(05-04-2020 01:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 10:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Because it creates confusion as to who is running the country.

The current admin, while lame duck, still runs the executive branch until the transition of power takes place during the inauguration. If you want an incoming admin to start acting and enacting policy, then make the transition of power the day after Election Day.

Odd... somehow 300mm average Americans can manage it but these other nation's leaders, many of whom have the same situation cannot even comprehend it?

Everyone in the world understands that we have an outgoing and an incoming administration every 4-8 years and that priorities will change. While certainly it may keep them from agreeing to bad terms if they think a better deal will be coming, this can also create an impetus for them to 'give in' and sign your deal if the coming deal is worse. The only reason that wouldn't happen relies on the underlying presumption that the outcome was 'not valid' and thus there was a chance that he wouldn't be sworn in.

FUNCTIONALLY no different (despite the technicalities) than Obama's 'I'll have more flexibility after the election'. He could talk about things now, but he couldn't DO anything until after the election. Trump's people similarly couldn't DO anything until after he was sworn in. What if Obama had lost the election?

When did the Russian hot-mic comment happen? Was it after the election? If not, I don't see how a current POTUS, telling another foreign leader how to interact with the executive branch is an issue, in and of itself. I don't see it as being functionally similar.

It's not functionally similar because the crux of the issue is that someone who was not part of the current POTUS' administration was acting in an official capacity for the incoming administration.

Plenty of reason to talk to world leaders during this time, but it needs to remain high level and out of the weeds of policy. If we want to change that, then lets change when inauguration occurs.