politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'm surprised all treaties aren't handled this way. We have such a high bar to approve them for a reason, it seems silly to not have a similarly high bar to leave them.
I do understand why you would want to be able to exit fast. I think it makes sense for the individual country as a safety net in case whatever deal you've entered goes south.
...but having a system in place to ensure that the majority agrees with that decision is important.
Amy Coney Barrett proves that the US legislature can move fast whenever it wants to.
And now I'm picturing a Republican Congress and Presidency being voted out by the people, only to have the exiting Congress pass a "We Hereby Exit From All Treaties" bill, signed by the President before the changeover happens. All to leave the incoming Democratic Congress/President with a huge foreign relations mess to clean up.
If there's a legitimate reason why we would need to "exit a treaty fast", then I'm sure that Congress would have no issues approving it. I mean, I know we're in the era of "because fuck you that's why" politics, but if we needed to exit a treaty quickly, there has to be some pretty grave circumstances why, and I'm sure that even the dumbest of the dumb would know to put politics aside for a bit.
You give “the dumbest of the dumb” more credit than I would.
Even Kevin McCarthy knew when it was time to back down when it came to the debt ceiling fight. When push comes to shove in issues like this, the GOP have historically threatened a default right up until the very last second and then backed down. Most of the time, the threats are little more than red meat for their base and they know (even if they don't want to publicly say it) that if they were to attempt to follow through on their threats, the results would be significantly worse for everybody.