Bob in Spain wrote:

---

We seem to have a realistic chance of the USA voting someone into the White House who is actually in prison at the time, only for said President to then pardon himself.

Whatever you think of Trump, the USA seriously has to look at their election rules.

---

 I think it is fine for someone who is charged to stand, they havent been found guilty, but absolutely in terms of someone in prison; and someone found guilty of crimes such as some of these charges should find they preclude you from standing. 

I also heard he is funding his legal defence from money given as donations for his campaign - which I would have thought should surely be ring fenced and not usable/audited by independent authorities - it doesnt feel right to use election donations for other purposes? 

If Biden (or whoever is actually running the USA) had any sense he would call off the hounds. These cases are increasing Trump's profile and popularity.

I don't think the charges are relevant - I think he should be charged of offences if it is believed that he committed them (no-one should be immune from prosecution, regardless of their former jobs), but that his "base" (apt word) and his party will use any and all charges against him as evidence of a conspiracy (particularly if he is found guilty) - his actual guilt appears irrelevant to these people. It is amazing to me that these people think that asking for a recount in Florida prior to conceding (e.g. Al Gore) is equivalent to completely denying the result, and storming the government buildings in an attempted coup.

But I am most staggered that the US election system appears to let someone stand that absolutely refuses to abide by any result other than their own victory: I would have thought that signing up to conceding in the event of a loss would be mandatory. Combining this with the arrogance to believe that their own victory is the only possible result leads to a dangerous position for democracy.

It wouldn't surprise me that - if he wins - this is the last election for a generation, as he - with the full agreement of his party and their supporters - suspend elections "until they can be proven to be fair" (i.e. forever).

christ wrote:

---

I don't think the charges are relevant - I think he should be charged of offences if it is believed that he committed them (no-one should be immune from prosecution, regardless of their former jobs), but that his "base" (apt word) and his party will use any and all charges against him as evidence of a conspiracy (particularly if he is found guilty) - his actual guilt appears irrelevant to these people. It is amazing to me that these people think that asking for a recount in Florida prior to conceding (e.g. Al Gore) is equivalent to completely denying the result, and storming the government buildings in an attempted coup.

But I am most staggered that the US election system appears to let someone stand that absolutely refuses to abide by any result other than their own victory: I would have thought that signing up to conceding in the event of a loss would be mandatory. Combining this with the arrogance to believe that their own victory is the only possible result leads to a dangerous position for democracy.

It wouldn't surprise me that - if he wins - this is the last election for a generation, as he - with the full agreement of his party and their supporters - suspend elections "until they can be proven to be fair" (i.e. forever).

---

This is the really scary part and always has been. I have said before that it is not Trump that scares me, it's the number of people that believe him or simply don't care.  I honestly believe that even if he plead guilty, these people would still vote for him.

Democracy is in serious danger.

 

JonH comes home wrote:

---

Agree it is scary. Mind you, we saw a mini me version of it in the UK with Johnson. A lot of the blue wall votes last time came directly due to Johnson, not his policies or anything other than his veneer and personality. And he almost tried to avoid getting losing the leadership after his whole government resigned and a charade of a time when he should have resigned. And Truss was pretty much in the same boat. Fortunately we have stronger processes and standards but the US has enshrined trumps rights to stand and do as he pleases in the constitution. An example of how an unwritten constitution can be stronger than a written one.

---

Not the same thing at all. Nothing that Johnson (or Truss) did represents an existential threat to democracy itself. Choosing the "wrong" person, or voting for the "wrong" thing is an essential part of democracy, but everybody agreeing to abide by the result is important.

The nearest that we have got to such a thing was the remainers attitude to the result of the Brexit vote (or I guess the SNP's attitude to the independence vote), but in neither case did the loser attempt to simply deny or ignore the result (much less attempt a coup to overturn it)- it was a greed that the result happened, even if what was needed was to reverse it.

Steve J wrote:

---

Bob in Spain wrote:

---

Democracy is in serious danger. 

---

Have you read Values, Voice and Virtue?

---

 Again - nothing in that indicates that democracy itself is in danger: just that the results may be a smidge unexpected (at least by the traditionalists)

... unless I am misreading it.