US politics
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Teddy Eagle  18 Dec 23 10.03pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The idea that the US military would take political sides is, hopefully, very far fetched for it would result in a complete disaster. I cannot imagine the very disciplined military not following the orders of their commanders or those commanders not following the instructions of their CIC. Unless, of course, that CIC exceeded their authority. Which regrettably now seems conceivable. I imagine that should any “activists” start to make trouble beyond the scope of local law and order to handle that the National Guard would be asked to assist and only in very extreme circumstances would it have to be elevated. Our resident know something (about everything) often pontificates about how the USA is bound to break up. He’s “been saying it for years”, and here it is again. It isn’t something much discussed here, but apparently is in the USA. So we know where this something comes from. Which given where much of the content comes from is unsurprising. So I thought I ought to take a look myself. There is a lot of discussion, that’s true. Not all of it believing it is either feasible or sensible. This was interesting:- As anyone who has been through a divorce knows the divorce itself is the simple bit. It’s the division of the assets, who has custody of the children, who has the dog and retains the house that’s the difficult stuff. Some can sort things out amicably but they are those who didn’t ought to be getting divorced in the first place. Those who really need to separate often need a Judge to order how things are settled. I don’t see a suitable Judge for the US states. In any case the individual states already possess quite a lot of independence so what would be the point. All pain and no gain.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Stirlingsays  18 Dec 23 10.25pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
We will see. After this election next year, whoever wins, there are going to be an awfully large number of very angry people. That doesn't just go away. There is no unifying figure in American politics, the political distance between the two parties is too large for that. They don't share the same values. There is no 'convincing'.....They can no more be convinced than you or I can be convinced....that's just a demeaning way of thinking of political oppositions. I predict that this election leads to significant forms of disruption and increasing separation and loss of influence between the president and the opposite party's states. It's all steps along the way.
'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 |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 18 Dec 23 10.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Clearly not, but so is a Raving Loony PM. Or have we already had one of them? Any split would cause such disruption as to soon change minds. There must be easier ways of allowing states more control over the social things that seem to concern people whilst still running the important things centrally. Thatcher was a strong advocate for subsidiarity and perhaps her attitude needs promoting in the USA.
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 |
|
| Teddy Eagle 19 Dec 23 12.09am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Clearly not, but so is a Raving Loony PM. Or have we already had one of them? Any split would cause such disruption as to soon change minds. There must be easier ways of allowing states more control over the social things that seem to concern people whilst still running the important things centrally. Thatcher was a strong advocate for subsidiarity and perhaps her attitude needs promoting in the USA. Raving lunacy might well be a prerequisite for anyone who actually wants the job.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 19 Dec 23 12.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Guy thinks you can stick Trump in jail....who half the country will vote for and then....'let's give states more social freedom' is going to smooth over the edges. Don't see it myself but we will see I guess....because if Trump wins, he's coming for his enemies and if he loses they are going to destroy him. Intelligent people wouldn't be doing any of this and would argue against it but unfortunately things have gone over that Rubicon in America and few people are interested in compromises. Like I said, there is no unifying figure that the other side respects anymore. Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Dec 2023 12.18am)
'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 19 Dec 23 8.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The idea that the US military would take political sides is, hopefully, very far fetched for it would result in a complete disaster. Well it has happened already, 1861 and all that. I agree it would be a disaster the problem is that although the North won the actual issue of the war, states rights versus federal rights, is still simmering 150 years later. The actual argument that once a state had joined the union it could never leave was not won, it was a military solution that won. The lead up to the civil war was about 20 years with successive Presidents trying to put a sticking plaster over the issue until it came to a head. I don't see a split happening soon but if they keep getting divisive leaders they will start heading down the same path for Civil War 2 "The Payback". Edited by Badger11 (19 Dec 2023 8.23am)
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 19 Dec 23 8.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
If the rule of law is going to be maintained then even if 99% of the people vote for someone if they are given jail time they must serve it! You cannot ever put somebody above the law. You invite dictatorship should you do so. The consequences would be extremely difficult but they must be faced, because not to do would be worse. It’s another example of drawing a line and sticking to it. That anyone talks of Trump having “enemies”, and not political opponents, and that he will be “coming for them” confirms just how important it is that this cannot be allowed to happen. Trump tried to usurp the democratic process the last time. To use this kind of language points up he still hasn’t finished. Can we really take the risk of what a second Trump term might bring in its wake? I don’t though see a unifying candidate on the horizon, although I am prepared to be surprised. The problem is that the divide is too deep. Particularly so on the Trump side of the Republican Party. I think it is perfectly possible for traditional Republicans and most Democrats to be able to work together and find common ground. Not so with the hardliners for whom their way is the only way. With those people dominating the Party and regarding the traditionals with almost as much distain as the Democrats it’s going to need to wait until after the Trump era for common sense to stand a chance of rising again.
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 19 Dec 23 8.43am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Well it has happened already, 1861 and all that. I agree it would be a disaster the problem is that although the North won the actual issue of the war, states rights versus federal rights, is still simmering 150 years later. The actual argument that once a state had joined the union it could never leave was not won, it was a military solution that won. The lead up to the civil war was about 20 years with successive Presidents trying to put a sticking plaster over the issue until it came to a head. I don't see a split happening soon but if they keep getting divisive leaders they will start heading down the same path for Civil War 2 "The Payback". Edited by Badger11 (19 Dec 2023 8.23am) Hopefully the fact that the military is more disciplined and the weapons more lethal would ensure this doesn’t happen. I cannot imagine one group of US military being prepared to fight another. Their loyalty is to the USA and its constitution. Not to factions.
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 |
|
| Stirlingsays 19 Dec 23 9.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
'Law'....notice when it's laws that they don't agree with...like the supreme court abortion decision, suddenly this attitude changes. No acceptance of 'evolving' then, things are only allowed to evolve how they want them to. Total façade. People like our Corny friend create war and then point at others. There is a lot of money behind Trump....You put him in jail and what comes next isn't a gruff 90s Democrat. Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Dec 2023 10.18am)
'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 |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 19 Dec 23 3.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The Supreme Court decision is still the law. The argument is about how the Court that made it was constituted and what changes need to be made to it so it is a better balanced institution. Nevertheless the decisions it makes are the law and must be respected . You will not find an argument from me to the contrary. I believe in dialogue and better arguments than force of any kind. So certainly don’t create wars. I have always avoided confrontation as being a pointless exercise. When faced with aggression I walk the other way to continue the argument verbally when the temper has cooled. You cannot do that though when someone tries to take what is yours. If you aren’t strong enough to resist alone, you ask friends to help. Trump may have a lot of friends but I suspect that at the higher intellectual levels he has many more enemies than friends. Having dimwits as friends isn’t a lot of use.
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 |
|
| Stirlingsays 19 Dec 23 4.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I can only hope that there are some American independents who might read that insulting description of Trump supporters between now and the election and understand just the level of contempt Democrat supporters have for their opposition.
'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 19 Dec 23 4.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The Supreme Court decision is still the law. The argument is about how the Court that made it was constituted and what changes need to be made to it so it is a better balanced institution. Nevertheless the decisions it makes are the law and must be respected . You will not find an argument from me to the contrary. I believe in dialogue and better arguments than force of any kind. So certainly don’t create wars. I have always avoided confrontation as being a pointless exercise. When faced with aggression I walk the other way to continue the argument verbally when the temper has cooled. You cannot do that though when someone tries to take what is yours. If you aren’t strong enough to resist alone, you ask friends to help. Trump may have a lot of friends but I suspect that at the higher intellectual levels he has many more enemies than friends. Having dimwits as friends isn’t a lot of use. President's have always appointed judges that they believe would favour their interests. Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren because he thought he was a safe pair of hands. Warren of course led the charge on civil rights. The current SC has made several rulings that have upset a great many but if you can step away from the emotion actually make sense. The job of the SC is to interpret the law and protect the constitution. However at what point does interpreting the law become making the law something that is not the role of the courts. If Congress wants to pass legislation it is free to do so if it hasn't done that then why should the SC decide to make law. The current SC has reversed some of these decisions because they have chosen to interpret their role in a narrower manner than previous courts. The current court is only reflecting what has largely been the case since the beginning. It was from the fifties until recently that the court acquired an activist role. Edited by Badger11 (19 Dec 2023 4.39pm)
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.