Who the Hell does John Kerry think he is?

noise said:
your crazed scenarios notwithstanding
Click to expand...

What "crazed scenarios" are you talking about?

- we are talking about Kerry advising Iran on how to overcome current US policy.
Click to expand...

Interesting speculation, but what we actually know is that he has been working to calm matters, by making sure Iran understands that Trump doesn't speak on behalf of the US as a whole, and that his whims do not have the force of law.
 
Oneuli said:
No. POTUS is one part of making policy. Congress has a role, too. And so do citizens in general.
Click to expand...
POTUS is responsible for foreign policy unless specifically constrained by Congress (like sanctions)
citizens can lobby.
Nobody gets to meet with foreign powers and directly advise them how to dodge current sanctions.
Don't forget Congress already had a role in crafting Iran sanctions


He gets to try. And the rest of us get to work against him. Welcome to pluralism.
Click to expand...
you can advocate, lobby,you cannot willingly& directly advise a foreign power on how to countermand US policy
 
Oneuli said:
No, he isn't. Short of the Trump administration going full dictatorship and locking up dissidents without trial or with kangaroo courts, nothing Kerry is doing runs any risk of that, since his actions are protected by the First Amendment. There is a very long history of opponents of various presidents' foreign policy actively working to undermine it, both inside of and outside of the government.

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/21/7866089/netanyahu-boehner-congress
Click to expand...

wec could simply revoke his security clearance and his passport.....both of which he is obviously abusing....
 
Oneuli said:
What "crazed scenarios" are you talking about?
Click to expand...
too many to count.
But i'm not wanting to get sidetracked here

Interesting speculation, but what we actually know is that he has been working to calm matters, by making sure Iran understands that Trump doesn't speak on behalf of the US as a whole, and that his whims do not have the force of law.
Click to expand...
Trump has the force of law as chief executive to negotiate and set policy.
There is only one POTUS and administration at a time.

are all millenials as crazed as you? just take foreign policy into your own hands because you don't like Trumps?
 
I think Democrats should have their own president if they don't win next time. Don't even pay attention to a Puke potus, don't follow his orders
and listen to ours instead. :thinking: A thinking party should refuse to be ruled by a minority of uneducated racists.
 
Micawber said:
I think Democrats should have their own president if they don't win next time. Don't even pay attention to a Puke potus, don't follow his orders
and listen to ours instead. :thinking: A thinking party should refuse to be ruled by a minority of uneducated racists.
Click to expand...
good idea. and take the left coast with you..we won't miss you
 
PostmodernProphet said:
trying to negotiate with another government isn't free speech.....
Click to expand...

It is, indeed. That's why the only two attempts to prosecute someone under the Logan Act failed, and nobody has even tried to do so for 166 years, despite constant alleged Logan Act violations. A trip down memory lane:

Kissinger was accused of violating the Logan Act when he suggested, before the 1968 election, that the North Vietnamese were better off waiting until Nixon took office to negotiate a peace.

Reagan was accused of violating the Logan Act related to discussions with the Iranians regarding hostages the Carter administration was working to free (which Reagan didn't want released before the election, because it would give Carter a boost).

Various Cuban exiles, and politicians who serve Cuban exiles, have been accused of Logan Act violations in relation to efforts to undermine the Clinton and Obama administrations' attempts to normalize relations with Cuba.

Republicans in and out of the government were accused of Logan Act violations in relation to meetings with Netanyahu during the Obama years, to try to undermine efforts by Obama to put pressure on Israel regarding its illegal settlements and human rights violations. Boehner even gave Netanyahu the US Congress as a platform for speaking out against Obama policy.

Trump and his cronies were accused of Logan Act violations in relation to meetings with agents of Putin during the 2016 campaign, to undermine pressure Obama foreign policy was putting on Russia.

Carter was accused of Logan Act violations for meetings with Hamas officials.

More:

http://www.wetamericandream.com/politics/
 
Micawber said:
I think Democrats should have their own president if they don't win next time. Don't even pay attention to a Puke potus, don't follow his orders
and listen to ours instead. :thinking: A thinking party should refuse to be ruled by a minority of uneducated racists.
Click to expand...

I'm increasingly considering the idea that we'd all be happier with some sort of amicable separation. Basically, split the country in two, with one being the Northeast coast (northern Virginia through Maine) plus the West Coast and Hawaii, and the parts of the Great Lakes states that are right near the lakes (the more liberal, urban sections). That would suck for isolated pockets of conservatism in the new liberal country (e.g., upstate New York, or traditionally conservative parts of southern California), or isolated pockets of liberalism in the new conservative country (e.g., Colorado or certain stranded liberal islands like Austin or Miami). But I think most people would be happier, at least for a time.
 
noise said:
POTUS is responsible for foreign policy unless specifically constrained by Congress (like sanctions)
Click to expand...

Did you spend the Obama years chastising Republicans for things like meeting with Netanyahu and undermining Obama efforts with regard to Israel? Or is this a newfound principle that showed up for you sometime around January 20, 2017?

you can advocate, lobby,you cannot willingly& directly advise a foreign power on how to countermand US policy
Click to expand...

A foreign country has no ability to countermand US policy. However, they can try to influence US policy, or to wait it out, or they can simply work around it. Should Americans be punished for speaking with them about such efforts? For example, when Trump's son and son-in-law met with representatives of the Russian government at Trump Tower, ostensibly to discuss Russian adoptions (which Putin was blocking in response to the Obama administration's sanctions against Russia), was that a crime?
 
Oneuli said:
Did you spend the Obama years chastising Republicans for things like meeting with Netanyahu and undermining Obama efforts with regard to Israel? Or is this a newfound principle that showed up for you sometime around January 20, 2017?
Click to expand...
it certainly was bad form.
But allowing a speech is not advising a hostile power



A foreign country has no ability to countermand US policy. However, they can try to influence US policy, or to wait it out, or they can simply work around it. Should Americans be punished for speaking with them about such efforts? For example, when Trump's son and son-in-law met with representatives of the Russian government at Trump Tower, ostensibly to discuss Russian adoptions (which Putin was blocking in response to the Obama administration's sanctions against Russia), was that a crime?
Click to expand...
you cannot advise a foreign power on how to countermand current US policy.
use your head -how many heads of state do we have at one time?
 
Oneuli said:
Nobody has even been indicted under the Logan Act for 166 years, and nobody has EVER been convicted under it, during its 219-year history, despite pretty much constant examples of American citizens dealing with foreign powers in a way that arguably undermines administration efforts. The reason is that enforcing the Logan Act in a way that punished such behavior would clearly run afoul of the First Amendment, so there's no point in even trying to indict people. As much as presidents would like to be dictators, when it comes to deciding what our foreign policy efforts are, that runs counter to our principles. We're all citizens with a right to speak our minds to whoever we want. To punish that, a narrower theory of law is needed -- for example, making a case that a given meeting amounts to a conspiracy to commit campaign finance fraud, or that classified information was wrongly shared.

Trump, of all people, should be glad that's the case, since half his cast of reprobates met with representatives of the Russian (or Israeli) government, during the campaign, in ways that could be seen as undermining Obama's foreign policy efforts. If the Logan Act were enforced the way conservatives wish it was enforced, against liberals, that would set a precedent for locking up just about every major player on Team Trump, including his son, son-in-law, AG, etc., as well as plenty of other high-ranking Republicans
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah blah blah.
 
noise said:
it certainly was bad form.
But allowing a speech is not advising a hostile power
Click to expand...

If we find that, say, people in Trump's campaign were advising the Russians during the campaign, would you see that as criminal? For example, if Manafort produces documents showing than in June 2016 Trump told him to tell his Russian contacts that Putin should hold off on negotiating with the Obama administration regarding adoptions, because Trump would be more open-minded about it if he were the next president, would you see that as a high crime or misdemeanor by Trump?

use your head -how many heads of state do we have at one time?
Click to expand...

In the US, foreign policy is not the exclusive domain of the head of state. Surely you remember the hair-pulling and clothes-rending meltdowns of the conservatives when Obama worked with the other leading nations to reach the Iran deal. Surely you recall that exactly nobody on the right said "quiet down, we only have one head of state at a time."
 
Oneuli said:
He's an American citizen with a right to free speech under the First Amendment. Administrations tend to bristle when their attempts to present themselves as the only American voice with regard to a foreign policy matter are stymied by dissenting voices, but the fact is we're a pluralistic system, where the President doesn't have a monopoly on such matters.

If it helps control your hyperventilation, think of it, instead, in terms of the Republicans meeting with foreign leaders during the Obama years, in a way that undermined Obama's efforts. For example, think of the way Trump's team kept speaking with Russian leaders about matters of foreign policy like sanctions, ahead of the election. Or think of the way various Republicans met with Netanyahu during the Obama years, effectively trying to remove pressure the administration was putting on Israel to observe international law.

Click to expand...

Since when does our constitution apply to an American citizen in another country? Do you think it follows an American citizen all over the world?
 
Oneuli said:
Aren't you at least a little bit ashamed to advertise how frightened you are about even trying to offer a substantive response?
Click to expand...

I gave you more than one before. You decided to go passive aggressive and also talk about shit that had nothing to do with the topic at hand. I told you I think you're a fucking moron and I wasn't kidding. You are really fucking dumb. PROTIP: more words doesn't make you look smart. Smart people can do it in fewer words.

So...post your walls of text. My responses will be blah blah blah blah blah with a few derps thrown in once in a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top