Impeachment 2, the reckoning revenge redemption.

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
1,299
857
118
Country
United Kingdom
I mean, it gave the authority to first the Attorney General, second the court system, and third established a federal agency called the Community Relations Service whose purpose was to get people to comply without taking them to court. Those are, in fact, all federal authorities.
Uh-huh, and do you think these agencies were the ones primarily enforcing the provisions of the act to companies and individuals on a state or local level? Obviously not. They essentially retained final authority in cases of non-compliance, or (in the case of the latter) existed to assist state authorities.

As I said, the alternative was not for state authorities to come up with these rules themselves and enforce them themselves. They had the opportunity to come up with these rules themselves and they simply didn't, and they wouldn't; so no federal act, no outlawed racist segregation in a bunch of states. And even with the act, state authorities would be the ones doing the enforcement.
 

Chimpzy

Professor of Monkey Business
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
7,255
1,086
118
Overprivileged, grandstanding mediocrities like Don Jr. have been making it to the Senate for centuries; millennia if we include equivalent rank in other countries throughout history.
I suppose that as a Brit you'd know, seeing as how your senate equivalent pretty much seems to exist to accomodate said mediocrities. Seems a common theme, as our Belgian senate is also a place to stash politicians too useless for anything else (well, either that or give them a governorship).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
290
359
68
Country
Ireland
I suppose that as a Brit you'd know, seeing as how your senate equivalent pretty much seems to exist to accomodate said mediocrities. Seems a common theme, as our Belgian senate is also a place to stash politicians too useless for anything else (well, either that or give them a governorship).
In ireland the Senate has 60 seats. 11 are hand picked by the Taoiseach, 3 are elected purely by Trinity college graduates, 3 by graduates of all the other universities and the rest are elected by vocational panels, many of whom are nominated by the government. Genuinely feels like they're making fun of us.
 

Dalisclock

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
1,793
861
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
In ireland the Senate has 60 seats. 11 are hand picked by the Taoiseach, 3 are elected purely by Trinity college graduates, 3 by graduates of all the other universities and the rest are elected by vocational panels, many of whom are nominated by the government. Genuinely feels like they're making fun of us.
As an American, I don't know if I should feel better ours isn't the only screwed up government or just more depressed that the rot is everywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xprimentyl

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
290
359
68
Country
Ireland
As an American, I don't know if I should feel better ours isn't the only screwed up government or just more depressed that the rot is everywhere.
It gets better. Because members of the Seanad are picked by the Taoiseach the elections happen a couple of weeks after a government is formed. Meaning that a lot of senators literally weeks/months ago lost an election for TD. Sinn fein, which was the most popular party in the state by a mile actually LOST seats in the Seanad.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,147
431
88
As an American, I don't know if I should feel better ours isn't the only screwed up government or just more depressed that the rot is everywhere.
Well, there's a middle ground, there's lots of bad governments, but then there's varying degrees of bad and some places, some times aren't too bad. That can change, though, doesn't take long to create a precedent of being a shambles.
 

Chimpzy

Professor of Monkey Business
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
7,255
1,086
118
As an American, I don't know if I should feel better ours isn't the only screwed up government or just more depressed that the rot is everywhere.
Well, explaining the minutiae of Belgian politics would be a herculean effort, but if you must know, our current federal government was formed on October 1st, 2020. The elections for said government took place on May 26th, 2019. This was the second time in about a decade that formation took over a year to complete, taking 494 days, only beaten out by the 2010-2011 formation which took 541 days and also world record for longest government formation following a democratic election. We are also nr 1 and 2 for world record for longest period without an elected government in a democratic country..

The current Government De Croo is a coalition of 7 parties, of which 2 are liberal, 2 are social democrat, 2 are green, and 1 christian democrat. Most of these parties' policies are in opposition to those of at least two others in the coalition. Except the christian democrats. Those usually sell out to whatever gets them the most political postings. And that's not even going into splits along lingual lines, or getting into the regional governments, and so on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
290
359
68
Country
Ireland
Well, explaining the minutiae of Belgian politics would be a herculean effort, but if you must know, our current federal government was formed on October 1st, 2020. The elections for said government took place on May 26th, 2019. This was the second time in about a decade that formation took over a year to complete, taking 494 days, only beaten out by the 2010-2011 formation which took 541 days and also world record for longest government formation following a democratic election. We are also nr 1 and 2 for world record for longest period without an elected government in a democratic country..

The current Government De Croo is a coalition of 7 parties, of which 2 are liberal, 2 are social democrat, 2 are green, and 1 christian democrat. Most of these parties' policies are in opposition to those of at least two others in the coalition. Except the christian democrats. Those usually sell out to whatever gets them the most political postings. And that's not even going into splits along lingual lines, or getting into the regional governments, and so on.
Wow, I thought our election was a shit show. Thanks Belgium.
 

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,921
2,076
118
I suppose that as a Brit you'd know, seeing as how your senate equivalent pretty much seems to exist to accomodate said mediocrities. Seems a common theme, as our Belgian senate is also a place to stash politicians too useless for anything else (well, either that or give them a governorship).
Yes, the House of Lords was by default full of mediocrities as a hereditary body. It is no longer (fully) hereditary, but we've managed to have an alternative form of mediocrity, which is lifetime appointment of anyone who's best mate of senior politicians or bungs enough money at their party. Actually, maybe that's unfair. Plenty are politicians with distinguished political records, and arguably the House of Lords has exercised better judgement than the House of Commons over the last couple of decades.

It used to have about 1200 members until the New Labour reforms ~20 years ago culled most of the hereditary peers, when its membership went down to ~650. There has been discussion about capping the size (600 is often suggested). Unfortunately, because PMs can't resist packing it with cronies both as favours to their friends and encourage it to not interfere with their bills, its numbers have risen to 800. In particular, in the old days the chamber was traditionally Tory, because the aristocracy tended to be Tories. After the Labour reforms, when the Tories recovered power in 2010 they were most vexed to find that they no longer had comfortable dominance, so they swiftly packed in another 120 (mostly Tory) members.

Although total numbers have remained roughly steady from there to 2019, the Tories have been systematically ensuring it remains a Tory-friendly chamber. 2014-2019, the Tories have had a net gain of +30, Crossbench (no party) -20, Labour -25, Others +5. Theresa May was keen to keep numbers down and indeed she did as deaths outnumbered new appointments. Since then Boris Johnson, twat extraordinaire, had a lot of fun packing it with his mates: 52 new peers, 26 of which were Tories. His government, of course, has stated that it remains committed to reducing numbers to 600, because that's our new, post-truth world.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,416
240
68
Country
USA
Uh-huh, and do you think these agencies were the ones primarily enforcing the provisions of the act to companies and individuals on a state or local level? Obviously not. They essentially retained final authority in cases of non-compliance, or (in the case of the latter) existed to assist state authorities.

As I said, the alternative was not for state authorities to come up with these rules themselves and enforce them themselves. They had the opportunity to come up with these rules themselves and they simply didn't, and they wouldn't; so no federal act, no outlawed racist segregation in a bunch of states. And even with the act, state authorities would be the ones doing the enforcement.
I hope you understand that you are just making things up.
 

Dalisclock

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
1,793
861
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Yes, the House of Lords was by default full of mediocrities as a hereditary body. It is no longer (fully) hereditary, but we've managed to have an alternative form of mediocrity, which is lifetime appointment of anyone who's best mate of senior politicians or bungs enough money at their party. Actually, maybe that's unfair. Plenty are politicians with distinguished political records, and arguably the House of Lords has exercised better judgement than the House of Commons over the last couple of decades.

It used to have about 1200 members until the New Labour reforms ~20 years ago culled most of the hereditary peers, when its membership went down to ~650. There has been discussion about capping the size (600 is often suggested). Unfortunately, because PMs can't resist packing it with cronies both as favours to their friends and encourage it to not interfere with their bills, its numbers have risen to 800. In particular, in the old days the chamber was traditionally Tory, because the aristocracy tended to be Tories. After the Labour reforms, when the Tories recovered power in 2010 they were most vexed to find that they no longer had comfortable dominance, so they swiftly packed in another 120 (mostly Tory) members.

Although total numbers have remained roughly steady from there to 2019, the Tories have been systematically ensuring it remains a Tory-friendly chamber. 2014-2019, the Tories have had a net gain of +30, Crossbench (no party) -20, Labour -25, Others +5. Theresa May was keen to keep numbers down and indeed she did as deaths outnumbered new appointments. Since then Boris Johnson, twat extraordinaire, had a lot of fun packing it with his mates: 52 new peers, 26 of which were Tories. His government, of course, has stated that it remains committed to reducing numbers to 600, because that's our new, post-truth world.
So can just anyone be elevated the peerage(given a title, I'm assuming)? I get the impression Knighthoods were/are more or less given out whenever the British government wants someone to feel special and apparently doesn't mean much. Every other British actor apparently has one, it seems(a knighthood, not a title).

I apologize, my knowledge of UK politics is still rather weak and even when I visited a couple years ago I got some education but not much.
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
111
76
33
Wow, I thought our election was a shit show. Thanks Belgium.
And that's just the election part the juiciest is when you start looking at how the country is governed afterwards. I think the fact we have 8 health ministers summarizes the issue (or was it 9? I forgot).
 

Burnhardt

Regular Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
21
10
13
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Does it really matter?
Nah that guy is a dumbass, Ivanka and her husband are the power players. He just likes grandstanding.
If anybody related to Trump is elected, then we all know they will just be 'Shadow' Presidents, with Trump running the show behind the scenes.
 

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,921
2,076
118
So can just anyone be elevated the peerage(given a title, I'm assuming)? I get the impression Knighthoods were/are more or less given out whenever the British government wants someone to feel special and apparently doesn't mean much. Every other British actor apparently has one, it seems(a knighthood, not a title).

I apologize, my knowledge of UK politics is still rather weak and even when I visited a couple years ago I got some education but not much.
No need to apologise, there's no great reason most people should know the minutae of other countries' political systems.

Yes, literally anyone (British, and maybe some old Commonwealth countries although this is often frowned upon) can be elevated to the peerage, although in practice this doesn't much occur. Ennoblement is technically a power of the queen, although with the UK's constitutional development the effective power has devolved to the PM. People are normally ennobled with a life peerage, so it's not passed on after death. I think (excluding the royal family) only three hereditary peers have been made postwar. Broadly, I think there there is acceptance that hereditary aristocracy is not the way forward in the modern world.

There are a whole host of honours, and knighthoods are one of the higher ones. The big thing about peerages is that they do give real power in government decision-making - not just voting via the HoL. The HoL is a very weak second chamber in as it has been much nerfed over the years and is only capable of making recommendations to or temporary delaying legislation. However, members of the HoL can often be government ministers, or take over other major executive roles. As a result, peers usually have a background of political activity, whether ex-politicians or political activism outside elected office (usually of course affluent businessmen). There was a movement for a while to increase presence of notable people from other backgrounds - social campaigners, science and medicine, sports, education etc. - but this seems to have quietly died a death, because I would suggest there isn't enough political gain available. A peerage for a £500,000 party donation or a peerage for being a jolly good bloke is no competition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,066
958
118
Country
United States of America
I hope you understand that you are just making things up.
What was Barry Goldwater's alternative proposal?

If anybody related to Trump is elected, then we all know they will just be 'Shadow' Presidents, with Trump running the show behind the scenes.
I don't know, did Trump even run the show for his own presidency?
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,416
240
68
Country
USA
What was Barry Goldwater's alternative proposal?
Poorly recorded by history, outside of vague allusions to him wanting integration mandated broadly but the process managed by states and localities. It's a difficult thing to google with so many prominent outlets dedicating time and effort to assassinating the character of a dead guy.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,066
958
118
Country
United States of America
Poorly recorded by history, outside of vague allusions to him wanting integration mandated broadly but the process managed by states and localities. It's a difficult thing to google with so many prominent outlets dedicating time and effort to assassinating the character of a dead guy.
There are simpler explanations for a dearth of evidence than character assassination.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,416
240
68
Country
USA
There are simpler explanations for a dearth of evidence than character assassination.
Hey, if you want to take the time to try and find proposed amendments and revisions to the bill that were voted down during the Senate debate, feel free. There's no shortage of reference to these things existing, including in Goldwater's statement during the bill's passage, but hell if I can find the details.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
1,299
857
118
Country
United Kingdom
I hope you understand that you are just making things up.
I'm literally describing the situation as it was-- with racist segregation not outlawed, either on a state level or a federal level-- and contrasting that with the situation created by the Civil Rights Act, wherein it was outlawed on a federal level.

You appear to be attributing to the Civil Rights Act provisions it didn't contain (transferring the primary enforcement duties to federal agencies), and also positing a non-existent alternative in which states outlawed it of their own volition. Yeah, that'd have been fine. But they didn't do that.


====


In more hilarious news (apologies if someone's already posted this, I didn't spot it);


Giuliani has demanded 20k a day for his laughably inept legal services, and Trump is refusing to pay his existing legal fees in response.

So, we know what Giuliani's getting out of this then: he's wringing as much money out of a beleaguered administration as he can before the inevitable collapse. It's not as if he had much of a legal reputation to piss away anymore, so there's nothing to lose.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Agema

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,921
2,076
118
Giuliani has demanded 20k a day for his laughably inept legal services, and Trump is refusing to pay his existing legal fees in response.

So, we know what Giuliani's getting out of this then: he's wringing as much money out of a beleaguered administration as he can before the inevitable collapse. It's not as if he had much of a legal reputation to piss away anymore, so there's nothing to lose.
My assumption was that Giuliani, a faded, end-of-career lawyer who'd fallen into some disrepute and with a lot of alimony to pay, saw in Trump a goldmine: an incredibly litigious billionaire who valued apparent loyalty over ethics and competence. I'm just quite surprised he didn't stop to consider that Trump was also a massive tightwad who values loyalty less than he values his own money and has a decades-long career of not paying out.