For those of you who have not yet seen the new events 0.9 has added for what was the former path to avoid the civil war, here you are:
https://i.imgur.com/rMdFCVD.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/L9IbKTS.jpg
So, as has been discussed in multiple posts now, the West Coast does indeed join the opposing side of the civil war due to clear aquisition of evidence that the assassination of Long/Reed was authorized by the acting President.
Now, let's put aside the silliness that they join that side rather than form the PSA for just a moment, as that is a discussion for another post.
What I would like to discuss is what the implications are that evidence does indeed exist that Olson (or as I've heard recently also possibly Garner) has authorized the assassination, and that Establishment politicians have easy access to this information.
In this scenario, it is now known by the House of Representatives and the United States Senate that the president has committed an unspeakable crime and tried to get away with it, even if it was considered "for the Greater Good." You can bet that it's not just going to be the Pacific representatives that are going to be upset about this. And, unlike MacArthur, Olson has not declared Marshall Law and temporarily dissolved the old systems of power. Checks and balances are still in check to oppose his Tyranny.
I think that it is clear that, to save face and the integrity of the office of the United States President, Olson would face immediate impeachment proceedings.
Now what would this look like in-game?
Well, first of all, it would make an interesting alternative to the Thirty Day deadline. As the Newspaper event claims, one of the demands of the resisting rebels is for Olson to step down and the creation of a reconciliation council. Now the council idea, especially one appointed by the opposition, is out of the question I'm certain, but Olson stepping down is far from being so.
The first event you could get, mere days after the rise of the PSA/AUS, could be one in which news leaks to the public about the assassination, and the ensuing outrage. You could even have discussion about how media moguls like the Hearst services attempt to downplay the severity of the act, but that discontent among the general public is clear.
Shorty after, or maybe around the same time, you could get an event from the opposing sides that list off their demands, the primary one o
... keep reading on reddit ➡This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 16%. (I'm a bot)
> There is no chance that a trade agreement between the United States and Britain will pass Congress if Brexit undermines the Good Friday peace agreement between Ireland and Northern Ireland, the speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, has said.
> "Whatever form it takes, Brexit cannot be allowed to imperil the Good Friday agreement, including the seamless border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland," Pelosi said.
> Her comments follow those made by Donald Trump's national security adviser, John Bolton, who said on a visit to London this week that Britain and the US could sign sector-by-sector free trade deals before a comprehensive agreement as a way of helping the UK cope with the consequences of leaving the EU on 31 October in a no-deal Brexit.
> "The ultimate end result is a comprehensive trade agreement covering all trading goods and services," he said.
> "But to get to that you could do it sector by sector, and you can do it in a modular fashion. In other words, you can carve out some areas where it might be possible to reach a bilateral agreement very quickly, very straightforwardly."
> Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have previously warned that any future US-UK trade deal would almost certainly be blocked if Brexit affected the Irish border and jeopardised peace in Northern Ireland.
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: agreement^#1 trade^#2 Brexit^#3 Ireland^#4 between^#5
Post found in /r/worldnews, /r/europe, /r/brexit, [/r/RedditSample](http://np.reddit.com/r/RedditSample/comments/cq9ptc/no_chan
... keep reading on reddit ➡
The act has caused a major problem in the long term, vastly increasing each member of the House's constituancy thus limiting the power of ordinary American citizens in voicing their concerns. What were the arguments at the time arguing for and against the measure?
