Youseff wrote:

pacino wrote:Congress is planning on overriding President Obama's veto regarding allowing victims of 9/11 attacks to so Saudi Arabia.

This bill seems poorly thought out to me.

pretty #$!&@ of Obama. let those people get some justice. maybe we could subpoena some docs that will show what lots of credible people have said, which is the Sauds were in some capacity financiers to terrorism against the US.

jerseyhoya wrote:Clinton 44%-Trump 40%

Breitbart/Gravis

Youseff wrote:it's the height of cowardice. Trump accused his dad of being part of the JFK assassination for gods sake. I'd be hard pressed to find a better example of cowardice in modern politics.

Philly the Kid wrote:
This is not participatory government of the people. It's reality TV. Except the winners get to sign budgets and push red buttons.

pacino wrote:Congress is planning on overriding President Obama's veto regarding allowing victims of 9/11 attacks to so Saudi Arabia.

This bill seems poorly thought out to me.

slugsrbad wrote:

thephan wrote:Who's fault will it be when it's overidden and foreign Country families start dropping lawsuits on the United States for millions and millions of dollars in response to drone strikes. I'm not sure how many civilians have gotten killed as collateral damage, but I'm thinking that a couple million dollars per family in a lenient court will not be terribly good for the United States budget. But then again we're talking about elected officials and thinking in the same sentence so there's really no point do having any type of reasoning.

Exactly. It's all about winning the easy points, not about the obvious consequences.

Warszawa wrote:

Youseff wrote:

pacino wrote:Congress is planning on overriding President Obama's veto regarding allowing victims of 9/11 attacks to so Saudi Arabia.

This bill seems poorly thought out to me.

pretty #$!&@ of Obama. let those people get some justice. maybe we could subpoena some docs that will show what lots of credible people have said, which is the Sauds were in some capacity financiers to terrorism against the US.

Pretty sure Obama knows stuff most other people dont when it comes to saudi arabia

Monkeyboy wrote:Wake up, everyone! I'm posting by myself here!

thephan wrote:Who's fault will it be when it's overidden and foreign Country families start dropping lawsuits on the United States for millions and millions of dollars in response to drone strikes. I'm not sure how many civilians have gotten killed as collateral damage, but I'm thinking that a couple million dollars per family in a lenient court will not be terribly good for the United States budget. But then again we're talking about elected officials and thinking in the same sentence so there's really no point do having any type of reasoning.

Monkeyboy wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

thephan wrote:Who's fault will it be when it's overidden and foreign Country families start dropping lawsuits on the United States for millions and millions of dollars in response to drone strikes. I'm not sure how many civilians have gotten killed as collateral damage, but I'm thinking that a couple million dollars per family in a lenient court will not be terribly good for the United States budget. But then again we're talking about elected officials and thinking in the same sentence so there's really no point do having any type of reasoning.

Exactly. It's all about winning the easy points, not about the obvious consequences.

But shouldn't we have to compensate families we kill?

I place morality above budget considerations. Maybe if we had to pay for our mistakes, we wouldn't make as many? We have few deterrents to runnings drone out all over the place at this point. I think that's bad for America in the long run because other countries are really starting to hate us, even the ones who used to like us. Again, in the long run, I think that's worse for our interests.

The activities of Trump adviser Carter Page, who has extensive business interests in Russia, have been discussed with senior members of Congress during recent briefings about suspected efforts by Moscow to influence the presidential election, the sources said. After one of those briefings, Senate minority leader Harry Reid wrote FBI Director James Comey, citing reports of meetings between a Trump adviser (a reference to Page) and “high ranking sanctioned individuals” in Moscow over the summer as evidence of “significant and disturbing ties” between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that needed to be investigated by the bureau.

Some of those briefed were “taken aback” when they learned about Page’s contacts in Moscow, viewing them as a possible back channel to the Russians that could undercut U.S. foreign policy, said a congressional source familiar with the briefings but who asked for anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject. The source added that U.S. officials in the briefings indicated that intelligence reports about the adviser’s talks with senior Russian officials close to President Vladimir Putin were being “actively monitored and investigated.”

Warszawa wrote:

Youseff wrote:

pacino wrote:Congress is planning on overriding President Obama's veto regarding allowing victims of 9/11 attacks to so Saudi Arabia.

This bill seems poorly thought out to me.

pretty #$!&@ of Obama. let those people get some justice. maybe we could subpoena some docs that will show what lots of credible people have said, which is the Sauds were in some capacity financiers to terrorism against the US.

Pretty sure Obama knows stuff most other people dont when it comes to saudi arabia

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus told Face the Nation that former presidential candidates who do not endorse Donald Trump for president could find themselves penalized if they run for president again.

“Those people need to get on board,” he told CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “And if they’re thinking they’re going to run again someday, I think that we’re going to evaluate the process – of the nomination process and I don’t think it’s going to be that easy for them.”

thephan wrote:I missed this last week.

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus told Face the Nation that former presidential candidates who do not endorse Donald Trump for president could find themselves penalized if they run for president again.

“Those people need to get on board,” he told CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “And if they’re thinking they’re going to run again someday, I think that we’re going to evaluate the process – of the nomination process and I don’t think it’s going to be that easy for them.”

I guess that somewhat explains the Cruz crumble.

MoBettle wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

thephan wrote:Who's fault will it be when it's overidden and foreign Country families start dropping lawsuits on the United States for millions and millions of dollars in response to drone strikes. I'm not sure how many civilians have gotten killed as collateral damage, but I'm thinking that a couple million dollars per family in a lenient court will not be terribly good for the United States budget. But then again we're talking about elected officials and thinking in the same sentence so there's really no point do having any type of reasoning.

Exactly. It's all about winning the easy points, not about the obvious consequences.

But shouldn't we have to compensate families we kill?

I place morality above budget considerations. Maybe if we had to pay for our mistakes, we wouldn't make as many? We have few deterrents to runnings drone out all over the place at this point. I think that's bad for America in the long run because other countries are really starting to hate us, even the ones who used to like us. Again, in the long run, I think that's worse for our interests.

Well this isn't just necessarily about compensating people like that. (Though I do think many of the people that voted for this bill will be the first people to say that we shouldn't do that) It's about recognizing country's courts right to provide a cause of action and to collect damages against the another country. Do you trust a Saudi court to administer justice fairly against the United States? And it's not even just America the country. Right now we have treaties that protect individual Americans abroad from various law suits. By doing this we both give other countries a reason to disregard those treaties, and lose a leg to stand on when we ask people to uphold treaties.

Sovereign Immunity is something that's worked pretty well for a pretty long time. Diplomacy isn't perfect, but I trust it as a much more effective way to administer justice against other countries than private law suits in a foreign court. This opens a can of worms that I am pretty worried we won't be able to stuff back in. Good for Obama for being an adult and taking a stand on this, though I wonder if he would have if he wasn't a lame duck.