Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. I never do that. I leave that to the credulous nincompoops. I check to see if I am being lied to or not.
You quoted the article. You said that the treaty demanded certain things. Are you now admitting that what you said is not true? That you actually have no idea what the treaty really says, but that you were instead pissing yourself over bull**** that you were fed?
I know for a fact that the real intent of this treaty is to reduce the international trafficking of weapons that results in the slaughter of innocent people.
And you're jumping the gun on how the system actually works. Their "advice and consent" is the ratification vote within the Senate. Not a few Senators trying to throw red meat to their base. In order to get the Treaty in front of the Senate for them to give their advice and consent, it has to be signed.
The article said majority so I take that as more than 50%.
And the way I read that is the President would enter into a Treaty with the advice and consent of Congress, not that he would sign the treaty and then Congress says No.
I would think you'd walk into a treaty knowing your approving group approved of you going there to begin with.
They advised him NOT to sign it. I read your link.
Upon the advice and consent of Congress.
He has neither.
Actually, we don't know if he has their consent.
What we know is that the UN has been working on an arms trade treaty. And that a bunch of right-wing Americans who seem more concerned with manufacturing controversy decided to mischaracterize that treaty as anti-2nd Amendment. That's a lie. But given the politics of the day, some GOP Congressmen, who actually probably know it's a lie, decide to be cavalierly partisan, and write a letter to the President, because they are courting pro-gun voters and because they depend on the stupidity of those voters not to go and read the treaty, but to take the word of right-wing partisan hacks instead.
There is such a thing as credibility. The OP has posted many threads, citing dubious sources, that end up being discredited. Presuming the thread is false unless proven otherwise should be the default.
The article said majority so I take that as more than 50%.
Brilliant mathematics there, HT. Kudos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
And the way I read that is the President would enter into a Treaty with the advice and consent of Congress, not that he would sign the treaty and then Congress says No.
In 237 years, the actual Congress has never once read it that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
I would think you'd walk into a treaty knowing your approving group approved of you going there to begin with.
Welcome to the real world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
