Put There By The People

[columbus]

Without any nominees yet, this is speculative fear.

Did you look at the list he put forth prior to the election? He promised someone from that list, and their main feature is that they appeal to the sort of conservative Christians he was pandering to at the time.

It is possible that he was lying about that, like his tax returns. But maybe not.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Did you look at the list he put forth prior to the election? He promised someone from that list, and their main feature is that they appeal to the sort of conservative Christians he was pandering to at the time.
It is possible that he was lying about that, like his tax returns. But maybe not.
Tom

So many possibilities unrealized.
I prefer to wait & see before I fly off the handle.

Perhaps it bothers me less because I expected nominees I would dislike from both him & Hillary.

 

[columbus]

So many possibilities unrealized.
I prefer to wait & see before fly off the handle.

So you don't believe him either?
Or do you just prefer to wait until the damage is done and then change the subject back to Clinton?

Perhaps it bothers me less because I expected nominees I would dislike from both him & Hillary.

What problem did you have with Merrick Garland?
Tom

 

[McBell]

92,000,000 US citizens did not even vote. That's 92,000,000 that should be fine with the outcome of the election. If they are out there marching, protesting and screaming "not my president" then they are hypocrites.

This does bring up a rather interesting point.
Trump LOST the popular vote.
Add to that the fact that 92 million plus did not vote, how can anyone make the claim "put there by the people" with a straight face?

 

[Revoltingest]

So you don't believe him either?

Of course not.
I wasn't born off that banana boat yesterday....or something like that.

Or do you just prefer to wait until the damage is done and then change the subject back to Clinton?

I maintain it's silly to over-react to imagined future scenarios which might not come to pass.
Clinton was the alternative, so in discussing Trump's problems, she creates the context.

What problem did you have with Merrick Garland?

As someone who didn't rise to significant power, I don't have a problem with him.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ouch. Even the people who voted for him hope that he is lying and count on the luck of the draw.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Monarch and Parliament

When it comes to politics, the Monarch is 'neutral'

The Monarch doesn’t get involved in running the government. Nor do they publicly say what they think about political issues. This is why people sometimes say the Monarch is 'above politics'.

@9-10ths_Penguin

"Doesn't" isn't the same as "isn't allowed to."

 

[Rival]

"Doesn't" isn't the same as "isn't allowed to."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It was hardly as limited as it is now. And also, Magna Carta was virtually ignored for years and years after it was created.

I've been talking about legal authority here. The fact that someone might disobey they law doesn't change the law.

Proof?

The actual law is fuzzy, but the opinion of one Attorney General was that not only is the monarch permitted to interfere with the government; he argued that this is the monarch's duty:

The word used by the attorney general, on behalf of the government, is ‘duty’. More specifically he stated that the monarch had a ‘duty, to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn the government’. This duty ‘ensures that a measure of influence is retained for the monarch within the constitution’. The attorney general notes that the duty ‘is most obviously, though not solely, expressed through the prime minister’s weekly audience with the monarch’.

Let’s end all monarchical meddling in politics

Or if you mean the nonsense about the monarch not being allowed to refuse royal assent... it's been done numerous times throughout history. It was also threatened by George V in 1914. In practice, it influences all legislation through a chilling effect: governments know that the Queen could kill legislation she considers contentious, so they don't bring forward legislation that she would be likely to kill.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

92,000,000 US citizens did not even vote. That's 92,000,000 that should be fine with the outcome of the election. If they are out there marching, protesting and screaming "not my president" then they are hypocrites.

So anyone who felt they couldn't vote for one of a short list of presidential candidates has no moral right to protest?

 

[McBell]

So anyone who felt they couldn't vote for one of a short list of presidential candidates has no moral right to protest?

Good Question.
OASN:
Is it not a right to refuse to vote in protest?
And if so, then would not that same right cover protesting after the vote?
And if so, would that not mean they are NOT hypocrites?

 

[Revoltingest]

92,000,000 US citizens did not even vote. That's 92,000,000 that should be fine with the outcome of the election. If they are out there marching, protesting and screaming "not my president" then they are hypocrites.

I don't think we should dis them.
The kind of people who don't vote, but then throw tantrums cuz
of the election are people I'd encourage to continue not voting.

 

[McBell]

I don't think we should dis them.
The kind of people who don't vote, but then throw tantrums cuz
of the election are people I'd encourage to continue not voting.

They got to have someone to dis.
At least with the non-voters, they can come together...

 

[Rival]

The actual law is fuzzy, but the opinion of one Attorney General was that not only is the monarch permitted to interfere with the government; he argued that this is the monarch's duty:

Let’s end all monarchical meddling in politics

This is just an opinion though.

Or if you mean the nonsense about the monarch not being allowed to refuse royal assent... it's been done numerous times throughout history. It was also threatened by George V in 1914. In practice, it influences all legislation through a chilling effect: governments know that the Queen could kill legislation she considers contentious, so they don't bring forward legislation that she would be likely to kill.

Sure she can refuse, but it would be a terrible faux pas. I'd call it more like an unwritten rule that she can't.

 

[McBell]

Sure she can refuse, but it would be a terrible faux pas. I'd call it more like an unwritten rule that she can't.

Like Trump refusing to reveal his tax returns?

 

[columbus]

I don't think we should dis them.
The kind of people who don't vote, but then throw tantrums cuz
of the election are people I'd encourage to continue not voting.

How about people who don't vote because the system is rigged against them?
Tom

 

[Rival]

Like Trump refusing to reveal his tax returns?

I don't really care about Trump's tax returns lol. I have no idea.

 

[Kirran]

I don't really care about Trump's tax returns lol. I have no idea.

Many Americans overestimate the degree to which others are bought into American political developments, I think.

Not that @Mestemia is necessarily within this category, I don't know.

 

[McBell]

I don't really care about Trump's tax returns lol. I have no idea.

There is no law stating tax returns have to be released.
However, it is tradition for the President Elect to release his tax returns.
There is a huge uproar over Trump not releasing his.
So it is likened to an "unwritten rule" that Trump is to release his tax returns, right?

 

[Rival]

There is no law stating tax returns have to be released.
However, it is tradition for the President Elect to release his tax returns.
There is a huge uproar over Trump not releasing his.
So it is likened to an "unwritten rule" that Trump is to release his tax returns, right?

Right. But he still isn't forced to. I just said it would be a terrible faux pas, which it is, but he's not doing anything illegal on paper.