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:
Or the people who don't realize that shutting up while detained gets you out of a lot. Protip: if you get dragged down to the police station, they will hold you for hours and play fuck-fuck games, but you will walk free if they can't pin anything on you and you shut the fuck up.
I can cite this as legal advice, right?
 
True, but the only reason non-property owners women have the right to vote is that property owners men voted to give them that right. The root problem is Democracy, which is and always has been cringe and gay.
Incorrect understanding of the Constitution's interplay with states' rights, or of de facto vs de jure. The Constitution did not prohibit categories of adults from voting. The Constitution gave voting regulation/ restriction powers to the states. Voting was typically - explicitly or by convention - restricted by states to white property-owning men for most of the first 70 years of this country (though not all states*). And it wasn't until 1856 that the last property-owner requirements disappeared (NC had the last prohibition - suck it, renters) but it continued to be litigated.

The Constitutional issue has been the states' ability to restrict voting;
The Constitution of the United States, as adopted in 1788 left to each state the power to determine who might vote in state and national elections. The states were not prohibited to prescribe voting qualifications based on property ownership, payment of taxes or even race or sex.

Although three amendments have restricted the power of the states with respect to the kinds of voter qualifications they may prescribe, these restrictions have a limited effect. The fifteenth amendment, ratified in 1870, forbids the states to deny any citizen the privilege of voting "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The nineteenth amendment, ratified in 1920, forbids the states to deny any citizen the privilege of voting "on account of sex."' The twenty-fourth amendment, ratified in 1964, forbids the states to deny any citizen the privilege of voting in certain elections "by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax." It is significant that these amendments did not grant any citizen a right to vote nor did they deprive the states of their power to prescribe other qualifications for voting. That power merely was reduced by the prohibition of discrimination on account of race, sex, or ability to pay a tax.

[...]
As late as 1949 one authority asserted that the Constitution permits states to prescribe property qualifications for voting in state and even national elections.

Obviously, land ownership is no longer a requirement to vote - good luck for white renters! You all have been "given" rights just as much as women.

Foundational history: Pre-Constitution, Founding Father John Adams articulated the view that non-property owners, women, and "lads" were categories who should not be permitted to vote:

May 26, 1776

It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the [agreement] of the people, but to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must [agree] to every act of legislation?...

Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who [are poor and do not own property], are also [unfamiliar] with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? …Few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest.

Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open [such a] source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to [change] the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a [dime], will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and [surrender] all ranks, to one common level.

SOURCE | John Adams to James Sullivan, 26 May 1776; from Charles Francis Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854).
= Non-landowners were not it.

* The original NJ constitution in 1776, for example, did not exclude women, and the subsequent political shenanigans over the next 40 years may ring familiar:

New Jersey’s Early Experiment with Women’s Suffrage

In 1776, Article IV of the New Jersey Constitution said “all inhabitants of the Colony of full Age, who are worth Fifty Pounds . . . shall be entitled to vote Representatives in Council and Assembly.” It was not uncommon for state constitutions at the time to lack, as New Jersey’s did, an explicit gender requirement to vote. Delaware’s constitution, for example, merely stated “the right of suffrage . . . shall remain as exercised by law at present.” Still, the insinuation that one had to be a male to vote in Delaware and elsewhere was often heavily implied from the strong presence of gendered language — “he” — throughout the document. But in New Jersey, the lack of an explicit limitation of voting rights to males left its constitution open to further clarification, Professor Richard P. McCormick wrote.

In 1790, further clarification was provided when the New Jersey legislature took the unusual step of passing an “electoral reform” bill that included the pronouns “he or she.” The bill only applied to 7 of the state’s 13 counties, but was groundbreaking nonetheless.

Although the passage of this law was initially attributed to Quaker lawmakers in those areas and their uniquely egalitarian social views, further research raised additional theories, including that political motives may have strongly influenced lawmakers’ considerations — they were trying to ensure their candidates would gather enough votes to win. The reality of the motivation for the bill may live somewhere between the progressive suffragist beliefs and political calculation, but some at least hoped the public was becoming more accepting of the idea of women’s participation.

“The rights of women are no longer strange sounds to an American ear, and I devoutly hope the day is not far distant when we shall find them dignifying in a distinguishing code the jurisprudence of several states of the Union,” a speaker told a New Jersey crowd at a Federalist rally on July 4, 1793.

No matter the incentive, the law created a novel opportunity for women of the fledgling nation: the right to vote. Between 1790 and 1797, they did so in relatively small numbers. When a new election law extended the vote to land-owning women statewide in 1797, the proportion of women voting increased. In 1802, a Trenton, New Jersey newspaper reported women voting at “alarming heights” — about 25 percent of total turnout.

Unfortunately, women’s access to the polls was short lived. Women voters and suffragists alike weathered criticism from people who frequently blamed “easily manipulated” women voters for various election results. A local referendum in 1807 to determine a county seat included claims that people dressed up as women in order to vote twice.

Later that year, the New Jersey legislature attempted to remedy the problem of “voter fraud” by restricting eligibility to cast a ballot to white men. By 1844, when the New Jersey Constitution was redrafted at a constitutional convention, lawmakers further enshrined the lack of women’s suffrage, limiting the vote to “white male citizens” 21 years and older. Women’s right to vote in the state wasn’t again acknowledged until the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which provided that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

Tl; dr: Constitutional voting amendments did not grant shit; they confirmed, clarified, and ensured that states could not restrict voting to certain populations based on not being a white land-owning male, and made that the law of the land. Women were no more "donated" that right than poor, property-less white men.
 
God fucking damn it I hate White race traitors so fucking much.
Depends how you define it, for me. Like, there are times where basic honor demands that you do right by people who aren’t white, though of course it’s not honor if it’s completely irreciprocal. You don’t have to nerf yourself playing by harder rules than potential competitors.

But like, nothing on earth is as fucking stupid as say, white women hiking across Africa insisting it’s totally safer than America. At that point they’re doing us a favor by culling their retard contrarian disposition from the rest of society

But ultimately, the white race is fucked because Europe contaminated the home land. We in America shouldn’t have to worry about it, South Africans shouldn’t have to worry about it, because we were fucking supposed to bother to keep our homeland
 
Instead of crashout videos, how about these videos and some propaganda/instructional materials of the enemy?


First of all, these are the fuck fuck games these smug cocksuckers play. After the 1970's liberals did everything they could to make it so that kicking their asses or slapping them upside the jaw was illegal, so they could do shit like this. That balding faggot needs his ass kicked. He knows he deserves an ass kicking but nobody can do anything because he'll go from smug tough guy to whiney bitch in the time it takes to film it so he can then file a lawsuit.

The sheer number of these cocksuckers living on the West Coast makes you want to napalm the entire I5 corridor.

Oh, and notice the lisping word slurring retard halfway through.


Here we see just how retarded they are. See, they know that they can't actually hold back the vehicle, what they're believing is that it will stop due to optics. If they get hurt, then it's lawsuit time and they think they'll win.
These fucking faggots RARELY get the consequences of their actions, which is why the balding faggot in the first video is so smug.


These are great because this bitch is breaking the law, smugly says "Then write me a ticket!!" when we all know she should be dragged out of her car and beaten with a fucking baton.


The Assistant Governor of Minnesota shows what she thinks is a smug little video, reminding you that the rot is deep in some states.
The subtext here is that it's fine to assault someone and take their phoe because she's a smug whore.


Another group of faggots who think they should be able to stop a vehicle by jumping in front of it.
See, this is the kind of shit that the Left will show you and say "See, there's no way that ICE agent could get hurt!" because Faggy McRedshirt there was hoping to get martyred.



You think you hate them enough.
You don't.
Apparently black people have decided that "Say Her Name!!!" which I've heard in every fucking chant involving a woman since the 1970's, is now property of black people because they've decided stealing our bikes and our paychecks isn't enough.


Retards charge ICE with their vehicles, believing there will NEVER be any consquences for their actions.




Smug whore recording is coordinating the others.

THIS is what the stupid dyke bitch and her 'wife' were doing.

Funny little aside: When I took Offensive Driving (A Europe thing in the 80's) being boxed in immediately flicked the switch to guns live and we were allowed to ram and shoot our way out if necessary.


These faggots need to be ran over more, teach the rest that there are consequences to their faggotry.

Now, for some more:
G-QV95Ub0AAYHqz.png G-QV7tracAAN1Cn.jpg G-QV4eTasAAFskr.jpg
This is the kind of shit that's being passed around by the totally not organized Antifa and Anti-ICE protestors.

G-QRLZfbEAAWTHo.jpg
THIS is the kind of shit that the dead dyke was told and spoonfed.

That's why getting shot in the face is such a blow to the Left. If they start getting shot and arrested, the AWFL aren't going to be so eager to go out there and get tuned up.

But the most hilarious part about all of this is the fact that the people in these videos would be gleefully murdered by the very people they're trying to protect.

Here's some hilarity:

Go be a communist somewhere else.
 
Última edición:
If the Danish weren't total cucks they be getting down for negations now.

The sooner the euro-trash start to play ball the more they will get, hold out too long and then you end up nothing. But the Left can't negotiate, they only now power and they're so used to having it they've completely forgotten how to compromise.

So in the end Trump gets Greenland and the cucks get nothing.
 
Aren't virtually all of that mineral resources locked away under the ice sheet?, and why does Trump want to expand US territory in the 21st century like we are still in the 1800s?
There's a very sexy trade corridor that owning Greenland would give us access to. The idea of wanting to annex Greenland is not a new one for the US government

Stereotypical white guys that wear jeans and an upper solid color of blue, gray, white, green, brown, etc? Oh shit. It's those guys!
Arrest and hang all of em
 
I can cite this as legal advice, right?
I summon @AnOminous but any lawyer worth his or her salt will tell you never, ever talk to police once you're arrested or detained. Say you are exercising your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent (you have to actually say it) and that you want to speak to an attorney. They will try to bargain with you but you need to shut the fuck up.
 
I wonder if this is intentional on their part to make people forget there was a cop off camera in front of her car that shot her when she tried to speed off.
Of course it is. They're actively trying to convince people the fact that the cop who was nearly run over had his body cam showing it tilting upward at the last second is proof he "dodged out of the way" and not that he was knocked on his ass by the fucking car. They're lying in every way they can to try to muddy the waters.
 
white women hiking across Africa insisting it’s totally safer than America. At that point they’re doing us a favor by culling their retard contrarian disposition from the rest of society
I’d disagree this retarded behavior encourages niggers to try to come to White countries. Nigs are not totally retarded when it comes to rape and murder. If a nigger rapes and murders a White woman easily in Africa, they will think, “maybe it’s just as easy to do this in White countries, as it is here”.
 
I summon @AnOminous but any lawyer worth his or her salt will tell you never, ever talk to police once you're arrested or detained. Say you are exercising your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent (you have to actually say it) and that you want to speak to an attorney. They will try to bargain with you but you need to shut the fuck up.
Yes. It also helps to specifically request a lawyer and not a lawyer dog. | A
 
I summon @AnOminous but any lawyer worth his or her salt will tell you never, ever talk to police once you're arrested or detained. Say you are exercising your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent (you have to actually say it) and that you want to speak to an attorney. They will try to bargain with you but you need to shut the fuck up.
No you can trust the police, they're your friends.
Seriously though, if you are ever at the point where you're being interrogated even in the field, shut your mouth and lawyer up.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo