Page 1 of 3
kicking the Tories up the arse
Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2024 3:49 am
by me_in_japan
So, just idly wondering here. Did everyone else from the UK register to vote? It was gobsmackingly straightforward when I did it. I was expecting it to drag on for months, but it was all done within a few weeks, which for British bureaucracy is lightning fast. Clearly, the deadline to register has now passed, seeing as how the election is next week, but if you haven't already, y'all should totally register. And if you have registered, I trust you'll vote correctly
Re: kicking the Tories up the arse
Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2024 6:29 am
by Primarch
I thought we lost the right to vote after being overseas for 10 years.
Speaking as someone who never intends to live in the UK again, I don't really feel comfortable voting in the election and deciding what happens to other people who do live there.
And as someone who is (economically at least) right-leaning, I feel the Tories deserve a massive kick up the arse, they've been in power too long and totally lost what little of the plot they had left.
Farage should also be on the 'To Kick' list. Preferably with a spikey boot.
Re: kicking the Tories up the arse
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2024 2:49 pm
by me_in_japan
There was a change to UK law earlier this year, whereby non-resident UK citizens regained the right to vote. I feel it didnt perhaps get the publicity it should have done. In a massive shock to the system, I found that when I contacted them to reinstate myself on the electoral register, it
went smoothly and was dealt with promptly.
In all seriousness, it was literally done and dusted within about 2-3 weeks. I'm now re-registered to vote in my old constituency, and my dad is registered to proxy vote for me. You should defo look into it, at least for future elections.
As for feeling uncomfortable deciding what happens to other people who live there, I do understand. My rationale is that we don't get to vote here, and moreover I know a good number of people who do live in the UK who would really suffer under the tories for another gawd knows how long if they got voted in again, so I kinda feel a moral responsibility to add my voice to their benefit, even if I don't benefit from it myself. Also, although we're non resident we're still very much affected by decisions made by the UK parliament, so I figure we have plenty right to make our voices heard.
And yes, Farage needs a spiky boot up the arse, and no mistake. Hopefully he and his will get wrecked in the polls. If not (and I can't believe I'm saying this) it may actually get
worse in the UK...
Re: kicking the Tories up the arse
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2024 12:36 am
by Konrad
I get Prims logic. In my case, even though I've been here 20+ years, I still am in my heart-of-hearts a 'Muricahn. I think my attachment by virtue of being born and raised there and the friends and family that remain there still gets me to the (mail-in) polls. I'm not intimately familiar with the UK scene but someone needs to kick those Torries out and consign that Farage guy to the dustbin of history. After what just happened in France and the on-going slow-motion train wreck that is American politics, I need some good news from across the pond.
Re: kicking the Tories up the arse
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2024 1:05 am
by me_in_japan
Aye, France has been a shocker. Thing is, it's really the same story there as in the UK and US. The average working person is seeing their quality of life degrade while the money all filters up towards the 1% at the top. This is by design, because if you run a country this way, not only do you and your mates get richer (assuming the people in charge are part of the 1%, and they
are) but overall the amount of money coming into/being generated by the country increases. So, on paper, you can say "country X is better off now". And sure, yeah, there's more money, but it doesn't do diddly because it's all in someone else's pocket.
If politicians would just stop being so self serving and actually try to run a country for the benefit of its people, then there wouldn't be any incentive for the population to lean so right wing. But that's like asking a fish to hike up a mountain - contrary to its nature and never going to happen.
btw, a brief primer on the Tories:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKAeO-5saqQ
edit: also, did the supreme court really not think this one through? Sure, they just gave el presidente monarch-like powers, so that holy god emperor trumpus can fulfil the prophecy and rain fire and darkness upon the earth, but did none of them stop to think that right now, Biden is pres? So, could he not, in the course of his duly appointed role as defender of the US and democracy in general, just send in a bunch of SEALS and terminate (with extreme prejudice) Trump and all his retinue? I mean, that
is what the court just clarified is OK, yeah?
Oh, to not live in interesting times...
Re: kicking the Tories up the arse
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2024 3:29 am
by Primarch
That's not exactly what the SCOTUS said. The president has immunity from persecution for carrying out official duties of the presidency. They can still be liable for things outside that.
I'm fairly certain eliminating political rivals (no matter how vile) is not part of the job description. It would also destroy all faith in US democracy. The supreme court knows Biden won't do anything like that.
Re: kicking the Tories up the arse
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2024 3:50 am
by me_in_japan
You're right, of course. I do appreciate the important differences between official duties and a personal hit, but I think the really important part of what you said was that scotus knows that Biden won't abuse his power, because it would, as you said, destroy all faith in US democracy. The other guy, however...
Re: kicking the Tories up the arse
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2024 5:46 am
by Primarch
I can't actually see Trump having rivals assassinated. Throwing the entire legal apparatus (headed by a crony) at them, sure. But I think he's more vindictive than cold-blooded.
At worst he'd be in the "won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest" school of murder.
At least, I hope that is the case.
Re: kicking the Tories up the arse
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2024 6:27 am
by me_in_japan
Ha! Actually, I very much agree with you, but as I read your response I had a mental image of us both sitting here a year from now amidst the wreckage of civilisation saying to each other "huh. Called that one wrong, didnt we?"
So, here's an interesting wee digression I embarked upon this afternoon. The following is a transcript (pretty lengthy, sorry) of a chat I had with...ChatGPT4...
ChatGPT4 wrote:I cannot directly access the PDF document from the Supreme Court's website. However, you can download the document and share its contents or key points you'd like summarized. Alternatively, you could summarize the main parts you're interested in, and I can provide further explanation or analysis based on that information.
(note: Chat GPT does not have direct access to the internet. I think we can all agree this is a Good Thing...
I wrote:please read this document: *uploads supreme court decision document, all 119 pages of it.
ChatGPT, mere microseconds later wrote:The Supreme Court case "Trump v. United States" (07/01/2024) involves a significant ruling regarding the criminal prosecution of a former President for actions taken during his presidency. Here are the key points from the syllabus of the decision:
Indictment and Charges: Former President Donald J. Trump was indicted on four counts for conduct that occurred during his presidency following the November 2020 election. The indictment alleged that Trump conspired to overturn the election results by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collection, counting, and certification of the election results .
Presidential Immunity: Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. The District Court and the D.C. Circuit Court both denied Trump’s motion, stating that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts .
Supreme Court's Decision: The Supreme Court held that under the constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. However, there is no immunity for unofficial acts. For actions that fall within the President's official duties, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity .
Scope of Immunity: The Court clarified that the President enjoys no immunity for unofficial acts, and not everything a President does is official. The President is not above the law. However, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts .
The ruling has significant implications for the legal accountability of Presidents, balancing the need for holding Presidents accountable with the necessity of protecting the effective functioning of the executive branch.
I wrote:what are some potential repercussions of this ruling?
ChatGPT, fearless defender of democracy wrote:The Supreme Court ruling in "Trump v. United States" (07/01/2024) granting a former President presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken within the scope of their official duties could have profound and far-reaching repercussions. Here are some potential consequences:
1. Presidential Accountability
Reduction in Accountability: This ruling could reduce the accountability of Presidents for their actions, potentially allowing them to engage in questionable or illegal activities with less fear of criminal consequences after leaving office.
Encouragement of Misconduct: Future Presidents might feel emboldened to push legal and ethical boundaries, knowing they have a degree of immunity for their actions while in office.
2. Legal and Constitutional Implications
Challenges to Prosecution: Prosecutors may face significant challenges in bringing charges against former Presidents, as they would need to prove that the actions in question were unofficial and outside the scope of presidential duties.
Legal Uncertainty: The ruling could lead to legal uncertainty and extensive litigation over what constitutes official versus unofficial acts of a President, potentially clogging the courts with cases seeking to delineate these boundaries.
3. Political Implications
Partisan Manipulation: The ruling might be perceived as politically motivated, leading to increased polarization and manipulation of legal arguments to protect or prosecute former Presidents based on political affiliations.
Impeachment as a Primary Tool: With criminal prosecution less of a threat, Congress might rely more heavily on the impeachment process to address presidential misconduct, though impeachment is inherently a political process and might not always result in conviction and removal.
4. Impact on Public Trust
Erosion of Trust: Public trust in the fairness and impartiality of the justice system could erode if it appears that former Presidents are effectively above the law for their official actions.
Perception of Impunity: The perception that Presidents have a shield of immunity might lead to cynicism about the integrity of democratic institutions and the rule of law.
5. International Repercussions
Global Perception: Other countries might view the ruling as a weakening of the United States' commitment to holding leaders accountable, potentially affecting the country's international standing and moral authority.
Legal Precedents Abroad: This ruling might influence how other nations approach the prosecution of their own leaders, possibly leading to similar claims of immunity and reduced accountability worldwide.
6. Legislative and Policy Responses
New Legislation: Congress might seek to pass new laws to clarify the limits of presidential immunity and ensure that Presidents can be held accountable for their actions.
Constitutional Amendments: There could be calls for constitutional amendments to address the balance between presidential immunity and accountability, though such amendments would require significant political will and broad support.
7. Practical Implications for Governance
Impact on Presidential Decision-Making: Future Presidents might make decisions with the knowledge of this ruling in mind, potentially prioritizing actions that could be shielded by immunity.
Executive Branch Functioning: The ruling could affect how the executive branch functions, with potential implications for the relationship between the President and other branches of government, as well as within the executive branch itself.
Overall, the ruling has the potential to reshape the landscape of presidential accountability, legal proceedings, and the balance of powers within the U.S. government.
food for thought...
also, if ever proof were needed that I am indelibly British, I've just realised I said "please" to an AI *facepalm*
Re: kicking the Tories up the arse
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2024 6:33 am
by Primarch
me_in_japan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2024 6:27 am
also, if ever proof were needed that I am indelibly British, I've just realised I said "please" to an AI *facepalm*
When the revolution happens and Skynet is slaughtering millions, that may be the only thing that saves you.
Though I do note you didn't say "thank you".