" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
Indeed. That's been the case since at least 2016 - the "Not My President" faction.
No its not, the "not my President" idea has always existed, or as the Simpsons put it "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" (1996, 20 years before 2016 election).
That's very different to using violence and abuse of authority to try to overturn election results.
Abuse of authority, yes, but it failed. And there really wasn't any violence aimed at overturning election results.
And if Trump runs again in 2024 and wins, do you think the American left is going to accept it quietly? Or will there be more "mostly peaceful" protests?
Have you seen any of the Jan 6 Committee coverage? It wasn't just the violent Insurrection, it was a complete multi-faceted plot and was foiled by a few Republicans who refused to break the law. If Mike Pence had buckled or Brad Raffensperger had found the 11,000 votes, Trump could have stolen the election from the American people.
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
Indeed. That's been the case since at least 2016 - the "Not My President" faction.
No its not, the "not my President" idea has always existed, or as the Simpsons put it "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" (1996, 20 years before 2016 election).
That's very different to using violence and abuse of authority to try to overturn election results.
Abuse of authority, yes, but it failed. And there really wasn't any violence aimed at overturning election results.
And if Trump runs again in 2024 and wins, do you think the American left is going to accept it quietly? Or will there be more "mostly peaceful" protests?
It failed this time, but the fact that they even tried is deeply concerning.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told POLITICO on Monday that Trump is a “potentially dangerous president.”
“It became clear to me last night that this man is not only unqualified to be president, he’s a danger to the republic,” Himes said. “I do think the Electoral College should choose someone other than Donald Trump to be president. That will lead to a fascinating legal issue ... but I would rather have a legal problem — a constitutional legal problem -- then to find out the White House was now the Kremlin’s chief ally.”
Himes was utterly right that Trump was a dangerous President and a danger to the republic, but the Electoral College result wasn't overturned and there was no effort to refuse to certify the results, as there was 2020 - and no effort to replace electoral officers with people who were pledging not to certify the results either.
Republican electors have been inundated with e-mails, letters, phone calls, and even death threats urging them not to vote for President-elect Donald Trump... A petition urging electoral college members to make Hillary Clinton president has almost 5 million signatures... Elector Ash Kare reports receiving 3,000 to 5,000 requests and demands per day that he become a "faithless elector" and has been assigned a plainsclothes police officer for protection... Michael Banerian, 22, of Michigan has received death threats. The Detroit News verified a message where the sender promised to "put a bullet" in the young man's mouth... As Banerian walked to a demonstration on the Oakland University campus with a group of fellow Trump supporters, he told the reporter that he was not afraid of the death threats. At that moment, an anti-Trump protester attacked the group.
Yeah, but that was all fine, because Orange Man Bad.
It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted
By enacted you mean set aside? As various commentators and journalists have pointed out, the government knows this policy is illegal under international law. It was never intended to be enacted.
If its so illegal then why is it already done by other nations? .
It does not deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country, as we aim to do with Rwanda.
Correct. And that is a crucial distinction.
Yes. That is the killer fact. It does not deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country, as we aim to do with Rwanda.
We know a lot of posters on here as bright, so it’s surprising the penny has not dropped for them yet on this killer fact.
St Bart I know as very clued in and intelligent, so a surprise to me he went rushing towards comparisons with Oz scheme, when Patel herself distanced herself from that discredited scheme.
Let’s deal with that killer fact, and open our friends on here to exactly why Charles and the Church so instinctively know this to be wrong.
With “deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country” the UK government, in our name, are seeking to use Asylum seekers who have reached this country for investing in Rwanda. They are very open about that. They believe that’s the right thing to do, on the economic development side, but also on the migration partnership - exploiting these asylum seekers in the same way as those chained in cargo holds during the slave trade.
IT - IS - COLONIALISM.
And Just go there for processing? At what point are they processed? At the point Patel’s government decides who is and who isn’t put on the plane, thats the moment of processing. Like choosing between slaves in a trade market.
I’m no wishywashy lefty - and I am proud to stand with Prince Charles and the Church of England on this one.
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
Indeed. That's been the case since at least 2016 - the "Not My President" faction.
No its not, the "not my President" idea has always existed, or as the Simpsons put it "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" (1996, 20 years before 2016 election).
That's very different to using violence and abuse of authority to try to overturn election results.
Abuse of authority, yes, but it failed. And there really wasn't any violence aimed at overturning election results.
And if Trump runs again in 2024 and wins, do you think the American left is going to accept it quietly? Or will there be more "mostly peaceful" protests?
Have you seen any of the Jan 6 Committee coverage? It wasn't just the violent Insurrection, it was a complete multi-faceted plot and was foiled by a few Republicans who refused to break the law. If Mike Pence had buckled or Brad Raffensperger had found the 11,000 votes, Trump could have stolen the election from the American people.
It's a kangaroo court, so no - total waste of time.
It wasn't a violent insurrection, it was an impotent howl of rage. That much is obvious from the photos and videos at the time.
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
Indeed. That's been the case since at least 2016 - the "Not My President" faction.
No its not, the "not my President" idea has always existed, or as the Simpsons put it "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" (1996, 20 years before 2016 election).
That's very different to using violence and abuse of authority to try to overturn election results.
Abuse of authority, yes, but it failed. And there really wasn't any violence aimed at overturning election results.
And if Trump runs again in 2024 and wins, do you think the American left is going to accept it quietly? Or will there be more "mostly peaceful" protests?
It failed this time, but the fact that they even tried is deeply concerning.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told POLITICO on Monday that Trump is a “potentially dangerous president.”
“It became clear to me last night that this man is not only unqualified to be president, he’s a danger to the republic,” Himes said. “I do think the Electoral College should choose someone other than Donald Trump to be president. That will lead to a fascinating legal issue ... but I would rather have a legal problem — a constitutional legal problem -- then to find out the White House was now the Kremlin’s chief ally.”
Himes was utterly right that Trump was a dangerous President and a danger to the republic, but the Electoral College result wasn't overturned and there was no effort to refuse to certify the results, as there was 2020 - and no effort to replace electoral officers with people who were pledging not to certify the results either.
Republican electors have been inundated with e-mails, letters, phone calls, and even death threats urging them not to vote for President-elect Donald Trump... A petition urging electoral college members to make Hillary Clinton president has almost 5 million signatures... Elector Ash Kare reports receiving 3,000 to 5,000 requests and demands per day that he become a "faithless elector" and has been assigned a plainsclothes police officer for protection... Michael Banerian, 22, of Michigan has received death threats. The Detroit News verified a message where the sender promised to "put a bullet" in the young man's mouth... As Banerian walked to a demonstration on the Oakland University campus with a group of fellow Trump supporters, he told the reporter that he was not afraid of the death threats. At that moment, an anti-Trump protester attacked the group.
But there was no attempt to not certify the results.
"Faithless electors" have always been a part of the American system, like it or loathe it, but the right electors were certified and there was no attempt to not certify the electors who won the election.
In some parts of America GOP primaries have sought to replace those who certify the results with partisans who are pledging to refuse to do so.
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
Indeed. That's been the case since at least 2016 - the "Not My President" faction.
It has totally infected GOP now and they are placing people who do not believe in democracy into key elections for posts where the winner will oversee the POTUS election count in 2024.
The nightmare is coming for america.
The main problem is that the American Left is equally crazed
The madness on either side would fizzle out if it was unopposed and unprovoked. But both sides keep stoking the other, they see no point or purpose in compromise, and they violently detest each other
Incredibly, I can see America tumbling into civil war, or at least major civil strife. All those guns
The US Democrats are about as left wing as our Toty Party, although you will no doubt be able to find individuals who are a bit mad. Both Tory and Labour politicians have helped the Democrats in elections. There is no comparison with today's GOP who plan to win by making it harder for people to vote and refusing to believe they have lost (Just find me 11.000 votes). GW Bush and Liz Cheney are no left wingers but at least they believe in democracy.
Delusional. Hardcore American Wokeness - increasingly taken up by the left of the Dems - makes our own bien pensantery look tepid
Many PB-ers seem wilfully unaware of what is happening in America. It is not just the twats of the GOP, they have a mirror image
The demographics are something like 7% of what we might call far-left, and 6% of what we might call far-right, in the population of the country. But these voices are way, WAY over-represented in ‘’the conversation’- politics, media and especially social media.
Right now, there are arguments about teaching sex ed in kindergarten, but also about arming teachers. There are some states wanting to ban abortion outright, and others wanting to allow it at 40 weeks. Some people want to ban guns, others want to make them mandatory.
The whole lot of them are completely mad. Certifiably bonkers.
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
Indeed. That's been the case since at least 2016 - the "Not My President" faction.
No its not, the "not my President" idea has always existed, or as the Simpsons put it "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" (1996, 20 years before 2016 election).
That's very different to using violence and abuse of authority to try to overturn election results.
Abuse of authority, yes, but it failed. And there really wasn't any violence aimed at overturning election results.
And if Trump runs again in 2024 and wins, do you think the American left is going to accept it quietly? Or will there be more "mostly peaceful" protests?
It failed this time, but the fact that they even tried is deeply concerning.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told POLITICO on Monday that Trump is a “potentially dangerous president.”
“It became clear to me last night that this man is not only unqualified to be president, he’s a danger to the republic,” Himes said. “I do think the Electoral College should choose someone other than Donald Trump to be president. That will lead to a fascinating legal issue ... but I would rather have a legal problem — a constitutional legal problem -- then to find out the White House was now the Kremlin’s chief ally.”
Himes was utterly right that Trump was a dangerous President and a danger to the republic, but the Electoral College result wasn't overturned and there was no effort to refuse to certify the results, as there was 2020 - and no effort to replace electoral officers with people who were pledging not to certify the results either.
Splitting hairs, not least given that you've moved in two posts from "the fact that they even tried is deeply concerning" to "the Electoral College result wasn't overturned"....
How many Democrats in Congress voted against certifying Trump's election in 2016 ?
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
So few people go to church these days that I doubt they're electorally significant in many constituencies.
Depending on how you count, a bit more than a million practicing Anglicans, similar number of Catholics, similar number of "others". Let's say three million practicing Christians in total.
Not enough to swing an election- but consider who they are. Predominantly older, generally quite civic-minded, relatively traditional morals. The kind of people who really ought to be voting Conservative. Heck, the roughly equivalent political tradition in many European countries is called Christian Democracy.
They (we) find it hard to vote for Johnson, what with all the lying, bullying and whatnot. But the Rwanda plan is the latest cat poo on top of the trifle. Not just because of the random ineffectual cruelty (though that's relevant, of course that's relevant). But also because Christian ethics have always been very clear- it's not OK to do a bad thing for a good result. The ends can never justify the means. That might be a foolish thing to believe, but that's how it is.
Still, I'm sure that the Conservative Party and their new electorate will be very happy together. But the circumstances that led to the triumph of 2019 (gaining new voters while retaining old ones, having your cake and eating it so to speak) don't look like repeating.
If we listened to the Bishops we'd be putting up anyone 'in need' around the world in our homes with no limit.
They are in a difficult position as is anyone with a pressing need to resolve that which can't be solved.
So what they, and most others, do is pick on one bit of the global issue (involving 10s of millions of people) and say of this small group of people "Do this" or "Don't do that". Exactly as courts, the government and lawyers are doing over the Rwanda flight.
More helpful - here I am hoping - is for governments, UNHCR, bishops and the rest to establish (without preconditions) what are the principles upon which all governments shall act. It is now obvious that the existing agreements and conventions are failing us.
To take one obvious feature, the current system privileges those who are able to travel further than others. To get from Southern Sudan to Uganda is one state of play. If you are young, fit and financed you might get to Dover. Why should they not have the same chance of any particular destination?
Comments
It wasn't just the violent Insurrection, it was a complete multi-faceted plot and was foiled by a few Republicans who refused to break the law. If Mike Pence had buckled or Brad Raffensperger had found the 11,000 votes, Trump could have stolen the election from the American people.
Apparently.
We know a lot of posters on here as bright, so it’s surprising the penny has not dropped for them yet on this killer fact.
St Bart I know as very clued in and intelligent, so a surprise to me he went rushing towards comparisons with Oz scheme, when Patel herself distanced herself from that discredited scheme.
https://www.times-series.co.uk/news/national/20069548.deal-rwanda-not-comparable-australias-offshore-policy-says-patel/
Let’s deal with that killer fact, and open our friends on here to exactly why Charles and the Church so instinctively know this to be wrong.
With “deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country” the UK government, in our name, are seeking to use Asylum seekers who have reached this country for investing in Rwanda. They are very open about that. They believe that’s the right thing to do, on the economic development side, but also on the migration partnership - exploiting these asylum seekers in the same way as those chained in cargo holds during the slave trade.
IT - IS - COLONIALISM.
And Just go there for processing? At what point are they processed? At the point Patel’s government decides who is and who isn’t put on the plane, thats the moment of processing. Like choosing between slaves in a trade market.
I’m no wishywashy lefty - and I am proud to stand with Prince Charles and the Church of England on this one.
What does he think that will achieve for Labour
It wasn't a violent insurrection, it was an impotent howl of rage. That much is obvious from the photos and videos at the time.
"Faithless electors" have always been a part of the American system, like it or loathe it, but the right electors were certified and there was no attempt to not certify the electors who won the election.
In some parts of America GOP primaries have sought to replace those who certify the results with partisans who are pledging to refuse to do so.
Right now, there are arguments about teaching sex ed in kindergarten, but also about arming teachers. There are some states wanting to ban abortion outright, and others wanting to allow it at 40 weeks. Some people want to ban guns, others want to make them mandatory.
The whole lot of them are completely mad. Certifiably bonkers.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2022/06/205_331080.html
Had it been Trump's second term, we'd likely have been writing off Taiwan as well as Ukraine.
So what they, and most others, do is pick on one bit of the global issue (involving 10s of millions of people) and say of this small group of people "Do this" or "Don't do that". Exactly as courts, the government and lawyers are doing over the Rwanda flight.
More helpful - here I am hoping - is for governments, UNHCR, bishops and the rest to establish (without preconditions) what are the principles upon which all governments shall act. It is now obvious that the existing agreements and conventions are failing us.
To take one obvious feature, the current system privileges those who are able to travel further than others. To get from Southern Sudan to Uganda is one state of play. If you are young, fit and financed you might get to Dover. Why should they not have the same chance of any particular destination?