So do you think his presidency will come crashing down Watergate style?

 

Oh he's much more corrupt than Nixon ever was and there is so much evidence against him already on record that it can only go two ways: either Trump and the Republicans end the investigations illegally and take control over democracy in the USA, or else he's going down. My guess is he'll be forced out under a deal where he avoids prison and Pence gets to be Homophobident Of The US, as long as Pence has been smart enough not to be implicated as well - most of Trump's cronies are dumb f***s who are definitely going down. If he somehow manages to hang on till the November midterms, and somehow the Repubs keep control (looking very unlikely) then at the first instance of a Democrat win the investigation would re-open and continue.

 

The scale of his monumental crimes can't be underestimated just because we have become used to a daily avalanche of lies and sleight of hand. When sane people look back on these times it will take the breath away as one of the major events of the 21st century, underlining a world in moral turmoil thanks to bankers, and a bit of help from Russia.

The Dems look like they may struggle to win control of the Senate in the midterms as the map is stacked against them this year, but that's almost irrelevant in terms of impeachment as for a conviction you need two thirds of the Senate to vote in favour anyway. If the Dems can win back the House in November (which I think is more likely than not, despite the gerrymandering) then they'll be able to file articles of impeachment and even if the Senate votes it down, if the evidence is damning enough then Trump would be up against it in 2020. Assuming there's no criminal charges before then.

 

Of course, he could fire Mueller this week and then all bets would be off:

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration...ntial-interview

Firing McCabe 2 days before his retirement is gutless pathetic and small minded. What a utterly repugnant human Trump is.

Firing McCabe 2 days before his retirement is gutless pathetic and small minded. What a utterly repugnant human Trump is.

 

he's been invited to work for another government official for 2 days to claim his pension advising on "corruption" and has made statements for the investigations. Hopefully it will come off. I expect it will be juicy and Comey has tweeted he's looking forward to giving evidence shortly.

Todays developments:

 

Paul Ryan accused of insider trading in 2008 following a meeting about the forthcoming banking crisis. He reportedly immediately sold his shares the same day. This is illegal.

 

Don Jr reported to have put false filing in for his company.

 

Trump has gone twitter mad over Mueller, hissy fits galore, and forgotten that Mueller is a Republican, as is his boss, and his boss (who was appointed by Trump) and that the main witness (who he fired, along with another main witness) were also Republicans who helped him win releasing email info about Clinton during the campaign. But it's all a Crooked Hillary plot!!!! Insanity looms....

 

Cambridge Anal-ytica caught on film secretly filmed by C4 admitting what they have done to corrupt the US election illegally obtaining data and using it (and also the British Referendum one wouldnt be shocked to speculate, which they also worked on, but we're not quite as picky about such matters as the FBI).

 

All in all, quite satisfying for a quiet Sunday....

Todays developments:

 

Cambridge Analytica caught on film secretly filmed by C4 admitting what they have done to corrupt the US election illegally obtaining data and using it (and also the British Referendum one wouldnt be shocked to speculate, which they also worked on, but we're not quite as picky about such matters as the FBI).

 

Re US election :

 

Proving they acted outside the law is one thing, but it's not like it's going to change the result, since there's no way to prove how *much* effect it had - that's even if there's a mechanism in place to overturn a result on that basis? :unsure:

 

Re US election :

 

Proving they acted outside the law is one thing, but it's not like it's going to change the result, since there's no way to prove how *much* effect it had - that's even if there's a mechanism in place to overturn a result on that basis? :unsure:

 

If proven it can negate the arguments that there shouldn't be another referendum, in favour of an actual final FAIR vote based on sane arguments given by both sides with actual facts and not lies and propaganda.

If proven it can negate the arguments that there shouldn't be another referendum, in favour of an actual final FAIR vote based on sane arguments given by both sides with actual facts and not lies and propaganda.

 

But unwanted election reruns can rebound spectacularly against those who forced them - just ask Gerry Malone about Winchester...

 

Also, this :

 

http://www.saddleworthnews.com/election-co...ar-woolas-case/

 

The crucial line :

 

'However, an election hasn’t been declared void because of criminal wrongdoing by a candidate since 1911. That was in North Louth in Ireland, which at the time still sent MPs to Westminster'.

 

**********

 

So if 'criminal wrongdoing' isn't enough to force a rerun, then 'lying during a campaign' certainly shouldn't be...

Edited March 19, 20187 yr by vidcapper

Re US election :

 

Proving they acted outside the law is one thing, but it's not like it's going to change the result, since there's no way to prove how *much* effect it had - that's even if there's a mechanism in place to overturn a result on that basis? :unsure:

Successful murder investigations don't bring the victim back. Should we abandon them as well?

 

Of course, the question of whether there should be provision for reversing the result is a separate issue. The fact that the referendum result cannot be annulled seems to be a glaring anomaly - although as it was only advisory you could argue that the issue of annulment doesn't arise.

 

On the subject of the US election, proof that they broke the law should - in a sensible world - leave the Republicans at risk of a backlash at future elections.

But unwanted election reruns can rebound spectacularly against those who forced them - just ask Gerry Malone about Winchester...

 

Also, this :

 

http://www.saddleworthnews.com/election-co...ar-woolas-case/

 

The crucial line :

 

'However, an election hasn’t been declared void because of criminal wrongdoing by a candidate since 1911. That was in North Louth in Ireland, which at the time still sent MPs to Westminster'.

 

**********

 

So if 'criminal wrongdoing' isn't enough to force a rerun, then 'lying during a campaign' certainly shouldn't be...

If elections cannot be rerun because of a breach of the law, what is the point of having any rules? It saddens me that anyone should have such a relaxed attitude about blatant lies in something as important as the referendum. Why should the laws on advertising chocolate bars be so much stricter than the laws regarding something affecting the long-term future of a country?

If elections cannot be rerun because of a breach of the law, what is the point of having any rules? It saddens me that anyone should have such a relaxed attitude about blatant lies in something as important as the referendum. Why should the laws on advertising chocolate bars be so much stricter than the laws regarding something affecting the long-term future of a country?

 

I agree completely about having the means to rerun elections when electoral law has been broken - but unfortunately exaggerating/misleading/lying etc. during election campaigns has never been illegal :no:

 

Also, what happens when 'what is good for a country (*)' conflicts with what people *want* for their country?

 

(*) And who should decide that?

 

If it is the politicians, what happens if all major parties decide the same thing, and the voters disagree with them - short of starting a new single-issue party, voters are screwed...

I agree completely about having the means to rerun elections when electoral law has been broken - but unfortunately exaggerating/misleading/lying etc. during election campaigns has never been illegal :no:

 

Also, what happens when 'what is good for a country (*)' conflicts with what people *want* for their country?

 

(*) And who should decide that?

 

If it is the politicians, what happens if all major parties decide the same thing, and the voters disagree with them - short of starting a new single-issue party, voters are screwed...

 

Cambridge Anal may have broken the law, and so may farage. We can't annul the result but we can ask the population if it is still happy about the result. Democracy. In an election you get the chance next time around to change your mind and make your displeasure clear. In this case we are being denied it.

 

It may be an overwhelming support for Brexit, or another marginal, and then everyone will know, no argument, end of matter for many decades, possibly for ever. Being happy with the result last time and fearing the result of another final say on the matter is not just cause for democracy being over-ridden if the campaign was illegal in parts. Moan about getting a say, moan about those not sharing the same view, and then moan about getting one more final say is how I see it.....

 

Basically just moaning habitually.

I agree completely about having the means to rerun elections when electoral law has been broken - but unfortunately exaggerating/misleading/lying etc. during election campaigns has never been illegal :no:

 

Also, what happens when 'what is good for a country (*)' conflicts with what people *want* for their country?

 

(*) And who should decide that?

 

If it is the politicians, what happens if all major parties decide the same thing, and the voters disagree with them - short of starting a new single-issue party, voters are screwed...

Under their code of conduct, it is for MPs to decide. They have an obligation to act in the best interests of the country. In the past that has meant MPs defying public opinion on matters such as votes for women, decriminalising homosexual acts between men (over 21), allowing in refugees from Nazi Germany (and countries under occupation) and abolishing capital punishment. Today's shower seem to lack that backbone.

Under their code of conduct, it is for MPs to decide. They have an obligation to act in the best interests of the country. In the past that has meant MPs defying public opinion on matters such as votes for women, decriminalising homosexual acts between men (over 21), allowing in refugees from Nazi Germany (and countries under occupation) and abolishing capital punishment. Today's shower seem to lack that backbone.

 

But they nailed their trousers to the mast once they granted that referendum - and then added superglue, with phrases like 'This is a once-in-a-generation decision. and 'We will implement what you decide' - now they cannot back out while maintaining any pretence of respecting democratic decisions.

 

Alternatively, if they'd refused the country a referendum, then UKIP might well have continued getting stronger to the point where they could have held the balance of power in a hung parliament, and thus compel their coalition partners to hold one as the price for their support.

 

[Oops - it seems to be an unwritten law of 'News & Politics' that all threads will eventually turn into EU/Brexit ones] ;)

Edited March 19, 20187 yr by vidcapper

But they nailed their trousers to the mast once they granted that referendum - and then added superglue, with phrases like 'This is a once-in-a-generation decision. and 'We will implement what you decide' - now they cannot back out while maintaining any pretence of respecting democratic decisions.

 

Alternatively, if they'd refused the country a referendum, then UKIP might well have continued getting stronger to the point where they could have held the balance of power in a hung parliament, and thus compel their coalition partners to hold one as the price for their support.

 

[Oops - it seems to be an unwritten law of 'News & Politics' that all threads will eventually turn into EU/Brexit ones] ;)

 

Yes it does.

 

Plus, I thought you approved of politicians lying? Generic comment which relates to the US election as much as any other....(and which is being investigated because it's illegal to collaborate with hostile governments. )

Yes it does.

 

Plus, I thought you approved of politicians lying? Generic comment which relates to the US election as much as any other....(and which is being investigated because it's illegal to collaborate with hostile governments. )

 

Only when their lies suit me. ;)

 

Seriously though, I don't think politicians lie *that* much more than ordinary people, it's just that their lies affect people/events far more.

 

Anyone seen this contraceptive campaign in Brazil? :lol:

..and so Trump is trying to give an advisor role to a man who wants to attack North korea and Iran, and man who makes videos for the NRA and Russian guns promotion, a man who was denied by previous administrations...

 

Not looking healthy for the world again...

 

On the plus side legal action in some States is being taken against Trump for violating the Constitution.

 

It's a race against time now?

A Nazi has been nominated by 20000 people in Illiinois as a Republican candidate.

 

I'm not making this up. This isn't a scene from a fantasy superhero dystopian comic of the 80's. It's not a post-1945 Alternate Universe story "what if Hitler had won the war" scenario. This is the USA 2018.

 

 

A Nazi has been nominated by 20000 people in Illiinois as a Republican candidate.

 

I'm not making this up. This isn't a scene from a fantasy superhero dystopian comic of the 80's. It's not a post-1945 Alternate Universe story "what if Hitler had won the war" scenario. This is the USA 2018.

 

But what is the chance of him actually being *accepted* as the Republican candidate for the whole state - extremely low, I suspect.