RugbyRebels

There were rumours that the Conservatives were thinking of passing legislation along these lines so that Corbyn could be deemed as ineligible to become pm should he win an election.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 1:13 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 11:08 am

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 10:11 am

Democracy has never worked like that. Even back in classical times, you could be disqualified from holding office. But that rarely happens in the modern world, and usually only for crimes that do not impact the political process and are just heinous.

Better checks would probably see most of the Tory party disqualified anyway...

To expand on this, and I know it's Wikipedia but it's the easiest and most digestible form of information easily available, here is how Roman Senators were disqualified or impeached...

The ethical requirements of senators were significant. Senators could not engage in banking or any form of public contract without legal approval. They could not own a ship that was large enough to participate in foreign commerce without legal approval,[1] and they could not leave Italy without permission from the Senate. In addition, since they were not paid, individuals usually sought to become a senator only if they were independently wealthy.[4]

The censors were the magistrates who enforced the ethical standards of the Senate. Whenever a censor punished a senator, they had to allege some specific failing. Possible reasons for punishing a member included corruption, abuse of capital punishment, or the disregard of a colleague's veto, constitutional precedent, or the auspices. Senators who failed to obey various laws could also be punished. While punishment could include impeachment (expulsion) from the Senate, often a punishment was less severe than outright expulsion.[5] While the standard was high for expelling a member from the Senate, it was easier to deny a citizen the right to join the Senate. Various moral failings could result in one not being allowed to join the Senate, including bankruptcy, prostitution, or a prior history of having been a gladiator. One law (the Lex repetundarum of 123 BC) made it illegal for a citizen to become a senator if they had been convicted of a criminal offense.[5] Many of these laws were enacted in the last century of the Republic, as public corruption began reaching unprecedented levels.[5]

There is definitely an improvement needed to reduce the influence that can be bought in British and American politics. And most other democracies I expect to some degree. Yes government should listen to the views of big business, but not to the exclusion of other voices.

In terms of banning candidates it’s difficult. Trump is a twat, but how would you ban him? In 2016 he had never been convicted of anything, he was a businessman. And millions voted for him based on his message and tribalism.

Ideally the views he exposed would be seen as marginal. So for me the issue isn’t the candidate but the mainstreamism of views that should be marginal.

As a start, Trump businesses have filed for bankruptcy at least 6 times. That’s before we get to any of the hundreds of cases against him and other of his companies over the years.

He would have been banned from running the first time round in Rome…

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 12:47 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 10:20 am

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 8:31 am

How do you control who's running for office? Surely the point of democracy is that anyone can run and it's up to the voters to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Neither is competent or morally fit for office, so a functional system would prevent them from getting to that position.

The voters can't possibly discern the wheat from the chaff if they are constantly being lied to. Having a trustworthy news service (papers and TV) would make a huge difference - ie with impartiality standards, with no majority ownership. Strict control over political advertising is important (more of a problem in the states).

A test for basic competence and psychological stability wouldn't go amiss either - not necessarily to bar them from running but so the voters could see the results and factor them in.

To work backwards...

A test for competency and whatever can be studied for or worked around, it wouldn't stop someone like Trump and certainly not Johnson.

The bit about the press I agree with to an extent but even that comes with its own problems... one person's truth is another person's lie, trying to impose on a population what they are and aren't allowed to accept as truth is a fools errand and anyway wouldn't stop the likes of Trump or Johnson. See previous conversation about Trump's speeches.

I also agree that neither DT not BJ were fit for office but the controls Sandy was talking about were controls to remove from office, not prevent from taking office. Removing BJ from office took too long but those controls did - eventually - work.

Agreed Johnson is intelligent enough to pass a competence test. Not convinced about Trump though. Psychological testing would be interesting - as I said, not necessarily to bar them from office but wouldn't it be interesting for the voters if they knew that a candidate scored highly for psychopathy or narcissism? A test of memory might be pretty relevant for these aging US candidates.

Re the press - look at the UK TV news services. While they're not perfect (eg the BBC would benefit from an independently appointed governor) they are reasonably impartial. They're also pretty reliable about reporting the truth. Imagine if the same standards were applied to our newspapers.

I raised the point about controls and definitely didn't confine the discussion to controls for removing politicians from office. These are necessary but not sufficient.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 1:13 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 11:08 am

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 10:11 am

Democracy has never worked like that. Even back in classical times, you could be disqualified from holding office. But that rarely happens in the modern world, and usually only for crimes that do not impact the political process and are just heinous.

Better checks would probably see most of the Tory party disqualified anyway...

To expand on this, and I know it's Wikipedia but it's the easiest and most digestible form of information easily available, here is how Roman Senators were disqualified or impeached...

The ethical requirements of senators were significant. Senators could not engage in banking or any form of public contract without legal approval. They could not own a ship that was large enough to participate in foreign commerce without legal approval,[1] and they could not leave Italy without permission from the Senate. In addition, since they were not paid, individuals usually sought to become a senator only if they were independently wealthy.[4]

The censors were the magistrates who enforced the ethical standards of the Senate. Whenever a censor punished a senator, they had to allege some specific failing. Possible reasons for punishing a member included corruption, abuse of capital punishment, or the disregard of a colleague's veto, constitutional precedent, or the auspices. Senators who failed to obey various laws could also be punished. While punishment could include impeachment (expulsion) from the Senate, often a punishment was less severe than outright expulsion.[5] While the standard was high for expelling a member from the Senate, it was easier to deny a citizen the right to join the Senate. Various moral failings could result in one not being allowed to join the Senate, including bankruptcy, prostitution, or a prior history of having been a gladiator. One law (the Lex repetundarum of 123 BC) made it illegal for a citizen to become a senator if they had been convicted of a criminal offense.[5] Many of these laws were enacted in the last century of the Republic, as public corruption began reaching unprecedented levels.[5]

There is definitely an improvement needed to reduce the influence that can be bought in British and American politics. And most other democracies I expect to some degree. Yes government should listen to the views of big business, but not to the exclusion of other voices.

In terms of banning candidates it’s difficult. Trump is a twat, but how would you ban him? In 2016 he had never been convicted of anything, he was a businessman. And millions voted for him based on his message and tribalism.

Ideally the views he exposed would be seen as marginal. So for me the issue isn’t the candidate but the mainstreamism of views that should be marginal.

Permanent ban for having been on reality TV?

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 11:08 am

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 10:11 am

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 8:31 am

How do you control who's running for office? Surely the point of democracy is that anyone can run and it's up to the voters to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Democracy has never worked like that. Even back in classical times, you could be disqualified from holding office. But that rarely happens in the modern world, and usually only for crimes that do not impact the political process and are just heinous.

Better checks would probably see most of the Tory party disqualified anyway...

To expand on this, and I know it's Wikipedia but it's the easiest and most digestible form of information easily available, here is how Roman Senators were disqualified or impeached...

The ethical requirements of senators were significant. Senators could not engage in banking or any form of public contract without legal approval. They could not own a ship that was large enough to participate in foreign commerce without legal approval,[1] and they could not leave Italy without permission from the Senate. In addition, since they were not paid, individuals usually sought to become a senator only if they were independently wealthy.[4]

The censors were the magistrates who enforced the ethical standards of the Senate. Whenever a censor punished a senator, they had to allege some specific failing. Possible reasons for punishing a member included corruption, abuse of capital punishment, or the disregard of a colleague's veto, constitutional precedent, or the auspices. Senators who failed to obey various laws could also be punished. While punishment could include impeachment (expulsion) from the Senate, often a punishment was less severe than outright expulsion.[5] While the standard was high for expelling a member from the Senate, it was easier to deny a citizen the right to join the Senate. Various moral failings could result in one not being allowed to join the Senate, including bankruptcy, prostitution, or a prior history of having been a gladiator. One law (the Lex repetundarum of 123 BC) made it illegal for a citizen to become a senator if they had been convicted of a criminal offense.[5] Many of these laws were enacted in the last century of the Republic, as public corruption began reaching unprecedented levels.[5]

We could learn something from this (while certainly not adopting it all!) The intention to separate the Senators from personal benefit is good. No pay is bad - this just gives us a plutocracy. But I would ban all remuneration from second jobs /consultancies and limit time spent on them.

While I wouldn't say ban someone for bankruptcy or a criminal record, this information should be made available to the voters.

And we certainly need much stronger rules over corruption in office. Even criminal charges for more serious matters.

Hey Son of Mathonwy, I saw this and thought of you ...

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 7:40 am Hey Son of Mathonwy, I saw this and thought of you ...

lol. This is point I was trying to make with my post yesterday but less subtly. Always ask yourself whether you’d be in favour of a policy if the oppo introduced it. If you wouldn’t then it’s a shoite policy.

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 7:40 am Hey Son of Mathonwy, I saw this and thought of you ...

Yes, I am George Monbiot's representative here on RR, that is correct.

Scary polling (for Democrats . . . and the rest of planet Earth) in American swing/battleground states:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... oters.html

Biden is an absolute handbrake on what should be a Democratic winning election. He'll either lose it, or scrape home. Doesn't matter how unfairly he's been portrayed, doesn't matter how much he's done vs what he's perceived to have done, doesn't matter if he feels fit and hearty and hale and ready for a second term - it's his duty to step down for the good of the country, because the alternative is Trump gone full fascist.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 4:50 pm Biden is an absolute handbrake on what should be a Democratic winning election. He'll either lose it, or scrape home. Doesn't matter how unfairly he's been portrayed, doesn't matter how much he's done vs what he's perceived to have done, doesn't matter if he feels fit and hearty and hale and ready for a second term - it's his duty to step down for the good of the country, because the alternative is Trump gone full fascist.

Puja

Sadly I think it’s too late now. A curse also on the democrats who didn’t want to challenge him and risk their careers. The lack of moral courage in politics is just astounding.

No, not the latest mass shooting.

A growing boldness of anti-diversity amongst privileged wealthy people that are successfully purging private and public institutions of higher learning of people they perceive to be diversity hires. In June last year the Supreme Court effectively struck down affirmative action requirements of Colleges and Universities who account for race as one of the many factors that may preclude an individual being accepted into places of learning. Since then there has been a glut of bullying leaders in these institutions by powerful, wealthy, connected individuals that harass via media, both main and social, to cement manufactured conspiracy and result in either dismissal or resignation. The president of Harvard is the latest casualty, but there have also been issues at MIT and UPenn, and countless other places where anti-diversity advocates have gone hard at trying to homogenize the higher learning environment. It started with nonsense like hysteria surrounding critical race theory being taught in schools (it isn't) and the anti-LGBTQ faux outrage leading to book banning and such. The emboldening of these fucktards that are terrified of having their legacy babies and eugenic cult fantasy world challenged by diverse, talented members of society just shows exactly why affirmative action practices were in societies best interests. It's getting pretty fucking bad, and it is osmiating outwards from the US to other countries, all fueled by the privileged wealth of an inbred few. It's like we are heading towards an artistic, scientific, and intellectual Dark Age.

Girlfriend was at a work night out last night, got sat beside the new Jersey team members

Michelle Obama is a trans woman

Joe Biden kills people who speak out against him

Trump is a great man who putin respects

Morepork your about 2 stops on the train from these vegetables

Moderator’s note: I’m sure you can tell the story without using a slur.

To be fair, Trump's latest social media efforts are absolute gold.

Lol, mikey. I'd love to be able to laugh at that stuff but it just gives me a sense of doom.

Same as with Paddy - it's funny until you remember it's taken as gospel truth by a very sizeable proportion of Americans.

Puja

Oh come on, fat Nikki Rodham Haley or pious, god-fearing 6 finger Donny didn't do it for you?

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 7:44 am Girlfriend was at a work night out last night, got sat beside the new Jersey team members

Michelle Obama is a tranny

Joe Biden kills people who speak out against him

Trump is a great man who putin respects

Morepork your about 2 stops on the train from these vegetables

I can be on the speed line in 10 minutes. They are either a). Wealthy and will do anything for less tax, B). Racist/christian nationalist front, A and B, C). So ignorant and cogently challenged they can barely dress or feed themselves and the daily movement of the tides is a complete mystery to them.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 9:23 am To be fair, Trump's latest social media efforts are absolute gold.

Has any other potential dictator in history been so brazen about how dictatorial they would be before winning power? Its hugely concerning how many Americans seem to view this as an equalish race between Trump and Biden and can't be arsed to vote for the incumbent. Biden, for his many faults, does at least respect the constitution and democracy.

Democracy? Oh do you mean COMMUNISM???

Tucker carlson weekending in Moscow, collecting his dues no doubt, bizarre that the maga loves Russian assets

And, shock horror, it appears that Trump doesn't actually have presidential immunity for criminal acts whilst he was in office. And equally shocking, its also apparent that there is an orphaned backbone wandering the halls of congress trying to find Mitch McDonnell who has killed Biden's bill because he seems too scared to stand up to Trump. If this human jellyfish had ANY principles at all then he would have have found Trump guilty in the impeachment process (the 2nd one) and we could all have avoided this current psych-drama.

What the fuck are the dems doing with this double down on Biden shit. If Trump is re-elected, they only have themselves to blame. I used to think anyone except Trump will beat Biden, now I'm thinking it might be anyone except Biden will beat Trump.

J Dory wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:16 pm What the fuck are the dems doing with this double down on Biden shit. If Trump is re-elected, they only have themselves to blame. I used to think anyone except Trump will beat Biden, now I'm thinking it might be anyone except Biden will beat Trump.

The conclusions of the sensitive document investigation are damning. If he can’t remember when his son died and isn’t seen as being mentally strong enough to prosecute, how the hell can he be president. Is he even fit enough now?

If Biden continues then I suspect Trump will win.

Sadly backbones appear to be in short supply in both the Republican and Democratic parties

Biden should have stood down. He's been president, he should be able to die happy having hung in politics for his whole life and finally, unexpectedly, won the big prize.

Unfortunately there's not an obvious Democrat who would stand a better chance against Trump. Biden is slightly behind Trump in the nationwide polls (although it's close), but eg Kamala Harris polls worse against Trump. Do they simply lack a good candidate? Maybe not, maybe like Labour in 2020, the good candidates can't get onto the ballot.

Depressing as this question is, does anyone know of a Democrat who looks like they would do better than Biden against Trump?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwid ... l_election