Donald Trump, The Liar

[dude]

[ChrisR]

C'mon now. Donald is a visionary.

You can easily tell that he's seeing visions.

Sort of like, you know, the 60s?

[colinian]

That video is fantastic! I'm going to find it on YouTube to 1) Like it, and 2) send it to my friends so they can disseminate it. If we all who believe what this video says do this , pretty soon the entire nation will have had access to it.

(Check PolitiFact.com to verify what is captioned in the video.)

Colin

[Chris James]

In a new NBC poll, it seems that 72 percent of Republicans still support the birther argument started by Donald Trump over six years ago. That says a lot about the intelligence of the average Republican...they are ignorant and refuse to believe Obama is a U.S. born citizen.

​Perhaps the lies perpetrated by Trump on this issue should have warned us about how the man would run his presidential campaign. I have yet to see a glimmer of intelligence that might qualify Trump for the office of president...it's just not there. The lies he spins would not stand up on the world stage and because of that American foreign policy will suffer.

[Joe]

Every time he opens his mouth I hear echoes from The Origins of Totalitarianism which I read with great interest as an undergraduate and it terrifies me. I saw a clip on the news about one of his rallies where he had worked the crowd up and they were mindlessly shouting "trump, trump, trump, trump...." It was eerily similar to some other newsreels I've seen.

[Cole Parker]

I love the clip of Trump with David Letterman that Hillary is running, showing Trump's shirts and ties are made in Asia, and him looking smug about it. How can anyone vote for this bloated egomaniac?

C

[Nigel Gordon]

Comment on the BBC this morning by a former Republican campaign manager. "The Republican party does not have a campaign, it has a Twitter account with an egomaniac behind it."

[ChrisR]

This year's election seems more about who you DON'T want for president than who you DO.

MSNBC is "rather pro-Clinton" but this morning mentions Trump 8 times in its headlines and Clinton only 4. In contrast, Foxnews, "somewhat pro-Trumpish", mentions Clinton more than Trump.

So the only consistent thing about it seems to be that we don't want either one, and are preparing to have to live with the lesser of two evils.

[Cole Parker]

So the only consistent thing about it seems to be that we don't want either one, and are preparing to have to live with the lesser of two evils.

I think that could be said about many of our elections. The difference here, to me, is that one of the evils this time is one hundred times worse than the other.

I personally don't see where all the animosity directed against Hillary comes from. I do know she's not warm and cuddly, but who wants that in a President? I know Republicans loathed her husband, and are now directing the same venom towards her. I just don't understand the depth of it.

C

[JamesSavik]

Trump isn't Hitler.

Mussolini...maybe but not Hitler.

[dude]

Trump isn't Hitler.

Mussolini...maybe but not Hitler.

Right, James... an apt comparison!

[Pedro]

I worry that the U.S. electorate will take their turn to stick the finger up at the political elite and the chattering classes and vote for Trump and damn the consequences.

Our elites thought they were being clever calling the Brexit Vote, and proved they aren't clever at all. Our electorate put two fingers up to our lot, and the difference in the collective psyche in the U.S. is such that they could find it easier to raise the one!

However the global consequences of electing Trump could make Brexit seem a stroll round the garden - not even a walk in the park.

[Cole Parker]

I really, really hope the silent majority isn't that dumb.

C

[Nigel Gordon]

I really, really hope the silent majority isn't that dumb.

C

​It's not the silent majority you have to worry about, it the unheard minority, they are fed up with the whole bloody system and will do anything to upset the apple cart. Add them to the idiots, bigots and the insane and you find you have an unexpected majority.

[dude]

​It's not the silent majority you have to worry about, it the unheard minority, they are fed up with the whole bloody system and will do anything to upset the apple cart. Add them to the idiots, bigots and the insane and you find you have an unexpected majority.

Oh... is that how Brits explain "Brexit?"

[Cole Parker]

Nasty, Dude, Nasty! I love it.

C

[Nigel Gordon]

Oh... is that how Brits explain "Brexit?"

Yes. A lot of the 'silent majority' who would have voted Remain did not vote because they presumed a Remain vote was a foregone conclusion. Figures suggest that about three in twenty who supported Remain did not vote as they thought it was a given that Remain would win. On the leave side the turn out was nearly one hundred percent of those who would vote Leave turned out to vote.

You have a situation where many who would not support Trump might not vote for Hilary because they think it is clear that she is going to win. On the other side a lot of minority groups are likely to turn out for Trump. Don't be complacent, you could end up with Trump even without him having apparently enough support to win.

[Cole Parker]

Nigel, if what you say is true, is there a movement toward a revote? Seems like the will of the people should prevail, and the will of the people may well be, now, to STAY.

C

[Nigel Gordon]

Nigel, if what you say is true, is there a movement toward a revote? Seems like the will of the people should prevail, and the will of the people may well be, now, to STAY.

C

At the moment there is a legal challenge going to High Court challenging the right of the government to invoke Article 50. In all probability that will go all the way to the Supreme Court - allow a year for that. If the Supreme Court finds in favour, then there will have to be a parliamentary bill to grant the authority to invoke Article 50, allow another year for that. There is a chance the the bill could get defeated. Anyway you are now in the run up to a General Election and who knows what. In the meantime there is another legal challenge being put together which is arguing that under the EU Act of 2011 there is a requirement for a referendum on the terms of any transfer of power. Everybody know that was meant to mean a transfer of power to the EU but the wording is such that it can be argued that it also covers a transfer of power from the EU. That would take place if we withdraw from the EU. So it is argued that before Article 50 can be invoked the full terms must be agreed and put to the people in a separate referendum. It looks as if this could take an age to sort out. The only problem is I'm right in the middle of one of the groups trying to put a spoke in the Bretix process and don't have any time to write.

[Cole Parker]

Thanks for the update.

C

[ChrisR]

The world is run by those who show up.

In one form or another, that unattributed quotation seems to explain the electoral process. So no matter what the issue, people who elect to not vote for ANY reason, or change their mind after the fact, lose the right to complain about the outcome. For Brexit it is best explained by John Oliver (https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=RDVEALC1z3QG8&v=d8NdQrGljHM) at about the 0:40 mark.

Even if one did offer a second vote, would that overrule the first? Do we go best of 3? or 5? or a World Series best of 7? Ridiculous. The vote is the vote.

One advantage of the US Presidential system, of course, is that we do have a do-over option. It happens 4 years after the initial vote when people have a better idea of just how good or bad their first shot at it really was. Even after the Confexit vote of 1861 we decided to repeal it 4 years later at Appomattox. Of course this year here, and perhaps for the UK and EU, it does sort of depend on whether we all can last that long.

[Nick Deverill]

One can argue about numbers till the cows come home, but since more than half who voted, voted for Bexit, and that as a number is greater than voted for the party in power (Conservative) does anyone think they'll be re-elected if Article 50 is not triggered?

Since the Labour party was also in favour of staying in - and they are currently engaged in activities incompatible with convincing anyone, and perhaps even themselves - they too form an unelectable party.

Good as they may be in local government (or at least they are round my way) I do not think the Liberal party presents a credible front either.

Thankfully, the silly season (MPs on their holidays basically) is nearly over and we might see some real action one way or the other.

The real problem though is Brexit was not a single issue. Immigration was touted as the main issue but laws made by others with a misunderstanding of the issues (vide 3rd directive on driving licences re tricycles and motorbikes) and no trackable path on modifications. Hansard provides a brilliant resource in the UK, there is no equivalent in Brussels.

[ChrisR]

Nigel - does the Brexit vote have any sort of timetable? We've heard that once Art. 50 is triggered there is a two-year stopwatch to "tidy things up" - but how long does government have to enact the Art 50? Could everybody just sit on it and do nothing? And once it's enacted, what happens if the UK and its European pals cannot resolve everything in the two years allotted? For the moment there seems a lot of doom and gloom over nothing.

[Nigel Gordon]

Nigel - does the Brexit vote have any sort of timetable? We've heard that once Art. 50 is triggered there is a two-year stopwatch to "tidy things up" - but how long does government have to enact the Art 50? Could everybody just sit on it and do nothing? And once it's enacted, what happens if the UK and its European pals cannot resolve everything in the two years allotted? For the moment there seems a lot of doom and gloom over nothing.

Actually, there is no timetable. Referendum in the UK have no legal force, they are considered consultative only, so there is no requirement in law for there results to be put into force in a specific time frame. There is of course a political imperative behind implementing a referendum decision. It would be political suicide for a politician to be seen to ignore it. However, there are major practical considerations that will delay any invocation of Article 50. For a start we need 300 trade negotiators and at the moment we have 20. At the moment the civil servants who have been appointed to the department in charge of Brexit are having to hold meetings in Starbuck's as there is no meeting room available for them.

Also the two years timetable from the invocation of Article 50 is not set in stone. It can be extended if all the parties agree.

My best guess, given what I am getting from contacts in Westminster, is that we are probably looking at Article 50 being triggered about Easter next year. However, if the courts decide that the government can't use the Royal Prerogative we are more likely to be looking at sometime in 2018 or even later.

The PM has stated she has wants to have the agreement of the First Minister of the Scottish Assembly before triggering Article 50. As Scotland voted to Remain that agreement might be hard to get.

There is a final consideration in that many feel that the UK would get a better deal from the EU after the French, German and Dutch elections. That would push things into 2018. I suspect everybody might find it useful to drag out the current legal challanges.

[DesDownunder]

Is it any wonder that I sometimes feel that I have been abducted by aliens and put back on to the wrong planet?