holds), well then THAT would be binding for now and ever. Pretty sure that's under one of the Constitution's clauses that were written in invisible ink that only D's are allowed to read and are only enforcable on orange presidents and R's that the D's find particularly heinous. Really not sure why they'd have 46 sign it when the DUfEER is available and willing to sign it. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Clavin Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 23 minutes ago, Taro T said: Well, it's non-binding if the president signs it. Were it to be signed by the Health Department Secretary or perhaps the Deputy Undersecretary for Eastern European Relations (or whatever title in the State Department the 3rd person down in charge of EE affairs holds), well then THAT would be binding for now and ever. Pretty sure that's under one of the Constitution's clauses that were written in invisible ink that only D's are allowed to read and are only enforcable on orange presidents and R's that the D's find particularly heinous. Really not sure why they'd have 46 sign it when the DUfEER is available and willing to sign it. It's not even important that it's signed, really. It's only important that the 20+ year staffers at State agree with it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 16 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said: It's not even important that it's signed, really. It's only important that the 20+ year staffers at State agree with it. Well, provided the Staffer holds/held the rank of Colonel, of course. If not, well then it MIGHT not be binding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 38 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said: It's not even important that it's signed, really. It's only important that the 20+ year staffers at State agree with it. 21 minutes ago, Taro T said: Well, provided the Staffer holds/held the rank of Colonel, of course. If not, well then it MIGHT not be binding. Well then that Colonel if he/she feels the POTUS didn't follow their "Feelz Rulz" can run to a Democrat committee and anonymously claim that POTUS has violated their oath of office 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devnull Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 2 hours ago, Hedge said: Anyone familiar with how money appropriation for executive agreements works? Does this bypass the need of a Congressional vote for funding? An executive agreement by a Democrst President is sacrosanct An executive agreement by a Republican is fascism A Congrssional vote for funding by a Democrat controlled House and Senate us the law of the land A Congressional vote of any kind by a Republican controlled House or Senate is subject to reinterpretation 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 1 hour ago, devnull said: An executive agreement by a Democrst President is sacrosanct An executive agreement by a Republican is fascism A Congrssional vote for funding by a Democrat controlled House and Senate us the law of the land A Congressional vote of any kind by a Republican controlled House or Senate is subject to reinterpretation you left out that If Democrats criticize the judicial system they are protecting Democracy If Republicans criticize the judicial system it is a attack on our Democracy I think that about covers it all now though 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devnull Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 43 minutes ago, Cinga said: you left out that If Democrats criticize the judicial system they are protecting Democracy If Republicans criticize the judicial system it is a attack on our Democracy I think that about covers it all now though On the topic of the courts A ruling that favors Democrats is jurisprudence A ruling that favors Republicans is an illegitimate court 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Clavin Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 1 hour ago, Cinga said: you left out that If Democrats criticize the judicial system they are protecting Democracy If Republicans criticize the judicial system it is a attack on our Democracy I think that about covers it all now though Remember all the times I've said Democrats would try to outlaw the Republican Party? Yeah...well... 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devnull Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 2 hours ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said: Remember all the times I've said Democrats would try to outlaw the Republican Party? Yeah...well... No, how many times do I have to explain Democrats do not want to outlaw the Republican party. That's like the Harlem Globetrotters outlawing the Washington Generals It's the Republican voters they want to get rid of 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Clavin Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 4 minutes ago, devnull said: No, how many times do I have to explain Democrats do not want to outlaw the Republican party. That's like the Harlem Globetrotters outlawing the Washington Generals It's the Republican voters they want to get rid of Your theory makes sense as a long-term goal, which is it's fatal flaw. Democrats don't make sense, and don't think long-term. They're idiots. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Clavin Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 50 minutes ago, Ann said: What? What the &#%$? What "occupied regions" is Ukraine supposed to "withdraw from?" Russia attacked Ukraine, they're the ones occupying regions. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 33 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said: What? What the &#%$? What "occupied regions" is Ukraine supposed to "withdraw from?" Russia attacked Ukraine, they're the ones occupying regions. Sounded like he's considering all of the eastern provinces to be Russian territory, whether they've fully invaded them or not. Really doubt it matters as can't see the US nor UK being ready to end their money laundering scheme just yet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nouseforaname Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 25 minutes ago, Taro T said: Sounded like he's considering all of the eastern provinces to be Russian territory, whether they've fully invaded them or not. Really doubt it matters as can't see the US nor UK being ready to end their money laundering scheme just yet. Putin is as unreasonable as Hamas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 1 hour ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said: What? What the &#%$? What "occupied regions" is Ukraine supposed to "withdraw from?" Russia attacked Ukraine, they're the ones occupying regions. He's using his referendum results. Remember the sham Donbas vote he orchestrated early in the confrontation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 19 minutes ago, Nouseforaname said: Putin Zelensky is as unreasonable as Hamas. FIFY 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.