Brexit - shifting sands ?

[Alan Goldhammer]

The whole reason with calling Trump "traitor" is to give credibility to Democrats who can then vote for impeachment with little criticism should they take over the House of Representatives.  It's something we should not do and will cause terrible results for America in the future.

Unfortunately, there are no norms in national politics any longer and both parties are to blame.  They keep trying to one up one another rather than looking after the best interests of the country.  I can remember the days when there was a lot of bi-partisanship and stuff got done.  these days Congress cannot even pass an appropriations bill on time.  It's all pretty pathetic.

[Alan Klein]

It is the President’s prerogative to take or not advice from those around him. To add to Alan’s examples, google “Operation Northwoods.” Should the then-President’s decision to shelve that advice be considered as a favor to Cuba, thus treasonous?

I read the Wiki article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

What's interesting is how the American military chiefs and CIA who recommended the plan that Kennedy rejected felt that the president had gone soft on Cuba.  Sounds like what we're hearing from them saying Trump is soft on Russia. Frankly, they're part of the dark state that Trump is fighting.    They think they're smarter than everyone and they're the ones who have caused all kinds of problems for America.  Kennedy was smart ignoring them. I think Trump is doing the right thing with Russia and should ignore them too.   

[Alan Klein]

Unfortunately, there are no norms in national politics any longer and both parties are to blame.  They keep trying to one up one another rather than looking after the best interests of the country.  I can remember the days when there was a lot of bi-partisanship and stuff got done.  these days Congress cannot even pass an appropriations bill on time.  It's all pretty pathetic.

I agree.  There's no comity.  It's all a zero sum game today.  I remember when Democrat Tip O'Neal the Irish Speaker of the House would sit down with Republican President Reagan and have a few good laughs. Sure they were in opposing parties.  But they knew they had to compromise to get things done and worked things out.  As recently as 15 years ago, Kagan, an ultra liberal was voted as a justice of the supreme court 95-0.  Both sides of the aisle.  Now we had to do away with the filibuster rule to get Gorsuch appointed by a one or two vote majority.  Obamacare was voted for only by Democrats.  And only Republicans voted for the tax reform.  There may have been two Dems from Red states that voted for it.  But the situation is dire.   

[Rob C]

Yes, Rob, it's an opinion. It may be a silly opinion, or a perverse one, but that's all it is. It's not a betrayal of the country, unless you conflate the intelligence services with the nation.

Jeremy

On one level that may well be true, but the difference between my opinion, yours and Mr T's opinion is that his matters right across the world, and what gets said gets remembered, stored away and available to be used for whatever purposes, propaganda included, later on at the most inconvenient times.

To me, that is indeed betrayal of the better interests of the country you are supposed to be leading, hand across beating heart, all flags aflutter.

Rob

[Rob C]

Rob, I understand your personal pain caused by the Brexit. Still...

Brexit was debated ad nauseam. Except that one side lost the debate. Lies? But of course, what else is new under the sun and in politics? If one side lied, the appropriate response is either to expose it clearly as lies, or provide a better counter-lie. That is politics, that is democracy, for better or worse. People listen to both sides and ultimately decide which lie or truth to believe. Not to mention their own beliefs, correct or misguided as it might be, but theirs nevertheless.

Complaining that the other side lied better is just sour grapes.

I have to disagree, Slobodan: there was no debate other than countless media claims and counter-claims, which do not constitute debate. Who sat down, representing enough people to count as a nation, to talk about the situation and what it could really mean to Britain? Nobody. You got an endless array of self-seekers smelling the opportunity to be top dogs in some new world power situation. One-item agenda parties appeared, told their lies and instantly admitted to being "mistaken" the moment the result was in. Absolution, right? We didn't mean it!

You can not call what went on prior to that referendum a debate. As I said, there is no forum in the land for it to happen, and that includes Parliament, where only those in whom power is already vested have voice.

The best anyone could have hoped for was a fresh general election, with a detailed manifesto explaining what reality looks like in the mind of each party standing. Then, whichever way that lousy cookie crumbled, at least it would have had basis in democratic process.

Grapes, sour or sweet, have nothing to do with it. At best, the result was so close as to be indecisive. Of course, as I said before, the only figure that gets mentioned is the 16 million that voted quit, always with the intention of having people imagine it to mean a majority of 16 million, when it was no such thing.

[Alan Klein]

On one level that may well be true, but the difference between my opinion, yours and Mr T's opinion is that his matters right across the world, and what gets said gets remembered, stored away and available to be used for whatever purposes, propaganda included, later on at the most inconvenient times.

To me, that is indeed betrayal of the better interests of the country you are supposed to be leading, hand across beating heart, all flags aflutter.

Rob

What it means is that Trump does international relations and other business on a personal basis.  He has found that he can get things done more successfully one-on-one.  So he hugged Kim and served Xi desert.  Let's be pals and work things out.  If you're an ally or adversary, try to get on Trump's good side.  Be friends.  Just as he feels he can catch more flies with honey than vinegar, so could leaders on other nations do the same with him.  If friendliness doesn't seem to work, he switches to bombast and attack. 

We'll see if his style works.    It's too soon to tell.

[Alan Klein]

I have to disagree, Slobodan: there was no debate other than countless media claims and counter-claims, which do not constitute debate. Who sat down, representing enough people to count as a nation, to talk about the situation and what it could really mean to Britain? Nobody. You got an endless array of self-seekers smelling the opportunity to be top dogs in some new world power situation. One-item agenda parties appeared, told their lies and instantly admitted to being "mistaken" the moment the result was in. Absolution, right? We didn't mean it!

You can not call what went on prior to that referendum a debate. As I said, there is no forum in the land for it to happen, and that includes Parliament, where only those in whom power is already vested have voice.

The best anyone could have hoped for was a fresh general election, with a detailed manifesto detailing what reality looks like.

Why doesn't Parliament do that and vote up or down?  I thought your constitution required Parliament to approve Brexit not a referendum. 

[Rob C]

Why doesn't Parliament do that and vote up or down?  I thought your constitution required Parliament to approve Brexit not a referendum.

What constitution?

The parties, as they stand as of today, have no idea what they, as a party, believe. There is a mix of Labour and Conservative making tactical vote agreements on the fly, each party unable to control its politicians, and it is shameful, and underscores what I just wrote above, about "the people" not really having any honest representation any longer, never mind the opportunity for open, frank and considered thought and debate. The adults that were in the room have moved to the garden for a drink.

The Brexit thing has done more to destroy the unity and fabric of this nation than anything else of which I can think.

[Alan Klein]

What constitution?

The parties, as they stand as of today, have no idea what they, as a party, believe. There is a mix of Labour and Conservative making tactical vote agreements on the fly, each party unable to control its politicians, and it is shameful, and underscores what I just wrote above, about "the people" not really having any honest representation any longer, never mind the opportunity for open, frank and considered thought and debate. The adults that were in the room have moved to the garden for a drink.

The Brexit thing has done more to destroy the unity and fabric of this nation than anything else of which I can think.

I read some place that Parliament is required to enact a Brexit.  That referendums cannot be used.  Am I incorrect?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

What constitution?

The parties, as they stand as of today, have no idea what they, as a party, believe. There is a mix of Labour and Conservative making tactical vote agreements on the fly, each party unable to control its politicians, and it is shameful, and underscores what I just wrote above, about "the people" not really having any honest representation any longer, never mind the opportunity for open, frank and considered thought and debate. The adults that were in the room have moved to the garden for a drink...

Rob, seems like you are longing for a land of unicorns and butterflies, where free-ice-cream-day lasts all year long. In the meantime, in the real world, with real people, represented by real politicians...

[Farmer]

It is the President’s prerogative to take or not advice from those around him. To add to Alan’s examples, google “Operation Northwoods.” Should the then-President’s decision to shelve that advice be considered as a favor to Cuba, thus treasonous?

So long as he is not acting against the interests of the US in favour of another nation, sure.

[Alan Klein]

So long as he is not acting against the interests of the US in favour of another nation, sure.

Phil, That doesn't make sense.  So if Trump allows higher tariffs to stand in Germany for American goods than we charge them, it's treasonous?  So then Trump by raising American tariffs against Germany to match theirs would make him immune to charges of treason.

[Farmer]

Phil, That doesn't make sense.  So if Trump allows higher tariffs to stand in Germany for American goods than we charge them, it's treasonous?  So then Trump by raising American tariffs against Germany to match theirs would make him immune to charges of treason.

He has no control over the tariffs charged by Germany, so that's nothing against him (or any PotUS).

However, if he went to Germany and said, "They spoke powerfully and bigly and I don't not want to disagree with them but there are lots of other countries anyway and so they're right they should raise their tariffs and I am going to block the US from looking into it or lodging a WTO complaint and fire anyone who tries" or something like that, then that might be.  Of course, he'd never do anything even vaguely like that, right?  Right...

Again, I started my first comment by saying he hasn't yet done anything to warrant such a charge, but he's headed awfully close to that direction.  He didn't misspeak in Helsinki - he got caught out saying what he really thought.  He love Putin - has done for years and so long as Putin whispers nice things to him, that's all he cares about - not the US.

[Alan Klein]

[/size]
He has no control over the tariffs charged by Germany, so that's nothing against him (or any PotUS).


However, if he went to Germany and said, "They spoke powerfully and bigly and I don't not want to disagree with them but there are lots of other countries anyway and so they're right they should raise their tariffs and I am going to block the US from looking into it or lodging a WTO complaint and fire anyone who tries" or something like that, then that might be.  Of course, he'd never do anything even vaguely like that, right?  Right...


Again, I started my first comment by saying he hasn't yet done anything to warrant such a charge, but he's headed awfully close to that direction.  He didn't misspeak in Helsinki - he got caught out saying what he really thought.  He love Putin - has done for years and so long as Putin whispers nice things to him, that's all he cares about - not the US.

[/size]


That also doesn't make any sense.  President's do all sorts of favors for foreign countries and leaders - both allies and potential adversaries.  Recently, Trump helped President Xi of China out by helping out the Chinese company that was going broke.  But that's not treason. The President I'm sure is putting that on his list of favors that Xi now owes him down the road.   Trump cancelled military exercises with South Korea as a favor to Kim of North Korea.  That weakens our military prowess against a country that we could be at war with and who's threatened us with nuclear attack.  Is that treason?  Of course not.  He's trying to prevent a war by making peaceful overtures. If Trump doesn't want to press the Russians about their breakin of DNC emails because he wants to move forward in our relations with them becasue he consider them more important, that's not treason either.  Reminder that we're not at war with any of these countries. 


Here's Congressional law regarding the  definition and penalty for treason against the US.


United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states:


Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States


Some definitions of the above:
ADHERING. Cleaving to, or joining; as, adhering to the enemies of the United States.
     2. The constitution of the United States, art. 3, s 3, defines treason against the United States, to consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
     3. The fact that a citizen is cruising in an enemy's ship, with a design to capture or destroy American ships, would be an adhering to the enemies of the United States. 4 State Tr. 328 ; Salk. 634; 2 Gilb. Ev. by Lofft, 798.
     4. If war be actually levied, that is, a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force atreasonable enterprise, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy are to be considered as traitors. 4 Cranch. 126.


https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/adhering

[Jeremy Roussak]

Unless you end up making policy decisions against the clear advice and evidence of your intelligence services and instead favour said other nation to the detriment of your own nation.  Then there may be a case.  Trump hasn't done that.  Yet.

True. In which case, it would be the making of those policy decisions which might constitute treason, not the expression now of an opinion.

Jeremy

[Rob C]

Rob, seems like you are longing for a land of unicorns and butterflies, where free-ice-cream-day lasts all year long. In the meantime, in the real world, with real people, represented by real politicians...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16360211.police-probe-vote-leave-amid-calls-to-blow-up-electoral-system-and-start-again/?ref=ebln

Not really; unicorns are notoriously dangerous - and you never see them coming! Ice cream is bad for your teeth and makes you fat, as well as the sporter of gleaming fakes which, looking on the bright side, results in selling more new Leicas.

There are very few real politicians around; there are many self-promoters, charlatans, property developers, trade-union honchos and wide-eyed, earnest innocents just out of university, though. Butterflies might be fun, as long as not the imported-from-Africa variety that eats geraniums. They arrived here, as did the inches-long beetle that has destroyed most of the palm trees, from Africa along with cheaper plant imports than the available home-grown products. In that sense, just as long as Mr T can reignite the Pittsburgh furnaces, convince the resuscitated workes to do it for nothing, he may be onto something after all!

Don't you just love the erudition within this LuLa of ours?

[Jeremy Roussak]

Why doesn't Parliament do that and vote up or down?  I thought your constitution required Parliament to approve Brexit not a referendum.

Parliament did exactly that, in enacting The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.

What constitution?

The UK constitution, of course. It's a commonly-repeated fallacy to say that we have no written constitution. It's not codified, but it's embodied in centuries of parliamentary practice, jurisprudence and academic writing. Some might think that the flexibility and ability to adapt to changing circumstance which that embodies is superior to reliance on later interpretation of a document whose contents were fixed two centuries ago, but of course that's a rather different question.

Jeremy

[Rob C]

That also doesn't make any sense.  President's do all sorts of favors for foreign countries and leaders - both allies and potential adversaries.  Recently, Trump helped President Xi of China out by helping out the Chinese company that was going broke.  But that's not treason. The President I'm sure is putting that on his list of favors that Xi now owes him down the road.   Trump cancelled military exercises with South Korea as a favor to Kim of North Korea.  That weakens our military prowess against a country that we could be at war with and who's threatened us with nuclear attack.  Is that treason?  Of course not.  He's trying to prevent a war by making peaceful overtures. If Trump doesn't want to press the Russians about their breakin of DNC emails because he wants to move forward in our relations with them becasue he consider them more important, that's not treason either.  Reminder that we're not at war with any of these countries. 


Here's Congressional law regarding the  definition and penalty for treason against the US.


United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states:


Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States


Some definitions of the above:
ADHERING. Cleaving to, or joining; as, adhering to the enemies of the United States.
     2. The constitution of the United States, art. 3, s 3, defines treason against the United States, to consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
     3. The fact that a citizen is cruising in an enemy's ship, with a design to capture or destroy American ships, would be an adhering to the enemies of the United States. 4 State Tr. 328 ; Salk. 634; 2 Gilb. Ev. by Lofft, 798.
     4. If war be actually levied, that is, a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force atreasonable enterprise, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy are to be considered as traitors. 4 Cranch. 126.


https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/adhering

Alan, if LuLa ever presents a prize for indefatigably gleeful bouncing, from one untenable position to one yet more so, I would expect you to be hands-down winner!

I have no idea where you find the reserves, the Trump-like energy to spend the time this consumes - unless it flows as a gift - so yep, you win the prize, even before the contest is announced!

Felicidades!

;-)

Rob

[Alan Klein]

Alan, if LuLa ever presents a prize for indefatigably gleeful bouncing, from one untenable position to one yet more so, I would expect you to be hands-down winner!

I have no idea where you find the reserves, the Trump-like energy to spend the time this consumes - unless it flows as a gift - so yep, you win the prize, even before the contest is announced!

Felicidades!

;-)

Rob

I should be out taking pictures.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Recently, Trump helped President Xi of China out by helping out the Chinese company that was going broke.  But that's not treason.

The company in question is ZTE and they deserved the punishment which was imposed by the Commerce Department.  ZTE were in massive violation of the Iran boycott and were using US sourced chips from Qualcomm to make their cell phones.  If you believe that harsh sanctions against certain countries is an appropriate foreign policy then this change of US policy against ZTE was just plain wrong.  In this case President Trump was unilaterally removing a company from the sanctions list.  The complete story is in The New York Times (apologies to those who cannot access the article because of the pay wall but you can do a Google search and get more on this).  I'm sure ZTE will now get back to business and include spyware in their phones.