-
@Winger said in US Politics:
Trumps a very smart man. Much smarter than most of the clown (or corrupt) politicians. But a debate about climate (and whether science has been corrupted even though the answer is obvious) is not for this thread
Is this factual, or just a feeling you have?
Further to this, "smartness" doesn't mean you are a great leader or even a great person. Ted Kaczynski had an IQ of 167. I wouldn't call Trump smart , I would call him cunning.
-
@W32 said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
Trumps a very smart man. Much smarter than most of the clown (or corrupt) politicians. But a debate about climate (and whether science has been corrupted even though the answer is obvious) is not for this thread
Is this factual, or just a feeling you have?
Further to this, "smartness" doesn't mean you are a great leader or even a great person. Ted Kaczynski had an IQ of 167. I wouldn't call Trump smart , I would call him cunning.
he seemed a bit naive when he first became President. M
And maybe not as smart as Putin. But if he
Becomes President again
Stay alive for 4 years
Remains President for 4 years
Remains a free man for the rest of his life and dies of natural causes
Stops a world war
etcThen maybe as smart and wise as Putin
-
I found this interesting
ANSWER: It would have been nice if the Supreme Court ruled on the insurrection allegation. But if Colorado, Maine, Illinois, and any other Marxist state usurped jurisdiction they did not have, that ended the inquiry. If you read Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s separate opinion, she points out the problem with the Democratic-appointed Justices. True, they had to agree that Colorado had no jurisdiction even to decide the case, much less charge him. The majority wrote:
“We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.”
This was correct, or a single state could interfere in a federal election that would violate the civil rights of everyone else in the country. There was absolutely nothing in the Constitution that delegated to the States any power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against federal officeholders and candidates. The three Democrat-appointed justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson- wrote that the majority went too far. What Justice Barrett points out is that their rhetoric was inflammatory.
The Democratic dissenters are a forwarding (n?) of the Constitutional Crisis to come. They said the ruling “shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement” and that “we cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily.” They even added, “Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision.”
Barrett Justice Amy
The dissenters are arguing that Section 3 is self-executing, in which case the Democrats will rally to their words and REFUSE to certify a Trump victory. The majority said Congress must pass legislation. So, the Constitutional Crisis will erupt when the Democrats refuse to certify Trump leaving Biden in office, and then the whole thing goes back to the courts.
Justice Barret saw this crisis unfolding. She wrote: “In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” she said, adding that “particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.” She also issued a warning. “For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home,” she wrote, referring to the dissenting minority.”
So many markets are starting to show Panic Cycles between September and November. This Constitutional Crisis will come in January 2025 over the certification of the vote. The country is so divided, and the Democrats have expended all their energy on hating Trump. This hatred is not so unlike the period encompassing the Social War of Rome, about 40 years before Caesar was forced to cross the Rubicon. When the Marius faction seized control, they simply executed all the supporters of their opposition – Sulla. The hatred of Trump is so intense it is reminiscent of the Social War period.
Today, the Democrats will reject the vote no matter what. They will claim that the 14th Amendment is self-executing and refuse to certify Trump without passing any legislation. They will point to the language of these three Democrats on the Court. That means the entire decision if January 6th was an insurrection or not will become the turning point.
When I look at the long-term timing arrays, we have back-to-back Yearly Directional Changes 2024/2025. If the Democrats pull that trick, they will clearly destroy the confidence in the United States, the rule of law, and the foundation of everything. Even when we turn to the US government 30-year bonds, 2024 is a Directional Change. Everything is poised for a major Constitutional Crisis, pretty much like Rome.
-
One crazy out. Lots more to go
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
One crazy out. Lots more to go
Do you feel that democrat politicians are "crazies"?
-
@W32 said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
One crazy out. Lots more to go
Do you feel that democrat politicians are "crazies"?
AOC says hi.
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@W32 said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
One crazy out. Lots more to go
Do you feel that democrat politicians are "crazies"?
AOC says hi.
-
I raise you arch-Trump supporter and Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene - who actually believes Californian forest fires are caused by Jewish Space Lasers......
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
I raise you arch-Trump supporter and Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene - who actually believes Californian forest fires are caused by Jewish Space Lasers......
And when it is brought up recently by a reporter she tells the reporter to 'Fuck off'..classy class woman
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
Apparently
Apparently according to whom.
Maybe for once the media has been accurate and professional with their reporting. As unlikely as this is/
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@W32 said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
One crazy out. Lots more to go
Do you feel that democrat politicians are "crazies"?
AOC says hi.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
Apparently
Apparently according to whom.
Maybe for once the media has been accurate and professional with their reporting. As unlikely as this is/
It seems when it suits your viewpoint, the media is to be trusted. It always amazes me that people are willing to believe an obscure youtube channel, but wont listen to "the mainstream media" Perhaps better to use/discard all media to form an informed opinion. "Mainstream media" is just like any other media
-
@W32 said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
Apparently
Apparently according to whom.
Maybe for once the media has been accurate and professional with their reporting. As unlikely as this is/
It seems when it suits your viewpoint, the media is to be trusted. It always amazes me that people are willing to believe an obscure youtube channel, but wont listen to "the mainstream media" Perhaps better to use/discard all media to form an informed opinion. "Mainstream media" is just like any other media
This false equivalence drives part of the problem I think. For all the faults of mainstream media, all the things they get wrong, and all the biases the various outlets show, they are not the same as some fuckwit with a youtube channel. They have news, and they have opinion pieces (dressed up as analysis). They can be sued when they make shit up, and they even make retractions from time to time when they have spouted provable bullshit.
The shit catering to conspiracy theorists has no such limits, and johnny conspiracy theorist can't tell the difference. It's the RT model - make the concept of truth malleable, everything can be doubted, and people can choose what they want to believe. They do this via google etc, and the algorithms are self-reinforcing. Then the people who are dissatisfied with their lives, and feel a lack of control over their world will gravitate to conspiracy via their desire to have someone to blame - the elites who control everything - while championing those who do anything (up to and including starting a war) which goes against the status quo/institutions. It doesn't even matter that their very heroes are the epitome of controlling elite.
it's fucking bizarre frankly, but then i guess so is the popularity of soccer and shit pop music. -
Interesting. Polls showing a substantial number of Republican voters will back Biden over Orange Donald.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/23/trump-moderate-republicans-problem-00137112
"It’s an issue that became starkly apparent in polling ahead of the Iowa caucuses, when an NBC News/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll of voters in that state found that fully 43 percent of Nikki Haley supporters said they would back President Joe Biden over Trump."
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
Interesting. Polls showing a substantial number of Republican voters will back Biden over Orange Donald.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/23/trump-moderate-republicans-problem-00137112
"It’s an issue that became starkly apparent in polling ahead of the Iowa caucuses, when an NBC News/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll of voters in that state found that fully 43 percent of Nikki Haley supporters said they would back President Joe Biden over Trump."
A counter theory is that the vast majority of the Nikki Hayley supports are democrats that have always voted democrat who have jumped on the primary's and voted for Nikki to make sure that "Trump doesn't run for president".
It's like a while lot of labor supports joining NZfirst so they can vote Winnie off as leader (if you follow NZ politics).
How true either theory is I guess we'll find out come the elections.
However to think that 40% of republican's are going to vote for a president with the lowest approval rating of all time does seem rather fanciful.
US Politics