Discussion for article #234183
Scott Walker: “Next President shouldn’t be bound by the Constitution. Or the laws. Or what Ronald Reagan signed with Russia. Our next President should be a dictator.”
23 Likes
What a load of crap. Even if Congress were to be asked to approve any deal, you, Scotty Walker, and all the rest of the GOP clown car parade of candidates would be more than willing to ignore it because Obumber created it.
You can try and dress that pig up by talking about consultation with Congress, but we all know what you’re really saying.
10 Likes
someone needs to get on record all of these republicans promising they will not use executive orders as president. in writing and on videotape. … and notarized…
10 Likes
So, Scott, what would be the plan if the US backs out and re-imposes sanctions, but none of the other parties go along? Do you think US-only sanctions would have an impact?
8 Likes
As pointed out above, we also should not be bound to pay our obligations. That whole “full faith and credit of the United States” is entirely optional.
Ladies and gentlemen, the actual haters of America: the ones who want default, government shutdowns, advertising that we cannot be trusted with agreements made with six other countries. And if you deviate from that, the Politburo chapter of the RNC will enforce the rules.
18 Likes
I’m not going to make up my own mind on this until I hear what Palin has to say.
23 Likes
The US is one of six parties negotiating with Iran on this issue. A new president abandoning an deal that has been reached will sent them a strong signal that we are not to be trusted. We cannot play well with others.
15 Likes
We need to start calling him “Not Ready for Prime Time Scotty”. He strikes me as a real adolescent or neophyte when it comes to foreign affairs. I can’t see what some people on the right see in him other than he’s a complete toady to the Koch’s.
14 Likes
The next President shouldn’t be Scott Walker.
10 Likes
Or:
In the Bubble, white people can do whatever they want, called it!!
4 Likes
This 24+ hour waiting period that happens as news of the day and his opinion of it is explained to high school graduate Scott should be interesting in a President…
3 Likes
He’s relatively young, expresses sufficient Obama Derangement, he’s not part of the “Washington crowd”, he uses the all-important God Talk with conservatives.
5 Likes
Yeah, all international agreements should only last as long as all the leaders who negotiate them remain in power. That would be a great way to run things.
13 Likes
To quote Dubya “as long as I’m the dictator.”
heh heh
5 Likes
The real issue is why anyone would want to elect a president who sounds ignorant, has a traceable and unshakable allegiance to corporate power brokers and seems unfamiliar with the role of the chief executive of the US. Why would anyone want a hopelessly ignorant ideologue as leader of the free world?
13 Likes
2016 is turning out pretty solid for the Dems so far.
Vote GOP and we get a brand new war in the middle east, that should fit nicely in a 15 second national add.
8 Likes
The GOP wants a war with Iran
4 Likes
Convincing 60-some-odd countries to back us in negotiating an historic, long-term deal in which Iran agrees not to seek nukes is already a major accomplishment. Getting that deal would be comparable to deals Reagan made with the USSR regarding their and our already existing nukes, namely the START I treaty. Obama already re-upped on that when he renegotiated and extended it with Medvedev as the New START treaty (which, btw, the GOP/Teatrolls in the lame duck tried to block as a means of forcing us to extend the Bush tax cuts…they didn’t like Obama getting credit for that treaty either).
For Obama to then move on and obtain ANY agreement with Iran that ostensibly blocks Iran’s nuke programs would be disasterous for the GOP/Teatrolls’ hopes of destroying his legacy and maintaining their presumed superiority in the foreign policy realm. Moreover, it severely threatens their ability to warmonger on behalf of the MIC and use Israel as a partisan bludgeon in hopes of erasing some demographic shifts by gaining the Jewish vote.
Loudly declaring to Iran that any deal is dead in the water within 2 years is their only and best way of trying to force Iran to leave the table for lack of any faith that an agreement would have meaning and resolve anything…at which point they’ve already written a slew of talking points to claim that it proves Iran was never serious or acting in good faith and shows just how naive Obama was all along. They CANNOT allow Obama to take Iran away as a 2016 issue. Let me re-say that in another way: it will still remain as an issue if there is an agreement, but the character of the Teatroll argument would have to change to “I promise to renege on a duly negotiated and executed executive agreement with Iran that has them agreeing not to seek nukes.” That might be all fine and dandy for riling the base in the primary and would certainly earn the Teatroll candidates MIC and fossil fuel donations galore, but when the Dem candidate starts pointing out that the real world, practical effect of carrying out such a promise would be Iran firing up the centrifuges, I think the pander-play collapses with the general public. Therefore, they HAVE to keep Iran out of any agreements in order to have their “Iran remains a grave threat and I’m tough on Iran” pandering remain more effective. I think this is their calculus…and I think it suggests they’re going to get more strident and crazy over it. Buckle up and pass the popcorn.
22 Likes