President Trump

KS55 said:
Under our constitution the cabinet is a sub committee of the Privy Council, a collection of wise old ministers. They are the senior advisors to the Monarch and can overrule the cabinet and advise the monarch to dissolve parliament. Thus, if we had a rogue PM acting like Trump, the PC can cut him off and render him powerless by this use of the Royal Prerogative. The only way that can be accomplished in USA is impeachment and a guilty verdict (two thirds majority) in the Senate.
Theoretically, if Trump’s cabinet voted against him en masse, he would have to resign. I can’t see either route succeeding.
So yes, we have the checks.
Incidently, Sir John Kerr who was Governor General of Australia, utilised the Royal Prerogative to dismiss PM Gough Whitlam in 1975, by dissolving Parliament.
If you ever wonder what a Constitutional Monarchy actually is, ultimately it is the power of the monarch to defend the constitution by use of the Prerogative.
Click to expand...
Which is really fucking scary
I used to work with a guy who ended up on the privy council and I can confirm he certainly wasn't the sharpest tool in the box
 
dickie davies said:
Which is really fucking scary
I used to work with a guy who ended up on the privy council and I can confirm he certainly wasn't the sharpest tool in the box
Click to expand...
Safety in numbers. I don’t think the Monarch is all that bright either.
 
SWP's back said:
Getting as bad as fucking China, just without the decent take out food.
Click to expand...
To be fair I am guessing the USTA would much, much prefer if Trump would stay as far away from Flushing Meadows as possible. That said, speaking as a guy who worked in TV broadcasting long ago, I have no idea what “showcasing” a disruption even means.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
To be fair I am guessing the USTA would much, much prefer if Trump would stay as far away from Flushing Meadows as possible. That said, speaking as a guy who worked in TV broadcasting long ago, I have no idea what “showcasing” a disruption even means.
Click to expand...
Showing it in any way, shape or form, including commenting on it.
 
hampshireblue said:
If I was the King, I'd be planning a drinking session the night before the state banquet and then cry off with a hangover. Alternatively just send Trump a text telling him the visit is cancelled as we don't allow convicted criminals into the UK, just as they don't.
Click to expand...
Nah. A positive test for Covid after taking advice from RFK (and from Reform's medical man and Farage's antivax group)
 
Blue Mist said:
You say Adams was never convicted of any terrorist offences. Neither was Bin Laden.
McGuniness was a known leader of the IRA but there was no evidence to put him before a court.
If the UK had taken the US line, both would have been killed/murdered. We followed the rule of law.
You say Adams McGuiness were on a scale far lower than Bin Laden. That is my exact point. Who decides what level you are at ? An American President ? If that is the case no country or person is safe, as we are now seeing.
Putin, the only ones that can legitimately kill him are the Ukrainian people.
Nelson Mandela. A convicted terrorist. The acknowledged leader of a terrorist organisation and yet later a world leader. You say Mandela is a ridiculous comparison, Steve Biko's family would disagree. Beaten to death in a police cell by 5 South African cops. They were never arrested never mind charged. They simply decided they were above the rule of law, just like Trump and Obama.

It seems this clown has clearly watched the film Clear and Present Danger.
Click to expand...

You say the only people that can legitimately kill him are the Ukrainian people. Presumably this is on the basis of his orders to invade Ukraine and the continuing war. Fair enough, I agree, although i'm sure the Ukrainians would be happy to receive some assistance in that endeavour.

How then, given Bin Laden launched a Fatwa or jihad making it a religious requirement for "every Muslim who can do it to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military in any country in which it is possible to do it", can you argue that America (or indeed its allies) did not have the right to kill Bin Laden?

The only reason Bin Laden was never convicted was he couldn't be found, he was charged with numerous terrorism offenses. Gerry Adams was charged with being a member of the IRA. Thats it, nothing else, and he was cleared. You can't compare the two.

This is dragging on now and we're never going to agree. Going back to your original post, as I said in my reply I agree with you about the Venezuelan and North Korean incidents not being legitimate targets, I will never agree that Bin Laden wasn't a legitimate target.
 
flook said:
You say the only people that can legitimately kill him are the Ukrainian people. Presumably this is on the basis of his orders to invade Ukraine and the continuing war. Fair enough, I agree, although i'm sure the Ukrainians would be happy to receive some assistance in that endeavour.

How then, given Bin Laden launched a Fatwa or jihad making it a religious requirement for "every Muslim who can do it to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military in any country in which it is possible to do it", can you argue that America (or indeed its allies) did not have the right to kill Bin Laden?

The only reason Bin Laden was never convicted was he couldn't be found, he was charged with numerous terrorism offenses. Gerry Adams was charged with being a member of the IRA. Thats it, nothing else, and he was cleared. You can't compare the two.

This is dragging on now and we're never going to agree. Going back to your original post, as I said in my reply I agree with you about the Venezuelan and North Korean incidents not being legitimate targets, I will never agree that Bin Laden wasn't a legitimate target.
Click to expand...
I agree, I don't want to drag it on. So one last (honestly) post about it.
If Bin Laden was a legitimate target but the fishermen werent, who decides about those in between ?
 
This week could (sadly) be very interesting. Besides threatening all sorts of military action against Venuzala, trump will be planning something for Brazil.
On Thursday or Friday the Brazilian Supreme Court will deliver its verdict on whether the former President, Bolsarano is guilty of attempting a couple to keep himself in power.
trump has already imposed sanctions of 50% for merely putting him on trial, a guilty verdict could tip him over the edge.
 
Trump, who is preparing to send federal troops into Chicago said: “We are going to do to Chicago what we did to Vietnam.”
Seriously, he is deranged.
 
Blue Mist said:
I agree, I don't want to drag it on. So one last (honestly) post about it.
If Bin Laden was a legitimate target but the fishermen werent, who decides about those in between ?
Click to expand...
I guess that depends on which country you're talking about, Assuming the USA, the easy and glib answer would be the President, as it was in the case of Bin Laden. However that would assume the President was sane and not some grifting shitgibbon nonce.....and we're back on topic :)

Which brings me to ask, is Shitgibbon a legitimate target?
 
Blue Mist said:
I agree, I don't want to drag it on. So one last (honestly) post about it.
If Bin Laden was a legitimate target but the fishermen werent, who decides about those in between ?
Click to expand...
I suppose the subjective distinction is that one was a legitimate target and the other was deemed to be a necessity by dint of circumstance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top