Pakistan's leaders dread US Democrats win but its households are praying for it

[AZ_HighCountry]

American walked into a burger place with his wife. Told me he had this huge ranch and ordered a burger. As his order turned up - he got his card out to pay. Sadly for him - cash only. Felt so embarrassed for him. Told the bloke to put his food bill on my tab and paid for it. He turned round and insisted on giving me $40. My son is dead excited hes now got that greenback in his wallet with his pounds - so ye that dollar is still in demand!!

I remember you telling me about that.

BTW, what's your son got in his collection? When I come over I might trade him a US100$ bill with Trump's signature on it.

Otherwise it's Indian rupees and a few Mexican pesos.

 

[atmi_bum]

That is so wrong that you had to immediately contradict yourself. Congress has very clear Article I powers in the foreign policy domain and there are areas of friction which will have to be adjudicated by courts. Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over not just the power of the purse, but also international commerce, approving executive appointments like ambassadors, approving treaties, declaring war, etc. It also has oversight powers over the executive.

In practice, Congress often does explicitly delegate some level of operational discretion to the President , like it did on the recent Russia sanctions bill, but it will not do if it knows the President intends to use the discretion to subvert its will.

As a practical matter, Congress could impose tarrifs on Pakistan without any discretion to the President to override them, stop all aid and even defund the embassy in Islamabad, though it cannot force the President to cut off diplomatic relations with the hybrid/ military regime. If Congress passes a law banning Asim Munir or DG ISI / ISPR from entering the country, the President cannot just ignore it. He will have to go to court and argue that the generals are the real rulers of Pakistan and the law passed by Congress is unconstitutional because it prevents him from managing day to day relations with the Pakistani state.

You have no idea what you are talking about. All you did was list the powers Congress does or does not have regarding foreign policy. You are just confusing people.

Nothing you have stated applies to your original post. The Pakistan Democracy Act is just another bill Congress can pass, but without the POTUS's consent, it means nothing. I also doubt Congress will expend political capital on such an inconsequential bill.

It's obvious this is some pipe dream for pro-IK folks, but I doubt anyone cares, especially Trump, who seems happy with the current situation.

 

[Musings]

I remember you telling me about that.

BTW, what's your son got in his collection? When I come over I might trade him a US100$ bill with Trump's signature on it.

Otherwise it's Indian rupees and a few Mexican pesos.

Euros, rupees, UAE currency and pokemon cards…… and the dollars

 

[Owaiz]

Just to be clear, this is Hilary Clinton's, Barack Obama's, and Kamala Harris's Democrats you are talking about, right? Or did they suddenly transform to something else that magically wishes success for Pakistan? The facade lasts about 5 minutes with these serpents.

Did you ever see Malala and Clinton's interactions btw? Truly stomach churning.

Pakistan is ready for the Dems as much as we were ready for the Reps. In fact, we have had pretty much the same experience of both parties since our inception. I don't know why you continue to underestimate your deep state.

Keep in mind, we have dealt with Indian Congress politics since Nehru. We know snakes when we see them lurking.

Pakistan has not had civilian supremacy since Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated. So, when you use "we", I assume you are speaking as a spokesperson for the military/hybrid regimes that have ruled Pakistan since then.

Anyway, I am confident that the Democrats would be more sympathetic to the cause of true democracy in Pakistan.

 

[Owaiz]

You have no idea what you are talking about. All you did was list the powers Congress does or does not have regarding foreign policy. You are just confusing people.

Nothing you have stated applies to your original post. The Pakistan Democracy Act is just another bill Congress can pass, but without the POTUS's consent, it means nothing. I also doubt Congress will expend political capital on such an inconsequential bill.

It's obvious this is some pipe dream for pro-IK folks, but I doubt anyone cares, especially Trump, who seems happy with the current situation.

There is not much support for anti-democratic forces in Pakistan among either the American people or the American deep state except for a few personal beneficiaries in Trump's orbit. So, there is no political capital that will be spent in passing a Bill that enjoys wide bipartisan support.

Also, you seem to be woefully ignorant of the law. The founding fathers intended Congress to be the primary branch of the government. That is why Congress' powers are listed in Article I and the President's in Article II. Once a Bill becomes an Act, it is the law of the land that the President is bound by. His consent only matters before the Bill become an Act. He has a veto power, but Congress can override it with a two-thirds majority, which a legislation with bipartisan support can easily garner.

After that, trying to undermine the will of Congress is the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors ".

 

[AZ_HighCountry]

Euros, rupees, UAE currency and pokemon cards…… and the dollars

I don't see your son trading Pokemon cards for Trump bucks. I may have to throw in some Argentinian and Chilean pesos. Maybe a few Kenyan shillings to sweeten the deal.

 

[AZ_HighCountry]

There is not much support for anti-democratic forces in Pakistan among either the American people or the American deep state except for a few personal beneficiaries in Trump's orbit. So, there is no political capital that will be spent in passing a Bill that enjoys wide bipartisan support.

Also, you seem to be woefully ignorant of the law. The founding fathers intended Congress to be the primary branch of the government. That is why Congress' powers are listed in Article I and the President's in Article II. Once a Bill becomes an Act, it is the law of the land that the President is bound by. His consent only matters before the Bill become an Act. He has a veto power, but Congress can override it with a two-thirds majority, which a legislation with bipartisan support can easily garner.

After that, trying to undermine the will of Congress is the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors ".

You seem to be ignorant as well. The Acts have to be signed into law by the President, or, the Act becomes law after 10 days if there is no signature by the President while Congress is in session.

Getting a 2/3 majority in the House and the Senate to override a Presidential veto is difficult at best. In the course of history, Congress has been able to override a Presidential veto a total of 111 times. That equates out to a little over 4% success rate at overturning a veto.

Over the course of the next 2 years, I don't see that happening. It's possible. But I wouldn't bet my 401K on it.

 

[Owaiz]

You seem to be ignorant as well. The Acts have to be signed into law by the President, or, the Act becomes law after 10 days if there is no signature by the President while Congress is in session.

I am guessing you are not a lawyer.

Act of Congress

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Thinking_Hard]

Foreign policy is the POTUS's exclusive domain. Congress can't pass bills that affect foreign policy, except for funding. If passed, it would be symbolic only.

Money flows through Congress. Congress can shut down weapon sale.

 

[Owaiz]

Money flows through Congress. Congress can shut down weapon sale.

The government doesn't spend, or receive, for that matter, any money from weapons sales to foreign countries. Congress has other oversight authority like AECA, but it usually has nothing to do with the power of the purse.

 

[kambhakt]

It all comes down to dollar, Pakistan is not getting any aid from US.

The IMF loan comes with the blessing of the US. If the US removes its blessings, the conditions attached to the loan get much harder. The financing from the Saudi is conditional on the IMF loan. If the US turns the screws, Pakistan can find itself in hot water.

 

[Owaiz]

The IMF loan comes with the blessing of the US. If the US removes its blessings, the conditions attached to the loan get much harder. The financing from the Saudi is conditional on the IMF loan. If the US turns the screws, Pakistan can find itself in hot water.

That is a ridiculously farfetched connection that can only exist in some Indians' fantasies. Even the White House, let aside Congress, is not going to interfere in an ongoing IMF program.

 

[MH.Yang]

The Donkey Party prefers Indians, but the Elephant Party supports Israel more. Pakistani brothers find it difficult to make a choice.

 

[mythbuster]

The Donkey Party prefers Indians, but the Elephant Party supports Israel more. Pakistani brothers find it difficult to make a choice.

It all boils down to convergence of interest...as long as there's a common interest it doesn't matter who is in power.... there are two important factors driving American policy towards Pakistan 1) middle east , America needs Pakistan to stabilise middle east...2) china, America doesn't want Pakistan to be completely dependent on China , it want to see Pakistan as much strategically independent as possible.

 

[Yasser76]

Pakistan has not had civilian supremacy since Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated. So, when you use "we", I assume you are speaking as a spokesperson for the military/hybrid regimes that have ruled Pakistan since then.

Anyway, I am confident that the Democrats would be more sympathetic to the cause of true democracy in Pakistan.

Wow, so much utter shit flows out of your account and we only really get a break when you get banned which never seems to last long enough...