Foul

My goodness, we have a bunch of spoiled angry children in Washington these days....

We're still getting over the dubious decision to invite Netenyahu to speak to Congress and publicly directly attempt to influence American policy (AFAIK we've never allowed a UK prime minister to do this, even during WWII).

And now, Senator Tom Cotton-R AK and 46 other US senators send a letter to Iran, telling them that they will scuttle the deal, so don't bother negotiating. Cotton's suggestion on how to proceed? "Iran should just submit to intrusive searches whenever we want. Anything else and we should be considering a military response".

We're starting to hit the warning track on treason, IMHO. Certainly, we have lost any concept of separation of powers. I do not agree with a lot of the executive overreach by the current president (or his predecessor for that matter), but I agree with this even less. This is dangerous. They're telling the world that the US cannot negotiate in good faith, because partisan politics matter too much to them and they won't honor commitments if they want to make a partisan point.

Thoughts everyone?

Hi Don long time no see mate. ~:wave:

Well it's politicians isn't it? Unfortunately we elect these sociopaths into power, so what can you expect. At least you have some sort of opposition over there in the colonies, here in the UK all the three main parties look/sound/lie the same.

You need a version of UKIP so you can frighten the main two parties into listening to the people. Not the other way around.

How are they not in violation of the Logan Act? This isnt treason per say as the US is not at war with Iran, but it definitely is sedition of some sort.

Republicans.

Hang them with Snowden

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

This is dangerous. They're telling the world that the US cannot negotiate in good faith, because partisan politics matter too much to them and they won't honor commitments if they want to make a partisan point.

Thoughts everyone?

---

Iran is not the only arena where US party politics have a detrimental effect on solving an international crisis. It's not Putin "driving a wedge" between Europe and the US, but it's hawks in the US pulling Europe and the US apart because of domestic politics. That is indeed a dangerous trend. The world is not a playground and Mr McCain seems far more concerned with "making Obama look weak" than with the Ukrainian population when he demands weapon deliveries worth 3 billion USD.

Repeal the 17th.

If charges are not made of violating the Logan act, this will only normalize the behavior. Likely this won't happen, so it is simply a deterioration of checks and balances. It is sad how rampant partisanship breeds this kind of subversion in both offices. I was not a fan of Obama implementing immigration policy and telling congress to pass a law if they don't like the president acting in congress place.

I remember being 13 years old and being told that once a decision in forgiven policy was made we had to take a United stand. Wait this was in the spring of 2003 so I would have been 12. I remember that clearly Becuase I went to Bennigans with my uncle and grandfather who said they were very happy I was so young, the war would be long over before I could even think about joining.

glad no one died and we found those nukes

Saddest part of that story is you went to bennigans. Those idiots put american cheese on their Monte cristo sandwich.

I'm just struggling to care anymore

When I first read about the letter I had the same thoughts: treason! sedition! hang them all!!!
After regaining consciousness, I realized the Senators are really doing no more than spouting elementary "civics" lessons.
The message of just how weak and divided American politics/policy is atm is an inference that the letters authors are not really responsible for...

I don't know if you have taken a class on this type of law in school, but it sounds like this action is without precedent, so if there is something to care about, this may be worth it. EDIT: this was directed toward strike

Every politicians advocating for war should be obliged to bring at least one close family member in the front line. I suggest Mechanised Infantry as it combined the advantage of the tanks to burn almost alive in a metallic coffin on caterpillars and the traditional Infantry of dying by bullets, shells, gaz, mines etc... Then we agree to send them only...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Republicans.

---

On that note, have to give them credit for continuously being inventive to make themselves more powerful/annoying to the current regime.

Extreme use of filibusting, blocking everything in congress, attempting to pass silly laws to troll, inviting foreign nations, now threatening letters too.

I bet Democrats are secretly kicking themselves that they wish they thought of it first.

So who initiates the Logan Act then?

It wouldn't make sense that it is one of the houses or the executive. So does the judicial system act as a referee when the congressional/senate go up against the executive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

My goodness, we have a bunch of spoiled angry children in Washington these days....

We're still getting over the dubious decision to invite Netenyahu to speak to Congress and publicly directly attempt to influence American policy (AFAIK we've never allowed a UK prime minister to do this, even during WWII).

And now, Senator Tom Cotton-R AK and 46 other US senators send a letter to Iran, telling them that they will scuttle the deal, so don't bother negotiating. Cotton's suggestion on how to proceed? "Iran should just submit to intrusive searches whenever we want. Anything else and we should be considering a military response".

We're starting to hit the warning track on treason, IMHO. Certainly, we have lost any concept of separation of powers. I do not agree with a lot of the executive overreach by the current president (or his predecessor for that matter), but I agree with this even less. This is dangerous. They're telling the world that the US cannot negotiate in good faith, because partisan politics matter too much to them and they won't honor commitments if they want to make a partisan point.

Thoughts everyone?

---

Numerous foreign leaders have addressed a joint session to influence policy -- but rarely when the issues under discussion were quite so divisive within the Congress itself. Churchill came over to rally support for a Germany first focus just 3 weeks after Pearl Harbor, for example. However, as Germany had declared war against the USA, the Congress was not so divided on the issue of war as it had been just 30 days prior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So who initiates the Logan Act then?

---

Possibly the State Department, which would only push such a claim under Obama's blessing.

Looking at it with historian eyes, it is an interesting view on how arrogance and bloated power corrupts the ruling class into infighting and blindly pursuing ideals rather than actually trying to properly rule.

The Republican party needs to crash and burn, then rebuild.

I wish I could say that after the travesty that has already been this term in congress that they will lose their hold in the next election, but then I remember that fear politics always wins out, plus gerrymandering, so they would probably hold onto their seats. The presidency though, I feel will stay Democrat because the GOP is so out of touch with what the rest of the country wants that they have almost no chance, unless the Democrats field someone really terrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

unless the Democrats field someone really terrible.

---

When has that ever happened?

I mean its possible, just unlikely. They know that they need someone good for 2016 otherwise they lose everything. They basically have it in the bag though. The GOP is so out of touch with the rest of the country (still believe in the fantasy of a conservative majority among the population) that they've lost a majority of the country even before the elections started. The only way they won the last elections was because low voter turnout and gerrymandering.

While I disagree with their tactics, the United States cannot be trusted to hold up its end of any treaty or political arrangement, especially when it concerns something as volatile as muslims with nukes.

Seriously, foreign policy changes so vastly every 4-8-12 years, the groups we arm we end up fighting, the groups we fight we end up arming, the US looks out for it's financial and strategic interests first and foremost, it places ambassadorships and foreign positions as political favors, it prosecutes whistleblowers and spies on its allies.

I mean it's not a matter of will America will F*** you, it is a matter of when.

Do I need to give examples?

Wasnt there a poll done in the last couple of years that showed how most people in the world saw the US as the #1 threat to world peace or something?

Husars post on FB just reminded me of even more examples of US exploitation of it's own territories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

I mean its possible

---

Sarcasm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

... I mean it's not a matter of will America will F*** you, it is a matter of when....

---

and America will stand there with a befuddled look on it's face, wondering "how did my penis end up in there?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

and America will stand there with a befuddled look on it's face, wondering "how did my penis end up in there?"

---

And deny that they did it even if the other country has a little blue dress that hasn't gone to the dry cleaner...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

And deny that they did it even if the other country has a little blue dress that hasn't gone to the dry cleaner...

---

AND somehow pass the polygraph while making that statement. It all depends what your definition of 'is' is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

AND somehow pass the polygraph while making that statement. It all depends what your definition of 'is' is.

---

Well I think we can all agree that the definition of 'is' is, is pretty bad if the end product is isis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

AND somehow pass the polygraph while making that statement. It all depends what your definition of 'is' is.

---

That's easy. It wasn't a f***, it was Spreading the Seed of Democracy (tm), totally different.