• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

MP stripped of his Parliamentary seat by court


Why am I not surprised Rupert Murdoch's newspapers have such a problem with UK libel law? He's been trying to get his newspapers to be allowed to publish biased in their reporting here in the UK for years

-- JFC. Do you honestly not see a difference between actual financial fraud and alleged dishonesty in electioneering?

Interesting that you emboldened "actual financial fraud" and then used "alleged dishonesty in electioneering" - the problem with your argument is that the dishonesty in electioneering wasn't "alleged" - it was proven so your statement should, without bias read as this - "Do you honestly not see a difference between actual financial fraud and actual dishonesty in electioneering? "

Puts your outrage in a very different context doesn't it?

Obama could be removed from office for saying that McCain said he'd be fine with 100 years of war. McCain never said that. So, Obama lied.

The public has a responsibility to keep itself informed and to scrutinize anything any politician says. And, as you cannot know the mind of anyone who's voting, you don't know if the lie affected the outcome anyway.

OK, A politician lies and smears his opponent to become President, you have to wait 4-5 years to vote him out. In the meantime at the next election if he lies again and has the money to make more election adverts in the meantime against whoever his next opponent is - and it's all the American electorate's responsibility and fault for voting for him in the first place.

Fabulous system you guys have - out of interest, how many US Presidents or US politicians have lied about their opponents in the first place? How many of that lot were re-elected on more lies? If the answer's more than one then the system is broke but you don't realise it.

We have one proven case here in over 100 years and you're claiming our system is at fault. That our freedoms are impinged.

The argument of "freedom of speech" is a strawman - I believe we simply have standards that we demand from our politicians, that they rip into each other's policies but do it truthfully and that way our country is best served. You believe politicians should be allowed to lie or make misleading statements.

I'm curious therefore about Richard Nixon's impeachment charges.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

1. making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

3. approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;

4. interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

5. approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;

6. endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

7. disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;

8. making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or

9. endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Why if lying is protected in US Govt, why bother with the charges where false or misleading statements are mentioned? Why not just charge him with misuse of Govt Agencies, interfering with the Dept of Justice etc?
 
No Government "HEARS" a case. That falls on the Judiciary, our Courts! The Government is not allowed to interfere with cases.

Please fill in the blanks in the following sentences:

"There are three branches of ______________: The executive, the legislative and the judiciary"

"Criminal charges are brought by prosecutors, who are employed by the ________________."
 
Why am I not surprised Rupert Murdoch's newspapers have such a problem with UK libel law? He's been trying to get his newspapers to be allowed to publish biased in their reporting here in the UK for years

Erm, you know that the NYTimes is not owned by Rupert Murdoch, right?

Interesting that you emboldened "actual financial fraud" and then used "alleged dishonesty in electioneering" - the problem with your argument is that the dishonesty in electioneering wasn't "alleged" - it was proven

Whether someone has stolen money out of an investment fund is a question of fact not subject to personal opinion. Actual financial fraud like Madoff committed is always obvious.

Whether someone has been entirely truthful or materially misleading is a question of perspective subject to personal opinion. "Lying" is by no means always obvious.

so your statement should, without bias read as this - "Do you honestly not see a difference between actual financial fraud and actual dishonesty in electioneering? "

Puts your outrage in a very different context doesn't it?

Not really, as I still don't see them as being even remotely analogous. Politics is an industry that expects a certain level of gamesmanship and false promises. There's not a politician on this planet (even in perfect little ol' England) that has not done something that could be considered a lie. In contrast, it's not really expected or tolerated that when I hand Chase my paycheck, the teller will spend it on a yacht.


OK, A politician lies and smears his opponent to become President, you have to wait 4-5 years to vote him out. In the meantime at the next election if he lies again and has the money to make more election adverts in the meantime against whoever his next opponent is - and it's all the American electorate's responsibility and fault for voting for him in the first place.

Fabulous system you guys have - out of interest, how many US Presidents or US politicians have lied about their opponents in the first place? How many of that lot were re-elected on more lies? If the answer's more than one then the system is broke but you don't realise it.

If you think that the politicians in your country are any more honest than ours, or if you think that this law has any material impact on conduct, then I don't really know what to say to you. That's just absurd.

We have one proven case here in over 100 years and you're claiming our system is at fault. That our freedoms are impinged.

How is this concept so hard to understand? This is like the fifth time that I've had to say it - the fact that something has not been misused in the past is not an argument in favor of the law. A bad law is a bad law whether its used once or a thousand times.

The argument of "freedom of speech" is a strawman - I believe we simply have standards that we demand from our politicians, that they rip into each other's policies but do it truthfully and that way our country is best served.

If you actually believe that, then maybe I was wrong above. It sounds like your politicians are great liars.

I'm curious therefore about Richard Nixon's impeachment charges.

Why if lying is protected in US Govt, why bother with the charges where false or misleading statements are mentioned? Why not just charge him with misuse of Govt Agencies, interfering with the Dept of Justice etc?

I think there's a slight difference between committing/suborning perjury and telling tales about your opponent on the campaign trail.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom