US US Politics General 2: Hope Edition - Discussion of President Trump and other politicians

General Trump Banner.png

Should be a wild four years.

Helpful links for those who need them:

Current members of the House of Representatives
https://www.house.gov/representatives

Current members of the Senate
https://www.senate.gov/senators/

Current members of the US Supreme Court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

Members of the Trump Administration
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/
 
Última edición por un moderador:
Qatar probably sees how Trump and the Saudis are cool and play Sega at each other's homes despite their parents not really liking each other and they want to be cool so they give the cool kid the cool toy.
 
True, but what might potentially prevent Turkey butting heads with Israel is that Israel is counted as a non-Nato ally, which might put Turkey's position in the alliance at risk if they were to oppose them on the same level as Iran.
turkey is too retarded to care

also offtopic but along the lines of porn

why are casinos like fanduel sending me offers through the mail? I don't gamble and i hate gambling. It's a severe addiction

people here are talking about porn but gambling is far more destructive. imagine if it was legal for companies to send you mail with girls spreadeagle urging you to sign up regardless if the person at the address has problems like an addiction they are trying to get over

it pisses me off
 
Congratulations for kikes for pissing off a President who half his family is jewish or married to jews and whose entire first term's foreign policy was driven by a Jew in support of jews worldwide.
Guess its never not enough huh?
lets look at this objectively

what's concrete:

waltz invited the journo to the signal chat
Waltz was removed from a high clearance position and put into another high clearance position
Americans who were clear on the Houthi operations being a piracy operation with no relevance to Israel complete the piracy operation without involving Israel. America still has 2 THAAD units in Israel
Trump is visiting KSA, UAE, and Qatar
Americans have negotiated with Hamas through an intermediate to release an Israeli hostage and to agree on the structure of the ceasefire talks.

the honest answer is that retarded brownoids like the person im quoting and /pol/ retards genuinely believed that Trump was controlled by Israel and whenever I explained shit like the Houthi operation having nothing to do with Israel, these same people would shout me down and call me a kike

now that trump is doing what I said he would be doing, brownoids (who only see things in black and white) flipped from TRUMP IS ISRAELS BITCH to TRUMP IS PISSED OFF AT ISRAEL because they are retards.

people are making up all this drama and hype over normal shit
 
I'm sorry. But it's what must happen. On the plus side you have commie Labor in rn. They will suffer first.
Every country that'd see the most benefit from a reverse-course on neoliberalism, globalism and Leftism, has in power the parties that have contributed to the worsening of their countries whilst also doing every slimy trick in their arsenal to stave off the inevitable paradigm shift. When you do all in your power to keep a straggle on it, it ends up fucking you over hard once you've lost it. Also everyone might get hit with increased taxes. Hard times and all that.

France: Le Pen (biggest Right-wing name in France) barred from elected office or running for so until after the next election near 2030. Couple this with inter-party coordination preventing her party winning in seats where she got the majority I.E. Macron support higher? Left-wing doesn't run. Left-wing support higher? Macron party doesn't run. Le Pen was the highest polling candidate prior to March. Now the parties that stopped her from winning the most recent election will suffer the brunt. The guy who replaced Le Pen is also the highest polling, and is more radical than she is (so nice going).

Germany: Spent just shy of a decade trying to get the AFD banned, limited, or completely ostracised in the public's eye. CDU ('Right' party) categorically refuses to work with them, causing the Left and/or SPU to gain control in areas they otherwise wouldn't thanks to the CDU's refusal of co-operation. CDU formed a coalition with the SPD, their ideological opponents in theory, to create the current government, when they could've also ruled the government if they had formed one with the AFD.

UK: Conservative government who was socially liberal but economically conservative (except with social spending). Elected in 2010 on the promise of lowering immigration, did nothing about it. Every election won after was done so on the lie that external forces were tying their hands on the issue of immigration, but due to catering to business interests, they never did so. The Brexit referendum was only allowed to pass because the Conservatives that supported it did so under the belief they'd eventually cut the tape on some regulations and cut corporate taxation. The subsequent general election was done under the guise of delivering a hard brexit (no deals or concessions with EU), which was immediately ignored, but to make up for that they promised to cap immigration to 100k a year (the business-aligned MPs kicked her out of power for this). Covid happened, a PM who did nothing except raise energy prices resigned, new PM slashed taxes (MPs kicked her out of power), the true figure of yearly immigration as plastered to our screens (700k), a shitty plan was proposed (Fly them to Rwanda!) that was blocked by the EU, then a disheartened population refused to vote. Labour got in, a couple months later a black teen murdered some white kids, riots happened, then they threatened to take money away from the olds. Now the anti-immigrant, pro-free speech Reform are polling first (there's some foibles, but who doesn't have them?) and are poised to sweep come 2029.

So, yeah. Things could get funny in Europe. Or better, at minimum. If "free speech" is a consistent winner, then right-wing parties might look into other things to ease restrictions on. Fingers crossed for guns.

turkey is too retarded to care

also offtopic but along the lines of porn

why are casinos like fanduel sending me offers through the mail? I don't gamble and i hate gambling. It's a severe addiction

people here are talking about porn but gambling is far more destructive. imagine if it was legal for companies to send you mail with girls spreadeagle urging you to sign up regardless if the person at the address has problems like an addiction they are trying to get over

it pisses me off
Maybe. The last time Turkey did something that put them in conflict with a Nato-aligned power was in 2022. So yeah, they might be retarded, but they'd essentially push themselves further away from Nato and the EU (the latter which gives them cash) and it'd fuck over a ton, which might be a win. If Israel was being aggressive to foreign powers sans Turkey, and Turkey starts getting in their shit for no reason, you might see a repeat of 2022 wherein Israel's military operations and size become justifiable in the eyes of the international community, just like for Greece.

Also offtopic: In the UK we had something similar but not as explicit to what you described (sorta). It was a common trend to put a topless woman on the 3rd page of newspapers for a while.
Page 3, or Page Three, was a British newspaper convention of publishing a large image of a topless female glamour model (known as a Page 3 girl) on the third page of mainstream red top tabloids. The Sun introduced the feature in November 1970, which boosted its readership and prompted competing tabloids—including The Daily Mirror, The Sunday People, and The Daily Star—to begin featuring topless models on their own third pages.
Although Page 3's defenders portrayed it as a harmless British cultural tradition, the feature was controversial throughout its history, drawing criticism both from conservatives, who tended to view it as softcore pornography inappropriate for inclusion in national newspapers, and feminists, who argued that Page 3 objectified women's bodies, negatively affected girls' and women's body image, and perpetuated sexism. Some politicians, most notably Clare Short and Caroline Lucas, campaigned to have Page 3 images banned from newspapers, although other politicians, including Nick Clegg and Ed Vaizey, expressed concern that such a ban would compromise press freedom. The British government never enacted legislation against Page 3. In 2012, activist Lucy-Anne Holmes launched the No More Page 3 campaign with the goal of persuading newspaper editors and owners to end the feature voluntarily. The campaign gained support from over 140 MPs, as well as a number of trade unions, universities, and women's groups.
In February 2013, Rupert Murdoch, owner of The Sun, suggested that Page 3 could become a "halfway house", featuring glamour photographs without showing nudity. In August of that year, The Sun's Republic of Ireland edition replaced topless Page 3 girls with clothed glamour models. The Sun's UK editions followed suit in January 2015, discontinuing Page 3 after more than 44 years.
 
Última edición:
So, yeah. Things could get funny in Europe. Or better, at minimum. If "free speech" is a consistent winner, then right-wing parties might look into other things to ease restrictions on. Fingers crossed for guns.
Even if this causes a turnover in leadership, they won't give you your guns back. You have to acknowledge them as a right first. Not a privilege that can be taken so freely. Europe is not ready for that. They would have to acknowledge their people as equals and not serfs under the almighty government.
 
Even if this causes a turnover in leadership, they won't give you your guns back. You have to acknowledge them as a right first. Not a privilege that can be taken so freely. Europe is not ready for that. They would have to acknowledge their people as equals and not serfs under the almighty government.
Actually, the UK bill of rights in 1689 did just that in fact:
The Act asserted "certain ancient rights and liberties" by declaring that:
  • the pretended power of suspending the laws and dispensing with (i.e. ignoring) laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
  • the commission for ecclesiastical causes is illegal; levying taxes without grant of Parliament is illegal;
  • it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
  • keeping a standing army in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
  • Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
  • election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
  • the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
  • excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
  • jurors in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
  • promises of fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal and void;
  • for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.
Unfortunately when all power is vested entirely in the legislature, a lot of things can quite easily get overturned. It'd be like if the US house of Representatives also had the powers of the President, Senate and Supreme Court. Constitutional changes can be altered at the drop of a dime and things which were formerly rights can now be buried with asterisks. I know the UK had a king, but it was the empowered legislature that passed the taxes and voted for war to begin with (The very first line in the rights was forbidding the monarch to act without Parliament's consent) don't forget that.

Once speech is regained, the subject of guns might enter the discourse once more. Owning a pistol at bare minimum is in living memory for a lot of brits, and considering the increase of crime that followed their banning, there's an argument to be made for their legalisation again. Just takes time.
 
Requiring ID online is dumb and should be resisted, people who want it (I don’t care why) should be mocked & ridiculed.

Privacy and anonymity are good.
Even if they succeed in requiring IDs for pornographic websites, they'll find other means to fulfill their sexual pleasures. The modern age of the Internet taught me that when there's a will, there's a way.
 
Actually, the UK bill of rights in 1689 did just that in fact:
I guess if you're a Protestant and meet certain conditions- do you see how this is garbage already? Also it's not a codified constitution. It can be mangled like any other law. Your entire system needs rebuilding. It's why we made our system the way we did. Yours is busted.
 
I'm seeing an awful lot of "muh UK" and "muh Democrats" but not a whole lot of alternatives to the
lets look at this objectively

what's concrete:

waltz invited the journo to the signal chat
Waltz was removed from a high clearance position and put into another high clearance position
Americans who were clear on the Houthi operations being a piracy operation with no relevance to Israel complete the piracy operation without involving Israel. America still has 2 THAAD units in Israel
Trump is visiting KSA, UAE, and Qatar
Americans have negotiated with Hamas through an intermediate to release an Israeli hostage and to agree on the structure of the ceasefire talks.

the honest answer is that retarded brownoids like the person im quoting and /pol/ retards genuinely believed that Trump was controlled by Israel and whenever I explained shit like the Houthi operation having nothing to do with Israel, these same people would shout me down and call me a kike

now that trump is doing what I said he would be doing, brownoids (who only see things in black and white) flipped from TRUMP IS ISRAELS BITCH to TRUMP IS PISSED OFF AT ISRAEL because they are retards.

people are making up all this drama and hype over normal shit
Always need to spin it in your favor which just causes more fatigue. When will you guys learn to just take an L once and awhile. It happens
 
Is Trump gonna get JFK’d for daring to not suck on the circumcised cock of Israel?
I don't think it would happen (all parties involved know Trump being in charge raises all ships; Democrats can use Trump as a symbol to fundraise like never before, etc) but if it happens, it'll be because Trump upset the Jews. I've repeatedly told everyone. The Jews are divided on how to handle the goyim. Israeli Jews want free gibs, while American Jews and some WASPs want to globohomo New World Order everything.

Israeli Jews were expecting Trump to be a lot more "forth coming", but seeing him take a nuanced take on Palestine has them getting a little scared—even if Trump is still largely aligned with their interests.
 
Última edición:
Always need to spin it in your favor which just causes more fatigue. When will you guys learn to just take an L once and awhile. It happens
retarded hands wrote this post

i went over the objective facts and pointed out the spin. sorry the facts arent in your favor

seeing him take a nuanced take on Palestine
the "nuanced take on Palestine" being that he is negotiating with hamas directly to save american citizens, just like russia did and what israelis urged biden to do
 
Is Trump gonna get JFK’d for daring to not suck on the circumcised cock of Israel?
Scary as it is to say, Big Pharma is def. the more likely culprit than Israel in the inevitable assassination. They'd kick off a civil war for the sake of their bottom dollar.

Ironically, Israel wants an intact America... it's less work for their billing/collections departments.
 
I guess if you're a Protestant and meet certain conditions- do you see how this is garbage already? Also it's not a codified constitution. It can be mangled like any other law. Your entire system needs rebuilding. It's why we made our system the way we did. Yours is busted.
England was protestant and the king was Catholic so arming specifically protestants was one of the many ways to assure he wouldn't attempt to lean on people to get the nation's religion changed. It also limited his own power considerably, and it also acknowledged that an armed populace was a good deterrent to unwanted change by the government. It also was a codified constitution, 'bill of rights' was just the name given to such at the time (like America's 'bill of rights', inspired by the UK's, becoming apart of what is now called 'The Constitution'). But like I mentioned before, because supreme power is in parliament, it's easy to change them. America can alter its constitution too, it's not untouchable, it's just a more involved process requiring both the proposal of congress and the assent of the senate. See: 18th amendment.

I also agree it needs repair, but your system was built as a mirror to it, it's just while power became evenly distributed in yours, ours got consolidated into one of the bodies. We had an executive, and two legislature bodies with their respective roles. (Whilst we lacked a supreme court, so did America to begin with, as there wasn't one to borrow; we would eventually create one, but since doing so would require Parliament sacrificing some powers, it's pretty much powerless.) To show what I mean:

President = King (UK king is purely ceremonial, no actual power in practice, some power in theory - the US president has (and had, even in 1783) more power.)
Congress = Parliament (Supremacy after the glorious revolution and English civil war (became a republic for a little while) with the combined powers of US senate + presidency + congress. Can propose laws, implement taxes, dictates military, etcetera. 'Royal assent' is just ceremonial.)
Senate = House of Lords (Members chosen by parties in parliament with some leftover hereditary seats given to bishops. Can't veto laws, only send them back to parliament for certain alterations, but will ultimately have to assent to their passing even if the alterations aren't entirely met)

This isn't to insult or belittle, it's more to point out that your system works because it was a fresh copy of a system that had worked for centuries. What happened to the UK/England in the long-term is somewhat of a cautionary tale for when the distribution of power and allocation of authority gets ignored, and the potential ramifications on the country's future. If you have autism and like history, try going down the rabbit hole of the English civil war and subsequent glorious revolution. You had a country divided on faith/ideology, an executive trying to skirt the role of the legislature without doing technically breaching the law, and sparking it by arresting members of said legislature who were colluding with an invading army. I'm sure there's a way you can interpret that to make it sound vaguely familiar :)

TLDR: Keep power divided between the senate, congress and president with centralising too much power in one or else you'll gradually lose your rights (or see them taken away faster, depending on how you view things currently). The UK's system and it's similar to America's indicates the former can be fixed but also that the latter could become just broken in unfortunate circumstances.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo