Tracking Earth's Future via Current Events, etc.

[jelgate]

Someone get Annoyed a history book about the European Union and take away his Trump Kool-aid

[Falcon Horus]

Maybe that's because as far as trade goes, the rest of the world has been taking advantage of the US for a very long time now. Just a quick example, from an article I posted in another tread. The EU is angry that we want to increase tarrifs on cars. But the EU assess 10% tariffs on cars we sell there, as compared to the 2.5 % we assess. That's a level playing field, isn't it?

I'll be posting a reply in the other thread.

Also, I'm not entirely sure how many American cars are being sold over here cause as far as the automobile industry go we have no use for heavy cadillacs and SUV's. So, I'm not entirely sure what cars get exported here.

A.K.A... let me look into the Europe/American car industry.

[thekillman]

The EU is angry that we want to increase tarrifs on cars. But the EU assess 10% tariffs on cars we sell there, as compared to the 2.5 % we assess. That's a level playing field, isn't it?

A number of EU companies make or finish their cars in the USA, creating tens of thousands of jobs. Plus, this is not a blanket tariff, since the USA puts more on trucks than cars.

BMW's biggest car plant is in the USA, for example.

[Gatefan1976]

Hey, didn't the saviour Alex Jones predict a democrat revolution a few days ago??

[Annoyed]

I don't follow him, but I understand he's a right side talk radio personality, prone to conspiracy theories. Might have been one of those.

But quite seriously, the Dems had a chance to benefit from a "blue wave" this fall, but I think they've blown that, in large part by their stances on illegal immigration and the epidemic of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) sweeping through their ranks.

At this point, it could go either way, but I think the Republicans will not only keep both the house and senate, but may actually increase their numbers in both chambers.

[SGalisa]

But quite seriously, the Dems had a chance to benefit from a "blue wave" this fall, but I think they've blown that, in large part by their stances on illegal immigration and the epidemic of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) sweeping through their ranks.

At this point, it could go either way, but I think the Republicans will not only keep both the house and senate, but may actually increase their numbers in both chambers.

Keeping a Republican majority? That's *wishful thinking*. . .
Especially if Nancy Pelosi, Chucky E. Schumer, Maxine Waters, along with (former NYC mayor) Michael Bloomberg (who may plan on running for the 2020 USA president as Democrat), Michael Moore and a bunch of other high profile lefties get their way--
I think we both know if the Dems ever get back in FULL power, that's the end of it for the Republicans as well as possibly the (entire) USA.

Another pondering in rumorville issue is -- If the USA falls and collapses into complete chaos or destruction, how fast will Georgie Soros buy up the ruined properties so he or his family can rebuild their own empire at (confiscated or) cheaper than discount rates...?

[Annoyed]

Keeping a Republican majority? That's *wishful thinking*. . .
Especially if Nancy Pelosi, Chucky E. Schumer, Maxine Waters, along with (former NYC mayor) Michael Bloomberg (who may plan on running for the 2020 USA president as Democrat), Michael Moore and a bunch of other high profile lefties get their way--
I think we both know if the Dems ever get back in FULL power, that's the end of it for the Republicans as well as possibly the (entire) USA.

Another pondering in rumorville issue is -- If the USA falls and collapses into complete chaos or destruction, how fast will Georgie Soros buy up the ruined properties so he or his family can rebuild their own empire at (confiscated or) cheaper than discount rates...?

You're right, if the Dems ever get the White House and firm control of both houses, game over, with the possible exception of SCOTUS action, if Trump and the current senate get another seat.

They'll get whoever Trump puts up this time, and a liberal justice on the current court is definitely retirement or worse age. If the Senate does stay red this fall, (and there is a good chance of that, the idiots you cited are prime reasons why they might) there are very good odds that Trump will get a 3rd nomination before 2021. That will leave SCOTUS at 9-3, our favor. That will put the kibosh on an awful lot of Democratic crap for at least a generation. Trump is definitely playing the long game here.

The way this is coming together, the only way the Dems can stop that is if they have enough of a majority in Congress to "pack the court"; increasing number from 9 judges to whatever number is needed to allow them to appoint enough justices to swing the court back to the left.

[jelgate]

The U.S. Constitution is weeping

[Annoyed]

No, just Democrats.

[jelgate]

And the Founding Father's who believed the courts shouldn't be political

[Annoyed]

But the system is fine when it's a liberal court, right? Or do you consider the 9th circuit court to be broken also? It too is heavily biased, but towards the left. The SCOTUS has had left and right leaning periods before, as well.
How many liberal decisions have been passed down ?

But it's working fine when liberals are winning, but when the right is winning, the system is broken, is that it?

It's hard to make the argument that the FF's didn't want it to be political in nature; they created the system where justices were nominated by the executive and confirmed by the legislative branch. It's not to much of a stretch to imagine that they could foresee periods where both branches of govt. would be in the hands of one party or another.

Their attempt to make it non-political was the lifetime appointments; justices didn't have to fear being ousted if they made a ruling unpopular with the powers that be at the time.

[jelgate]

Of course not. You are once again making the mistake of seeing politics as us verus them

[Annoyed]

Of course not. You are once again making the mistake of seeing politics as us verus them

That's because on many very important issues, it is "us vs them". You want to have open borders, or you want to enforce immigration law. You either believe that abortion is murder, or you don't. Or you condone murder for convenience or you don't. Businesses can choose whom the want to serve or they can't.

These are just a few high visibility issues, but they are quite black & white issues, not a lot of middle ground on them, with people who have very serious convictions on these issues on both sides.

Us vs them.

[SoulReaver]

You either believe that abortion is murder, or you don't

only a sith deals in absolutes

[jelgate]

You miss the point again. Not everyone is hard liberal or hard conservative. You are incapable of seeing that their are people who have a mix of liberal and conservative views. To say nothing of that most of your examples are a a spectrum. Reasons or motives is important in deciding which way to go. Which is a little off topic. To me a judge should be not let their political views be a factor and it should be about what the law says. Something you see to want to ignore if it works in your favor