• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama vetoes bill, Mitch McConnell blames him for the override

Tony Stark

Philosopher
Tony Stark
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
9,626
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Thursday that a new law allowing U.S. victims of terrorism to sue foreign governments may have “unintended ramifications,” despite Congress’s overwhelming vote this week to defy President Barack Obama’s veto of the legislation.
Though Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act was easily overridden, many senators are seeking changes to the law later this year, particularly after gauging any international reaction. McConnell laid some fault at the hands of the White House, calling the battle over JASTA a “good example” of “failure to communicate early about the potential consequences” of a popular bill.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/mitch-mcconnell-saudi-9-11-bill-228903#ixzz4Lgv9FWHL
Click to expand...

What a piece of ****.
 
Obviously, by vetoing it, Obama forced the Republicans to support it, because they have to do the opposite of him. Opposing Obama is more important than any actual ramifications of the bill.
 
pgwenthold said:
Obviously, by vetoing it, Obama forced the Republicans to support it, because they have to do the opposite of him. Opposing Obama is more important than any actual ramifications of the bill.
Click to expand...
Democrats are to blame too. Harry Reid is the only Senator that voted against the override. I think the whole bill was Chuck Schumer's idea.
 
Last edited:
Is there any way some good could come out of this?

If we're very lucky, quite a few people may have just had their light bulb moment.

The moment they figured out how dangerous partisan politics can get.

Eta:
And yes, I realize this was technically a bit partisan override, but here's what I'm thinking - instead of republican vs democrat, it was partisan like congress vs. Obama specifically.
 
Last edited:
Another example of the GOP showing that their only motivation for any decisions is to go against Obama. They needed to oppose him even though they knew dam well they agreed with him.
JPK
 
JPK said:
Another example of the GOP showing that their only motivation for any decisions is to go against Obama. They needed to oppose him even though they knew dam well they agreed with him.
JPK
Click to expand...
I think it was more the case that it was bad optics to vote against a bill about 9/11 families.

But still, Obama vetoes this law and gives his reasons. Then Mitch McConnell helps to override the veto by putting it up for a vote and voting for it. And Mitch McConnell blames Obama for the bill becoming law? WTF?
 
Tony Stark said:
But still, Obama vetoes this law and gives his reasons. Then Mitch McConnell helps to override the veto by putting it up for a vote and voting for it. And Mitch McConnell blames Obama for the bill becoming law? WTF?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the mischaracterization. It made me go back and read what McConnell actually said and why.

It saves me oodles of time on the forum when I only have to fact check obvious partisan spin.
 
marplots said:
Thanks for the mischaracterization. It made me go back and read what McConnell actually said and why.

It saves me oodles of time on the forum when I only have to fact check obvious partisan spin.
Click to expand...
Not spin. That's what happened.
 
Tony Stark said:
Not spin. That's what happened.
Click to expand...

You know there's a link in the OP, right?

Here's a quote from that link:
“Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were but no one had really focused on the potential downside in terms of our international relationships. And I think it was just a ball dropped,” McConnell said. “I hate to blame everything on him and I don’t, [but] it would have been helpful if we had a discussion about this much earlier than the last week.”

And that gets a little spin to become: "And Mitch McConnell blames Obama for the bill becoming law? WTF?"

Am I only allowed to read the part that's quoted in the OP? If so, I need a warning...
Plainly McConnell is saying the bill would have been modified if they had had more input from the executive branch earlier in the process. It's a comment about the White House not participating in the process.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
You know there's a link in the OP, right?

Here's a quote from that link:
“Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were but no one had really focused on the potential downside in terms of our international relationships. And I think it was just a ball dropped,” McConnell said. “I hate to blame everything on him and I don’t, [but] it would have been helpful if we had a discussion about this much earlier than the last week.”

And that gets a little spin to become: "And Mitch McConnell blames Obama for the bill becoming law? WTF?"

Am I only allowed to read the part that's quoted in the OP? If so, I need a warning...
Plainly McConnell is saying the bill would have been modified if they had had more input from the executive branch earlier in the process. It's a comment about the White House not participating in the process.
Click to expand...
*********** please. He is saying it is partly Obama's fault because they didn't personally talk about it sooner. But he knew the potential consequences and why the Presidency vetoed yet. He just did it anyway. Obama is not at all to blame for this and McConnell is yet McConnell is trying to pass partial blame to Obama.
 
marplots said:
You know there's a link in the OP, right?

Here's a quote from that link:
“Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were but no one had really focused on the potential downside in terms of our international relationships. And I think it was just a ball dropped,” McConnell said. “I hate to blame everything on him and I don’t, [but] it would have been helpful if we had a discussion about this much earlier than the last week.”

And that gets a little spin to become: "And Mitch McConnell blames Obama for the bill becoming law? WTF?"

Am I only allowed to read the part that's quoted in the OP? If so, I need a warning...
Plainly McConnell is saying the bill would have been modified if they had had more input from the executive branch earlier in the process. It's a comment about the White House not participating in the process.
Click to expand...


I changed your hilight a bit to make you see WHY tony Stark says he is blaming obama.

And I agree with Tony, it it was a **** things to say.
 
marplots said:
You know there's a link in the OP, right?

Here's a quote from that link:
“Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were but no one had really focused on the potential downside in terms of our international relationships. And I think it was just a ball dropped,” McConnell said. “I hate to blame everything on him and I don’t, [but] it would have been helpful if we had a discussion about this much earlier than the last week.”

And that gets a little spin to become: "And Mitch McConnell blames Obama for the bill becoming law? WTF?"

Am I only allowed to read the part that's quoted in the OP? If so, I need a warning...
Plainly McConnell is saying the bill would have been modified if they had had more input from the executive branch earlier in the process. It's a comment about the White House not participating in the process.
Click to expand...


Obama gets NO BLAME for this. None.
 
NoahFence said:
Obama gets NO BLAME for this. None.
Click to expand...

Of course he does. If he wants Congress to vote against victims of terrorism, which is politically difficult to say the least, he has to engage them much earlier to either get the bill quashed from the beginning or amended in such a way as to make it practical. Once a bill gains momentum, it is politically difficult to stop.

This is actually a perfect example of one of the ways in which Obama has been a bad President. Obamacare suffered from his lack of engagement in similar fashion.

That being said, I actually think the bill is a good idea. There will be some blowback, but I think it's worth it. The world can function just fine with the removal of foreign sovereign immunity for acts of terrorism by a state. Admittedly, it raises the risk for politicians, which is probably why they're the ones who are concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom