Sedition in the Senate?

[Sportello]

http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...cans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last

It would seem to be a violation of the Logan Act.

Not the first time Republicans have pulled this sort of thing. Nixon in 1968 and Reagan in 1979 are established precedents, though by Presidential candidates, not by sitting Senators.

 

[Sportello]

Senator Who Organized Letter To Iran Has Said He Wants To Sabotage Negotiations


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/09/tom-cotton-iran_n_6831328.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

 

[Catatonic]

http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...cans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last

It would seem to be a violation of the Logan Act.

Not the first time Republicans have pulled this sort of thing. Nixon in 1968 and Reagan in 1979 are established precedents, though by Presidential candidates, not by sitting Senators.

The Logan Act only has had one indictment (in 1803) in its two hundred plus years which is the main reason it has not been struck down by the Supreme Court.

Democrats have been in violation of this Act more often than Republicans according to the link you provided ... George McGovern being one of the latest.

 

[Catatonic]

Not the first time Republicans have pulled this sort of thing. Nixon in 1968 and Reagan in 1979 are established precedents, though by Presidential candidates, not by sitting Senators.

That's one of the great aspects of the US National government that it's citizens and elected officials can speak out against what the government is doing in secret.

Many Democrats have had the courage to do so when it was a Republican president.

I applaud them all for helping the transparency in government.

 

[Sportello]

If only we could post in real time, instead of the dreadful queue.

Party lines are meaningless, when speaking historically.

That's one of the great aspects of the US National government that it's citizens and elected officials can speak out against what the government is doing in secret.

You forgot the /s for sarcasm.

I would love to see courage and transparency in government. More than that, I would love to see a government that wasn't bought by people who don't share my interests.

 

[Catatonic]

... I would love to see a government that wasn't bought by people who don't share my interests.

People who share your interest don't have the money to buy influence in government.

 

[Sportello]

People who share your interest don't have the money to buy influence in government.

Well, we did have substantially more votes than the opposition, but due to gerrymandering, a lot of them didn't count towards representation.

In addition to that, your statement is completely false. I think it would be more accurate to say that people who share my interests have morals.

 

[Sportello]

If the shoe fits...

 

[Catatonic]

More than that, I would love to see a government that wasn't bought by people who don't share my interests.

People who share your interest don't have the money to buy influence in government.

I think it would be more accurate to say that people who share my interests have morals.

I simply replied to your wish that, "I would love to see a government that wasn't bought by people who don't share my interests."

Do have to try and spin everything away from the subject?

As for your last sentence, I think it is more accurate stated, "people who share my interests have my morals."

 

[Sportello]

I simply replied to your wish that, "I would love to see a government that wasn't bought by people who don't share my interests."

When the few buy the Government, the Democracy, as thin as it was, ceases to exist

Do have to try and spin everything away from the subject?

The subject was sedition in the Senate, and you spun from that immediately.

As for your last sentence, I think it is more accurate stated, "people who share my interests have my morals."

Yes, you are correct. My morals are Humanist, or Christian, or Buddhist...treat everyone as you would be treated. If that is opposed to your morals, so be it.

 

[MAKAVELI]

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8180933/zarif-cotton-letter
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has published an official response to the Republican letter to Iran's leaders, signed by 47 Senators, warning that Congress or a future president might overturn a nuclear deal if they dislike the terms.

 

[realbrown1]

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8180933/zarif-cotton-letter
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has published an official response to the Republican letter to Iran's leaders, signed by 47 Senators, warning that Congress or a future president might overturn a nuclear deal if they dislike the terms.

It looks like we may be on our way to making Iran a giant new parking lot.

 

[realbrown1]

I think it would be more accurate to say that people who share my interests have morals.

Is it morals that had you posting under different fake names in order to skirt BC rules?

 

[Sportello]

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8180933/zarif-cotton-letter
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has published an official response to the Republican letter to Iran's leaders, signed by 47 Senators, warning that Congress or a future president might overturn a nuclear deal if they dislike the terms.

The Iranians have a better grasp on the Constitution than those Republican Senators.

I wish Holder would arrest them all as a final act.

 

[Sportello]

Is it morals that had you posting under different fake names in order to skirt BC rules?

Sorry massa, different rules for us po folk.

 

[Catatonic]

Is it morals that had you posting under different fake names in order to skirt BC rules?

I am not aware of his/her "skirting of rules".
One can abandon an account and open a new one ... people do it all the time.
The TOS violation is in using two accounts simultaneously especially to support and promote one or multiple account's point of view.

http://www.browncafe.com/community/help/terms

 

[MAKAVELI]

It looks like we may be on our way to making Iran a giant new parking lot.

Another Iraq?

 

[Sportello]

Is it morals that had you posting under different fake names in order to skirt BC rules?

Tell him I was flyin', good buddy, tell him I was flyin'.

 

[Sportello]

I am not aware of his/her "skirting of rules".
One can abandon an account and open a new one ... people do it all the time.
The TOS violation is in using two accounts simultaneously especially to support and promote one or multiple account's point of view.

http://www.browncafe.com/community/help/terms

So that's the reason now? Laughable.

 

[Catatonic]

So that's the reason now? Laughable.

Reason for what?
I simply stated that having multiple accounts was not against the TOS.