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:

this is from a couple of days ago but i like this shit.
illinois state police telling chicago faggots to get off the road.
from this video
 
These people are legitimately deranged.
I used to be one of those people who was conservative but would accept both sides. Not anymore. The current iteration of the Democrat party and the modern left is incongruent with America anymore. They need to be defeated.

I just started cutting people off who believe or spout off delusional talking points like Drumpf is Hitler, Charlie Kirk is evil, etc.
 
>Star Trek for a few pages
>Rome for a few pages
>Star Trek vs Rome for ???
>Not a word of US politics for hours

The Jannies ain't gonna like this. Will they set phasers to stun, or will we all be strapped to crosses come dawn?
Phasers to stun. As long as we are not arguing about jews with @Catch The Rainbow for a dozen pages, the mods seem ok with a little sidetracked discussion.
 
Phasers to stun. As long as we are not arguing about jews with @Catch The Rainbow for a dozen pages, the mods seem ok with a little sidetracked discussion.
That seems to be the USPG2 cycle these days: something happens, we discuss politics until it turns into jewsperging/arguing about religion/conspiracy discussions, then it turns into off-topic media discussion until something happens again.
 
Speaking of Star Trek, what the fuck was up with The Motion Picture?

That movie is so bizarre in terms of pacing and cinematography.
It's a love letter and possible final farewell to the cancelled original series. Nobody knew Trek would continue beyond the movie. The movie was only made, because Trekkies created Trek fandom after the original series was cancelled, which then grew into a massive wave of fandom that kept growing bigger every year (the first of what would become the fandoms we know now complete with conventions). There's so many, slow lingering shots of the ship, because they had a movie budget now and could make everything look that much cooler, so they wanted to show the new and improved models off to the fans. A lot of it is about letting fans of the series who could only enjoy TV reruns now enjoy the spectacle of Trek on the big screen. The plot is classic sci-fi, more about ideas than action (some of it being recyclings of elements of old Trek episodes and some of it created from scripts of what was a proposed new Trek TV series).
 
Última edición:
There's so many, slow lingering shots of the ship, because they had a movie budget now and could make everything look that much cooler
I was moreso referring to the shots like this
EbYz0tF.jpg


There's like 15 shots like this where a character in both the foreground and background are in focus but the space between them is blurred for absolutely no reason. It's so offputting every time it happens and looks like shit.
 
Última edición:

"Normal" people in California have been dealing with eroding rights and scheduled blackouts for as long as I've been alive. They are the ones that choose to stay there and pay taxes that fund their oppression. There's no point feeling sorry for someone who takes no action to improve their own situation.
 
I was moreso referring to the shots like this
Ver archivo adjunto 8023763

There's like 15 shots like this where a character in both the foreground and background are in focus but the space between them is blurred for absolutely no reason. It's so offputting every time it happens and looks like shit.
No...that's a special kind of lens. You see it in certain films. Brian DePalma loves to use that effect / lens and you see it a lot in his films. I believe I've seen it in the Godfather as well.

You're probably young and didn't grow up using an actual camera and probably just use cell phone cameras. But on an actual 35mm camera (film or movie) a lens can only focus on one thing at a certain distance. So normally if it was focused on Kirk, then the guy in the background would be out of focus. If it focused on the guy in the back, then Kirk would be out of focus.

That's a special lens that's actually split in half and made up of two halves of two different lenses that are focused on two different distances. So one side can focus close, the other side can focus far. The blur in the middle is where the lens halves are joined together.

It's very unsettling because it goes against how a lens works so your eyes / brain know something is off the minute it sees it.

Most of the time it's used when you want people to pay attention to both the foreground AND background at the same time. There's a good chance the character in the background is doing something that's important to the story.

Normally it might shift focus back and forth from the foreground and background, which is another common technique (hence the credit in movie credits for the "focus puller" - that's the guy who's job it is to move the focus back and forth, in and out of focus, when going back and forth between two people) but in this case, they don't want to go back and forth because two things are happening at the same time you should be paying attention to.

Jaws

Jaws.png

Mission Impossible
MI.png


Pulp Fiction
PulpFiction.png


Carrie
Carrie.png
 
Última edición:
Hey quick question about that, was that actually true? I wanted to fact check properly, all the outlets I looked up on said she was BLOCKADING the clinic, but I couldn't find a verifying source.
Here is a Kiwifarms A&N thread about it and here is a related article (archive) where six of them were charged with 10,5 years in prison and 260.000 dollar fines, it is currently appealed so the case is still in progress.
In bongland they straight up arrest you if you pray in front of an abortion clinic without obstructing any business (A&N thread).
Have a great weekend.
 

MIT To Refuse Federal Funds

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has rejected a Trump administration proposal which detailed policies to follow in exchange for preferential access to federal funds.

In a letter to US Education Secretary Linda McMahon, MIT's president Sally Kornbluth said the proposal would "restrict freedom of expression" on campus and was inconsistent with the university's core values.

Brown University, University of Pennsylvania, and University of Texas were also approached by the administration to sign the deal.

It would see universities cap foreign admissions, restrict university leaders' comments on political events, and adopt a binary definition of gender.

The US education department asked the schools to review and agree to what it called a "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education". It contained a laundry list of longstanding conservative grievances the administration has clashed with several other universities over.

It asked the universities to use standardised tests for most admissions and to "commit to using lawful force if necessary" to respond to and prevent campus protests. The schools would also commit to creating an environment where conservative ideas could be freely expressed.

Schools would agree to cap international student admissions at the undergraduate level at 15% and "no more than 5 percent shall be from any one country". It requests schools to screen foreign students for hostility to the US and to report school discipline records to federal authorities.

The schools would have to return federal funds and private donations to their benefactors if any of the terms were violated.

Kornbluth said MIT already used standardised tests, had pledged on its own to create a culture of free expression on campus and that its international enrolment was around 10%.

"We freely choose these values because they're right, and we live by them because they support our mission," Kornbluth said in a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, rejecting the proposal that was published on Friday.

The compact "includes principles with which we disagree, including those that would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution," she said. "And fundamentally, the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone."

"In our view, America's leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition for excellence... Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education."

MIT has already faced federal funding cuts under the Trump administration. In February, it joined other universities to file a lawsuit against the Trump administration after cuts to health research funding. It also filed court briefs in support of its neighbour Harvard University, which is also suing the administration over funding cuts.

Other universities approached by the government are: the University of Arizona, Dartmouth College, Vanderbilt University, the University of Southern California, and the University of Virginia.

California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom warned last week the state would cut funding to any local university that accepted the deal.

"If any California university signs this radical agreement, they'll lose billions in state funding — including Cal Grants — instantly," Newsom said. "California will not bankroll schools that sell out their students, professors, researchers, and surrender academic freedom."
 
and to "commit to using lawful force if necessary" to respond to and prevent campus protests.
stupid question: why the hell is this even part of a schools responsibility in the first place?
like, a campus isn't some kind of separate sovereign state, it's within the jurisdiction of regular US law enforcement just like any other public place is, no? so why are campus protests treated like they're the schools responsibility?
to me it seems like keeping law and order on campus is the job of the local (or state) police, school authorities shouldn't really have a say in it.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo