• Existing user of old message board?

    Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.

US Politics

Stirlingsays said:
'It was only to be expected given the composition of the Supreme Court.'

This is the same guy who sold the idea on this very forum that we shouldn't infer political bias in judges over decisions that they reached.
Click to expand...
We shouldn’t except where it’s obviously true. Trump has appointed two of the Justices himself and their statements and opinions leave little doubt about where their fealty lies.

I had hoped this wouldn’t be the case and that their loyalty to the law would overpower it, but have been disappointed so far. I still have some left. If Trump went too far then I think Chief Justice Roberts could lead them to exercise control and restraint.

Alongside that if you look beyond the headlines then the rulings are often very restricted in their application and allow further challenges to be made in other ways. So they are more a consequence of clever lawyers bringing cases to the SC and achieving narrow victories than sweeping constitutional change.

Judges in the lower courts, who have been politically targeted for ruling against Trump, have often been appointed by Republicans, some even during Trump’s first term. So it’s very unlikely that political bias is present in their rulings.
 
I'd just make the observation of the MAGA split over the Iran nuclear strikes.

For years we have seen the claim from Democrats and their supporters that support for Trump was a 'cult' and that he could do anything and be supported for it.

Of course this is said without seeming to recognise the irony of their own willingness to lie about the mental state and capacity of their own president for four years just to combat the GOP......and that apparently is somehow different.....because them.

Regardless the overt criticism Trump received from major influencers in his own base holding him to account on what Trump said in his election campaigns of being against new wars and looking to end them actually carried weight and show that claims of a cult are boulderdash.

You never saw that kind of dramatic fall out on the Democrat side.....and it displays just how one eyed they are.

The fact that Trump pulled back from escalation and directly told Israel to stop fighting was evidence, in my opinion, that he was prepared to listen and do a heel turn. He has limited his terms for action and made it clear that he will only intervene to stop further enrichment. (not that I think any of that is really possible)

Nevertheless he has cleverly managed a half way between the multiple sides of his support base....the donors, neo cons and the America firsters. I think that by stopping when he did he's managed to heal the split....well for now.
 
When you look at who voted highest for this new Muslim democratic candidate (shoe-in) for New York major you find that it was the most wealthy areas who voted for him the most and of that demographic wealthy white liberal women.....and that includes the areas with high Jewish populations.....areas with higher ethnic minorities still voted for him but not as high.

Firstly I'd say that any Jew voting this guy in is a complete nutcase.

But the larger point is that the Karens more than anybody voted this guy in.

Women vote high majority left (especially the more wealthy they are) and this is a largely unspoken huge problem for western civilisation.....because a lot of the people they are voting in want to change what western civilisation actually is and demonise its past....in other words whitey....but much like what happened to the left in Russia and Iran and to a smaller extent Cuba....what they are changing too isn't their friends and will come for them as well.

A conservative woman is gold dust....usually has a brain, common sense and isn't neurotic.....and most of them are off the market early.
 
Last edited:
Stirlingsays said:
When you look at who voted highest for this new Muslim democratic candidate (shoe-in) for New York major you find that it was the most wealthy areas who voted for him the most and of that demographic wealthy white liberal women.....and that includes the areas with high Jewish populations.....areas with higher ethnic minorities still voted for him but not as high.

Firstly I'd say that any Jew voting this guy in is a complete nutcase.

But the larger point is that the Karens more than anybody voted this guy in.

Women vote high majority left (especially the more wealthy they are) and this is a largely unspoken huge problem for western civilisation.....because a lot of the people they are voting in want to change what western civilisation actually is and demonise its past....in other words whitey....but much like what happened to the left in Russia and Iran and to a smaller extent Cuba....what they are changing too isn't their friends and will come for them as well.

A conservative woman is gold dust....usually has a brain, common sense and isn't neurotic.....and most of them are off the market early.
Click to expand...

Yessss, women being able to vote is the problem again lads 🥳
 
DanH said:
Yessss, women being able to vote is the problem again lads 🥳
Click to expand...

It's frustrating to be misunderstood.....maybe you don't know my position on this so I'll let you off.

My personal position on voting is based upon stake-holding within the society.

I would definitely change who is allowed to vote....In fact I think it as vital long term....one of the reasons I'm pessimistic about the future of the west.

I would restrict voting to those with skin in the game and who have invested in society.

So this means house owners, business owners and other heavily invested.....the other details would be worked out.

Essentially this is how democracy originally worked.
 
Last edited:
Stirlingsays said:
It's frustrating to be misunderstood.....maybe you don't know my position on this so I'll let you off.

My personal position on voting is based upon stake-holding within the society.

I would definitely change who is allowed to vote....In fact I think it as vital long term....one of the reasons I'm pessimistic about the future of the west.

I would restrict voting to those with skin in the game and who have invested in society.

So this means house owners, business owners and other heavily invested.....the other details would be worked out.

Essentially this is how democracy originally worked.
Click to expand...

Dude, you literally said “Women vote high majority left (especially the more wealthy they are) and this is a largely unspoken huge problem”
 
DanH said:
Maybe if you tell enough women they were apparently much happier before they were allowed to have a career or vote they might forgo their right to both.
Click to expand...

Well, surveys carried out have said that anyway, but it's besides the point.

You focus upon women but my personal viewpoint would impact both men and women.

As I say, it's going back to the original premise.
 
Stirlingsays said:
It's frustrating to be misunderstood.....maybe you don't know my position on this so I'll let you off.

My personal position on voting is based upon stake-holding within the society.

I would definitely change who is allowed to vote....In fact I think it as vital long term....one of the reasons I'm pessimistic about the future of the west.

I would restrict voting to those with skin in the game and who have invested in society.

So this means house owners, business owners and other heavily invested.....the other details would be worked out.

Essentially this is how democracy originally worked.
Click to expand...

I concur with these sentiments. I also believe that those who pay tax or have paid enough tax in the past should be the ones who can only vote.
 
Stirlingsays said:
I'd just make the observation of the MAGA split over the Iran nuclear strikes.

For years we have seen the claim from Democrats and their supporters that support for Trump was a 'cult' and that he could do anything and be supported for it.

Of course this is said without seeming to recognise the irony of their own willingness to lie about the mental state and capacity of their own president for four years just to combat the GOP......and that apparently is somehow different.....because them.

Regardless the overt criticism Trump received from major influencers in his own base holding him to account on what Trump said in his election campaigns of being against new wars and looking to end them actually carried weight and show that claims of a cult are boulderdash.

You never saw that kind of dramatic fall out on the Democrat side.....and it displays just how one eyed they are.

The fact that Trump pulled back from escalation and directly told Israel to stop fighting was evidence, in my opinion, that he was prepared to listen and do a heel turn. He has limited his terms for action and made it clear that he will only intervene to stop further enrichment. (not that I think any of that is really possible)

Nevertheless he has cleverly managed a half way between the multiple sides of his support base....the donors, neo cons and the America firsters. I think that by stopping when he did he's managed to heal the split....well for now.
Click to expand...
Trump’s base support is cult like, but not all who voted for him are part of that base. Even some members of cults disaffect after waking up and thinking for themselves. They often become the most passionate of opponents, just as the converted become the most passionate supporters.

His support is clearly showing fracture lines. Temporarily frozen perhaps. Until the next round of stupidity. Which might already here with the likelihood of revised tariff threats to Canada.

He managed to divert the criticism from Musk by involving the US in Israel’s action in Iran but that will reassert itself in time.
 
Stirlingsays said:
It's frustrating to be misunderstood.....maybe you don't know my position on this so I'll let you off.

My personal position on voting is based upon stake-holding within the society.

I would definitely change who is allowed to vote....In fact I think it as vital long term....one of the reasons I'm pessimistic about the future of the west.

I would restrict voting to those with skin in the game and who have invested in society.

So this means house owners, business owners and other heavily invested.....the other details would be worked out.

Essentially this is how democracy originally worked.
Click to expand...
So those who still live with their parents, or rent, because they cannot afford to buy, or are employed, either by a business or by us, or cannot work because of disablement, are looking for work, or are retired, don’t have “skin in the game”, or are invested in society? They don’t have a stake in society?

I don’t think they would agree and that not too many others would either.

Everyone who contributes to society in any way, whether employed or not, whether a home owner or not, and those who cannot through no fault of their own, has a self evident right to participate in deciding who represents them.

This was a battle that was fought a century ago and resolved beyond any doubt. Of all the many regressive concepts that get aired in these pages this one must be the most stupid.
 
DanH said:
Think he should be allowed to spout utter bollocks unchallenged then?
Click to expand...

Doesn't bother me, I'm just pointing out that it never bothered you when it was lying Joe up there doing it.

Besides there is evidence of election interference in the 2020 election.....and I suspect it's being looked at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top