US Politics: 2017 Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**AegisGrimm**

cuda1179 wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Teachers are up in arms.

As well they should be...

While I do support teachers, the ability to get what you want every time is a bit.... much

I wish! If that was true, and they could get what they wants every time, my wife wouldn't have needed to miss several pay raises over the years. Or buy half her supplies.

**reds8n**

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/02/14/national/politics-diplomacy/abe-says-trump-encouraged-boost-ties-dialogue-putin/#.WKL18W-LSUk

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Monday he has earned U.S. President Donald Trump’s backing in seeking closer ties with Russia in a bid to resolve a long-standing territorial row over islands off Hokkaido that Japan wants returned.

“President Trump understands Japan’s (policy) to promote dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin to resolve the territorial issue,” Abe told a TV program after returning from the United States, where he held his first summit with Trump on Friday and Saturday in Washington and Florida.

Trump has adopted a softer stance toward Russia than his predecessor, Barack Obama, who was at odds with Putin over the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria.

The Obama administration had been cautious about Abe courting Putin with economic cooperation and even requested that he refrain from visiting Russia at one point, government sources said earlier.

Abe also said that he agreed with Trump on the need to engage in dialogue with Putin to resolve outstanding global issues, including Syria and Ukraine.

At their summit Friday, Abe and Trump confirmed the strength of the bilateral alliance, with Trump affirming that the United States is committed to the defense of Japan, including if the Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, which are claimed by China, come under attack.

They also agreed to launch a high-level economic dialogue to be headed by Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso and U.S. Vice President Mike Pence covering trade, macroeconomic policy as well as infrastructure and energy projects, Japanese officials said.

Following the summit at the White House in Washington, the leaders flew together to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago vacation estate in Palm Beach, Florida, where they played golf and had dinner on both Friday and Saturday.

Abe said in the TV program he had “frank talks on the bilateral alliance and regional matters” with Trump over golf.

The prime minister said he believes Trump is “gradually” gaining understanding of the significance of the 12-party Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, although Trump has announced the United States will withdraw from it.

Abe also said Trump, who has been critical of the United States’ trade deficit with Japan, now knows that the “(current) structure is different from that of the trade frictions in the 1980s and 1990s.”

Abe said he explained to Trump that exports of Japanese cars are decreasing compared with the 1980s and 1990s, and more Japanese cars are produced in the United States.

In another TV program on Monday, Abe said that the Trump administration would take a “stronger stance” in addressing the North Korean nuclear threat.

“The Obama administration was cautious about using military power. (But) Mr. Trump has various options on the cards. He thinks he wants to resolve the issue diplomatically,” Abe said.

In the program, Abe also said Trump did not bring up the subject of Japan’s financial contributions for hosting U.S. military forces during any of their meetings.

The Japanese government had been concerned that Trump could urge it to pay more after he repeatedly said during the presidential campaign that Japan and other U.S. allies should cover more of the costs of stationing U.S. forces or else defend themselves.

The issue is “over,” Abe said. “The president made no reference to it. Rather, he expressed gratitude to us for warmly hosting the U.S. Marines.”

.. do you remember the good old days when presidents had, like, briefings prior to meetings and understood things like trade deficits and complicated issues like where cars are made.

.... Still good news for Russia eh ?

**sebster**

So in June Trump said;
"I would rarely leave the White House because there’s so much work to be done. I would not be a president who took vacations. I would not be a president that takes time off. ... You don’t have time to take time off."

At the end of his third week in the office Trump is heading down to Mar-a-Lago for the third time, every weekend of his presidency so far.

We all know politicians lie, but Trump lies so glibly, and then does nothing to even pretend he's trying to keep his promises. At what point do Republican voters notice he's basically treating them with contempt?

Kovnik Obama wrote:

I can only come in support to Sebster by saying that he has often impressed me quite a lot by his understanding of both US and International politics. There are only a handful of people frequenting this site that shows equal quality in their political analysis. Sorry for the brown-nosing Seb, but its true!

Cheers mate

Not so bad yourself

And by saying that there is absolutely something ... "garish" ... about US politics, in general, but with the Republican Party in particular. The more or less recent push toward mass mis/disinformation as a valid tactic, the downgrading in quality of candidates, the overall tone and (lack of) content in debates... the disgusting hypocrisy in the bile reserved for H. Clinton... As much as I despise our crooked liberals, our biblethumping cons and our racists rednecks, there is nothing in the world that could tempt me to trade them for yours.

I saw a good piece in the lead up to the election asking what happened to decency. The writer wasn't pretending things were ever clean, but there used to be a notion that you at least had to pretend to be decent. Trump is not only suffers no penalty for his bullying, no nothing attacks, but it seems to be a major part of his appeal.

**Frazzled**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
It's a perverse incentive to allow public sector unions to directly negotiate for pay/benefits against the state...

Wait, I thought you were a conservative? How can you be against private citizens negotiating contract terms to sell their labor for whatever price they can get on the market? Are you now against free markets and in favor of state-controlled business?

You know your politics are pretty leftwing when you are too radical for FDR...

**d-usa**

Conway gave a painful interview on the Today show this morning.

**Witzkatz**

d-usa wrote:
Conway gave a painful interview on the Today show this morning.

Just found it... Very much evading the straight answers and trying to change the topic, but that is what I came to expect of her. She swayed between two positions, making it sound like he was actively removed for (perhaps good) reasons, and then still claiming it was an overnight decision just on Flynn's shoulders - while simultaneously claiming she was never out of the loop on this?

On another note, I just read an article that prime minister Abe, back from his visit with Trump, now stated he'd like to "mediate" between Trump and chancellor Merkel in the upcoming weeks and try to "convey Trump's way of thinking" to other foreign leaders. I wonder what he exactly has in mind with that?

**jmurph**

Witzkatz wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Conway gave a painful interview on the Today show this morning.

Just found it... Very much evading the straight answers and trying to change the topic, but that is what I came to expect of her. She swayed between two positions, making it sound like he was actively removed for (perhaps good) reasons, and then still claiming it was an overnight decision just on Flynn's shoulders - while simultaneously claiming she was never out of the loop on this?

On another note, I just read an article that prime minister Abe, back from his visit with Trump, now stated he'd like to "mediate" between Trump and chancellor Merkel in the upcoming weeks and try to "convey Trump's way of thinking" to other foreign leaders. I wonder what he exactly has in mind with that?

It's a pretty brilliant political move by Abe as it paints him as strong, without undermining the US relationship and an uninformed, petty president. Likewise, it lets Abe mediate and reinforce ties with other western powers as Trump flounders. As a central diplomatic figure, Abe can push Japanese interests with potential support from the US, Russian, Germany, etc. without looking aggressive.

**whembly**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
So, did Flynn fall foul of the Logan Act?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

No, because as a private citizen at the time he doesn't have the negotiating powah of the state.

This law is one of those outdated statute that hasn't been enforced in quite some time.

**Witzkatz**

It's a pretty brilliant political move by Abe as it paints him as strong, without undermining the US relationship and an uninformed, petty president. Likewise, it lets Abe mediate and reinforce ties with other western powers as Trump flounders. As a central diplomatic figure, Abe can push Japanese interests with potential support from the US, Russian, Germany, etc. without looking aggressive.

I guess that makes sense, yeah.

And his in-depth talk with Trump might be of interest to many other leaders, too, giving him the upper hand on a few talking points, because he might be better able to tell or guess what kind of stuff Trump wants to pull off in the next months.

**infinite_array**

It's interesting - and not at all surprising - that Trump's talk about Japan paying more for the stationed US forces has evaporated.

**Easy E**

infinite_array wrote:
It's interesting - and not at all surprising - that Trump's talk about Japan paying more for the stationed US forces has evaporated.

Probably because there is no way a Japanese prime Minister could pay more for a US presence, since many people in Japan want them gone now!

**d-usa**

Local elections today. I was able to vote after presenting an invalid form of ID, so democracy is safe enough I guess.

**Prestor Jon**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Isolated does not equal pariah. Your use of pariah is off.

But Frazzled, don't you know that hyperbole is THE BEST THING EVAR??!!???!!?111one1
Yeah, pariah was hyperbole. Still, will he stop alienating people once the US become isolated? Basically, pariah is the direction where he is heading, not the place he is right now.

Prestor Jon wrote:
No amount of stupid Trump tweets or awkward face to face meetings or phone calls with Trump changes the fact that the EU, China and most of the rest of the world is economically linked and codependent.

For now. But doesn't Trump want to back off from free trade agreements? Might be we will have to switch a bit and invest more heavily into other markets.

Prestor Jon wrote:
we're the only country capable of doing the heavy lifting when it comes to protecting NATO countries and projecting military power globally

Ahah who needs to project military power globally? That's not a requirement to protect NATO country, and some of those countries are perfectly able to protect themselves and neighboring countries.
Also about that global military power, didn't Trump said that those bases in Japan and South Korea were too expensive?

Really, Jon, you seem to believe that the current status quo is eternal and that nothing the POTUS can do will change them. Do you think he can't ruin your economy? Do you think he can't close your foreign military bases? Do you think other countries can't step up their military game?

No of course the status quo isn't eternal but it also isn't likely to drastically change in the next 4 years nor does Trump or any PotUS have the power to unilaterally effect major changes.

Projecting military power is vitally important, the whole point of NATO is to protect member nations from external threats which are out in the world beyond NATO borders. The US has greater capacity to put more forces anywhere in the world than any other NATO country and it enables other member nations to have smaller defense budgets. Trump can say what he wants about our military bases around the world but he can't unilaterally shut them down.

How exactly do you think Trump can ruin the US economy since it takes an act of Congress to change Federal spending and to approve trade deals?

**Vaktathi**

Prestor Jon wrote:

How exactly do you think Trump can ruin the US economy since it takes an act of Congress to change Federal spending and to approve trade deals?

While to some degree correct, the office of the president is in charge of negotiating those trade deals and interacting with foreign governments, is in charge of managing agencies empowered by congress to execute domestic strategy, and can issue EO's on trade issues (such as banning importations of certain items, sanctions, entry into the US, etc), and this particular president is head of the party that controls congress. These all give the POTUS very powerful options for ruining the US economy, both directly and indirectly.

**Prestor Jon**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
It's a perverse incentive to allow public sector unions to directly negotiate for pay/benefits against the state...

Wait, I thought you were a conservative? How can you be against private citizens negotiating contract terms to sell their labor for whatever price they can get on the market? Are you now against free markets and in favor of state-controlled business?

Why do you think the govt is a for profit business? The purpose of labor unions is to collectively bargain for employees who are vital to the generation of company profits and make sure they get an equitable share of those profits. There is no profit generated by the govt so from where does the inequity of the employees arise?

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions

F.D.R. Warned Us About Public Sector Unions

“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”

That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany -- the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O -- in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd.

Public sector unions insist on laws that serve their interests -- at the expense of the common good.

The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”

Government collective bargaining means voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is not exactly democratic – a fact that unions once recognized.

George Meany was not alone. Up through the 1950s, unions widely agreed that collective bargaining had no place in government. But starting with Wisconsin in 1959, states began to allow collective bargaining in government. The influx of dues and members quickly changed the union movement’s tune, and collective bargaining in government is now widespread. As a result unions can now insist on laws that serve their interests – at the expense of the common good.

cuda1179 wrote:
As for local news......
A state representative from my home town has brought up legislation that would limit public employee wage bargaining.

Here is how wage bargaining works in Iowa: If the public unions demand a raise, the state must bargain with them. If no agreement can be made the negotiation must be brought before an arbitrator. The arbitrator's decision MUST be based on the states authority to raise taxes to meet the wage increase demands, whether or not it's actually a good idea at the time. He will then split the difference.

So, this means that if the union makes pie-in-the-sky demands and refuses to negotiate they are basically guaranteed a raise. The government must then either raise taxes, or cut spending somewhere else to fit the raise into the existing budget.

This new legislation would remove the mandatory consideration of the state's ability to raise taxes. Teachers are up in arms.

In this example with the teachers' union in Iowa the teachers' union is being allowed to use strikes and the threat of strikes to usurp the responsibility for setting tax policy and state budgets from the state legislature. We have a representative democracy, we hold elections, we elect representatives to govern on our behalf and entrust those representatives with the power to levy taxes to provide revenue for the state and to budget those revenues in an appropriate and responsible manner for the benefit of the state and its residents. State and county officials set the tax rates, collect the taxes, and budget their finite resources accordingly. If the education budget isn't allocating enough resources to attract and retain quality teachers then the govt can adjust the budget and raise taxes if necessary, that's their job. It is not in the teachers' purview to dictate to the state how education funds will be budgeted or what tax rates will be.

**Vaktathi**

Prestor Jon wrote:

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
It's a perverse incentive to allow public sector unions to directly negotiate for pay/benefits against the state...

Wait, I thought you were a conservative? How can you be against private citizens negotiating contract terms to sell their labor for whatever price they can get on the market? Are you now against free markets and in favor of state-controlled business?

Why do you think the govt is a for profit business? The purpose of labor unions is to collectively bargain for employees who are vital to the generation of company profits and make sure they get an equitable share of those profits. There is no profit generated by the govt so from where does the inequity of the employees arise?

Hrm, not quite. The purpose of a labor union is to flatten out the imbalance in bargaining power between large employers and individuals employees such that both capital and labor are negotiating on even footing (in addition to setting professional standards and other such things). The idea that the employer must be for-profit isn't fundamental to the concept of a labor union, it's simply a common circumstance.

**Prestor Jon**

Vaktathi wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

How exactly do you think Trump can ruin the US economy since it takes an act of Congress to change Federal spending and to approve trade deals?
While to some degree correct, the office of the president is in charge of negotiating those trade deals and interacting with foreign governments, is in charge of managing agencies empowered by congress to execute domestic strategy, and can issue EO's on trade issues (such as banning importations of certain items, sanctions, entry into the US, etc), and this particular president is head of the party that controls congress. These all give the POTUS very powerful options for ruining the US economy, both directly and indirectly.

The PotUS and officials in Federal agencies can negotiate for trade deals but those trade deals can only be ratified by Congress. If Trump can get hundreds of members of Congress to pass his economic policy initiatives then that's not unilateral action by an inept PotUS, that's the system working as intended. If Trump has the support of a majority of Congress then he has executed his responsibility to govern through the consent of the people since Congress is the voice of the people. What do you think a majority of Republicans in the House and Senate are going to agree to pass for Trump that is going to crash our economy? What new trade deals do you think Trump will negotiate and get Congress to ratify that will crash our economy?

Obama had a Democratic supermajority in Congress when he took office and he managed to get 1 major piece of domestic legislation passed through a complex and contentious process. Trump has a narrow Republican majority in both houses of Congress but he's somehow going to be even more effective than Obama was at passing major legislative changes? Trump is struggling to get his cabinet nominees approved but he's somehow going to get Congressional support for legislation that wrecks our economy?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

whembly wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
So, did Flynn fall foul of the Logan Act?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

No, because as a private citizen at the time he doesn't have the negotiating powah of the state.

This law is one of those outdated statute that hasn't been enforced in quite some time.

Not trying to derail the debate, but what constitutes a private citizen?

If you're a presidential candidate, are you a private citizen? If you're President elect, are you a private citizen?

I ask because the historical example is Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger who, before taking office, sabotaged the peace talks between North and South Vietnam, by offering a better deal to the South if Nixon won the election, which he obviously did.

Regarding Flynn, this is what wiki says:

"On December 29, 2016, retired lieutenant general Michael T. Flynn, President-elect Trump's pick for national security adviser, spoke with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the exact same day the Obama administration announced retaliatory measures in response to Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.[19]. No one in US government to date has brought proceedings or made accusation of violation of the Logan Act by General Flynn, inasmuch that General Flynn's speaking with the Russian Ambassador was known to VP-elect Mike Pence, who was in charge of the transition from then President Obama to the administration and inauguration of the President Elect Donald Trump. Flynn resigned from the position of National Security Advisor on the 13th of February, 2017."

Pence was obviously VP elect, but did Pence and Trump, or any other POTUS/VP elects have that power to do this before taking office?

I am genuinely curious.

**Prestor Jon**

Vaktathi wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
It's a perverse incentive to allow public sector unions to directly negotiate for pay/benefits against the state...

Wait, I thought you were a conservative? How can you be against private citizens negotiating contract terms to sell their labor for whatever price they can get on the market? Are you now against free markets and in favor of state-controlled business?

Why do you think the govt is a for profit business? The purpose of labor unions is to collectively bargain for employees who are vital to the generation of company profits and make sure they get an equitable share of those profits. There is no profit generated by the govt so from where does the inequity of the employees arise?
Hrm, not quite. The purpose of a labor union is to flatten out the imbalance in bargaining power between large employers and individuals employees such that both capital and labor are negotiating on even footing (in addition to setting professional standards and other such things). The idea that the employer must be for-profit isn't fundamental to the concept of a labor union, it's simply a common circumstance.

That still doesn't address the lack of inequity in the public sector. How is the govt bargaining in bad faith or in an unjust manner when the legislative bodies budget the education funds and set wage and benefits for public education employees? State and local govts have finite resources and are empowered by the people to apportion those limited resources in a responsible manner. Residents pay taxes to fund essential govt services, once you involve public employee labor unions, those essential services are now held hostage by union negotiations which strips the power away from the govt and the people they represent.

**Co'tor Shas**

Witzkatz wrote:

It's a pretty brilliant political move by Abe as it paints him as strong, without undermining the US relationship and an uninformed, petty president. Likewise, it lets Abe mediate and reinforce ties with other western powers as Trump flounders. As a central diplomatic figure, Abe can push Japanese interests with potential support from the US, Russian, Germany, etc. without looking aggressive.
I guess that makes sense, yeah. And his in-depth talk with Trump might be of interest to many other leaders, too, giving him the upper hand on a few talking points, because he might be better able to tell or guess what kind of stuff Trump wants to pull off in the next months.

I've been watching him for a little while, and Abe is a really clever guy. This is a man who has been able to rejuvenate the JSDF to a surprising degree, even while the peace constitution has something like a 65% approval rating and take basically no hits. This is a man, who really wants the Japanese army back, and will have it given enough time.

I'd actually be in support of a rearmorment if he could do it without antagonizing the neighbors too much. Having one of our closest allies fully equipped and prepared can't be a bad thing,

Although playing numbers nice with Trump may hurt him at home. America is still reasonably popular in Japan based on polling, but Trump is not. However this particular meeting seems to have gone well for him, with something like a 60-70% approval rating for this trip.

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20170213_25/

**Witzkatz**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Witzkatz wrote:

It's a pretty brilliant political move by Abe as it paints him as strong, without undermining the US relationship and an uninformed, petty president. Likewise, it lets Abe mediate and reinforce ties with other western powers as Trump flounders. As a central diplomatic figure, Abe can push Japanese interests with potential support from the US, Russian, Germany, etc. without looking aggressive.
I guess that makes sense, yeah. And his in-depth talk with Trump might be of interest to many other leaders, too, giving him the upper hand on a few talking points, because he might be better able to tell or guess what kind of stuff Trump wants to pull off in the next months.

I've been watching him for a little while, and Abe is a really clever guy. This is a man who has been able to rejuvenate the JSDF to a surprising degree, even while the peace constitution has something like a 65% approval rating and take basically no hits. This is a man, who really wants the Japanese army back, and will have it given enough time.

I'd actually be in support of a rearmorment if he could do it without antagonizing the neighbors too much. Having one of our closest allies fully equipped and prepared can't be a bad thing,

Although playing numbers nice with Trump may hurt him at home. America is still reasonably popular in Japan based on polling, but Trump is not.

I can imagine the political caste in Japan would want a stronger Army, even if it is really just for defensive purposes. The situation with China does not seem to quiet down in the next years, and with wavering international alliances (and a rather capricious Trump) it only makes sense for them to be well-prepared for whatever the future holds.

**Ensis Ferrae**

cuda1179 wrote:
While I do support teachers, the ability to get what you want every time is a bit.... much

When you're as underpaid and overworked as every teacher I've ever known.... no, it isn't.

Just Tony wrote:

Given the revisionist history pushed in colleges

Methinks you don't know what revisionist means.

cuda1179 wrote:
. If the education budget isn't allocating enough resources to attract and retain quality teachers then the govt can adjust the budget and raise taxes if necessary, that's their job. It is not in the teachers' purview to dictate to the state how education funds will be budgeted or what tax rates will be.

And how do you think the government is going to know if they are allocating enough resources to education, or any other department for that matter? It very much is in the teachers' purview to tell the state that they aren't being funded properly.

**whembly**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
whembly wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
So, did Flynn fall foul of the Logan Act?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

No, because as a private citizen at the time he doesn't have the negotiating powah of the state.

This law is one of those outdated statute that hasn't been enforced in quite some time.

Not trying to derail the debate, but what constitutes a private citizen?

Someone who isn't representing the country in an official manner.

If you're a presidential candidate, are you a private citizen? If you're President elect, are you a private citizen?

Yes and Yes. (unless you're holding public office at the time... ie, Congressional critter).

I ask because the historical example is Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger who, before taking office, sabotaged the peace talks between North and South Vietnam, by offering a better deal to the South if Nixon won the election, which he obviously did.

Yes they did... and the Logan Act didn't kick in...

Regarding Flynn, this is what wiki says:

"On December 29, 2016, retired lieutenant general Michael T. Flynn, President-elect Trump's pick for national security adviser, spoke with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the exact same day the Obama administration announced retaliatory measures in response to Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.[19]. No one in US government to date has brought proceedings or made accusation of violation of the Logan Act by General Flynn, inasmuch that General Flynn's speaking with the Russian Ambassador was known to VP-elect Mike Pence, who was in charge of the transition from then President Obama to the administration and inauguration of the President Elect Donald Trump. Flynn resigned from the position of National Security Advisor on the 13th of February, 2017."

Pence was obviously VP elect, but did Pence and Trump, or any other POTUS/VP elects have that power to do this before taking office?

They don't have the powah prior to taking office.

The issue is that, Flynn lied or misinformed Pence, not the fact that Flynn 'discussed Russian sanctions'. Because, Pence later on when to the public/media based on what Flynn told him.

Breaking it down further... you can't stop someone from merely trying to chat up a foreigner (ie, what Flynn did). Without the actual negotiating power of the US invested in them, no private citizen can "negotiate" with a foreign power. He could, however, misrepresent himself as a duly-empowered diplomat, but that's a different thing... and, you'd be hard pressed to argue that Flynn did just that. Because while Trump wasn't in office yet, everyone knew Trump would officially be President on jan 20th, and Flynn would be head of his NatSec team.

Fact of the matter... the Logan Act is unenforceable and in fact has never enforced to my knowledge... (i'm sure Lordy will correct me if I'm wrong) It's a silly law and impossible to define: How can a private citizen "negotiate" with a foreign power about what the US will or won't do? Only an authorized agent of the US can do that. So the law forbids that which is logically impossible anyway. Lawyers and constitutional scholar would often jokingly use 'mah Logan Act' in mockery as it's one of those laws that is ridiculously impotent.

**BrotherGecko**

I think PM Abe has learned that with a little charisma and saying things in a smart way with just a touch of flattery, DJT will agree to anything you say. DJT is probably programed at this point to just think ideas came from him and listen to what others tell him to do.

Trump is a money man not an idea man. He gives you money and then you make him more money or you don't and then he ruins you. High risk and high reward. However, this probably doesn't work on the political stage where people are going to use him (Bannon).

**Frazzled**

BrotherGecko wrote:
I think PM Abe has learned that with a little charisma and saying things in a smart way with just a touch of flattery, DJT will agree to anything you say. DJT is probably programed at this point to just think ideas came from him and listen to what others tell him to do.

Trump is a money man not an idea man. He gives you money and then you make him more money or you don't and then he ruins you. High risk and high reward. However, this probably doesn't work on the political stage where people are going to use him (Bannon).

This in a big way.

**BrotherGecko**

@ Whembly

The Logan Act prevents someone like Flynn from going to a foreign power and saying stone wall our government until my man gets in office. Once in office my dude will help you greatly. Then the foreign power has incentive to not only help make sure the new guy comes in but to also work against our government with the knowledge that in the future there won't be repercussions.

A private citizen very much can negotiate with a political power. Its been done since civilization and central power governance.

See the accusations of Regan's team undermining the 1979 hostage situation in Iran.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
No, because as a private citizen at the time he doesn't have the negotiating powah of the state.

This law is one of those outdated statute that hasn't been enforced in quite some time.

No. You've got that ass backwarda. Being a private citizen isn't a defence against the Logan Act, punishing private citizens for negotiating with foreign governments is the whole point of the act.

You are right that prosecution under the act was fanciful, though. A 200 year old act with 1 indictment and no prosecutions is more than a bit unlikely to get dragged out and made the centre of a big political circus. Its really just a sideshow and historical curiosity.

The real issue is who's interests Flynn was representing when he made those calls. And the answer is "Donald Trump, very fething obviously".

Now we just wait and see if a transcript or recording of the call comes out, and if so how explicit it is that Flynn is giving Yrump's position on the issue.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Thanks for clearing that up whembly

EDIT. I was convinced by whembly's case, but subsequent posts have planted doubt in my mind.

We need a lawyer to sort this out.

**Vaktathi**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

How exactly do you think Trump can ruin the US economy since it takes an act of Congress to change Federal spending and to approve trade deals?
While to some degree correct, the office of the president is in charge of negotiating those trade deals and interacting with foreign governments, is in charge of managing agencies empowered by congress to execute domestic strategy, and can issue EO's on trade issues (such as banning importations of certain items, sanctions, entry into the US, etc), and this particular president is head of the party that controls congress. These all give the POTUS very powerful options for ruining the US economy, both directly and indirectly.

The PotUS and officials in Federal agencies can negotiate for trade deals but those trade deals can only be ratified by Congress. If Trump can get hundreds of members of Congress to pass his economic policy initiatives then that's not unilateral action by an inept PotUS, that's the system working as intended. If Trump has the support of a majority of Congress then he has executed his responsibility to govern through the consent of the people since Congress is the voice of the people.

If the president is head of the political party in control of both houses, that undermines that whole checks and balances thing to some degree and empowers the administration more than originally intended by the underlying framework. Wouldnt be the first instance of this by any means, but lets not make it out like the system is working as intended either in such a case.

What do you think a majority of Republicans in the House and Senate are going to agree to pass for Trump that is going to crash our economy?

in an age of increasingly ideologically driven policy divorced from rational economic thought, thats entirely possible, and wouldnt be the first time a nation did that to itself. Is it likely? Perhaps not. Is it out of this world impossible? No.

What new trade deals do you think Trump will negotiate and get Congress to ratify that will crash our economy?

collapsing NAFTA? Ideologically driven tariff wars? Things like that are possibilities that have been floated on some level by this administration at various points.

Obama had a Democratic supermajority in Congress when he took office and he managed to get 1 major piece of domestic legislation passed through a complex and contentious process. Trump has a narrow Republican majority in both houses of Congress but he's somehow going to be even more effective than Obama was at passing major legislative changes?

I didnt make this assertion, I only pointed out the that the POTUS has the tools to cause great harm to the economy, not that he necessarily will do so.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
It's a perverse incentive to allow public sector unions to directly negotiate for pay/benefits against the state...

Wait, I thought you were a conservative? How can you be against private citizens negotiating contract terms to sell their labor for whatever price they can get on the market? Are you now against free markets and in favor of state-controlled business?

Why do you think the govt is a for profit business? The purpose of labor unions is to collectively bargain for employees who are vital to the generation of company profits and make sure they get an equitable share of those profits. There is no profit generated by the govt so from where does the inequity of the employees arise?
Hrm, not quite. The purpose of a labor union is to flatten out the imbalance in bargaining power between large employers and individuals employees such that both capital and labor are negotiating on even footing (in addition to setting professional standards and other such things). The idea that the employer must be for-profit isn't fundamental to the concept of a labor union, it's simply a common circumstance.

That still doesn't address the lack of inequity in the public sector. How is the govt bargaining in bad faith or in an unjust manner when the legislative bodies budget the education funds and set wage and benefits for public education employees?

same way any employer can, just because its done through a legislatue doesnt mean its fair, just, or an appropriate allocation of resources.

State and local govts have finite resources and are empowered by the people to apportion those limited resources in a responsible manner.

private corporations have limited resources with management empowered by boards of directors representing shareholders to apportion resources in a responsible manner. Similar situation.

Residents pay taxes to fund essential govt services, once you involve public employee labor unions, those essential services are now held hostage by union negotiations which strips the power away from the govt and the people they represent.

There are definitely issues with public sector unions, and there are abuses. However, labor unions are a subset of the people being represented, and have a right to conduct negotions with their employer like any other employer-employee relationship. They are not military personnel who give up these rights. As I noted in an earlier post, reconciling these things are in some ways fundamentally contradictory and finding a middle ground is difficult, but at its core the idea that a union can only represent workers in a for profit industry is false.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Breaking it down further... you can't stop someone from merely trying to chat up a foreigner (ie, what Flynn did). Without the actual negotiating power of the US invested in them, no private citizen can "negotiate" with a foreign power.

No, that is completely wrong. Here is the text of the Logan Act;
'
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.'

I think maybe you've gotten confused because you don't realise how a person without official negotiating power can achieve anything. But a private citizen can go and tell a foreign power details about the US in order to influence their thinking (as Logan did), or a private citizen can tell a foreign power about what a future government will do, to influence their behaviour (as Flynn did). Both efforts subvert the official actions of govt, so its no surprise there is a law on the books thst makes those actions illegal.