Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Congress is determined to have the final say over any deal President Donald Trump strikes with North Korea. As Trump signed a joint statement with Kim Jong Un that offered few details on how the North Korean leader would make good on his vow to denuclearize, Republicans on Capitol Hill said Tuesday that they want and expect the White House to submit any final agreement for their approval. And that means the president and his team will have to work overtime to sell it.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), who also agreed that the Senate should take up any future North Korea deal, said that Trump's praise for Kim "isn't, certainly, the way I would describe a dictator, despot, tyrant."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Democrats were even more cautious about the outcome of the summit, offering Trump praise for pursuing diplomacy but warning that he may already have given up too much to Kim.

"This is a long way from anything that's verifiable," Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the intelligence committee's top Democrat, said in an interview. "North Korea, a winner. The West and America? It's too early to tell."

When Sen Republicans are being the grown-ups in the room, even if it's just over a "branch of gov" turf war... we know we are in trouble.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2018-06-12 05:20 PM | Reply

"Democrats were even more cautious about the outcome of the summit, offering Trump praise for pursuing diplomacy..."

Talking peace is always better than talking war.

I am so happy that Trump was able to solve the crisis he created and bring us back to where we were with North Korea before he took office.

I would NOT call that progress though.

#2 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-06-12 05:38 PM | Reply

You mean just like they did on the iran deal?

#3 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-06-12 06:49 PM | Reply

Hahahahaha.... no.

- Dementia Don.

#4 | Posted by 726 at 2018-06-13 08:43 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Just like the Iran deal, any deal that expects to exist beyond the president's term will take the form of a Treaty. Treaties are brought to the Senate by the President, and only bind the country with the approval of 2/3 of the Senate.

#5 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-13 10:11 AM | Reply

Hahahahaha.... no.

- Dementia Don.

#4 | Posted by 726

This may come as a big surprise to you bet the senate didn't have a vote on the iran deal.. It was one of those "i have a pen and a phone' deals.

#6 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-06-13 10:46 AM | Reply

#6 Nice whataboutism there snoops.

#7 | Posted by 726 at 2018-06-13 10:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#6 Nice whataboutism there snoops. - #7 | Posted by 726 at 2018-06-13 10:59 AM

Look, I love that you've found a new word that you want to try out, but that isn't whataboutism.
Whataboutism is the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.
What was done there is providing supporting evidence of a behavior, not a deflection or counterattack. Don't feel bad. I'm sure you'll get it right one day.

Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-12 07:28 AM

#8 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-13 11:40 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Just like the Iran deal, any deal that expects to exist beyond the president's term will take the form of a Treaty. Treaties are brought to the Senate by the President, and only bind the country with the approval of 2/3 of the Senate.

#5 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Yes. This. Exhibit A: Iran deal.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-13 11:47 AM | Reply

"Exhibit A: Iran deal."

Which was "the worst deal ever", but included verification up and down the supply chain.

The NK deal, however, is a "great" deal.

Go ahead, Trumpers, guzzle it down.

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-06-13 11:49 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

Advertisement

Advertisement

Whataboutism is the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation
Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-12 07:28 AM

#8 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2018-06-13 11:40 AM | REPLY | FLAG

Sorry. No.

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,

Don't worry. You'll get it right some day.

#11 | Posted by 726 at 2018-06-13 01:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Don't worry. You'll get it right some day.

#11 | POSTED BY 726 AT 2018-06-13 01:56 PM | FLAG:

I wouldn't hold my breath...

#12 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-06-13 02:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Which was "the worst deal ever", but included verification up and down the supply chain.
The NK deal, however, is a "great" deal.
Go ahead, Trumpers, guzzle it down.

#10 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

None of that has anything to do with this thread.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-13 04:40 PM | Reply

#6 Nice whataboutism there snoops.

#7 | Posted by 726

So, did the senate vote on it? according to you libs that was a brilliant move by o'bummer. It saved the whole world. Aren't you proud?

#14 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-06-13 06:25 PM | Reply

Imo, congress will continue to be bypassed using the confusion of the current judicial/executive battle to advance any activities.

If congresspeople leave their positions for other jobs in the Trump administration - you have your answer.

#15 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-06-13 08:25 PM | Reply

Republicans Demand Vote on Any North Korea Deal

Sure they will. Then they'll roll over for trump like they do on everything else.

Besides its too late - he already made part of a deal without any expert input at all. He flew over there, gave legitimacy to their murderous dictator, and cut off military exercises in exchange for... NADA.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-13 08:54 PM | Reply

None of that has anything to do with this thread.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ

Except for the whole part about the guy who attacked another better nuke deal being the guy who set this one up, yeah nothing to do with it at all.

Desperate as always jeff. Howbout a nice clinton deflection too? I'm sure you have one ready.

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-13 08:57 PM | Reply

Republicans Demand Vote on Any North Korea Deal
Sure they will. Then they'll roll over for trump like they do on everything else.
Besides its too late - he already made part of a deal without any expert input at all. He flew over there, gave legitimacy to their murderous dictator, and cut off military exercises in exchange for... NADA.

#16 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

And it's no more binding than Obama's Iran deal.

Except for the whole part about the guy who attacked another better nuke deal being the guy who set this one up, yeah nothing to do with it at all.
Desperate as always jeff. Howbout a nice clinton deflection too? I'm sure you have one ready.

#17 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

More unrelated garbage. The GOP-lead Senate is rightly signaling that any actual (this is at best an opening step) deal needs to be ratified in order to be binding.

If Trump wants a deal bad enough it better be good enough to receive the blessing of 2/3 of the Senate - which speaks to the crap you put in bold.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-13 09:12 PM | Reply

The crap I put in bold - sorry for the misattribution.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-13 09:13 PM | Reply

"Republicans demand . . . " ~ LOL

That's a weeks worth of laughs right there.

#20 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-06-13 09:52 PM | Reply

" it's no more binding than Obama's Iran deal."

With 0% of the verification.

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-06-14 12:36 AM | Reply

Sorry. No.
Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,
Don't worry. You'll get it right some day. - #11 | Posted by 726 at 2018-06-13 01:56 PM

Oxford Dictionary says for you to put your weak wikipedia BS away.

whataboutism
noun
[mass noun]
British
The technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.

I suppose I may have been wrong about one thing. It looks like you're never going to get it.

#22 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-14 08:39 AM | Reply

Avigdore - you really need to understand concepts better. What 726 is 100% correct. Sad you can understand the concept being expressed in both your definition and 726's. That you'd argue 726 is completely wrong and you're right in this is beyond petty and stupid.

Here's how it works, and let's see if you can figure out how both are correct:

News: "Trump has released classified materials to the Russians."

Whataboutism: "What about Hillary and her e-mails?"

Hypocrisy is the entire point of the "Whataboutism" tactic. It is invoked by deflecting to a counter-accusation in this case.

Are you ever going to get it?

#23 | Posted by YAV at 2018-06-14 08:47 AM | Reply

"Sad you can't understand"

#24 | Posted by YAV at 2018-06-14 08:48 AM | Reply

When Obama's administration negotiated the Iran deal he included the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council -- the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China -- plus Germany and the European Union. Then this Orange Hitler decided it was a bad deal, THEN WHY DID ALL THOSE OTHER NATIONS AGREE TO IT INCLUDING PUTIN?
A pile of crap 10 ft. tall, it was just an attempt to take away an accomplishment of Obama. Now this fool goes and makes concessions to Kim Jung Un, none of which were made to Iran, in hopes of getting a deal not yet even written on paper, much less agreed to. The "Art of the Deal" is really lame. You don't start any deal by giving away the store. We have a traitor who is also a fool in charge. Now the Republicans want to vote on it to make it an official treaty before they have read a single word of the actual deal just so that the next President, if it's a Democrat, can't nullify it no matter how ineffective it is. Politics needs to stop at the waters edge again in this country, Republicans take their partisanship way too far and it's dangerous to our country.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-14 09:15 AM | Reply

OH, and I know, my "self-righteous" posts annoy some liberals here. Tough nookies. I post from a perspective of experience and facts and your criticisms (and I hope you know who I am addressing) are like dust. I know it's there but it just doesn't matter to me very much.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-14 09:18 AM | Reply

When Obama's administration negotiated the Iran deal he included the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council -- the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China -- plus Germany and the European Union.

#25 | Posted by danni

Bur ddan, he forgot to include the US congress. It was his phone and pen and that is why Pres Trump could do away with it.

#27 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-06-14 09:52 AM | Reply

Wow the partisan bullsheet by conservative hacks has simply become annoying. I for one will call out anyone that does something wrong - btw there's a picture of Trump in the new dictionary next to the word. I don't care what their politics are.

The Iran deal was not ideal but it wasn't a horrible one either - it focused on stopping Iran from working toward a nuclear bomb. It would have required working with the GOP to make it a treaty and that would have been 100% unrealistic SIMPLY because Obama. I have NEVER witnessed anything so blatant as the GOP opposition to literally everything Obama related. Now this complete hack of a president fumbles his way into a vague agreement that we clearly lose in and where is the outrage? At least some Republican's in congress are demanding a vote because they see how bad this is.

The hackery and extreme positioning of the right has to come to an end for sanity in governing.

#28 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-06-14 10:53 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Hypocrisy is the entire point of the "Whataboutism" tactic. It is invoked by deflecting to a counter-accusation in this case.
Are you ever going to get it? - #23 | Posted by YAV at 2018-06-14 08:47 AM

You're agreeing with me and don't realize it, I guess.
What Sniper did by saying that the Iran deal and the NK deal BOTH require senate approval to be valid, long term deals (treaties) is neither deflecting nor showing hypocrisy. It is precisely the opposite of hypocrisy. When the rules remain the same for both R and D presidents, then that is a good thing. 726 called that whataboutism. It isn't whataboutism.
The posts are up there to read. Help yourself.

#29 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-14 11:42 AM | Reply

Whataboutism is one thing but lying is another.

Congress had its say in the Iran Nuclear deal.

Period.

www.politifact.com

Now back to reality based excuses for Trump's embarrassing amateur meddling in world affairs.

By meeting together in brotherly love Both "leaders" now have themselves in a box. Trump has bet his presidency that he can trust Kim. The odds are NOT in his favor.

And don't forget that lil Kim is playing to his brainwashed people raised for generations to get revenge on America.

Make sure you are well stocked with popcorn and beer. The NothingBurgers are provided free by TrumpKim Inc.

Enjoy the show. The Greatest Show on Earth. 🌏

#30 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-06-14 12:18 PM | Reply

The fact that Republicans would consider voting on a deal which has not even been written down on paper, without any details but refused to approve the agreement that Obama, the UN Security Counsel plug Germany agreed on only shows how unpatriotic the Republicans are. They only care about power, not at all what is good for the country or the world. Anyone fooled by them is either stupid or just uninformed.

#31 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-14 12:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Congress had its say in the Iran Nuclear deal. - #30 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-06-14 12:18 PM

Yeah they had their say.
They said 'We do not provide our consent', so it wasn't a treaty. As such, it was cancelled by the next elected official.

#32 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-14 12:29 PM | Reply

"Yeah they had their say.
They said 'We do not provide our consent', so it wasn't a treaty."

In other words they used important foreign policy matters to play partisan politics. I doubt you can find examples of the Democrats ever acting so unpatriotic.

#33 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-14 12:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

BTW, don't be surprised if the Republicans can't approve of any agreement Trump makes with Kim Jung Un, it takes a 2/3 majority and I doubt they will be able to get that many Democrats to agree to an empty agreement.

#34 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-14 12:44 PM | Reply

Were I a Democratic Senator I'd demand Trump change his decision on the Iran deal before I would vote for any agreement he makes.

#35 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-14 12:45 PM | Reply

To Danni, doing the will of their constituents is playing 'partisan politics'.

#36 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-14 01:12 PM | Reply

I doubt they will be able to get that many Democrats to agree to an empty agreement. - #34 | Posted by Danni at 2018-06-14 12:44 PM

I doubt they'd get 2/3 of any Senators to agree to an empty agreement. If it's not good enough to be ratified as a treaty, then it can still continue as an agreement (as the Iran deal did). The next president can make their determination of how they want to handle that agreement. Again, just like the Iran deal.

#37 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-14 01:25 PM | Reply

"The next president can make their determination of how they want to handle that agreement. Again, just like the Iran deal."

Next time we want all those other nations to follow our lead and make an agreement to solve a major world problem do you think they will? I think they'll laugh in the face of whoever is President, Trump has destroyed the credibility of the American Presidency.

#38 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-14 01:31 PM | Reply

"To Danni, doing the will of their constituents is playing 'partisan politics'."

On matters of foreign policy a President should not be taking a poll, he should have let the deal remain in place if for no other reason than to hold solidarity with the other nations that signed it. What did it accomplish to cancel it? It was just an attempt to slap Obama, childish and irresponsible.

#39 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-14 01:33 PM | Reply

Next time we want all those other nations to follow our lead and make an agreement to solve a major world problem do you think they will? I think they'll laugh in the face of whoever is President -#38 | Posted by Danni at 2018-06-14 01:31 PM

Are you pretending that nations aren't aware of how out treaty system works? If you aren't pretending, then do you at least recall that the Senate sent an open letter reminding all parties that if the Senate didn't agree then the US's position in the deal was potentially a short-term thing? You seem to have a real problem with checks and balances. The President does not possess the power to entangle the US in agreements beyond his/her own term. There is a check on the President's power in the Constitution. No one who enters into agreements with the US doesn't understand that. You need to understand it. If you really don't like it, work to change it. It'll take an amendment. I really recommend against pushing an amendment to increase the power that Trump has at this juncture, but you do your own thing.

#40 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-14 02:04 PM | Reply

On matters of foreign policy a President should not be taking a poll, he should have let the deal remain in place if for no other reason than to hold solidarity with the other nations that signed it. What did it accomplish to cancel it? It was just an attempt to slap Obama, childish and irresponsible.
#39 | Posted by Danni at 2018-06-14 01:33 PM

The statement about partisan politics was in regards to the Senate. You said the Senators were playing partisan politics. I say they were doing the will of their constituents.

#41 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-06-14 02:09 PM | Reply

"I say they were doing the will of their constituents"

what "constituents"?
they have a 19% approval rating, stupid

#42 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-06-14 02:29 PM | Reply

Sorry but the Senate is within their rights. Technically we are still at war with the PDRK, a peace treaty has to be ratified by the senate. The Iranian deal was not a treaty. There is no evidence that the Iranians have honored a single letter of that agreement. Quite a lot of evidence they are not. Meanwhile the centrifuges are still spinning.

#43 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-06-14 05:40 PM | Reply

"Sorry but the Senate is within their rights. Technically we are still at war with the PDRK, a peace treaty has to be ratified by the senate. The Iranian deal was not a treaty."

Absolutely true.

"There is no evidence that the Iranians have honored a single letter of that agreement. Quite a lot of evidence they are not. Meanwhile the centrifuges are still spinning."

Absolutely false and misleading.

#44 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-06-14 07:10 PM | Reply

#44 | Posted by donnerboy, Name one time the Islamic Republic has honored an an agreement with the infidel.

#45 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-06-15 10:56 AM | Reply

Name one time the Islamic Republic has honored an an agreement with the infidel.

#45 | POSTED BY DOCNJO AT 2018-06-15 10:56 AM | FLAG:

Name one time they haven't. With a citation.

#46 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-06-15 12:37 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort