1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. REMINDER

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

Well done Trump

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Learning, Jul 30, 2020.

  1. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Well, in a way. He wants to to delay an election that he might lose. Trump puts himself in the same set of people as The leader of Russia, The president of North Korea, The president of China, The Supreme leader of Iran, the late leader of Zimbabwe. America leaves the democratic West.
    Sad isn't it? Will he get away with it?
    He might like to remember the fate of Mussolini. There again he might not.
     
  2. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    Wait until Boris follows suit...
     
  3. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Boris can call an election when ever he likes, subject to parliamentary approval, Trump can't he has to have one every four years.
     
  4. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    Boris has to call one every 5 years (God help us if he gets more than one opportunity)
     
  5. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    I don't think that he will. Any British PM who tries that will soon be dead.
     
  6. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

    I don't think there's anything written down to compel him to call an election though. I know he has stated the 5 year term, but we have no constitutional compulsion for regular general elections, only what has evolved.
    So he could decide to stay and we can't make him go.
     
  7. Mike40

    Mike40 Well-Known Member

    Interesting thought.......when the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee was finally put together, it was only 'permitted' because Boris had lobbied to have Chris "Failing" Grayling appointed Chair - on the premise that the 'Russia report' would be so emasculated and redacted that it would be worthless. Got that one wrong and - to his incandescent fury - Julian Lewis was appointed Chair and published the report.

    It's been public knowledge that Alex Younger would be retiring as 'C' (Chief of Secret Intelligence Service) at the end of the year........originally due to retire at the end of 2019, he stayed in post to oversee the implementation of the disaster that is Brexit. Boris has been lobbying hard for Tom Hurd to take over as 'C'. Coincientally (?) Hurd is an old chum of our pocket Mussolini from both Eton and Oxford. Those who have not previously heard of Hurd may remember his father, Douglas, who was Foreign Secretary under Margaret Thatcher. The Foreign Secretary is, of course, the Cabinet Minister to whom SIS is directly accountable. (Oh God, Raab!!).

    Unfortunately for Boris (again) he seems to have struck out once more as Richard Moore, currently Political Director at the Foreign Office and a previous Ambassador to Turkey - also an old SIS hand - has been appointed as 'C'.

    Just as one understands that the US military have the means at hand to remove a 'rogue' President, in order to uphold the Constitution, so maybe Boris shouldn't get too comfortable. Maybe "we" don't have the means to make him go but it would seem that there are forces at work to negate, and hopefully reverse, the deeds of Dominic Cummings and his puppet.

    Take care,
    Mike
     
    Catriona and steveandthedogs like this.
  8. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    Considering the state of the country and dealing with the Coronavirus, would any of the UK's political parties actually WANT to win the election because of the poisoned Chalice they'd be handed?
     
    steveandthedogs likes this.
  9. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Yes
     
  10. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Perhaps I should remind you that the last election was less than 12 months ago so the prospect of one being called any time soon is minimal.
     
  11. Mike40

    Mike40 Well-Known Member

    spinno likes this.
  12. Stephen Rundle

    Stephen Rundle In the Stop Bath

    My son likes him he says he looks like Worzel gummidge
     
    spinno likes this.
  13. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

  14. Jeff Farkas

    Jeff Farkas Well-Known Member

    The Constitution says that Congress sets the date for the federal election not the POTUS or any other branch of Gov. All Trump is trying to do is discredit the election and he's setting up an excuse if he loses. Look at his language when it comes to mail in voting. There's not evidence of fraud but he keeps pushing the narrative that there's mass fraud with mail in voting.

    The new POTUS takes office on Jan 20th and that's carved in stone. Even if Trump tires to deny the results if he loses the new POTUS will be sworn in,. all of the powers of the office will go to him and then Trump will be removed from the WH. The secret service will make fast work of moving him out.IE, taking the trash out. :cool:
     
    Mike40 and Catriona like this.
  15. gray1720

    gray1720 Well-Known Member

    I say, that's a bit harsh!

    What's trash done to be compared to Trumpo?
     
  16. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I used to think that the obsession of some US citizens with guns was objectionable but, if you consider the bigger picture, their reasoning isn't quite as unrealistic as we on this side of the pond tend to think. One reason for the "Disciplined Militia" in the US constitution was to remove a Federal Government that had/has gone astray. We in the UK would find doing so rather more difficult, except that the armed forces swear allegiance to the Crown, not the government, if the government decided to act against the crown I suspect the armed forces would act against the government, at least I hope they would.
     
  17. Jeff Farkas

    Jeff Farkas Well-Known Member

    Harsh?? Trump is trash, IMO. He's done a shit job with the virus, he's destroying the environment and he's cutting back on the ACA. Add to this all of his giving into Russia.. that defines trash to me.
     
  18. Jeff Farkas

    Jeff Farkas Well-Known Member

    The first part of the Second was put there so the country could defend itself from a foreign nation that invited. Today the current military can do that without an issue Also the constitution has provisions to remove a POTUS. There's no need for the citizens to take up arms to accomplish this goal,The assumption that a militia could remove a sitting POTUS or gov is silly and could never happen.They wouldn't have the needed firepower to compete with the full force of the military.

    The second part that allows people to have firearms was a good idea but it's gone mad. There are far too many guns in circulation and too many people are dying as a result of them. When you have a nation with more guns than people something is a miss.

    Just look at say, Chicago. Just about every weekend there are shootings and deaths.,. some are kids. That has to stop.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2020
  19. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I don't disagree with your interpretation but many over here have never considered the reasons behind the amendment and thus have a different understanding. Yes there are far too many guns and the distribution of them needs attention too. Some people have several and many people have none.

    We can set aside the argument that guns make people safer by reference to the simple fact that, when faced with someone carrying a gun, the majority of people would freeze. Soldiers need considerable training to react appropriately and the majority of gun owners don't have that training. Guns in trained hands may well provide protection from an armed intruder but in untrained hands... In fact one need only look at any of a number of instances of police shootings to see that, even in trained hands, guns aren't necessarily a good idea. In one case I read the vast majority of rounds fired by the NY Police missed not only the suspect but his vehicle and a number of innocent bystanders were injured. Would a citizen gun owner do any better?
     
  20. Jeff Farkas

    Jeff Farkas Well-Known Member

    Guns rarely aid in the situation of a home invasion. The fact is that in most circumstances the homeowner is caught off guard and the perpetrators have the upper had due to the surprise factor, One may feel safe but that's a false sense of security. The odd are more likely that a family member is harmed by the gun is higher than that of fending off an intruder.

    As for police shooting, it's just a small number of people who are harmed or killed by accident. The vast majority are in fact criminals and the shootings are justified, A citizen with a gun is likely to be more dangerous than a cop with a gun. There are many hunters that are well trained and are not likely to be of any danger to anyone but outside of that group I wouldn't trust many with a gun
     

Share This Page