Madhatter (Republican) Tea Party dream if Italy is next on the populist rollercoaster and decides to Italexit.After Brexit and Trump, a third global iceberg looms: How Italy's referendum could send shockwaves through the EU and beyond
I didn't think any politician in this country would be stupid enough to hold a referendum on leaving the EU, but it happened. This is exactly what quite a few of the Tory Eurosceptics have been trying to achieve for a long time, not just Britain leaving the EU but to destroy the whole project. I'm sure Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will do everything they can to jolly the EU's demise along.AnatolyKasparov wrote:There is likely to be a "no" vote in the upcoming Italian referendum (certainly if polls are at all accurate this time) but even if it happens their exiting the EU is extremely unlikely.
KatharineBirbalsingh @Miss_Snuffy 8m8 minutes ago London, England
Book launch all day tomorrow - 9am to 4pm - live streamed at https://livestream.com/L4L/Michaela" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; We will be tweeting all day School all set. Can't wait!
Alex Wickham Verified account
@WikiGuido
Nigel Farage has given an interview explaining why he'd be a better US ambassador than Sir Kim Darroch. To Russia Today.
There are indications that pro-EU sentiment in most member states has actually increased since our Brexit vote.Willow904 wrote:I didn't think any politician in this country would be stupid enough to hold a referendum on leaving the EU, but it happened. This is exactly what quite a few of the Tory Eurosceptics have been trying to achieve for a long time, not just Britain leaving the EU but to destroy the whole project. I'm sure Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will do everything they can to jolly the EU's demise along.AnatolyKasparov wrote:There is likely to be a "no" vote in the upcoming Italian referendum (certainly if polls are at all accurate this time) but even if it happens their exiting the EU is extremely unlikely.
Yes. I posted a link, earlier today, to a Washington Post article which was saying just that (pro-EU sentiment on the rise).AnatolyKasparov wrote:There are indications that pro-EU sentiment in most member states has actually increased since our Brexit vote.Willow904 wrote:I didn't think any politician in this country would be stupid enough to hold a referendum on leaving the EU, but it happened. This is exactly what quite a few of the Tory Eurosceptics have been trying to achieve for a long time, not just Britain leaving the EU but to destroy the whole project. I'm sure Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will do everything they can to jolly the EU's demise along.AnatolyKasparov wrote:There is likely to be a "no" vote in the upcoming Italian referendum (certainly if polls are at all accurate this time) but even if it happens their exiting the EU is extremely unlikely.
Far right turn up for Farage? Surely not.AngryAsWell wrote:Nigel Farage's pro-Brexit march on Supreme Court 'postponed' over fears of far-right hijacking
EXCLUSIVE: Leave.EU confirms to IBTimes UK that the demonstration has been called off.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/pro-brexit-mar ... ed-1593471" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(Or are they scared no one will turn up, like the last one that expected 15,000 and 200 turned up?)
It's not enough for him to be breaking the law, or ignoring precedent, or going the whole hog down the 'treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors' path. The House of Representatives would actually have to vote to impeach him. It seems very unlikely.Willow904 wrote: So far Trump is resisting this measure and yet it appears running a company in debt to foreign states means he'll be in breach of the US constitution the moment he is sworn in. One imagines Trump will have to give in on this as the other two options - him taking office illegally or the electoral college refusing to elect him - are both just so constitutionally explosive it's almost impossible to imagine either happening. And yet, the unimaginable seems to be a bit if a theme this year.....
I think this article is saying that the electoral college representatives would be in breach of the constitution in electing him knowing, as they do, he has business interests that make him in hock to foreign governments and therefore unfit to govern. That's a little different to electing him in good faith only to later find he's done something wrong. In electing him they will be complicit in ignoring the constitution. That he would put the electoral college in this position shows he is unfit to govern. If the Americans allow him to ignore their democratic conventions from the off, they are in big, big trouble in my opinion. They need to insist on the blind trust before agreeing to make him President or where will it end? No other President has been allowed to run a business while running the country and if it's so impossible for him to give up his empire he shouldn't have put himself forward for a public service role, should he?adam wrote:It's not enough for him to be breaking the law, or ignoring precedent, or going the whole hog down the 'treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors' path. The House of Representatives would actually have to vote to impeach him. It seems very unlikely.Willow904 wrote: So far Trump is resisting this measure and yet it appears running a company in debt to foreign states means he'll be in breach of the US constitution the moment he is sworn in. One imagines Trump will have to give in on this as the other two options - him taking office illegally or the electoral college refusing to elect him - are both just so constitutionally explosive it's almost impossible to imagine either happening. And yet, the unimaginable seems to be a bit if a theme this year.....
Again, I would be surprised. I think you're effectively relying on Republican politicians to put constitutional questions before their party's self interest.Willow904 wrote:I think this article is saying that the electoral college representatives would be in breach of the constitution in electing him knowing, as they do, he has business interests that make him in hock to foreign governments and therefore unfit to govern. That's a little different to electing him in good faith only to later find he's done something wrong. In electing him they will be complicit in ignoring the constitution. That he would put the electoral college in this position shows he is unfit to govern. If the Americans allow him to ignore their democratic conventions from the off, they are in big, big trouble in my opinion. They need to insist on the blind trust before agreeing to make him President or where will it end? No other President has been allowed to run a business while running the country and if it's so impossible for him to give up his empire he shouldn't have put himself forward for a public service role, should he?adam wrote:It's not enough for him to be breaking the law, or ignoring precedent, or going the whole hog down the 'treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors' path. The House of Representatives would actually have to vote to impeach him. It seems very unlikely.Willow904 wrote: So far Trump is resisting this measure and yet it appears running a company in debt to foreign states means he'll be in breach of the US constitution the moment he is sworn in. One imagines Trump will have to give in on this as the other two options - him taking office illegally or the electoral college refusing to elect him - are both just so constitutionally explosive it's almost impossible to imagine either happening. And yet, the unimaginable seems to be a bit if a theme this year.....
http://www.newyorker.com/business/curre ... st-problem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I agree a blind trust doesn't entirely solve the issue but the point is that he is refusing to do even that, he's refusing to do what all other US politicians do. Why did any of them bother in the past if there was no need to? Why observe any of the rules, if power hungry Republicans are going to turn a blind eye? Give him an inch and he'll take a yard. If the Republican party are expecting to control him they need to start as they mean to go on and make it very clear he can't expect to be treated any differently to any other President from the get go.adam wrote:Again, I would be surprised. I think you're effectively relying on Republican politicians to put constitutional questions before their party's self interest.Willow904 wrote:I think this article is saying that the electoral college representatives would be in breach of the constitution in electing him knowing, as they do, he has business interests that make him in hock to foreign governments and therefore unfit to govern. That's a little different to electing him in good faith only to later find he's done something wrong. In electing him they will be complicit in ignoring the constitution. That he would put the electoral college in this position shows he is unfit to govern. If the Americans allow him to ignore their democratic conventions from the off, they are in big, big trouble in my opinion. They need to insist on the blind trust before agreeing to make him President or where will it end? No other President has been allowed to run a business while running the country and if it's so impossible for him to give up his empire he shouldn't have put himself forward for a public service role, should he?adam wrote: It's not enough for him to be breaking the law, or ignoring precedent, or going the whole hog down the 'treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors' path. The House of Representatives would actually have to vote to impeach him. It seems very unlikely.
http://www.newyorker.com/business/curre ... st-problem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Don't get me wrong, it's an absurd disgrace that he seems to think his conflicts of interest just don't matter. I just think the politicians in power in the states will probably agree with him. Lots of members of Bush's governments held investments inpropertiesedit - companies - albeit held them in blind trusts during their terms of office - that shot up in value because of their government's policies, and nothing happened to any of them in terms of public censure. I don't think people care. I think it's absurd and awful, but I don't think people will care.
I'm not sure they do expect to control him. I suspect - and I think it looks this way from the appointments he's made so far - that he will give the neocon hardcore what they want in terms of policy.Willow904 wrote:I agree a blind trust doesn't entirely solve the issue but the point is that he is refusing to do even that, he's refusing to do what all other US politicians do. Why did any of them bother in the past if there was no need to? Why observe any of the rules, if power hungry Republicans are going to turn a blind eye? Give him an inch and he'll take a yard. If the Republican party are expecting to control him they need to start as they mean to go on and make it very clear he can't expect to be treated any differently to any other President from the get go.
It''s not me raising these constitutional problems, you know, but the US press.adam wrote:Remember that in 2000 a staunchly republican slanted supreme court and those presidential electoral college electors put Bush in the white house despite knowing full well that he had lost Florida and so had lost the electoral college vote. Don't project your decency onto indecent people.
I'm just linking stuff and suggesting that what little democracy the US ever had will be flushed down the toilet if they allow him to become President without putting at least a veneer of distance between himself and his business interests. I don't know if they are decent people or not but they're fools if they allow him to ignore the rules so blatantly.From the articleWillow904 wrote:It''s not me raising these constitutional problems, you know, but the US press.adam wrote:Remember that in 2000 a staunchly republican slanted supreme court and those presidential electoral college electors put Bush in the white house despite knowing full well that he had lost Florida and so had lost the electoral college vote. Don't project your decency onto indecent people.
It turns out that there is no legal requirement that a President divest himself or herself of private business interests or investments while in office. Nor is there a requirement that he place investments or companies he controls in a blind trust, by which an independent third party manages the assets while he serves in government.
No other advanced democracy would tolerate this of level of conflict of interest so openly. I don't think this is business as usual, however low your opinion of the Republican party may be. We are talking about Trump's children holding key political roles while running his empire.The authors of the Constitution, however, did have insight into the potential abuse of the office of President, and they inserted something called the Emoluments Clause into Section 9 of Article I. It states, in part, that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
I think they can, in theory, choose whoever they want but that they are officially bound by the mandate of their state and they can face personal consequences - prosecutions and fines - if they choose to be 'faithless electors'.Willow904 wrote:The article continues with this, though:
No other advanced democracy would tolerate this of level of conflict of interest so openly. I don't think this is business as usual, however low your opinion of the Republican party may be. We are talking about Trump's children holding key political roles while running his empire.The authors of the Constitution, however, did have insight into the potential abuse of the office of President, and they inserted something called the Emoluments Clause into Section 9 of Article I. It states, in part, that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
Btw, if the electoral college wanted to choose someone else, who are their options? Does it have to be a presidential candidate or could they choose Pence (just curious, I appreciate it's the least likely of the possible outcomes).
Thanks. You're probably right.adam wrote:I think they can, in theory, choose whoever they want but that they are officially bound by the mandate of their state and they can face personal consequences - prosecutions and fines - if they choose to be 'faithless electors'.Willow904 wrote:The article continues with this, though:
No other advanced democracy would tolerate this of level of conflict of interest so openly. I don't think this is business as usual, however low your opinion of the Republican party may be. We are talking about Trump's children holding key political roles while running his empire.The authors of the Constitution, however, did have insight into the potential abuse of the office of President, and they inserted something called the Emoluments Clause into Section 9 of Article I. It states, in part, that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
Btw, if the electoral college wanted to choose someone else, who are their options? Does it have to be a presidential candidate or could they choose Pence (just curious, I appreciate it's the least likely of the possible outcomes).
I honestly don't think your opinion of the republican party is low enough.
“People like you are in what we call the reality-based community. You believe that solutions emerge from judicious study of the discernible reality. That’s not the way the world really works any more.”
