This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
US politics
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 15 May 21 8.20pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
Thank you. TBF if you look back at my posts on this thread I do not believe I have commented on the actual politics. Mainly I have been playing devils advocate, as I actually have little interest in US Politics. The move is a frigging nightmare. We should have exchanged 2 weeks ago, had flooring laid last week and completed and moved on Monday next. None of that has, or will happen. Our buyers' lender has made a crass error and included a piece of land we don't own. So they need their valuer to reappraise. The difference is probably no more than £10,000 and as the buyers are putting in 50% of the equity it will make no difference, but it still needs to go to the valuer. And he is on holiday! So my movers have had to be cancelled, and the flooring fitters don't have another date free until the last week of June. Grrr. We are all packed up and waiting to go too. My health is not too bad at the moment, but my normal sunny disposition has been a little challenged! Thanks though for the kind thoughts.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Stirlingsays 15 May 21 8.27pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The point you are avoiding is that in your past contributions on the future direction of US politics you were convinced that the country inevitably faced a succession of Democratic Presidencies and Congresses, as a consequence of changing demographics. Have you changed your mind? That's the question you have avoided. If not, why the sarcasm when I point out that the only effective way the GOP can respond is to put a distance between themselves and Trump. If they do, we could well see a new party with him at it's head. If they don't, they will hasten their demise anyway. I think they are between a rock and a hard place, but many seem too close to things to recognise that. My point is that the only way the GOP has a chance of staying relevant and avoid morphing into a ring wing rump, albeit a large and vocal one, is to stay mainstream. Which means distancing themselves from everything Trump says, does or stands for. I have written quite extensively on this but as this aspect seems important to you and it seems like a genuine request for comment I'll oblige. My view is that the republicans can no longer win as the republicans. Yes, the main reason for that has been the immigration America has undergone since the sixties (which the Democrats lied about at the time I might add). So if you're saying do I think the republicans can win if they changed to a 'Romney' type party....No, they would lose anyway because they are seen as the 'white man's party'. Even if the talented Candace Owens was leader that would still be the case....they would call her an 'Aunty Tommi' or something. Besides the Republican party will probably split in two whether it went with a 'Romney' figure or stayed with Trump or Cruz or basically the right. As I've said myself the best chance for republicanism is to become a state force and collect together and resist the national government (as the democrats did under Trump) and importantly resist the obvious attempts to demographically infiltrate into their states with 'Democrats'....so to speak. So the battle now is between globalists within the GOP who want to continue their gravy train and social conservatives. The grass roots are significantly socially conservative and ultimately while a split may happen the right will win within the GOP.....the only question is how much to the right will it be. Because Trump turned out to be the nineties Democrat he used to be. Edited by Stirlingsays (15 May 2021 8.40pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 15 May 21 8.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The move is a frigging nightmare. We should have exchanged 2 weeks ago, had flooring laid last week and completed and moved on Monday next. None of that has, or will happen. Our buyers' lender has made a crass error and included a piece of land we don't own. So they need their valuer to reappraise. The difference is probably no more than £10,000 and as the buyers are putting in 50% of the equity it will make no difference, but it still needs to go to the valuer. And he is on holiday! So my movers have had to be cancelled, and the flooring fitters don't have another date free until the last week of June. Grrr. We are all packed up and waiting to go too. My health is not too bad at the moment, but my normal sunny disposition has been a little challenged! Thanks though for the kind thoughts. Sod's law....was ever thus.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 15 May 21 8.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Please don't quote Dawkins at me old man. It's not applicable. You know that when people wish to hide something they hide the evidence of it or stop others from looking. Not hard to reason even for you. I'll quote whatever I like, thanks. It's entirely applicable. What you said was that a lack of evidence doesn't make something untrue. Regrettably it does. Everything that is true will have evidence to support it. That the evidence may not yet have been discovered doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Science continues to search for evidence to convert theory into fact all the time. Until the evidence is found everything remains a theory. Conspiracy theorists hide behind this uncertainty all the time to justify their claims and lead their followers in the direction they seek to take them.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Romford-Eagle Romford 15 May 21 8.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
They had some black professor on CNN the other night, he was predicting that by the year 2050, the whites in America will be the minority, don't think the Republicans will be to happy about that, is civil war looming, and sleepy Joe wont be around then..
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 15 May 21 8.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I have written quite extensively on this but as this aspect seems important to you and it seems like a genuine request for comment I'll oblige. My view is that the republicans can no longer win as the republicans. Yes, the main reason for that has been the immigration America has undergone since the sixties (which the Democrats lied about at the time I might add). So if you're saying do I think the republicans can win if they changed to a 'Romney' type party....No, they would lose anyway because they are seen as the 'white man's party'. Even if the talented Candace Owens was leader that would still be the case....they would call her an 'Aunty Tommi' or something. Besides the Republican party will probably split in two whether it went with a 'Romney' figure or stayed with Trump or Cruz or basically the right. As I've said myself the best chance for republicanism is to become a state force and collect together and resist the state government and its obvious attempts to demographically infiltrate into their states with 'Democrats'....so to speak. So the battle now is between globalists within the GOP who want to continue their gravy train and social conservatives. The grass roots are significantly socially conservative and ultimately while a split may happen the right will win within the GOP.....the only question is how much to the right will it be. Because Trump turned out to be the nineties Democrat he used to be. I am not addressing things at State level, which will vary hugely across the country, but at national level. A right wing party, whether under a GOP banner or not, may well be able to control a few States, but not the country. If the GOP have any hope of ever controlling Congress or the Presidency in the future they cannot expect to do so by hitching their fortune to a Trump train. As you well know I reject the whole idea of "globalism" as a policy choice. For me it's just the way the world is now and we either adapt to it and thrive, or resist it and suffer. Isolationism, especially for the USA, is not any kind of realistic option.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 15 May 21 10.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I am not addressing things at State level, which will vary hugely across the country, but at national level. A right wing party, whether under a GOP banner or not, may well be able to control a few States, but not the country. If the GOP have any hope of ever controlling Congress or the Presidency in the future they cannot expect to do so by hitching their fortune to a Trump train. As you well know I reject the whole idea of "globalism" as a policy choice. For me it's just the way the world is now and we either adapt to it and thrive, or resist it and suffer. Isolationism, especially for the USA, is not any kind of realistic option. I think you are overly fixated on Trump. Even if the right win the GOP battle it's very unlikely Trump will be leading the republicans into the next election anyway....maybe he'll be around for 2022 but I view 2024 as unrealistic myself. Like I say, I don't see republicans realistically completing at national level regardless of what they do.....it's pointless. The demographics mean they can't win....it's like Khan winning in London (which I predicted years ago), it doesn't matter how bad he is. As for globalism, I'd agree that isolationism isn't an option, it's more about the kind of globalism you choose. For example, China are global but they aren't liberals. I'm not saying that western social conservatives should emulate Chinese authoritarianism (though the left seem keen on some aspects of it). However, to survive they must reject liberalism, just as liberalism has rejected and censored and lied about them. They need to draw the horses around their strong holds and build and resist from there. You will see those that want to work with Democrats will lose quite badly in the coming battle. They may break away but they won't get the grass roots support enough to last. It's more likely that the globalists in the GOP try to subvert whoever wins on the right to betray the grass roots....say one thing and do another. Like Johnson before he was PM. Edited by Stirlingsays (15 May 2021 10.19pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 16 May 21 7.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Romford-Eagle
They had some black professor on CNN the other night, he was predicting that by the year 2050, the whites in America will be the minority, don't think the Republicans will be to happy about that, is civil war looming, and sleepy Joe wont be around then.. Older minorities (irony in calling themselves minorities when it's all about equality) will vote dem. Younger generations in the usa will see that left wing politics generally fights for 20% of the population. What with tax the rich and share the wealth etc. Many blacks will be fairly affluent and see this as an attack on their lifestyles. Unless the left move back to the middle a bit a shock may be on the cards in a few years.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 16 May 21 9.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
Older minorities (irony in calling themselves minorities when it's all about equality) will vote dem. Younger generations in the usa will see that left wing politics generally fights for 20% of the population. What with tax the rich and share the wealth etc. Many blacks will be fairly affluent and see this as an attack on their lifestyles. Unless the left move back to the middle a bit a shock may be on the cards in a few years. That's the message that the right have been telling themselves for decades. That minorities will vote for them once they integrate. The problem though is that the stats say otherwise and have been consistent and stable. Minorities will nearly always vote majority left and against the majority group (I know of only the Castro hating Cubans in the US who are around fifty fifty...with the new generation moving more left). So it only differs in extent depending upon the group. It's such a reliable indicator that it dictates candidate selection in minority areas. My contention is that real conservatives need to stop believing that, if they only do this....or they only do that it'll mean they will convince this or that group to vote in the majority for them. I say look at the stats.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 16 May 21 12.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I'll quote whatever I like, thanks. It's entirely applicable. What you said was that a lack of evidence doesn't make something untrue. Regrettably it does. Everything that is true will have evidence to support it. That the evidence may not yet have been discovered doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Science continues to search for evidence to convert theory into fact all the time. Until the evidence is found everything remains a theory. Conspiracy theorists hide behind this uncertainty all the time to justify their claims and lead their followers in the direction they seek to take them. Waffle. That is completely absurd. Science is based on the evidential, but that has nothing to do with the deliberate obfuscation of facts or physical evidence involved in a crime. The evidence exists or once existed but has been destroyed or hidden. There are many occasions when it is almost a certainty that someone is guilty, but there is insufficient evidence to convict.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 16 May 21 12.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Romford-Eagle
They had some black professor on CNN the other night, he was predicting that by the year 2050, the whites in America will be the minority, don't think the Republicans will be to happy about that, is civil war looming, and sleepy Joe wont be around then.. Biden never dies: he's been around the last two hundred years and surely has another couple of hundred in him yet.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 16 May 21 8.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Waffle. That is completely absurd. Science is based on the evidential, but that has nothing to do with the deliberate obfuscation of facts or physical evidence involved in a crime. The evidence exists or once existed but has been destroyed or hidden. There are many occasions when it is almost a certainty that someone is guilty, but there is insufficient evidence to convict. It's you with the waffle! If evidence existed but has been destroyed, it still existed. If it had been found and properly recorded then it's existence is a fact. If it was only hearsay, or remains undiscovered, then it is only theoretical. It's this which is used by the conspiracy theorists to push their agendas. They use the uncertainty to make claims of truth without any actual evidence using exactly the type of reasoning you are employing. You can justify almost any idea on this basis and if people are prepared to believe whatever you say you can easily fool them. Trump being the most obvious recent example.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.