• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

Jordinho said:
https://x.com/i/web/status/1737247893726109940
Click to expand...

Stating that Trump shouldn't be in charge of a country is like proclaiming that Rolf Harris shouldn't work in the childcare sector, it's quite amazing these things take inquiries / court proceedings to work it out to that degree.

If this is legit and holds up I wonder if there'll be another insurrection attempt or various bouts of civil unrest from the closeted proud boys in the name of 'merica.

Speaking of, I read that in the bible belt states that are reintroducing the most anti trans legislation such as Texas have Trans porn as the highest searched category, that's an interesting development isn't it? Saw something the other day but don't have the stats to hand but it speaks volumes.
 
spurspinter1 said:
Stating that Trump shouldn't be in charge of a country is like proclaiming that Rolf Harris shouldn't work in the childcare sector, it's quite amazing these things take inquiries / court proceedings to work it out to that degree.

If this is legit and holds up I wonder if there'll be another insurrection attempt or various bouts of civil unrest from the closeted proud boys in the name of 'merica.

Speaking of, I read that in the bible belt states that are reintroducing the most anti trans legislation such as Texas have Trans porn as the highest searched category, that's an interesting development isn't it? Saw something the other day but don't have the stats to hand but it speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
This will be bounced up to SCOTUS and they'll have a very difficult decision (for them). They could support their guy and say that insurrection doesn't disqualify you anymore with some sort of legal fudge. Or rule him off the ballot, which needless to say is exactly what the Constitution says. I'd say the corrupt fudges might just do the former.
 
Rorschach said:
This will be bounced up to SCOTUS and they'll have a very difficult decision (for them). They could support their guy and say that insurrection doesn't disqualify you anymore with some sort of legal fudge. Or rule him off the ballot, which needless to say is exactly what the Constitution says. I'd say the corrupt fudges might just do the former.
Click to expand...
Of course they will. Everything is so politicized over there. The supreme court is just another republican/democratic battleground, with the republican side currently with the upper hand. Those who hold these positions are basically just politicians for life, disguised as impatial judges.
 
Rorschach said:
This will be bounced up to SCOTUS and they'll have a very difficult decision (for them). They could support their guy and say that insurrection doesn't disqualify you anymore with some sort of legal fudge. Or rule him off the ballot, which needless to say is exactly what the Constitution says. I'd say the corrupt fudges might just do the former.
Click to expand...
It wasn't an insurrection. Trump won the election, so the uprising wasn't against the seat of government, it was freedom fighting. Ergo, the constitution doesn't apply.

In fact, Trump is a hero and all dollar bills will be reprinted with his face on.....and be orange
 
Robbo said:
Of course they will. Everything is so politicized over there. The supreme court is just another republican/democratic battleground, with the republican side currently with the upper hand. Those who hold these positions are basically just politicians for life, disguised as impatial judges.
Click to expand...
It has been right-leaning all my life, and currently, it is the most 'conservative' it has ever been. I would be careful of both sidings this because as usual it was the GOP that really politicised the institution. They saw their demographics heading the wrong way and one way to hold onto power was via Supreme Court judicial appointments. And so the fudgery began with the Merrick Garland nomination has continued to this day. Every one of the recent nominations bar the last has a dubious back story with Leonard Leo's stank all over it.
 
Trump shouldn’t be allowed to run for any public office after the insurrection and asking his governors to find him 11,000 votes.

If Trump is allowed to run then I think he beats Biden who hasn’t done a bad job as POTUS on the whole but appearances and perception matters and the perception is he looks too old to do the job. He can do the job just fine but I don’t think he can run for the job, you need energy to run and whatever you think of Trump, he looks robust despite the fact that he should have died years ago considering his diet. Someone like Gavin Newsom would be a good replacement, he looks like a movie star which is important as a lot of the time in politics it is a popularity contest.
 
Jurgen the German said:
Trump shouldn’t be allowed to run for any public office after the insurrection and asking his governors to find him 11,000 votes.

If Trump is allowed to run then I think he beats Biden who hasn’t done a bad job as POTUS on the whole but appearances and perception matters and the perception is he looks too old to do the job. He can do the job just fine but I don’t think he can run for the job, you need energy to run and whatever you think of Trump, he looks robust despite the fact that he should have died years ago considering his diet. Someone like Gavin Newsom would be a good replacement, he looks like a movie star which is important as a lot of the time in politics it is a popularity contest.
Click to expand...
If Arnie wasn't an Austrian he would have won it years ago. Democrats need to get Brad Pitt in office
 
Matthew McConaughey has gotten a bit political I think, and there were some calls for him to dip his toe into some Texas race but I think the Americans need to stay away from movie/tv stars.

Newsom will be president after Harris.
 
Jurgen the German said:
Trump shouldn’t be allowed to run for any public office after the insurrection and asking his governors to find him 11,000 votes.

If Trump is allowed to run then I think he beats Biden who hasn’t done a bad job as POTUS on the whole but appearances and perception matters and the perception is he looks too old to do the job. He can do the job just fine but I don’t think he can run for the job, you need energy to run and whatever you think of Trump, he looks robust despite the fact that he should have died years ago considering his diet. Someone like Gavin Newsom would be a good replacement, he looks like a movie star which is important as a lot of the time in politics it is a popularity contest.
Click to expand...
Alex Andreou (who I rate as a political commentator) has a theory that as soon as Trump is declared as the official Republican candidate Biden will step aside, allowing a younger Democratic candidate in to run.
 
Mikey10 said:
Alex Andreou (who I rate as a political commentator) has a theory that as soon as Trump is declared as the official Republican candidate Biden will step aside, allowing a younger Democratic candidate in to run.
Click to expand...
Why? I mean, why does it matter who he's up against?
 
Mikey10 said:
Alex Andreou (who I rate as a political commentator) has a theory that as soon as Trump is declared as the official Republican candidate Biden will step aside, allowing a younger Democratic candidate in to run.
Click to expand...
I think Biden is the correct choice to take on Trump, though I could see him handing the reins over to the VP during the 2nd term.
 
Mikey10 said:
Alex Andreou (who I rate as a political commentator) has a theory that as soon as Trump is declared as the official Republican candidate Biden will step aside, allowing a younger Democratic candidate in to run.
Click to expand...
Mikey10 said:
Because Biden’s age and increasing infirmity is a turn-off to a lot of Americans, according to polling data. Replacing him with someone younger helps to minimise that issue.
Click to expand...

This Biden stepping aside thing has been said before.

I agree with you that Biden's age doesn't do him any favors. Trump is barely much younger but he's a attack dog. I don't think Biden has the energy for a campaign like that, even if Biden might still win. I feel Biden would only claim voters because he isn't Trump - rather than win voters for anything he is.

But who is the alternative then? Kamala Harris? I keep track of the US opinion polls and any scenario where Harris is against Trump seems to indicate a comfortable Trump victory. It's been that way for years too.

Although I keep track of the opinion polls I don't know much about Harris to be honest. I don't know whether she has a Hilary Clinton type of personality - or whether latent misogyny combined racism means she is stereotyped as someone know one wants as president.

I don't know anything either about the Andreou guy you've mentioned - or how reliable he is. But I would have assumed the Democrats would want to stick with a sitting President giving the record of sitting presidents generally being reelected.
 
Mikey10 said:
Because Biden’s age and increasing infirmity is a turn-off to a lot of Americans, according to polling data. Replacing him with someone younger helps to minimise that issue.
Click to expand...
The Biden is old thing is a little silly. Trump is old too. Trump has dementia and is incontinent, but this doesn't seem to be a disqualifier for him. Nor does the fact that he wants to be a dictator, by his own admission, it would seem. That we are still focusing on the horse race rather than the repercussions of Trump v2 is an abysmal failure of MSM.
 
Rorschach said:
This will be bounced up to SCOTUS and they'll have a very difficult decision (for them). They could support their guy and say that insurrection doesn't disqualify you anymore with some sort of legal fudge. Or rule him off the ballot, which needless to say is exactly what the Constitution says. I'd say the corrupt fudges might just do the former.
Click to expand...
The fudge will be the words "under the United States"

It's already been argued successfully before that the role of President is not "under" the United States. There's enough support for that argument that the SC will be able to fudge it that the rule does not apply to the president.
 
scaramanga said:
The fudge will be the words "under the United States"

It's already been argued successfully before that the role of President is not "under" the United States. There's enough support for that argument that the SC will be able to fudge it that the rule does not apply to the president.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what that means but in previous rulings, the SCOTUS has not been siding with Trump. That I suppose is a little surprising. That they denied making this ruling and batted it back to the circuit court sort of follows the same pattern.

The DC circuit will deny immunity which will lift the stay on the trial. The prediction then is that SCOTUS will deny cert again as they did with the election challenges leaving the circuit court ruling in place, i.e. no immunity. They don't want to get their hands dirtier than they already are, is what I am reading.
 
Rorschach said:
I'm not sure what that means but in previous rulings, the SCOTUS has not been siding with Trump. That I suppose is a little surprising. That they denied making this ruling and batted it back to the circuit court sort of follows the same pattern.

The DC circuit will deny immunity which will lift the stay on the trial. The prediction then is that SCOTUS will deny cert again as they did with the election challenges leaving the circuit court ruling in place, i.e. no immunity. They don't want to get their hands dirtier than they already are, is what I am reading.
Click to expand...
That's the wording of the 14th amendment.

No person shall hold office under the United States.....involved in an insurrection against the US (or something along those lines).

If the SC wants to protect Trump's nomination then that's how they'll get around it. You're right though, they're not as strongly pro Trump as they have been. He's got 3 firm Trumpist votes on there, 3 firm against and 3 fundamental, religious conservatives who are no fans of his, but might be swayed if he's the best bet to defeat Biden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back