Um… I don’t even know what “breakout” means. Help?
I thought I understood the substance of the deal: Iran promises not to build nuclear weapons, and allows inspections to ensure this, and we remove a blortload of nasty economic sanctions which have been harmful to them.
What more does an average voter need to know, other than that the two most likely alternatives were a nuclear-armed Iran, or a nasty, aggressive, unilateral war that would lead to a new century of hatred in the region?
Okay, I got what “breakout” means.
I’m not actually sure I’d agree that the typical U.S. voter needs to know this in order to judge the treaty. It isn’t hugely technical, but it seems to me to be technical enough to be beyond our absolute need to know. Sort of like the fiscal details of the sanctions themselves: all I really need to know is that the sanctions were severely harming the Iranian economy, and thus were effective. I don’t need to know how the U.S. Federal Reserve System participated in isolating the Iranian central bank, etc. etc.
On the other hand, the more anyone knows about the deal, the better off they are. Ignorance is not strength. I’m better off knowing what “breakout” means than I could possibly have been without knowing.
Senators Booker and Warner just announced their support for the deal. That’s up to 36 supporting, along with 2 leaners – if just 3 of the undecideds support the deal, it can’t even get out of the Senate, and a veto won’t be necessary.
Congrats to my American friends for letting the deal pass!
Maybe I’m being too optimistic here, but I have a feeling that even with a Republican in the White House come Jan. 2017, the deal will stand. What say you folks?
There won’t be any point in badmouthing it by then. Though God help us if there’s a Republican president for many other reasons.
I think it will stand. Things look different when you’re actually in Oval Office as opposed to scrambling around and fighting to get there.
Senator Heitkamp just announced – that makes 37, + 2 leaners. Only two more of the six undecideds needed to filibuster. Seems to be pretty likely to me, but we’ll see.
Why does it really matter whether they beat a filibuster or not?
It doesn’t. But if they threaten a filibuster, and have the numbers to back it up, then they may not have to vote. Nervous Dems don’t have to offend some of their constituents and don’t have to stick their thumb in Obama’s eye. Weather experts expect a very high pressure system of pompous and patriotic bloviation.
Republicans are not eager to play ball on this, they think they’ve got a electoral winner here, painting the Dems as soft on Comm…Islam.
Only for political optics.
Mark Warner is a “yes”, Ben Cardin is a “no” (damn you Senator Cardin!). That makes 38 definite “yes” votes, + 2 leaners. There are two undecided Democrats, Cantwell and Peters – if either of them go “yes” (plus the leaners), then Obama won’t even have to veto the deal disapproval.
I’d like to take personal responsibility for Warner’s decision, since I called his office and lobbied him and his staff a few times a week for the last couple of months.
Cheese Louise, guy, I hope you didn’t threaten him with the awesome power of the Dope! That could have consequences!
A tiny bit of sanity from an unexpected source.
Trump’s all over the place, but that’s one example of how a business background actually does make one better qualified for the Presidency. Businessmen understand contracts. Politicians don’t believe that their word, or even written pledges, should ever bind them.
Yeah, Trump’s six bankruptcies prove that his word is his bond.
The law is a contract too. Politicians aren’t too fond of law, either, except as an obstacle to be gotten around when they want to do something. Such as revenue bills originating in the House. ACA, as we all know, originated in the Senate.
And of course treaties are supposed to be voted on by the Senate, with a 2/3rds vote required for approval. But as wikipedia notes:
Ah, gotta love politicians. “Bypass” is the key word in their lexicon.
Oh, my worthy adversary. Have you now joined the Freeman on the Land camp? Because I don’t know any other group that makes a serious statement that the law is a contract.
There number of executive agreements in force for the U.S. probably numbers into the tens of thousands. Some of these are very consequential, such as the Algiers Accords. The idea that all of those were supposed to be treaties is a ship that sailed very soon after the founding of the Constitution.
This agreement will be voted on in the Senate. The Republicans agreed to an unusual process, but it does include congressional review.
Geez, I’m as cynical as the next guy, but surely there are people without an MBA whose word is good.