• Forums
  • Best Betting Sites
  • Sportsbook Promos
  • Best Sports Betting Apps
  • NFL Betting Forum
  • NBA Betting Forum
  • MLB Betting Forum
  • NHL Betting Forum
  • NCAAF Betting Forum
  • NCAAB Betting Forum
  • Soccer Betting Forum
  • Tennis Betting Forum
  • General Discussion
  • Help Forum
  • Guidelines
  • FAQ
  • Forum Updates
    Covers Logo
    Covers App
    Faster picks. Smarter bets.
    All in the NEW Covers App
    Download on the App Store Download on the Google Play Store
    • Sports
      • NFL
        • Back
        • NFL
        • NFL Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NFL Picks
        • NFL Prediction Prices
        • Weather
        • Injuries
      • NCAAF
        • Back
        • NCAAF
        • NCAAF Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NCAAF Picks
        • Weather
        • Injuries
      • NBA
        • Back
        • NBA
        • NBA Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NBA Picks
        • Injuries
      • NCAAB
        • Back
        • NCAAB
        • NCAAB Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • NCAAB Picks
        • Injuries
      • MLB
        • Back
        • MLB
        • MLB Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • MLB Picks
        • Weather
        • Injuries
      • NHL
        • Back
        • NHL
        • NHL Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NHL Picks
        • Injuries
      • Soccer
      • UFC
      • WNBA
        • Back
        • WNBA
        • WNBA Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • WNBA Picks
        • Injuries
      • CFL
        • Back
        • CFL
        • CFL Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • CFL Picks
      • Golf
        • Back
        • Golf
        • Golf Home
        • Golf Odds
        • Masters Odds
        • PGA Championship Odds
        • US Open Odds
        • British Open Odds
        • Ryder Cup Odds
        • Golf Picks
    • Odds
      • All Odds
      • NFL
      • NCAAF
      • NBA
      • NCAAB
      • MLB
      • NHL
      • Golf
      • Soccer Odds
        • Back
        • Soccer Odds
        • MLS Odds
        • Champions League Odds
        • Premier League Odds
      • UFC
      • WNBA
      • CFL
      • Election Odds
      • Futures
        • Back
        • Futures
        • NFL
        • NBA
        • MLB
        • NHL
        • NCAAB
        • NCAAF
      • Sports Odds History
      • Politics
        • Back
        • Politics
        • Politics Home
        • Presidential Election Odds
        • Midterm Election Odds
        • House Midterm Odds
        • Senate Midterm Odds
        • Texas Midterm Odds
        • Michigan Midterm Odds
    • Picks
      • All Picks
      • NFL
      • NBA
      • NHL
      • MLB
      • NCAAF
      • NCAAB
      • Golf
      • WNBA
      • CFL
      • User Picks
      • Team User Picks
      • Consensus Picks
        • Back
        • Consensus Picks
        • All Consensus Picks
        • NFL
        • NBA
        • NHL
        • MLB
        • NCAAF
        • NCAAB
        • CFL
        • WNBA
        • Consensus FAQ
        • Public Money
    • Prop Projections
      • NFL
      • NBA
      • MLB
      • NHL
    • Betting
      • US Betting Sites
      • Canada Betting Sites
      • Sportsbook Reviews
      • States
        • Back
        • States
        • US Legal Tracker
        • Revenue Tracker
        • Arizona
        • Arkansas
        • California
        • Colorado
        • Connecticut
        • DC
        • Florida
        • Georgia
        • Illinois
        • Indiana
        • Iowa
        • Kansas
        • Kentucky
        • Louisiana
        • Maine
        • Maryland
        • Massachusetts
        • Michigan
        • Mississippi
        • Missouri
        • Nevada
        • New Hampshire
        • New Jersey
        • New York
        • North Carolina
        • Ohio
        • Oregon
        • Pennsylvania
        • Tennessee
        • Texas
        • Vermont
        • Virginia
        • West Virginia
        • Wyoming
      • Provinces
        • Back
        • Provinces
        • Alberta
        • British Columbia
        • Manitoba
        • New Brunswick
        • Newfoundland and Labrador
        • Northwest Territories
        • Nova Scotia
        • Nunavut
        • Ontario
        • Prince Edward Island
        • Quebec (English)
        • Quebec (francais)
        • Saskatchewan
        • Yukon
      • By Sport
        • Back
        • By Sport
        • Baseball
        • Basketball
        • Boxing
        • College Football
        • F1
        • Football
        • Super Bowl
        • Golf
        • Hockey
        • Horse Racing
        • March Madness
        • Soccer
        • UFC
        • World Cup
      • Betting Apps
        • Back
        • Betting Apps
        • Best Sports Betting Apps USA
        • Ontario Sports Betting Apps
      • Rest of World
        • Back
        • Rest of World
        • UK Betting Offers
          • Back
          • UK Betting Offers
          • UK Betting Sites
          • bet365 Bonus Code UK
          • 888Sport Promo Code UK
          • William Hill Sign up Offer
          • Betway Sign up Offer
          • BetVictor Bonus Code UK
      • Betting Guides
        • Back
        • Betting Guides
        • All Guides
        • Glossary
        • Betting Calculators
          • Back
          • Betting Calculators
          • Odds Converter
          • Parlay Calculator
        • Futures Betting Guide
        • Moneyline Betting Guide
        • Over/Under Betting Guide
        • Parlay Betting Guide
        • Point Spread Betting Guide
        • Prop Betting Guide
        • Sports Betting Guides
          • Back
          • Sports Betting Guides
          • How To Bet On Sports Guide
          • NFL Betting Guide
          • NHL Betting Guide
          • NBA Betting Guide
          • MLB Betting Guide
          • NCAAB Betting Guide
          • NCAAF Betting Guide
          • Golf Betting Guide
          • Tennis Betting Guide
        • Teaser Betting Guide
      • Betting News
        • Back
        • Betting News
        • All News
        • Industry News
        • Podcasts
        • Covers Videos
        • Covers Writers
        • Offers & Boosts
    • Promos
      • Sportsbook Promos
      • Canada Sportsbook Promos
      • Bonuses By Sportsbook
        • Back
        • Bonuses By Sportsbook
        • bet365 Bonus Code
        • BET99 Promo Code
        • BetMGM Bonus Code
        • BetRivers Bonus Code
        • Caesars Sportsbook Promo
        • DraftKings Promo Code
        • Fanatics Sportsbook Promo
        • FanDuel Promo Code
        • Hard Rock Bet Promo Code
        • Sports Interaction Promo
        • Stake Promo Code
        • theScore Bet Promo Code
        • TonyBet Promo Code
      • Bonuses By Region
        • Back
        • Bonuses By Region
        • Arkansas Promos
        • Arizona Promos
        • Colorado Promos
        • Connecticut Promos
        • DC Promos
        • Illinois Promos
        • Indiana Promos
        • Iowa Promos
        • Kansas Promos
        • Kentucky Promos
        • Louisiana Promos
        • Maine Promos
        • Maryland Promos
        • Massachusetts Promos
        • Michigan Promos
        • Missouri Promos
        • New Jersey Promos
        • New York Promos
        • North Carolina Promos
        • Ohio Promos
        • Pennsylvania Promos
        • Tennessee Promos
        • Vermont Promos
        • Virginia Promos
        • West Virginia Promos
        • Wyoming Promos
    • Forum & Contests
      • All Forums
      • NFL Betting Forum
      • MLB Betting Forum
      • NCAAB Betting Forum
      • NCAAF Betting Forum
      • NBA Betting Forum
      • NHL Betting Forum
      • Soccer Betting Forum
      • Contests
        • Back
        • Contests
        • Contests Home
        • Streak Survivor
        • King of Covers
        • My Contests
    • Casino
      • Sweepstakes Casino
        • Back
        • Sweepstakes Casino
        • Sweepstakes Casino
        • Sweepstakes No-Deposit Bonuses
        • Sweepstakes Promos
          • Back
          • Sweepstakes Promos
          • Card Crush
          • Casino.click
          • Chanced Casino
          • Crown Coins Casino
          • FreeSpin Casino
          • LoneStar
          • McLuck
          • Mega Bonanza Casino
          • PlayFame
          • Pulsz
          • Stake.us
      • US Casinos
        • Back
        • US Casinos
        • US Online Casinos
        • US Online Casino Bonuses
        • Casino Promos
          • Back
          • Casino Promos
          • bet365 Casino Promo Code
          • BetRivers Casino Promo
          • Borgata Casino Bonus Code
          • Caesars Casino Bonus Code
          • DraftKings Casino Promo
          • Fanatics Casino Promo
          • FanDuel Casino Promo Code
          • Golden Nugget Casino Promo
          • Hard Rock Bet Casino Promo
          • Hollywood Casino Promo Code
      • Canada Casinos
        • Back
        • Canada Casinos
        • Canada Online Casinos
        • Provinces
          • Back
          • Provinces
          • Alberta Online Casino
          • BC Online Casino
          • Ontario Online Casinos
        • Casino Promos
          • Back
          • Casino Promos
          • BC.GAME Bonus Code
          • Cloudbet Promo Code
          • RainBet Promo Code
          • Roobet Promo Code
          • Shuffle Promo Code
          • Thrill Promo Code
    • Prediction Markets
      • Prediction Markets
      • Prediction Market Apps
      • Prediction Market Promos
      • Kalshi Promo Code
      • Kalshi Referral Code
      • Polymarket Promo Code
      • Polymarket Referral Code
      • DraftKings Predictions Promo Code
      • Novig Promo Code
      • ProphetX Promo Code
      • Underdog Promo Code
      • Betr Promo Code
      • OG Promo Code
      • Fanatics Markets Promo Code
      • Plus500 Promo Code
      • Gemini Predictions Promo Code
    • NFL Week 7
      NFL Week 7
      • NFL Odds
      • NFL Picks
      • NFL Prediction Markets
      • NFL Betting Sites
    Covers Account
    Log in Create account
    Join free Log in
    All Forums | Politics

    White House lashes out at 'embarrassing' Senate veto override

    12 Next Last»
    zelo123
    ClubDirt
    Killer_B
    666LES
    wallstreetcappers
    ...
    Participants:
    Search
    Views: 964
    Posts: 32
    12 Next Last»
     
    zelo123
    zelo123
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: May, 2014
    Posts: 5289
    Posted: Sep. 28, 2016 - 2:50 PM ET #1

    The White House lashed out at the Senate Wednesday for overriding President Obama’s veto of legislation that would allow U.S. citizens to sue Saudi Arabia over the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. 

    “I would venture to say that this is the single most embarrassing thing that the United States Senate has done, possibly, since 1983,” when the Senate voted 95-0 to override President Ronald Reagan's veto of a land bill, Obama spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters aboard Air Force One. 

    Earnest responded a reporter who informed him the vote was the most overwhelming since that year, when the chamber vetoed a land bill that would have given a few acres to six retired couples who paid for it but later learned that it was still government property because of a surveying error.

     

    The Senate voted 97-1 Wednesday to override Obama’s veto and the House is expected to hold its override vote on Wednesday afternoon, which is expected to pass by a wide margin.

    The veto override was a major blow to Obama, prompting questions about his diminishing sway over Capitol Hill and foreign policy months before he leaves office. 

    Earnest’s unusually harsh words are an effort to shame lawmakers for their support for the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which passed unanimously through both chambers earlier this year. 

    For weeks, White House officials have accused members of Congress of failing to publicly express the reservations about the measure that they have spoken about privately. 

    Earnest seized on comments made by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who told reporters that Judiciary Committee members didn’t pay much attention to the legislation until it came to the floor. 

    Corker suggested senators backed the measure because no one wanted to break with 9/11 victims and their families who support the measure. 

    “To have members of the United States Senate only recently informed of the negative impact of this bill on our service members and on our diplomats is in itself embarrassing,” Earnest said. 

    “For those senators then to move forward on overriding the president’s veto that would prevent those negative consequences is an abdication of their basic responsibilities of representatives of the American people.”

    Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was the sole vote to sustain Obama’s veto. Not a single Democrat came to the Senate floor before the vote to argue in favor of Obama’s position.

    Obama expressed grave concerns about the measure in his veto message last Friday, warning JASTA would improperly involve U.S. courts in national security matters, including whether foreign governments should be considered state sponsors of terror.

    He also said it would undermine the concept of sovereign immunity, putting American diplomats, military service members and government assets abroad at risk of legal action, should other countries pass reciprocal laws. 

    The White House is also wary of angering the Saudi government, which strongly opposes the bill. The U.S.-Saudi alliance has been tested under Obama’s watch, especially by last year’s nuclear deal with Iran. 

    But the president’s strong objections fell on deaf ears in Congress, though Obama personally convinced Reid to sustain his veto after a phone conversation and letter. 

    But no other lawmakers were swayed by appeals from the president, his staff or representatives of the Saudi government, which lobbied against the bill. 

    Corker told reporters that Obama put virtually no effort into persuading lawmakers to sustain his veto.

    “Hopefully, these senators are going to have to answer their own conscience and their constituents as they account for their actions today,” Earnest said.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/298290-white-house-lashes-out-at-embarrassing-senate-veto

    Weekend at Hillary's • a few seconds ago

    Thank god the senate put a stop to Hussein's protection of his muslim brethren.

    The Senate voted 97-1 Wednesday to override Obama’s veto and the House is expected to hold its override vote on Wednesday afternoon, which is expected to pass by a wide margin.

    Harry Reid is the only one to side with Obama,what's that tell you?              


    Reply
    To remove first post, remove entire topic.

    The White House lashed out at the Senate Wednesday for overriding President Obama’s veto of legislation that would allow U.S. citizens to sue Saudi Arabia over the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. 

    “I would venture to say that this is the single most embarrassing thing that the United States Senate has done, possibly, since 1983,” when the Senate voted 95-0 to override President Ronald Reagan's veto of a land bill, Obama spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters aboard Air Force One. 

    Earnest responded a reporter who informed him the vote was the most overwhelming since that year, when the chamber vetoed a land bill that would have given a few acres to six retired couples who paid for it but later learned that it was still government property because of a surveying error.

     

    The Senate voted 97-1 Wednesday to override Obama’s veto and the House is expected to hold its override vote on Wednesday afternoon, which is expected to pass by a wide margin.

    The veto override was a major blow to Obama, prompting questions about his diminishing sway over Capitol Hill and foreign policy months before he leaves office. 

    Earnest’s unusually harsh words are an effort to shame lawmakers for their support for the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which passed unanimously through both chambers earlier this year. 

    For weeks, White House officials have accused members of Congress of failing to publicly express the reservations about the measure that they have spoken about privately. 

    Earnest seized on comments made by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who told reporters that Judiciary Committee members didn’t pay much attention to the legislation until it came to the floor. 

    Corker suggested senators backed the measure because no one wanted to break with 9/11 victims and their families who support the measure. 

    “To have members of the United States Senate only recently informed of the negative impact of this bill on our service members and on our diplomats is in itself embarrassing,” Earnest said. 

    “For those senators then to move forward on overriding the president’s veto that would prevent those negative consequences is an abdication of their basic responsibilities of representatives of the American people.”

    Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was the sole vote to sustain Obama’s veto. Not a single Democrat came to the Senate floor before the vote to argue in favor of Obama’s position.

    Obama expressed grave concerns about the measure in his veto message last Friday, warning JASTA would improperly involve U.S. courts in national security matters, including whether foreign governments should be considered state sponsors of terror.

    He also said it would undermine the concept of sovereign immunity, putting American diplomats, military service members and government assets abroad at risk of legal action, should other countries pass reciprocal laws. 

    The White House is also wary of angering the Saudi government, which strongly opposes the bill. The U.S.-Saudi alliance has been tested under Obama’s watch, especially by last year’s nuclear deal with Iran. 

    But the president’s strong objections fell on deaf ears in Congress, though Obama personally convinced Reid to sustain his veto after a phone conversation and letter. 

    But no other lawmakers were swayed by appeals from the president, his staff or representatives of the Saudi government, which lobbied against the bill. 

    Corker told reporters that Obama put virtually no effort into persuading lawmakers to sustain his veto.

    “Hopefully, these senators are going to have to answer their own conscience and their constituents as they account for their actions today,” Earnest said.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/298290-white-house-lashes-out-at-embarrassing-senate-veto

    Weekend at Hillary's • a few seconds ago

    Thank god the senate put a stop to Hussein's protection of his muslim brethren.

    The Senate voted 97-1 Wednesday to override Obama’s veto and the House is expected to hold its override vote on Wednesday afternoon, which is expected to pass by a wide margin.

    Harry Reid is the only one to side with Obama,what's that tell you?              


     
    ClubDirt
    ClubDirt
    Hall of Fame
    Participation Meter
    Joined: May, 2003
    Posts: 28196
    Posted: Sep. 28, 2016 - 2:56 PM ET #2

    this law is such a stupid, shortsighted idea.  if it was a movie, it'd be american sniper. 
    Reply
    this law is such a stupid, shortsighted idea.  if it was a movie, it'd be american sniper. 
     
    Killer_B
    Killer_B
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jan, 2007
    Posts: 6295
    Posted: Sep. 28, 2016 - 3:01 PM ET #3

    King Obama is always correct... 97-1 veto. Certainly, Dirt the King is correct....  How stupid is he? No limits. When was the last time the Senate ever had a 97-1 vote?

    If it can be proven that Saudi Arabian officials had a hand in 911, there should be way more than lawsuits... Iran & Saudi Arabia always get a pass, this could be ending shortly...

    Reply
    King Obama is always correct... 97-1 veto. Certainly, Dirt the King is correct....  How stupid is he? No limits. When was the last time the Senate ever had a 97-1 vote?

    If it can be proven that Saudi Arabian officials had a hand in 911, there should be way more than lawsuits... Iran & Saudi Arabia always get a pass, this could be ending shortly...

     
    666LES
    666LES
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2006
    Posts: 4321
    Posted: Sep. 28, 2016 - 3:07 PM ET #4

    What was the 1st thing George W did on returning to the WhiteHouse on 9/12?
    Secure flights out of the country for Saudi Nationals.
    Reply
    What was the 1st thing George W did on returning to the WhiteHouse on 9/12?
    Secure flights out of the country for Saudi Nationals.
     
    ClubDirt
    ClubDirt
    Hall of Fame
    Participation Meter
    Joined: May, 2003
    Posts: 28196
    Posted: Sep. 28, 2016 - 3:18 PM ET #5

    this is a classic short term thinking, appease the public who are too dumb to understand the implications of such a law. 

    but maybe i'm wrong.  here's my logic.  you tell me where it doesn't make sense.

    basically, this law opens up lawsuits against other countries for wrongdoing but also exposes us to the same lawsuits from people in opther countries. 

    how often do we get attacked in such a way that we can prove some other country was involved?  there was 9/11 (not the BENGHAZI!!!! 9/11 buit the less serious one before that).  that was in 2001. 

    now, how much military presence do we have in other countries?  how many miliatary personnel do we have in other countries?  how many drones do we have dropping bombs on someone or other in other countries?  how many conflicts do we dfeel the need to intervene in in other countries?  how many fuckups do we cause in other countries?

    remember when we bombed the chinese embassy somewhere.  there was the time we bombed a doctors without borders hospital?  how much do you think a lawsuit like that would be worth that taxpayers would have to pay for.

    garbage, earlier this month we just killed a bunch of syrian solders by mistake trying to fight isis but combing a syrian military base by mistake. 

    and those are just a few examples.  you can find more on google.  and that's just the stuff that gets reported.  who knows how many civilians we kill on a regular basis with all of these drones and bombs.

    and now we can get sued for actions that we think are justified but maybe the country where we are doing this garbage, where the lawsuit would take place, thinks otherwise. 

    so, tell me why it makes sense to open ourselves up to those kinds of lawsuits just so we can sue saudi arabia for 9/11.
    Reply
    this is a classic short term thinking, appease the public who are too dumb to understand the implications of such a law. 

    but maybe i'm wrong.  here's my logic.  you tell me where it doesn't make sense.

    basically, this law opens up lawsuits against other countries for wrongdoing but also exposes us to the same lawsuits from people in opther countries. 

    how often do we get attacked in such a way that we can prove some other country was involved?  there was 9/11 (not the BENGHAZI!!!! 9/11 buit the less serious one before that).  that was in 2001. 

    now, how much military presence do we have in other countries?  how many miliatary personnel do we have in other countries?  how many drones do we have dropping bombs on someone or other in other countries?  how many conflicts do we dfeel the need to intervene in in other countries?  how many fuckups do we cause in other countries?

    remember when we bombed the chinese embassy somewhere.  there was the time we bombed a doctors without borders hospital?  how much do you think a lawsuit like that would be worth that taxpayers would have to pay for.

    garbage, earlier this month we just killed a bunch of syrian solders by mistake trying to fight isis but combing a syrian military base by mistake. 

    and those are just a few examples.  you can find more on google.  and that's just the stuff that gets reported.  who knows how many civilians we kill on a regular basis with all of these drones and bombs.

    and now we can get sued for actions that we think are justified but maybe the country where we are doing this garbage, where the lawsuit would take place, thinks otherwise. 

    so, tell me why it makes sense to open ourselves up to those kinds of lawsuits just so we can sue saudi arabia for 9/11.
     
    wallstreetcappers
    wallstreetcappers
    Covers Linesmen
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2003
    Posts: 58436
    Posted: Sep. 28, 2016 - 3:27 PM ET #6

    Gee I wonder if Obama knew it would be overridden from the beginning.

    Reply
    Gee I wonder if Obama knew it would be overridden from the beginning.

     
    ClubDirt
    ClubDirt
    Hall of Fame
    Participation Meter
    Joined: May, 2003
    Posts: 28196
    Posted: Sep. 28, 2016 - 3:32 PM ET #7

    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

    Gee I wonder if Obama knew it would be overridden from the beginning.




    yeah i wonder. 


    the only guy facing term limits wants to actually take a look at the big, but painfully obvious, picture and see how dumb this is for the country.  and harry reid. 

    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

    Gee I wonder if Obama knew it would be overridden from the beginning.




    yeah i wonder. 


    the only guy facing term limits wants to actually take a look at the big, but painfully obvious, picture and see how dumb this is for the country.  and harry reid. 

     
    TILTOLOGIC
    TILTOLOGIC
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2007
    Posts: 5527
    Posted: Sep. 28, 2016 - 3:35 PM ET #8

    this is an incredibly stupid law, and its also a good snapshot of the hopeless dysfunction in DC






    Reply
    this is an incredibly stupid law, and its also a good snapshot of the hopeless dysfunction in DC






     
    ClubDirt
    ClubDirt
    Hall of Fame
    Participation Meter
    Joined: May, 2003
    Posts: 28196
    Posted: Sep. 28, 2016 - 3:44 PM ET #9

    we are currently using drones to bomb people in at least four countries (pakistan, afghanistan, somalia and yemen) and that doesn't include other bombings in places like syria and libya.  and who knows what else we are doing that isn't being publicized.


    but no one in congress wants to be that person to vote against such a patriotic law allowing us to sue saudi arabia for that time we were attacked 15 years ago. 
    Reply
    we are currently using drones to bomb people in at least four countries (pakistan, afghanistan, somalia and yemen) and that doesn't include other bombings in places like syria and libya.  and who knows what else we are doing that isn't being publicized.


    but no one in congress wants to be that person to vote against such a patriotic law allowing us to sue saudi arabia for that time we were attacked 15 years ago. 
     
    ClubDirt
    ClubDirt
    Hall of Fame
    Participation Meter
    Joined: May, 2003
    Posts: 28196
    Posted: Sep. 28, 2016 - 3:51 PM ET #10

    Quote Originally Posted by TILTOLOGIC:

    this is an incredibly stupid law, and its also a good snapshot of the hopeless dysfunction in DC









    yes, this is a product of dysfunction  you have people in congress who are terrified of what a vote against this would look like in an opponent's 30 second TV ad when explaining why this is a bad law might take five minutes and therefore is not possible during the kinds of campaigns we have today with all the misinformation and low attention spans they deal with.

    so, these guys get elected and priority number 1 is job preservation while doing something that is forward looking for taxpayers and the country is nowhere on the list of priorities. 
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by TILTOLOGIC:

    this is an incredibly stupid law, and its also a good snapshot of the hopeless dysfunction in DC









    yes, this is a product of dysfunction  you have people in congress who are terrified of what a vote against this would look like in an opponent's 30 second TV ad when explaining why this is a bad law might take five minutes and therefore is not possible during the kinds of campaigns we have today with all the misinformation and low attention spans they deal with.

    so, these guys get elected and priority number 1 is job preservation while doing something that is forward looking for taxpayers and the country is nowhere on the list of priorities. 
     
    idle_havoc
    idle_havoc
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Nov, 2011
    Posts: 4519
    Posted: Sep. 28, 2016 - 4:37 PM ET #11

    What makes people think the Saudi's will even pay up after being sued.
    Dumb law and waste of time
    Gotta go pee!
    Reply
    What makes people think the Saudi's will even pay up after being sued.
    Dumb law and waste of time
     
    Killer_B
    Killer_B
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jan, 2007
    Posts: 6295
    Posted: Sep. 28, 2016 - 6:57 PM ET #12

    We're talking about Saudi government officials being part of a terrorist plot against civilians, wrecking an economy, a way of life and killing 3,000 people. Not drone strikes trying to kill terrorists... Fk Saudi Arabia, 15 of 19 of them were from there. Coincidence? I doubt it... 
    Reply
    We're talking about Saudi government officials being part of a terrorist plot against civilians, wrecking an economy, a way of life and killing 3,000 people. Not drone strikes trying to kill terrorists... Fk Saudi Arabia, 15 of 19 of them were from there. Coincidence? I doubt it... 
     
    MaineRoad
    MaineRoad
    All-Star
    Participation Meter
    Joined: May, 2005
    Posts: 12254
    Posted: Sep. 28, 2016 - 7:47 PM ET #13

    At least we finally found something that damn near everyone could agree on. 
    Reply
    At least we finally found something that damn near everyone could agree on. 
     
    TILTOLOGIC
    TILTOLOGIC
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2007
    Posts: 5527
    Posted: Sep. 28, 2016 - 8:13 PM ET #14

    [Quote: Originally Posted by ClubDirt]


    yes, this is a product of dysfunction  you have people in congress who are terrified of what a vote against this would look like in an opponent's 30 second TV ad when explaining why this is a bad law might take five minutes and therefore is not possible during the kinds of campaigns we have today with all the misinformation and low attention spans they deal with.

    so, these guys get elected and priority number 1 is job preservation while doing something that is forward looking for taxpayers and the country is nowhere on the list of priorities. 



    Real, consequential change seems impossible at this point, I expect a complete breakdown in DC if Hillary wins.Trump movement isn't going anywhere and wiill take sore losing to a new level, plus she'll be seen as a fraud.   We ain't seen nothing yet i'm afraid.  hope I'm wrong 
    Reply
    [Quote: Originally Posted by ClubDirt]


    yes, this is a product of dysfunction  you have people in congress who are terrified of what a vote against this would look like in an opponent's 30 second TV ad when explaining why this is a bad law might take five minutes and therefore is not possible during the kinds of campaigns we have today with all the misinformation and low attention spans they deal with.

    so, these guys get elected and priority number 1 is job preservation while doing something that is forward looking for taxpayers and the country is nowhere on the list of priorities. 



    Real, consequential change seems impossible at this point, I expect a complete breakdown in DC if Hillary wins.Trump movement isn't going anywhere and wiill take sore losing to a new level, plus she'll be seen as a fraud.   We ain't seen nothing yet i'm afraid.  hope I'm wrong 
     
    jdr016
    jdr016
    Banned
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2006
    Posts: 6591
    Posted: Sep. 28, 2016 - 8:47 PM ET #15

    Serious question. Are U.S. citizens allowed to sue the Bush administration over 9/11? 
    Reply
    Serious question. Are U.S. citizens allowed to sue the Bush administration over 9/11? 
     
    djbrow
    djbrow
    Covers Referee
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2004
    Posts: 15759
    Posted: Sep. 28, 2016 - 11:16 PM ET #16

    Just crazy. I mean, to address the last post, do you think that Bush feels great that 9/11 happened on his watch, Don't you think if he had the chance, he would have done anything in the world to prevent it?

    I mean, disagree with the guy all you want, but it doesn't mean he doesn't love his country and its people, albeit with differences. Same with Obama. 

    Pretty much all of the above posts are right. I actually think if this was first term Obama and he was running again, he would have signed it. 

    It sounds good. After all, we need someone to blame and no doubt, the Saudi's are a good starting point. Hell, even Hezbollah said that Saudi extremists are worse than Israel (did everyone see that...I mean just crazy). 

    But talk about lip service. Club is right when he talks about it opening us up to lawsuits. 

    Does everyone understand how international law works and how judgments are satisfied by freezing a countries assets? Anyone want to guess at how much foreign countries invest in the US (think China). I mean, there really isn't a better way to stunt foreign investment than allowing a country to think its assets may be frozen.

    But I digress...

    I mean I realize that Trump supporters think we can be self-sufficient absent trade agreements, but we cannot. Where he is right is how NAFTA has allowed our companies to profit by going elsewhere but that is a a separate issue. We can remedy NAFTA problems exactly how he discussed (by penalizing the company). But we cannot become isolationist when we rely on 95% of the products from other countries. 


    Reply
    Just crazy. I mean, to address the last post, do you think that Bush feels great that 9/11 happened on his watch, Don't you think if he had the chance, he would have done anything in the world to prevent it?

    I mean, disagree with the guy all you want, but it doesn't mean he doesn't love his country and its people, albeit with differences. Same with Obama. 

    Pretty much all of the above posts are right. I actually think if this was first term Obama and he was running again, he would have signed it. 

    It sounds good. After all, we need someone to blame and no doubt, the Saudi's are a good starting point. Hell, even Hezbollah said that Saudi extremists are worse than Israel (did everyone see that...I mean just crazy). 

    But talk about lip service. Club is right when he talks about it opening us up to lawsuits. 

    Does everyone understand how international law works and how judgments are satisfied by freezing a countries assets? Anyone want to guess at how much foreign countries invest in the US (think China). I mean, there really isn't a better way to stunt foreign investment than allowing a country to think its assets may be frozen.

    But I digress...

    I mean I realize that Trump supporters think we can be self-sufficient absent trade agreements, but we cannot. Where he is right is how NAFTA has allowed our companies to profit by going elsewhere but that is a a separate issue. We can remedy NAFTA problems exactly how he discussed (by penalizing the company). But we cannot become isolationist when we rely on 95% of the products from other countries. 


     
    Killer_B
    Killer_B
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jan, 2007
    Posts: 6295
    Posted: Sep. 28, 2016 - 11:20 PM ET #17

    Quote Originally Posted by 666LES:

    What was the 1st thing George W did on returning to the WhiteHouse on 9/12?
    Secure flights out of the country for Saudi Nationals.

    Fine. That was wrong as well, not to mention 15 years ago. The main difference between a lefty/righty is that the lefty rarely if ever disagrees with a move from their guy... I'm a conservative, I don't agree with giving Saudi Arabia or Iran a pass (then or now)... Now fast forward to today. Do you agree with King Obama's veto or not? 
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by 666LES:

    What was the 1st thing George W did on returning to the WhiteHouse on 9/12?
    Secure flights out of the country for Saudi Nationals.

    Fine. That was wrong as well, not to mention 15 years ago. The main difference between a lefty/righty is that the lefty rarely if ever disagrees with a move from their guy... I'm a conservative, I don't agree with giving Saudi Arabia or Iran a pass (then or now)... Now fast forward to today. Do you agree with King Obama's veto or not? 
     
    ClubDirt
    ClubDirt
    Hall of Fame
    Participation Meter
    Joined: May, 2003
    Posts: 28196
    Posted: Sep. 29, 2016 - 9:54 AM ET #18

    Quote Originally Posted by jdr016:

    Serious question. Are U.S. citizens allowed to sue the Bush administration over 9/11? 


    the short answer, for me, is, i don't know.  presidents have immunity while they are in office.  i would think they lose that immunity once they are out of office.  i'm not sure that means you can sue them for something they did while in office but only after they are finished or you are limited to things that occur only after they are out of office.

    there's probably an answer on google somewhere.

    but the rule giving a president and certain other members of government immunity while in office is based on the idea that we don't need these gjuys spending time and taxpayer money defending lawsuits when they should be working, making the country great [again].  however, i'd probably be in favor of removing this immunity for members of congress since those people don't do anything but beg for money for their next election. 
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by jdr016:

    Serious question. Are U.S. citizens allowed to sue the Bush administration over 9/11? 


    the short answer, for me, is, i don't know.  presidents have immunity while they are in office.  i would think they lose that immunity once they are out of office.  i'm not sure that means you can sue them for something they did while in office but only after they are finished or you are limited to things that occur only after they are out of office.

    there's probably an answer on google somewhere.

    but the rule giving a president and certain other members of government immunity while in office is based on the idea that we don't need these gjuys spending time and taxpayer money defending lawsuits when they should be working, making the country great [again].  however, i'd probably be in favor of removing this immunity for members of congress since those people don't do anything but beg for money for their next election. 
     
    ClubDirt
    ClubDirt
    Hall of Fame
    Participation Meter
    Joined: May, 2003
    Posts: 28196
    Posted: Sep. 29, 2016 - 10:12 AM ET #19

    Quote Originally Posted by TILTOLOGIC:

    Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:




    yes, this is a product of dysfunction  you have people in congress who are terrified of what a vote against this would look like in an opponent's 30 second TV ad when explaining why this is a bad law might take five minutes and therefore is not possible during the kinds of campaigns we have today with all the misinformation and low attention spans they deal with.

    so, these guys get elected and priority number 1 is job preservation while doing something that is forward looking for taxpayers and the country is nowhere on the list of priorities. 



    Real, consequential change seems impossible at this point, I expect a complete breakdown in DC if Hillary wins.Trump movement isn't going anywhere and wiill take sore losing to a new level, plus she'll be seen as a fraud.   We ain't seen nothing yet i'm afraid.  hope I'm wrong 



    it will be interesting, and probably not in a good way.  trump better not disappoint with his reaction if he loses. 


    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by TILTOLOGIC:

    Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:




    yes, this is a product of dysfunction  you have people in congress who are terrified of what a vote against this would look like in an opponent's 30 second TV ad when explaining why this is a bad law might take five minutes and therefore is not possible during the kinds of campaigns we have today with all the misinformation and low attention spans they deal with.

    so, these guys get elected and priority number 1 is job preservation while doing something that is forward looking for taxpayers and the country is nowhere on the list of priorities. 



    Real, consequential change seems impossible at this point, I expect a complete breakdown in DC if Hillary wins.Trump movement isn't going anywhere and wiill take sore losing to a new level, plus she'll be seen as a fraud.   We ain't seen nothing yet i'm afraid.  hope I'm wrong 



    it will be interesting, and probably not in a good way.  trump better not disappoint with his reaction if he loses. 


     
    mainman11111
    mainman11111
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jan, 2016
    Posts: 1083
    Posted: Sep. 29, 2016 - 11:46 AM ET #20

    zzz

    if you can figure out 9/11 u'd be half as smart.

    there is a reason why bush was reading to school kids when it happened.
    Reply
    zzz

    if you can figure out 9/11 u'd be half as smart.

    there is a reason why bush was reading to school kids when it happened.
     
    djbrow
    djbrow
    Covers Referee
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2004
    Posts: 15759
    Posted: Sep. 29, 2016 - 1:49 PM ET #21

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:


    I can't speak for "Trump supporters" because I am not one, but I will clarify Trumps position on foreign trade for the sake of accuracy.

    Our outgoing products get tariffed on an extreme level, while incoming products do not. This has to stop.

    Foreign countries are devaluing this currency, which needs to be factored into all trade agreements, to keep it from being manipulated. 

    U.S. manufacturers are leaving the country at an alarming rate, causing 100's of thousands to lose their jobs, not to mention we lose that corporate tax revenue. We MUST provide an incentive for them to stay. HRC's plan to increase their tax rate sounds real neat to the average middle class, or low income voter, but the ramifications of it will be dire 

    Our reasons for minimal tariffs on incoming products is more based on our culture and desire for cheap products. The point I was referring to is when a company maintains its headquarters in the US but ships it's factories out and allows products to enter tax and tariff free while we still protect the headquarters on our soil. Pure insanity
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:


    I can't speak for "Trump supporters" because I am not one, but I will clarify Trumps position on foreign trade for the sake of accuracy.

    Our outgoing products get tariffed on an extreme level, while incoming products do not. This has to stop.

    Foreign countries are devaluing this currency, which needs to be factored into all trade agreements, to keep it from being manipulated. 

    U.S. manufacturers are leaving the country at an alarming rate, causing 100's of thousands to lose their jobs, not to mention we lose that corporate tax revenue. We MUST provide an incentive for them to stay. HRC's plan to increase their tax rate sounds real neat to the average middle class, or low income voter, but the ramifications of it will be dire 

    Our reasons for minimal tariffs on incoming products is more based on our culture and desire for cheap products. The point I was referring to is when a company maintains its headquarters in the US but ships it's factories out and allows products to enter tax and tariff free while we still protect the headquarters on our soil. Pure insanity
     
    ClubDirt
    ClubDirt
    Hall of Fame
    Participation Meter
    Joined: May, 2003
    Posts: 28196
    Posted: Sep. 29, 2016 - 10:07 PM ET #22

    sounds like these morons in congress finally realize the problem.  only after the pass the bill, obama vetoes it and they override the veto. 

    of course, this is the best part of the article:

    But Republicans said the White House didn’t make a forceful case, putting themselves in the awkward position of blaming the president for a bill they enacted into law over Obama’s veto.



    sweet jesus, these are the people running our country. 


    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-29/congress-signals-regret-after-overriding-veto-of-saudi-9-11-bill?utm_content=politics&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-politics
    Reply
    sounds like these morons in congress finally realize the problem.  only after the pass the bill, obama vetoes it and they override the veto. 

    of course, this is the best part of the article:

    But Republicans said the White House didn’t make a forceful case, putting themselves in the awkward position of blaming the president for a bill they enacted into law over Obama’s veto.



    sweet jesus, these are the people running our country. 


    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-29/congress-signals-regret-after-overriding-veto-of-saudi-9-11-bill?utm_content=politics&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-politics
     
    Killer_B
    Killer_B
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jan, 2007
    Posts: 6295
    Posted: Sep. 29, 2016 - 11:43 PM ET #23

    Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

    sounds like these morons in congress finally realize the problem.  only after the pass the bill, obama vetoes it and they override the veto. 

    of course, this is the best part of the article:

    But Republicans said the White House didn’t make a forceful case, putting themselves in the awkward position of blaming the president for a bill they enacted into law over Obama’s veto.



    sweet jesus, these are the people running our country. 


    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-29/congress-signals-regret-after-overriding-veto-of-saudi-9-11-bill?utm_content=politics&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-politics


    That's the world we live in now dirt... They have to apologize for doing the right thing... Someone should spike a football over this veto. This is how insane it's become, this idiot actually believes that the victims of 911 don't have the right to sue a government that killed their loved ones... The excuse the administration is providing is ridiculous... That was an act of war, the people responsible that assisted them fuks should be hunted down and killed actually.
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

    sounds like these morons in congress finally realize the problem.  only after the pass the bill, obama vetoes it and they override the veto. 

    of course, this is the best part of the article:

    But Republicans said the White House didn’t make a forceful case, putting themselves in the awkward position of blaming the president for a bill they enacted into law over Obama’s veto.



    sweet jesus, these are the people running our country. 


    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-29/congress-signals-regret-after-overriding-veto-of-saudi-9-11-bill?utm_content=politics&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-politics


    That's the world we live in now dirt... They have to apologize for doing the right thing... Someone should spike a football over this veto. This is how insane it's become, this idiot actually believes that the victims of 911 don't have the right to sue a government that killed their loved ones... The excuse the administration is providing is ridiculous... That was an act of war, the people responsible that assisted them fuks should be hunted down and killed actually.
     
    dl36
    dl36
    Banned
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jul, 2003
    Posts: 27850
    Posted: Sep. 30, 2016 - 12:18 AM ET #24

    Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

    sounds like these morons in congress finally realize the problem.  only after the pass the bill, obama vetoes it and they override the veto. 

    of course, this is the best part of the article:

    But Republicans said the White House didn’t make a forceful case, putting themselves in the awkward position of blaming the president for a bill they enacted into law over Obama’s veto.



    sweet jesus, these are the people running our country. 


    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-29/congress-signals-regret-after-overriding-veto-of-saudi-9-11-bill?utm_content=politics&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-politics

    Perhaps this why the approval rating for the legislative branch is so low. 
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

    sounds like these morons in congress finally realize the problem.  only after the pass the bill, obama vetoes it and they override the veto. 

    of course, this is the best part of the article:

    But Republicans said the White House didn’t make a forceful case, putting themselves in the awkward position of blaming the president for a bill they enacted into law over Obama’s veto.



    sweet jesus, these are the people running our country. 


    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-29/congress-signals-regret-after-overriding-veto-of-saudi-9-11-bill?utm_content=politics&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-politics

    Perhaps this why the approval rating for the legislative branch is so low. 
     
     
    SarasotaSlim
    SarasotaSlim
    Covers Rehab
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jan, 2007
    Posts: 35543
    Posted: Sep. 30, 2016 - 1:44 AM ET #25

    Congress wasn't completely lame ..they acted quickly..... 11 days after the attacks claimed more than 2,700 lives, Congress created a $7 billion fund to compensate 5,562 family members of the fallen. Payments went to widows and widowers, children and parents.

    The payment for death claims averaged $2,083,000 for families, while compensation for injury claims averaged $400,000.


    Compensation started at $250,000 for relatives of the lowest-paid breadwinners -- those who earned up to $20,000 per year. Payments for victims in the highest salary bracket of $220,000 or more were much higher; some families received as much as $7.1 million.

    ..and 56 of the 95 victims  settled with the airlines for a total of over $500 million..

    The First Responders Bill, also known as the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. The act set aside $4.3 billion in federal funds to cover all costs for treating certain 9/11 related illnesses among first responders and survivors and to provide compensation to victims.

    Compensation started at $250,000 for relatives of the lowest-paid breadwinners -- those who earned up to $20,000 per year. Payments for victims in the highest salary bracket of $220,000 or more were much higher; some families received as much as $7.1 million.

    Also private fund s awarded $80 million in college scholarships to children, spouses and domestic partners of Sept. 11 victims. Families of Freedom Scholarship Fund..

    Regardless,,of the compensation they have already received nothing could replace the husbands/wives they had lost and the destruction 9/11 caused their families...but in this case I think President Obama is right ...Sovereign immunity is a doctrine in international law that should not be broken..if the 9/11 families need additional  compensation we should find another way of doing it..the drone program alone will cause America to pay more money than Saudis will ever have to pay the 9/11 victims..

    Reply
    Congress wasn't completely lame ..they acted quickly..... 11 days after the attacks claimed more than 2,700 lives, Congress created a $7 billion fund to compensate 5,562 family members of the fallen. Payments went to widows and widowers, children and parents.

    The payment for death claims averaged $2,083,000 for families, while compensation for injury claims averaged $400,000.


    Compensation started at $250,000 for relatives of the lowest-paid breadwinners -- those who earned up to $20,000 per year. Payments for victims in the highest salary bracket of $220,000 or more were much higher; some families received as much as $7.1 million.

    ..and 56 of the 95 victims  settled with the airlines for a total of over $500 million..

    The First Responders Bill, also known as the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. The act set aside $4.3 billion in federal funds to cover all costs for treating certain 9/11 related illnesses among first responders and survivors and to provide compensation to victims.

    Compensation started at $250,000 for relatives of the lowest-paid breadwinners -- those who earned up to $20,000 per year. Payments for victims in the highest salary bracket of $220,000 or more were much higher; some families received as much as $7.1 million.

    Also private fund s awarded $80 million in college scholarships to children, spouses and domestic partners of Sept. 11 victims. Families of Freedom Scholarship Fund..

    Regardless,,of the compensation they have already received nothing could replace the husbands/wives they had lost and the destruction 9/11 caused their families...but in this case I think President Obama is right ...Sovereign immunity is a doctrine in international law that should not be broken..if the 9/11 families need additional  compensation we should find another way of doing it..the drone program alone will cause America to pay more money than Saudis will ever have to pay the 9/11 victims..

    All Forums | Politics
    12 Next Last»

    Hot Forums IconHot Forum Topics

    • Thursday 10/22/2026 937
    • Patriots vs Bears in-game live TNF 1,957
    • NFL LOCKED IN! 109,721
    • Thursday”s POD 2,860
    • NFL THREAD * 151 * 27,068
    • Patriots@Bears discussion 3,644
    • Public Indicator Calculations 2026 23,668
    • Week 8 Money 7,697
    • Republicans push back against the lunatic Trump and his team of liars. 23,327
    • ***Macwesties * Thur. * Sun. Oct. 22, 25, 2026 * NFL * Week #7 * Football Plays*** 3,320

    Warning - External Link

    Report User

    Thank you for reporting
    This content is abusive or harmful
    This post is spam
    An error has occurred
    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    Delete Post

    Are you sure you would like to remove this post?

    Remove Thread

    Are you sure you would like to remove this thread?

    Scan Results

    Login/Register

    Happy to have you join the conversation. To do so, please login or create an account.
    Accounts are free and easy to create.

    Search


    Loading…

    Loading…

    About Us
    Contact Us
    Careers
    Our Team
    Brand
    Testimonials
    Betting Guides
    Sportsbook Reviews
    Betting News
    Podcasts
    Responsible Gambling
    Betting Sites
    US Betting Sites
    Canada Betting Sites
    Canada Casinos
    Best Betting Apps
    Contests
    Streak Survivor
    King of Covers
    Ultimate Race
    Office Pools
    The Covers community has
    810,221
    lifetime members worldwide
    Join our community today
    Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
    Covers is the world
    leader in sports
    betting information.
    21+
    Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
    Help Privacy Privacy Choices Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
    YouTube logo
    Facebook logo
    Twitter logo
    Instagram logo
    LinkedIn logo
    Google News logo
    Covers is verified safe by:
    Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo
    Covers Logo
    Copyright © 1995 - 2026 Genius Sports. All Rights Reserved.
    If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.