By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
An Australian professor of Data Analytics from Griffith University who predicted Trump’s first win, the Australian Federal Election(when all the polls said the opposite) and Brexit has called it - Trump will be re-elected for another 4 years. You heard it here first.
He's clearly done positive work in the Middle East and also been nominated for the nobel peace prize 3 times.
But it's pointless mentioning anything positive about Trump, because those with Trump Derangement Syndrome will immediately go into a massive rant about it regardless of the facts.
[Post edited 28 Oct 2020 16:01]
He's made things happen in the middle east, whether that's positive progress or not is in the eye of the beholder. But certainly you can't use "he's done nothing" against him
I'm not against what he's trying to do in China either though his methods are a bit aggressive for my tastes and again you can question whether the US is "winning" from those deals
Where i have a major issues with Trump is how he incites division and hatred within the population, which has brought the entire country to boiling point. Politics is an absolute joke and while he promised to "drain the swamp" and as a non politician some people thought he'd be best places to do that, instead he's presiding over not only seismic divisions in the country but the most partisan Senate in history. It's more of a political game now than it's ever been, gone are the days of senators voting for what they believe in (regardless of political affiliation) and instead everything is just along party lines.
Take the recent supreme court confirmation. Democrats never really gave her a chance. And Republicans would have voted for anyone who was nominated without a single question. It's a joke. And Trump is the main instigator of all of it.
He's made things happen in the middle east, whether that's positive progress or not is in the eye of the beholder. But certainly you can't use "he's done nothing" against him
I'm not against what he's trying to do in China either though his methods are a bit aggressive for my tastes and again you can question whether the US is "winning" from those deals
Where i have a major issues with Trump is how he incites division and hatred within the population, which has brought the entire country to boiling point. Politics is an absolute joke and while he promised to "drain the swamp" and as a non politician some people thought he'd be best places to do that, instead he's presiding over not only seismic divisions in the country but the most partisan Senate in history. It's more of a political game now than it's ever been, gone are the days of senators voting for what they believe in (regardless of political affiliation) and instead everything is just along party lines.
Take the recent supreme court confirmation. Democrats never really gave her a chance. And Republicans would have voted for anyone who was nominated without a single question. It's a joke. And Trump is the main instigator of all of it.
I think the Democrats thing with ACB in the Supreme Court was the absolute pi ss take over not even giving Merrick Garland a hearing, something like 270 days before the 2016 election, citing the fact that it was an election year. Their argument being that the people should be allowed to influence the decision via the election, with the next President getting his/her pick. There are loads of GOP Senators on film/Twitter/in print at the time, stating that they would oppose a Republican President trying to install a Supreme Court justice in the same circumstances in 2020. The hypocrisy is breath-taking.
Well, I'm not sure that shifting the US embassy to Jerusalem does a lot for Palestinians. And as below, Netanyahu himself has said that further annexation is simply paused at the moment as part of the normalisation process:
"In a TV address Mr Netanyahu said he had "delayed" West Bank annexation plans, but those plans remain "on the table". Annexation would make some West Bank areas officially part of Israel.
"There is no change in my plan to apply our sovereignty to Judea and Samaria [West Bank] in full co-ordination with the US. I'm committed to it. That hasn't changed. I remind you that I was the one who put the issue of sovereignty over Judea and Samaria on the table. This issue remains on the table," he said."
Well said, Konk.
His work assisting Israel breach numerous U.N. resolutions in their illegal annexation of Palestine is absolutely criminal in my opinion.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
I think the Democrats thing with ACB in the Supreme Court was the absolute pi ss take over not even giving Merrick Garland a hearing, something like 270 days before the 2016 election, citing the fact that it was an election year. Their argument being that the people should be allowed to influence the decision via the election, with the next President getting his/her pick. There are loads of GOP Senators on film/Twitter/in print at the time, stating that they would oppose a Republican President trying to install a Supreme Court justice in the same circumstances in 2020. The hypocrisy is breath-taking.
Well this is all a fair point, but it is equal hypocrisy from the Democrats who were arguing the opposite then to what they are arguing now. The only difference between the two scenarios is that the Republicans have the numbers to force it through and the Democrats didn't.
Here's what the Democrats said about it at the time:
Politics in the US is massively partisan, even more than here.
He's clearly done positive work in the Middle East and also been nominated for the nobel peace prize 3 times.
But it's pointless mentioning anything positive about Trump, because those with Trump Derangement Syndrome will immediately go into a massive rant about it regardless of the facts.
[Post edited 28 Oct 2020 16:01]
I disagree Clive, as per my reply to Konk's post.
No rant, no offence. We just see this one differently.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
Well this is all a fair point, but it is equal hypocrisy from the Democrats who were arguing the opposite then to what they are arguing now. The only difference between the two scenarios is that the Republicans have the numbers to force it through and the Democrats didn't.
Here's what the Democrats said about it at the time:
Politics in the US is massively partisan, even more than here.
"...but it is equal hypocrisy from the Democrats who were arguing the opposite then to what they are arguing now."
That's my recollection too, Clive.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
He is hardly a dictator of the US, you need to calm down a bit.
[Post edited 28 Oct 2020 15:11]
Calm down? Give it a rest.
I wasn't being hyper. Just a slightly tongue-in-cheek comment trying to describe a man who is obviously a control freak.
And by the way, did I say he had gone marching into other countries? No, I said he was akin to the kind of Dictator that his predecessors had gone in to oust.
"...but it is equal hypocrisy from the Democrats who were arguing the opposite then to what they are arguing now."
That's my recollection too, Clive.
2016 - GOP refuse Merrick Garland a hearing because it's an Election year - he's nominated 237 days before the election (I was wrong earlier, saying 270 days or something). Loads of prominent GOP Senators go on record stating that they would similarly oppose a Republican President nominating/installing a Supreme Court Justice in 2020 or future election years. GOP control the Senate, so the position remains vacant for the remainder of Obama's presidency.
2020 - RBG dies after Early voting has already begun, GOP rush to nominate ACB, and she is appointed to the Supreme Court just over a week before the election. The GOP justify this by saying the Supreme Court may be required to rule on Election results, so can't have a potential 4-4 split. This strangely, wasn't a concern for the GOP in 2016.
The GOP set a precedent in 2016 - the Dems have pointed to that precedent in 2020 and argued that the vacancy should have remained, to be filled by either Trump or Biden after the election. The Dem position re leaving vacancies open in an election year is simply asking that the GOP stick to the precedent they set just four years ago.
Given the Dems are asking that the GOP follow their own, 4 year old precedent, how is the Dem position in 2020 hypocrisy?
The Republican argument is that the president can nominate in an election year, but the senate can block it and ask to wait for the result of the election. This only matters when the presidency and senate are held by different parties, which is not the case this time.
Apparently this has precedent going back for years and wasn't a new case that they created last time. Whether they are being entirely accurate I'm not sure as I'm too lazy to check, but their argument is explained here:
Yeah, he's done a great job in the Middle-East unless you're a Palestinian, a Kurd or a Saudi dissident journalist. Normalizing relations between Israel and the UAE & Bahrain - the Holy Grail for US and European foreign policy. Remarkable. The Sudanese Government might not even have the authority to normalise relations with Israel.
...and that's without even mentioning Iran. Trying to stop a large nation selling the one commodity - oil - on which its economy depends does not make for a safer world.
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
The Republican argument is that the president can nominate in an election year, but the senate can block it and ask to wait for the result of the election. This only matters when the presidency and senate are held by different parties, which is not the case this time.
Apparently this has precedent going back for years and wasn't a new case that they created last time. Whether they are being entirely accurate I'm not sure as I'm too lazy to check, but their argument is explained here:
The Democratic argument is that Lindsey Graham said he would not confirm a judge to the Supreme Court if a position became available in the final year of a presidency and to use his words against him should he do so. By ramming through ACB, he's lowered the bar to the floor and nothing he says from this day forward means jack shit.
The lines have now been drawn in the sand and Trump/Graham and McConnell have made it clear that anything goes. If Biden doesn't win by a huge margin, The USA is in big trouble.
The Democratic argument is that Lindsey Graham said he would not confirm a judge to the Supreme Court if a position became available in the final year of a presidency and to use his words against him should he do so. By ramming through ACB, he's lowered the bar to the floor and nothing he says from this day forward means jack shit.
The lines have now been drawn in the sand and Trump/Graham and McConnell have made it clear that anything goes. If Biden doesn't win by a huge margin, The USA is in big trouble.
[Post edited 28 Oct 2020 18:35]
Conversely, if Biden does win and the Dems take the senate then he’ll be under immediate pressure from the likes of AOC to ‘rebalance‘ the Supreme Court by increasing the number of judges.
And Republicans would only have themselves to blame for lowering the bar.
The Republican argument is that the president can nominate in an election year, but the senate can block it and ask to wait for the result of the election. This only matters when the presidency and senate are held by different parties, which is not the case this time.
Apparently this has precedent going back for years and wasn't a new case that they created last time. Whether they are being entirely accurate I'm not sure as I'm too lazy to check, but their argument is explained here:
This is totally unprecedented. There is no case that falls into this fact pattern in the entire history of Supreme Court confirmations.
The Republicans are trying to defend their inconsistency by citing some irrelevant distinguishing factor (that has never been the basis for prior confirmation processes). Mitch McConnell intiially argued that the Republicans should proceed with the nomination b/c they were given a mandate by the American people in the 2018 election (i.e., they held a 51-49 majority after the midterms, in which only 1/3 of Senate seats were up for re-election).... ignoring the irony that if they were interested in a "mandate", they'd wait until the election literally a month later.... if not this nonsensical argument from grassley, they might argue that this is the precedent in years where there are pandemics or when QPR is in the championship or leapyears. they were clearly looking for some distinguishing factor.
Its genuinely quite disturbing to me that any one could buy such absolute nonsense. Either you're (i) misinformed, or (ii) so gullible and dogmatic that you'll accept anything your side says as the truth.
If you want to say its a power grab, and that the republicans are doing it because they can and they're in power, that's perfectly valid. If you want to say that the Democrats might've done the same thing if in this situation, again fine.
But when people believe statements like these, it shows that they've shut off their brains.
No I said I didn't know if I believed it and was too lazy to check.
" if they were interested in a "mandate", they'd wait until the election literally a month later..."
I disagree with this part, the president has a mandate up to the next election. Saying it's near the next election, so the mandate doesn't count anymore is nonsense.
"Its genuinely quite disturbing to me that any one could buy such absolute nonsense. Either you're (i) misinformed, or (ii) so gullible and dogmatic that you'll accept anything your side says as the truth."
Er...ok. This really makes me want to discuss it with you.
No I said I didn't know if I believed it and was too lazy to check.
" if they were interested in a "mandate", they'd wait until the election literally a month later..."
I disagree with this part, the president has a mandate up to the next election. Saying it's near the next election, so the mandate doesn't count anymore is nonsense.
"Its genuinely quite disturbing to me that any one could buy such absolute nonsense. Either you're (i) misinformed, or (ii) so gullible and dogmatic that you'll accept anything your side says as the truth."
Er...ok. This really makes me want to discuss it with you.
To be fair, Clive, as someone who lives in Iowa, the second I saw a link to Grassley's website, it was so close to an automatic user block for me.
Rather, I need to ask myself why I'm reading political threads on the website where I go to escape from the nonstop noise!
He's clearly done positive work in the Middle East and also been nominated for the nobel peace prize 3 times.
But it's pointless mentioning anything positive about Trump, because those with Trump Derangement Syndrome will immediately go into a massive rant about it regardless of the facts.
[Post edited 28 Oct 2020 16:01]
No one knows what he offered to get these deals done. Think about it. A political win for Trump comes at a huge cost somewhere. He's basically done a deal with The Saudis and Netanyahu etc... Those dudes would rob him blind. For Trump he wouldn't care what the cost is to the USA only himself.
Conversely, if Biden does win and the Dems take the senate then he’ll be under immediate pressure from the likes of AOC to ‘rebalance‘ the Supreme Court by increasing the number of judges.
And Republicans would only have themselves to blame for lowering the bar.
Supreme court needs an overhaul. Putting extra left leaning judges on their is creating a terrifying precedent. Used to be that judges were appointed based on agreement from both sides and considered thought for the nomination. These days it's about getting the most far right or far left justice in there that you can, as well as making them as young as possible because they serve for life. It's a political game, again. So change it. Let the Democrats elect 5, the Republicans elect 5 and have 5 legitimate swing judges who are appointed by both parties. I accept that there are still potential issues with those middle 5 but they should at least have a history of bi partisan rulings.
What's the point of having a panel of justices where you know before a case even comes up how 90% of them are going to rule?
Trump is turning into a Dictator. You know, the sort of Dictator that the USA happily went marching into other countries to get rid of.
Trump is playing the David Koresh playbook. Portray yourself as a God and cult leader and get your subjects to pledge allegiance and/or die for you. It's playing out in front of our eyes and Trump has a lot of cult followers. So many that I expect him to win.
No I said I didn't know if I believed it and was too lazy to check.
" if they were interested in a "mandate", they'd wait until the election literally a month later..."
I disagree with this part, the president has a mandate up to the next election. Saying it's near the next election, so the mandate doesn't count anymore is nonsense.
"Its genuinely quite disturbing to me that any one could buy such absolute nonsense. Either you're (i) misinformed, or (ii) so gullible and dogmatic that you'll accept anything your side says as the truth."
Er...ok. This really makes me want to discuss it with you.
reading comprehension... i didnt make the mandate argument. i said that the argument that mitch mcconnell made is ironic (considering he cited a mandate on the back of a senate election in which 1/3 of seats were up for election)
I disagree with this part, the president has a mandate up to the next election. Saying it's near the next election, so the mandate doesn't count anymore is nonsense.
if thats the case, can you say that the republicans were wrong in 2016 on merrick garland?
The democrats have certainly been doing anything in their power to make anybody with even a modicum of sense to vote against them. It's an unfortunate choice, Trump or the looney left wing racist party. Sweet Jesus talk about a lose-lose.
The democrats have certainly been doing anything in their power to make anybody with even a modicum of sense to vote against them. It's an unfortunate choice, Trump or the looney left wing racist party. Sweet Jesus talk about a lose-lose.
With all the s**t going on in the world, maybe they don't actually want to be having to deal with it!
The democrats have certainly been doing anything in their power to make anybody with even a modicum of sense to vote against them. It's an unfortunate choice, Trump or the looney left wing racist party. Sweet Jesus talk about a lose-lose.
you really need to broaden your mind if you think the Democrats are left wing
Does anybody actually think that Biden will last more than 6 months before Harris takes over. She couldn't get the Democrats vote the legitimate way so they are pushing her through the back door.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
