• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Which Tyler said:
Of course not - inciting and abetting an armed revolt with the purpose of overthrowing the institutions of democracy (complete with a lynching gallows ready and waiting) - that's not a crime worthy of impeachment, and trying to paint it as such is a nakedly political act.
If you want to know what a crime worthy of impeachment look like - look no further than Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the oval office!
Click to expand...
Joking aside it was Clinton lying and obstruction of justice that he had had "sexual relations" with ML that got him impeached. Would he have been had he just come right out and just said he did? o_O

But still highlights the ridiculousness of the disparity between his and the current Trump's impeachment and what a joke the mechanism of impeachment is for.
 
The_Blindside said:
Joking aside it was Clinton lying and obstruction of justice that he had had "sexual relations" with ML that got him impeached. Would he have been had he just come right out and just said he did? o_O

But still highlights the ridiculousness of the disparity between his and the current Trump's impeachment and what a joke the mechanism of impeachment is for.
Click to expand...
I was too young to have any interest in it, so most of what I know is anecdotal, but didn't Democrats pretty much vote on party lines too. Again it's not to the same level as the current situation, but there is some hypocrisy there.
 
Reiser99 said:
I was too young to have any interest in it, so most of what I know is anecdotal, but didn't Democrats pretty much vote on party lines too. Again it's not to the same level as the current situation, but there is some hypocrisy there.
Click to expand...
Similar but not quite on that there were 4 articles of impeachment and 2 didn't even make past the house. As to the trial 5 republicans defected on one and 10 on the other.

So although yes they voted on party lines the real question was/is perjury/obstructions of justice an impeachable and removal offence remembering it is a political process not a legal one. To which the constitutions is incredibly vague about which states high crimes and misdemeanors. And it looks like back then even Republicans were quite techy about whether this was enough to warrant it, especially the reasons why the crimes were committed in the first place. If he'd perjured himself for stating on oath he hadn't conspired to stop the result of a legal election when he had well that would a diffrent kettle of fish I'd imagine.
 
ncurd said:
Similar but not quite on that there were 4 articles of impeachment and 2 didn't even make past the house. As to the trial 5 republicans defected on one and 10 on the other.

So although yes they voted on party lines the real question was/is perjury/obstructions of justice an impeachable and removal offence remembering it is a political process not a legal one. To which the constitutions is incredibly vague about which states high crimes and misdemeanors. And it looks like back then even Republicans were quite techy about whether this was enough to warrant it, especially the reasons why the crimes were committed in the first place. If he'd perjured himself for stating on oath he hadn't conspired to stop the result of a legal election when he had well that would a diffrent kettle of fish I'd imagine.
Click to expand...
Ah ok, fair enough.

From what I gather the impeachment is really about two things. Is the President a fit and proper person to hold office. For example not putting the country first, abusing their position, corruption. Or are they a threat to democracy. Basically it was another check in case a demagogue got elected and then either abused his position or tried to overthrow democracy. That's possibly why it is vague so that it gives politicians more options if they want to remove someone. On the other hand it gives opposing politicians more leeway to argue that it doesn't count.

Reality is Trump fits both of these criteria. He's a demagogue who used his position for personal gain and then tried to overthrow the elected government. He is exactly the type of person the founding fathers were afraid of and you have some republicans hailing him as the saviour of democracy.
 
BiggusLaddus said:
48hr maximum working week, what's that?

Everyone starting a job that is anywhere close to 48hrs a week has to sign an opt out. Otherwise they either don't get the job at all or other barriers suddenly appear, like the requirement for detailed daily timesheets.
Click to expand...
Thats not entirely true though.

Nobody HAS to sign an opt out, and if you are told you must...then they are acting incorrectly.

The EU WTD states you should not work more than 48 hours per week, averaged over 13 weeks....which is unusual and a large amount of hours for anyone to work...the opt-out is there should you wish to.

You cannot be refused a job for not signing the opt out......and if you are happy to work more than 48 hrs per week, for at least 13 weeks at a time, then fair play to ye.

I'm no fan of Brexit, but there a bit of scaremongering around Working time legislation and workers rights......they wont just disappear, and the govt wont automatically implement draconian, oliver twist type conditions........the actually EU legislation may become obsolete...but what ever replaces it, will be very similar....if not exactly the same
 
OhEastBelfast said:
I'm no fan of Brexit, but there a bit of scaremongering around Working time legislation and workers rights......they wont just disappear, and the govt wont automatically implement draconian, oliver twist type conditions........the actually EU legislation may become obsolete...but what ever replaces it, will be very similar....if not exactly the same
Click to expand...
EU legislation is focused primarily on protecting the individual, the commercial benefits are usually derived from these and the pay back form companies are relatively onerous obligations on Employers. This also extends to competition, consumer protection, privacy and data rights. In all likelihood you're probably correct, it'd be a daft move for a UK government to take away workers rights but the EU are incredibly progressive in the aforementioned areas and conservative governments in the UK probably won't keep up.

My prediction is that in 20 years the average UK worker will have less rights and freedoms than their EU counterpart. Fortunately it doesn't affect/benefits the bulk of the leave electorate...
 
OhEastBelfast said:
I'm no fan of Brexit, but there a bit of scaremongering around Working time legislation and workers rights......they wont just disappear, and the govt wont automatically implement draconian, oliver twist type conditions........the actually EU legislation may become obsolete...but what ever replaces it, will be very similar....if not exactly the same
Click to expand...
Reductio ad absurdium.

No-one's thinking it's going to be that bad - not even Jacob Rees-Mogg wants that. It'll be a gradual erosion (or more likely, a static failure to improve, or mild ersosion "closer alignment with America"). Equally, I don't think anyone can blame us for not trusting this (and future tory) government.
 
Which Tyler said:
Reductio ad absurdium.

No-one's thinking it's going to be that bad - not even Jacob Rees-Mogg wants that. It'll be a gradual erosion (or more likely, a static failure to improve, or mild ersosion "closer alignment with America"). Equally, I don't think anyone can blame us for not trusting this (and future tory) government.
Click to expand...
When it down to it Tories including leaders especially when they were opposition would talk about reducing rights including hiring and firing practices. They already extended under coalition the right to tribunal from year to two on claiming unfair dismissal. They even tried making you pay for it.

So yeah don't believe a word they say.

So trusting them when
 
ncurd said:
All should be nonsense but understand the reasoning.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can see the sense in it. Rather ironic though, given that relatively few eyelids were batted at BoJo addressing the nation to tell them he'd killed 100k people, looking like he'd been dragged through a hedge backwards.
 
Complete nonsense to try and drag those voters back but it will disenfranchise some of the youth vote who joined Labour recently.
 
Gavin said:
Complete nonsense to try and drag those voters back but it will disenfranchise some of the youth vote who joined Labour recently.
Click to expand...
Youth historically doesn't vote and you have to drag some voters back.

Or we can stick to an 80 seat Tory majority....
 
Reiser99 said:

Biden: 'Erratic' Trump should not get intelligence briefings

President Joe Biden said Mr Trump "might slip and say something" if given access to state secrets.
www.bbc.co.uk

Be interesting to see how big an issue the GOP and right wing media make of this, especially considering all the traditions that Trump completely ignored.
Click to expand...
I am sure they will. Still, the fact Trump has seen/briefed on classified intelligence in his 4 years makes him an ongoing major National Security threat already.
 


Write your reply...

Similar threads

Bada-Bing!
Antisocial, societal issues thread
11 12 13
Replies
250
Views
13K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Biking thread
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
7K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Ukraine War thread
50 51 52
Replies
1K
Views
41K
Which Tyler
Which Tyler
Bada-Bing!
The technology thread
45 46 47
Replies
935
Views
52K
Weldit
W
Leonormous Boozer
A History Thread
6 7 8
Replies
157
Views
21K
McTallshort
McTallshort

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Latest posts

Top