Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Trump Presidency...

So its ok for the GOP to stack SCOTUS, but bad if the Democrats did?

Roe vs Wade would go for starters. 45s nomination is a God bothering fundamentalist, it seems.

Are you so sure? A Conservative leaning SC does not mean they are going to undo every Liberal decision made. Look at Obama Care as it still stands today.

The GOP is not stacking anything, as they have no plans to enlarge the SC. They are however going to confirm a conservative justice because they have the Constitutional authority and the muscle to do so.

If BO had the ability to confirm Garland he would have, but he did not and got out played.

But unless you have ovaries I don't think Roe VS Wade is a personal issue you need to worry about.

 
So its ok for the GOP to stack SCOTUS, but bad if the Democrats did?

Roe vs Wade would go for starters. 45s nomination is a God bothering fundamentalist, it seems.

The Supreme Court has held a republican majority for what now, the whole of the 47 years since Roe vs Wade was settled?

I don’t know why you think it’s suddenly under threat now?

It’s the same type of political bollocks as ‘10 days to save the NHS’ is for Labour. Something they wheel out every election
 
I wasn't arguing that the rules are wrong, I was arguing that the rules invalidated the idea that becoming president depended on popularity with a majority of Americans.

Which they do.

Was that ever the idea. Or intent?

In fact It was always the opposite - you had to be popular with the majority of America, not Americans
 
Are you so sure? A Conservative leaning SC does not mean they are going to undo every Liberal decision made. Look at Obama Care as it still stands today.

The GOP is not stacking anything, as they have no plans to enlarge the SC. They are however going to confirm a conservative justice because they have the Constitutional authority and the muscle to do so.

If BO had the ability to confirm Garland he would have, but he did not and got out played.

But unless you have ovaries I don't think Roe VS Wade is a personal issue you need to worry about.

You don't think Roe vs Wade is an issue unless you're female.

Much like saying racism isn't an issue if you're white.

You still can't accept 45 is stacking SCOTUS . Fair enough.
 
Do you really think it’s a revelation to anyone to discover that Billionaires employ tax consultants to avoid paying tax?

Fucks sake, he told us himself in 2016


Of course. But the issue is, was it tax avoidance or tax evasion?

I think even you may know the difference.
 
The bottom line: is the narrower the result the more likely Trump will win the electoral college and that is accepted by most semi-intelligent people, meaning Biden really does need a 6% lead in the polls to win..... I had tried to show to some blinkered individuals, that Trump was polling 45% back in March and any poll that has him, on less than number, will always appear dubious, as 46.1% of the US voting population couldn't vote Hillary and she was a more credible candidate than sleepy Joe.

The democrats have simply turned up to pick up the prize, with a compromise candidate who has no future, no vision or long term plans and by all accounts will struggle to see out his four years. People will when challenged to make a final choice will determine either the vote is worthless, as neither candidate is credible, or switch to trump as at least he does suggest that he wants to make the county great again.

A cynical reader would read this as you having failed to carry your own argument, you’re now running to a big boy for help.

Can you provide evidence to support your hypothesis that a narrow result acts in Trump’s favour in the electoral college, or us this another one of your ‘racing certainties’?

I’m not even arguing about Trump polling 45% in March. I’m simply pointing out that you don’t seem to understand that ‘percentages’ have to sum to 100. So if Trump was in 45%, the undecideds were on 5% (your numbers), and if both Biden’s score and the undecideds numbers went up, the only place those extra percents are coming from is Trump’s ‘45%’ original share.

I (and others) have commented on here several times about the weaknesses of Democrat strategy, but your hagiographic approach to Trump is glossing over the complete failure of the Republicans to present ANY policies for the next 4 years (they even admitted it themselves) save inchoate and insubstantial cries of ‘MAGA’. All this while Trump is reported as calling the military ‘losers’, paying $750 a year tax, gerrymandering (both in terms of obstructing postal voting and the 2016 shenanigans) and now presiding over a quarter of a million deaths from a disease about which he lied to the American public. If you don’t recognise that these things could adversely influence swing voters you’re even more stupid than I gave you credit for.

Good on you recognising that you’re only ‘semi intelligent’ though. A self-inflicted ad hom saves me from having to do it.
 
The Supreme Court has held a republican majority for what now, the whole of the 47 years since Roe vs Wade was settled?

I don’t know why you think it’s suddenly under threat now?

It’s the same type of political bollocks as ‘10 days to save the NHS’ is for Labour. Something they wheel out every election
The progressive left demand us to change all the time, but can't stand any change demanded of them.... So having to endure four years of Trump was unacceptable and racist, another four years, is handmaids tale and the fourth reich combined under the personification of evil, that is the orange man bad.

If Trump wins and garners another four years, it will be small changes and irritating tweets and peoples lives will hardly change at all. But you can be certain whoever is running for the Republicans in four years will be another neo fascist.
 
You don't think Roe vs Wade is an issue unless you're female.

Much like saying racism isn't an issue if you're white.

You still can't accept 45 is stacking SCOTUS . Fair enough.

Trump is doing what he was elected to do.

White people are not the only folks on the planet that are racist, we are however the only group that seems to be woke about the issue to the point of stupidity. But I don't see anybody being critical of the Chinese who will literally bar people of colour from eating in restaurants.
 
Trump is doing what he was elected to do.

White people are not the only folks on the planet that are racist, we are however the only group that seems to be woke about the issue to the point of stupidity. But I don't see anybody being critical of the Chinese who will literally bar people of colour from eating in restaurants.
You don't?
Expand your horizon, mate. Plenty of criticism of China, even though they're not our closest ally with ties going back for decades.
 
Not sure if this is an accurate quote, but if it is...

“A legal career is but a means to an end. And that end is building the kingdom of God."
- Judge Amy Coney Barrett

Same caveat:

Amy Coney Barrett has said that a woman should not be able to own property buy or sell without the permission of her husband or a male relative..
 
So its ok for the GOP to stack SCOTUS, but bad if the Democrats did?

Roe vs Wade would go for starters. 45s nomination is a God bothering fundamentalist, it seems.

Except she isnt
Shes moderatly conservative - she has the respect of friends and affiliâtes of RBG - who say she wont be and isnt some hard line religious fundementalist seeking to roll back Roe v wade.

She isnt Progressive but shes probably a good nuetral fit - one the democrats should be backing - considering other potential choices

Im jumping in here - because this is a woman is one of the top judges in the US by merit and capability well respected by her peers including those opposed on certain issues.

Yet now is subjected to unpleasant smear attacks and unfounded accusations not because of anything shes said and done - its not even really about concern of what she might do but because Trump chose her.
Thats wrong thats deplorable.


Edit @Bravo_Bravo Im going to assume the disagree is viz her being centrist - in which case I wont disagree although i will point out were talking US centrist not UK - which is a chunk further right but lets be honest the US communist party is still right of the Tories (hyperbole for comedic effect)
 
Last edited:
You don't?
Expand your horizon, mate. Plenty of criticism of China, even though they're not our closest ally with ties going back for decades.

The Chinese don't really give a hooting hell about what we Gweilo think when it comes to their ideas of running their society. They are just as prejudiced as the rest of us, and to add insult to injury are terrible drivers.

But what do you think would happen to America if pleasing the Woke resulted in some major structural changes that disenfranchised a lot of people that don't live on the coasts? What good would come from that?
 
You don't?
Expand your horizon, mate. Plenty of criticism of China, even though they're not our closest ally with ties going back for decades.

He is correct though that certain quarters that attack the west over the enviroment and every percieved race issue are remarkably silent over the Urghur Genocide and massive Enviromental damage by China.

That said you are quite right the mainstream - rather than the extremely vocal thinks it speaks for every one** loony minority is speaking out.

The above is a complaint of Maajid Nawaz that the so called progressive left is turning a blind eye to chinas crimes



** Ok every one except you --- FASCIST
 
Of course. But the issue is, was it tax avoidance or tax evasion?

I think even you may know the difference.

And if you do know the difference then you’ll agree that the line between the two is often unclear and sometimes down to entirely unprovable (and indeed unknowable) concepts like intent.
 

syrup

LE
Same caveat:

Amy Coney Barrett has said that a woman should not be able to own property buy or sell without the permission of her husband or a male relative..


I would imagine that will appeal to a lot of people in America and other countries.
Plenty of religious and non religious folk think that way.

Does that mean she can't follow the letter of the law?
Has it impacted her career previously?
 
Top