Corker, McCain, Flake, W...

People like treaty-ripping Corker (nasty little man most responsible for the Iran deal) and Flake never honored their commitment to their constituents.
Some of the swamp are getting out because they know they will never be re-elected so they're firing all their bullets at Trump to cover their own inadequacies. Good riddance. Good-bye!
Drain the swamp Trump.
 
Jarod said:
Why? Did it work that way when Obama beat McCain and Romney?
Click to expand...

Obama's ideas aren't what got him elected. Trump's were. That's the difference.

If you believe Obama's ideas are better and that's why he was elected, do you apply that to Trump? If not, keep kissing Obama's ass, n-lover.
 
Huey said:
I am not listening to tweets. You need to look up the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act which was sponsored by Graham, Corker, and Menedez. Instead of standing up to Obama who was going to ram the treaty thru without congress this bill allowed reviews. Instead of following the constitutions Treaty Clause which says it must be passed by 2/3s of the members present this bill said 2/3s present had to say no.

Next time you want to lecture me please get your ducks in a row. Only Tom Cotton voted against it. Corker voted for his own bill:

On May 22, 2015, the president signed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 into law. The bill was authored by Senator Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and requires congressional review of any final nuclear agreement with Iran before the president can waive sanctions imposed by Congress. The bill passed the Senate 98 to 1 and the House of Representatives 400 to 25.

https://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/iran-nuclear-agreement-review-act
Click to expand...
Wow....you should be embarrassed by this post. You are clueless. You don't know what the NARA of 2015 accomplished?

Silly child. Don't believe every tweet you read.
 
Stretch said:
People like treaty-ripping Corker (nasty little man most responsible for the Iran deal) and Flake never honored their commitment to their constituents.
Some of the swamp are getting out because they know they will never be re-elected so they're firing all their bullets at Trump to cover their own inadequacies. Good riddance. Good-bye!
Drain the swamp Trump.
Click to expand...
Yet another who is clueless about Corker, and the Iran deal. Don't believe every tweet you read.
 
Althea said:
Wow....you should be embarrassed by this post. You are clueless. You don't know what the NARA of 2015 accomplished?

Silly child. Don't believe every tweet you read.
Click to expand...

WOW. I posted directly from Corker's website. Instead of flapping meaningless grade school insults try telling us what it accomplished? Aside from turning the treaty clause upside down.

I showed mine. You show us yours.
 
Althea said:
Yet another who is clueless about Corker, and the Iran deal. Don't believe every tweet you read.
Click to expand...
And, don't swallow all those CNN lies.



In 2015, as President Barack Obama prepared to force through the Iran deal, it became clear that the administration had no intention of submitting the agreement to Congress for approval. The U.S. Constitution’s Treaty Clause says that two-thirds of the Senate must approve any treaty. The Iran deal — one of the biggest and most important deals negotiated by any administration — was certainly no “executive agreement.” It needed to be ratified — or rejected.

But rather than stand up for the Senate and the Constitution, Sen. Corker and Sens. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) devised a half-measure called the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which would give Congress the power to disapprove of the Iran deal by passing a resolution in both houses. Many opponents of the Iran deal hailed the new legislation, and Obama threatened to veto it. But suddenly, Obama dropped that threat.

One reason Obama backed away was that it was clear that the “Corker bill,” as it was known, was going to pass with a veto-proof majority. But another reason was that the Corker bill made it easier, not harder, for the president to pass the Iran deal through Congress. Few people outside of Breitbart News noticed the Corker bill’s fatal flaw: if Obama vetoed a resolution of disapproval, he would just need one-third of either house to defeat an override effort.

As Breitbart News noted in April 2015: “[T]he text of the bill now before Congress would actually make an Iran deal easier to approve — and would do so by gutting the Senate’s constitutional power over treaties.” Only one Senator, Tom Cotton (R-AR), opposed the Corker bill and its the deceptive mathematics. And its futility was proven when Democrats in the Senate filibustered to prevent the Iran deal from even coming up for a vote on the floor.

Thus did Corker make it easier for Obama to force through the Iran deal. One could argue that Corker subjectively wanted to stop the deal. But Trump’s tweet is not “false,” as alleged by CNN’s Diamond in a dishonest “Facts First” segment that misquoted Trump and failed to mention the Constitution.

Worse, Diamond actually said on the air: “This bill was the bill that gave Congress the ability to actually weigh in on the Iran deal, which otherwise the Obama administration would have gone unilaterally and passed this motion by itself.” It was the Constitution that gave Congress that power, and the Iran deal was indeed unilateral — it was never “passed” by anyone.

Had Corker done his job, he would be on steadier ground in his fight with Trump. And the world would have been safer today.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...first-cnn-covers-bob-corker-helped-iran-deal/
 
From August 2016..................

Sen. Bob Corker has a problem. As Bill Gertz reported in his “Inside the Ring” column, Mr. Corker, Tennessee Republican and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, objects to President Obama’s intention to seek a evade the need for Senate “ratification” of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) by seeking its approval by the United Nations Security Council.

The CTBT is a creature of the U.N. It sets up an enforcement authority that lacks the power to verify nations’ actions. It would, as so much the U.N. does, cost a lot and deliver almost nothing. In 1999, the Senate rejected ratification of the treaty precisely because of the lack of verification powers.

A letter from the State Department informed Mr. Corker that the president was going to seek a Security Council resolution that would provide that any U.S. nuclear test would defeat the “object and purpose” of the CTBT.

In an Aug. 12 letter to Mr. Obama, Mr. Corker reportedly wrote that by seeking passage of such a U.N. Security Council resolution, Mr. Obama would circumvent the Senate’s constitutional power over ratification of treaties. A National Security Council spokesman, parsing words in the Clintonian manner, denied that Mr. Obama was asking for a “legally binding” resolution from the Security Council and was only seeking members’ support for existing moratoria on nuclear testing.

(U.N. Security Council resolutions are supposed to have the force and effect of international law but, as we discovered in the Saddam Hussein era, such resolutions are only followed by nations such as ours. Nations such as North Korea and Iran regularly ignore them.)

If this seems vaguely familiar, it should. What Mr. Corker objects to is a version of the same mechanism Mr. Obama used — with Mr. Corker’s enthusiastic cooperation — to pave the way for U.N. “ratification” of Mr. Obama’s nuclear weapons deal with Iran.

When Secretary of State John Kerry signed the Iran nuclear weapons deal, and on many occasions since, Mr. Obama proclaimed it a comprehensive success. But there were — and still are — many substantive reasons to doubt him, not the least of which is the regime’s track record of never having changed its behavior as the result of any international agreement.

Success or no, Mr. Obama refused to submit his Iran deal to the Senate for ratification under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, which is the only way such agreements can become treaties binding on the United States.

Enter Mr. Corker. He sponsored a measure that required the president to submit the agreement to the Senate but turned the Constitution upside down.

Under Article 2, Section 2 the president must get a two-thirds vote in favor of any treaty to make it a part of the law of the land. Instead, Mr. Corker’s provision required opponents of the deal to muster a two-thirds vote — 66 senators — to vote against it. It was a pretense to conceal another Republican cave-in to Mr. Obama.

Mr. Corker’s provision passed the Senate by a vote of 98-1, Sen. Tom Cotton, Arkansas Republican, being the only negative vote. In an entirely predictable result, when the time came for a disapproval vote, Republicans couldn’t even overcome the Democrats’ filibuster to get a final vote on disapproval.

After that, it was a small matter for the president to take the Iran deal to the U.N. Security Council, which eagerly approved it. What Mr. Corker had done was to enable Mr. Obama to claim Senate approval of his deal even though the Senate hadn’t done anything of the sort.

Mr. Corker taught Mr. Obama the lesson the president is adapting now to suit his desire to bind America to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. This time, Mr. Obama is just eliminating the Senate middleman. Mr. Corker, having made the Senate irrelevant, is now grousing about its irrelevance. In obvious retrospect, it would have been better if the Senate had done nothing rather than pass Mr. Corker’s measure.

Nothing the U.N. Security Council can or will do substitutes for Senate ratification. No future president is bound by the Iran nuclear weapons deal, nor would a U.N. Security Council resolution be binding with respect to CTBT.

Donald Trump has often condemned the Iran agreement as a bad deal, but he hasn’t said that he’d revoke it. Mrs. Clinton has praised the deal and is certain to retain it.

Whatever he does on the CTBT, it’s pretty clear that Mr. Obama isn’t done with respect to nuclear weapons, including ours. There are credible reports that he may declare a “no first use” policy for nuclear weapons.

Since 1978, it has been the announced policy of the United States that use of nuclear weapons will be considered in any conflict. The reason for this policy is that deterrence will only be effective if enemies cannot be sure that we won’t use nuclear weapons in a sufficiently dangerous conflict. During the Clinton administration in 1996, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry said that if America were attacked with chemical weapons, “We could have a devastating response without nuclear weapons, but we should not foreswear that possibility.”

Deterrence by not foreswearing the first use of nuclear weapons has served us well since the Soviet Union obtained nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them. There is no reason to change that policy now, especially in light of the threats we face from nations such as Iran.

To maintain the credibility of our nuclear deterrent force, future underground tests of nuclear weapons may soon be necessary to ensure they work. Mr. Obama’s actions on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in the U.N. Security Council notwithstanding, we will have the legal right to perform such tests when they are necessary and should not hesitate to do so.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/30/bob-corkers-blunder-helping-obama-get-iran-deal/
 
Huey said:
WOW. I posted directly from Corker's website. Instead of flapping meaningless grade school insults try telling us what it accomplished? Aside from turning the treaty clause upside down.

I showed mine. You show us yours.
Click to expand...
You showed me that you don't know what you're talking about

Stretch said:
And, don't swallow all those CNN lies.



In 2015, as President Barack Obama prepared to force through the Iran deal, it became clear that the administration had no intention of submitting the agreement to Congress for approval. The U.S. Constitution’s Treaty Clause says that two-thirds of the Senate must approve any treaty. The Iran deal — one of the biggest and most important deals negotiated by any administration — was certainly no “executive agreement.” It needed to be ratified — or rejected.

But rather than stand up for the Senate and the Constitution, Sen. Corker and Sens. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) devised a half-measure called the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which would give Congress the power to disapprove of the Iran deal by passing a resolution in both houses. Many opponents of the Iran deal hailed the new legislation, and Obama threatened to veto it. But suddenly, Obama dropped that threat.

One reason Obama backed away was that it was clear that the “Corker bill,” as it was known, was going to pass with a veto-proof majority. But another reason was that the Corker bill made it easier, not harder, for the president to pass the Iran deal through Congress. Few people outside of Breitbart News noticed the Corker bill’s fatal flaw: if Obama vetoed a resolution of disapproval, he would just need one-third of either house to defeat an override effort.

As Breitbart News noted in April 2015: “[T]he text of the bill now before Congress would actually make an Iran deal easier to approve — and would do so by gutting the Senate’s constitutional power over treaties.” Only one Senator, Tom Cotton (R-AR), opposed the Corker bill and its the deceptive mathematics. And its futility was proven when Democrats in the Senate filibustered to prevent the Iran deal from even coming up for a vote on the floor.

Thus did Corker make it easier for Obama to force through the Iran deal. One could argue that Corker subjectively wanted to stop the deal. But Trump’s tweet is not “false,” as alleged by CNN’s Diamond in a dishonest “Facts First” segment that misquoted Trump and failed to mention the Constitution.

Worse, Diamond actually said on the air: “This bill was the bill that gave Congress the ability to actually weigh in on the Iran deal, which otherwise the Obama administration would have gone unilaterally and passed this motion by itself.” It was the Constitution that gave Congress that power, and the Iran deal was indeed unilateral — it was never “passed” by anyone.

Had Corker done his job, he would be on steadier ground in his fight with Trump. And the world would have been safer today.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...first-cnn-covers-bob-corker-helped-iran-deal/
Click to expand...
Neither do you. trump lied, and nothing Corker did made it easier for Obama to put the Iran deal in place.
 
Jarod said:
I think she schemed and manipulated every other viable candidate out of the race.
Click to expand...

You should be very proud to defend her. Remember when you were boasting about taking your kids to “vote for the first female President”?

You sounded pretty enthused about her then
 
Teflon Don said:
You should be very proud to defend her. Remember when you were boasting about taking your kids to “vote for the first female President”?

You sounded pretty enthused about her then
Click to expand...

You dont think that is what they all do? You dont think Bone Spur also did that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top