This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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
 Stirlingsays  06 Mar 24 11.48pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Oh the irony of TDS ensuring that Trump gains a second term.....not something I wanted personally. The Democrats and their activists just couldn't drop him. If they had not prosecuted him and looked to ruin him then his motivation for president and the motivation for republicans to support him wouldn't have been anything like it is. Many people, me included, said it would be madness for the Democrats to take this route. Now whatever path they take It's a lose lose for them. If they succeed and ruin Trump they create a counter elite, which along with Musk has real money. Half the country will be enraged. If Trump succeeds he's going to clear house and go after his enemies....which considering what they have done to him I can't blame him. Half the country will be enraged. The Democrats, unfortunately for them, seem to be controlled by an immature overly emotional activist class who seemingly can't play political chess.
'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 |
  |
| Badger11 Beckenham 07 Mar 24 8.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It was a cop out to avoid the SC having to rule on whether Trump is an insurrectionist and thereby expose them to the accusation of becoming involved in politics. The liberal Justices are so furious that there is a serious risk of the Court splitting, primarily because the decision says that such things can only be determined at Federal level and not by individual States. This to them, and to me, goes against the whole underlying principle of their system. It must surely be for the individual States to decide who can be a candidate for President in their State and not to have that imposed on them. And you get that from a unanimous decision? The SC has always been involved in politics or did the 1960's bypass you. The founding fathers created a national election system you must be one of the few people who think that a state can decide the outcome, the SC quite rightly said this should be decided at a national level. Oh and they didn't rule on whether Trump was an insurrectionist or not. Defining what constitutes insurrection is one for the lawyers and courts no doubt at some point that will end up at the SC for them to decide. Edited by Badger11 (07 Mar 2024 8.22am)
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 07 Mar 24 8.26am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Behind Enemy Lines
Civil War would still likely happen. Americans have the right to take up arms to overthrow what they see as a government against its people. You deny people the right to vote for a certain candidate and there’s the excuse… A poll in the last few days says a lot of Americans want succession. Not a majority by any means and not for the same reasons. Democrats want to get away from Republican values and vice versa. The point being there are a lot of unhappy people at the moment and the old days of compromise are long gone. If the current lot of clots continue their lack of tolerance for the other side it is only going to get worse, responsible politicians need to step up.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Mar 24 8.53am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
And you get that from a unanimous decision? The SC has always been involved in politics or did the 1960's bypass you. The founding fathers created a national election system you must be one of the few people who think that a state can decide the outcome, the SC quite rightly said this should be decided at a national level. Oh and they didn't rule on whether Trump was an insurrectionist or not. Defining what constitutes insurrection is one for the lawyers and courts no doubt at some point that will end up at the SC for them to decide. Edited by Badger11 (07 Mar 2024 8.22am) If my understanding is correct only one Justice wrote the opinion and the others did not enter their own on the basis that there was unanimity on the principle that they cannot involve themselves in politics. That’s for Congress. The Liberal Justices were though outraged at the opinion extending to say that States cannot ban Presidential candidates themselves and that this can only be done at a Federal level. This flies in the face of the whole basis of the way the USA functions. The founding fathers did not create a system in which the overall votes at a national level determine who wins. The system determines who each state wants to win. It must surely therefore be for each State to decide who they will put forward to their electorate.
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 |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Mar 24 9.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
A poll in the last few days says a lot of Americans want succession. Not a majority by any means and not for the same reasons. Democrats want to get away from Republican values and vice versa. The point being there are a lot of unhappy people at the moment and the old days of compromise are long gone. If the current lot of clots continue their lack of tolerance for the other side it is only going to get worse, responsible politicians need to step up. I see no lack of tolerance by Democrats for “the other side”! Quite the reverse actually. They put up with a lot. What I see is the law gradually working its way through due process to deal with an ex President who thinks he is above the law and is trying to circumvent the law. I see some democratically elected politicians and officials doing their best to make sure those efforts don’t succeed whilst others try to make sure they do. One side is right. The other is wrong. I know right from wrong and therefore what side I am on.
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 |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 07 Mar 24 9.03am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That though is how they do things. You can argue that the electoral college is a crazy system and I would agree. I think all the votes for the President should be counted nationally and not State by State, but they don’t. Each State decides who they support and if they do then they ought also to decide who they permit to stand. The Founding Fathers were trying to design a democratic process to elect a national leader at a time when most countries were ruled by kings or dictators. They did not anticipate political parties becoming the norm otherwise they might not have gone for an electoral college. The big problem they had was how does the voter know who to pick. No TV or modern media the news would take weeks or months to travel across country and no local party office to spread the good word about the candidate. The Electoral College is just a proxy vote. So hick farmer votes for a local prominent person someone they trust and who is knowledgeable has traveled and may even know the candidate. That person then votes for the candidate. By the way a member of the Electoral College can vote for who they like. So say Biden wins a state with 10 Electoral Votes it is possible that one or more of those could pick Trump. There would be legal challenges but it is not a legal slam dunk that just because Biden won that state all the votes are his. As you say with political parties and mass media this system is no linger fit for purpose and should just be a national election directly voting for the candidate.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Mar 24 9.10am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
The Founding Fathers were trying to design a democratic process to elect a national leader at a time when most countries were ruled by kings or dictators. They did not anticipate political parties becoming the norm otherwise they might not have gone for an electoral college. The big problem they had was how does the voter know who to pick. No TV or modern media the news would take weeks or months to travel across country and no local party office to spread the good word about the candidate. The Electoral College is just a proxy vote. So hick farmer votes for a local prominent person someone they trust and who is knowledgeable has traveled and may even know the candidate. That person then votes for the candidate. By the way a member of the Electoral College can vote for who they like. So say Biden wins a state with 10 Electoral Votes it is possible that one or more of those could pick Trump. There would be legal challenges but it is not a legal slam dunk that just because Biden won that state all the votes are his. As you say with political parties and mass media this system is no linger fit for purpose and should just be a national election directly voting for the candidate.
At least we agree it needs to change. Until it does the States themselves must be the arbiters of who can be a candidate.
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 |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 07 Mar 24 9.10am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I see no lack of tolerance by Democrats for “the other side”! Quite the reverse actually. They put up with a lot. What I see is the law gradually working its way through due process to deal with an ex President who thinks he is above the law and is trying to circumvent the law. I see some democratically elected politicians and officials doing their best to make sure those efforts don’t succeed whilst others try to make sure they do. One side is right. The other is wrong. I know right from wrong and therefore what side I am on. California is a Blue state and about 30% of it's voters would like to secede so they can continue their happy clappy politics. Texas is a red state and would like to secede to stem immigration . Abortion is just one topic that deeply divides the US, both sides are unhappy with the current position so a minority feel that their side would be better off seceding.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 07 Mar 24 9.12am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
At least we agree it needs to change. Until it does the States themselves must be the arbiters of who can be a candidate. Not according to the Supreme Court. Still you have a track record of claiming to be in the right when the courts say otherwise.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Mar 24 9.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
California is a Blue state and about 30% of it's voters would like to secede so they can continue their happy clappy politics. Texas is a red state and would like to secede to stem immigration . Abortion is just one topic that deeply divides the US, both sides are unhappy with the current position so a minority feel that their side would be better off seceding. As each State already has very significant power over local matters and how to manage national ones would be near to impossible I cannot see it happening.
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 |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 07 Mar 24 9.26am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
As each State already has very significant power over local matters and how to manage national ones would be near to impossible I cannot see it happening. The one good thing about the EU was that when they created it they did have a mechanism for a country to leave. The US does not and forced people at the point of a gun to stay. Imagine sending troops into Scotland after they voted for independence and the rest of the UK said no way. Unfortunately the only option left is civil war. It is not likely at the moment but if this divisive politics continue the number of Americans wanting out for entirely different reasons will grow.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 07 Mar 24 9.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
The Founding Fathers were trying to design a democratic process to elect a national leader at a time when most countries were ruled by kings or dictators. They did not anticipate political parties becoming the norm otherwise they might not have gone for an electoral college. The big problem they had was how does the voter know who to pick. No TV or modern media the news would take weeks or months to travel across country and no local party office to spread the good word about the candidate. The Electoral College is just a proxy vote. So hick farmer votes for a local prominent person someone they trust and who is knowledgeable has traveled and may even know the candidate. That person then votes for the candidate. By the way a member of the Electoral College can vote for who they like. So say Biden wins a state with 10 Electoral Votes it is possible that one or more of those could pick Trump. There would be legal challenges but it is not a legal slam dunk that just because Biden won that state all the votes are his. As you say with political parties and mass media this system is no linger fit for purpose and should just be a national election directly voting for the candidate.
I'm not very knowledgeable about America's founding fathers but one thing does come quite clear regarding their attitudes and that is that overly powerful government is bad...indeed the second amendment is mostly about that.....this contingency was reflected in their experience with kings and they didn't want a repeat. I doubt they would be happy with how things are progressing. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Mar 2024 9.40am)
'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 |
|
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.