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

Destacado
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:
Presiona para expandir...
Herk LARPer dijo:
He’s an overly committed gimmick poster. But he’s actually kinda useful for drawing out doomers and paid jeet demoralization shills, since they all positively react to his posts and reply to him like “yeah saar keep telling it like it is
Presiona para expandir...
What gets me is that he has a scary accurate prediction rate in reverse.
 
Breadbassket dijo:
Justice KBJ: "If I steal a wallet in Japan, I am subject to Japanese laws….. in a sense, it's allegiance."

Her case for birthright citizenship:
1.mp4
Presiona para expandir...
I live abroad, I am a subject of America and I am subjected to Taiwanese laws because I live and work in their jurisdiction, but I am not a subject of Taiwan. There is a difference between subject the noun and subject the verb.
 
Lonjil dijo:
Its too early to call (and I'm no expert obv) but the justices seem a lot more receptive to the administration that was previously reported or thought so we will see!
Presiona para expandir...
I didn't get that at all. If I had to guess, there are two (Thomas and Alito) votes for the government (maybe three if you add Gorsuch) and definitely, on my mother's grave, three votes against (the two liberal foids and the retard).

I didn't get a read on Roberts, Kavanaugh, or Barrett. If I had to guess, it'll be a 6-3 vote agin the government as that route is easier, less disruptive, doesn't have to overturn or distinguish from prior Court decisions, especially Wong Kim Ark (upon which later opinions relied).

But I could be wrong. It's complicated, man.
 
Vibralldo dijo:
This is provably untrue. The anchor babies of illegals usually hate America more than their parents because they feel like strangers in a country they have no cultural ties to.
Presiona para expandir...
Not quite. They hate America because of their fear that their family will be deported. Culturally, they have more ties to America having grown up here. Many of them don't even speak their parents' language or have been to their parents' country. That being said, its ridiculous that it's been unenforced for so long and the current criteria for birthright citizenship needs to be reformed. Anything obtained from a criminal act shouldn't belong to the criminal or their beneficiary. Gaining citizenship because your parents illegally immigrated makes as much sense as one claiming ownership of a gemstone that their father stole and gave to them. Send them all back and the sooner, the better. That way any newborns can just grow up in their own country speaking their own language, it'll only be harder for them as adults.

Breadbassket dijo:
Justice KBJ: "If I steal a wallet in Japan, I am subject to Japanese laws….. in a sense, it's allegiance."

Her case for birthright citizenship:1.mp4
Presiona para expandir...
Yes, you get punished according to Japanese law. Then you get sent back you stupid nigger.
 
So far Trump is proving to be Samson- hobbled by a weakness for women who will inevitably betray his administration.

Yes, I am going to be a doomer on this topic as the Supreme Court has already failed with its tariff decision and the women in Trump’s admin (esp. Bondi) hardly compare to his male picks.
 
GettrGriftr dijo:
I didn't get that at all. If I had to guess, there are two (Thomas and Alito) votes for the government (maybe three if you add Gorsuch) and definitely, on my mother's grave, three votes against (the two liberal foids and the retard).

I didn't get a read on Roberts, Kavanaugh, or Barrett. If I had to guess, it'll be a 6-3 vote agin the government as that route is easier, less disruptive, doesn't have to overturn or distinguish from prior Court decisions, especially Wong Kim Ark (upon which later opinions relied).

But I could be wrong. It's complicated, man.
Presiona para expandir...
I generally agree. I think a big hurdle is the practical implications this would have and the political upheaval this would cause. Robert has always said they want to avoid political issues (whether or not you believe him is up to you lol), so I don't see them doing this when nominally half the states are very very against this. Im not sure though
 
Many are saying this. dijo:
I don't believe you will find someone as sufficiently right-wing as Clarence anymore. The issue isn't finding some shallow based nigger, it's that Clarence is very rigorous and logical in his arguments. He's sided with consumer rights and free speech arguments ("liberal" standpoints) in the past because they were reasonable. Good luck finding that in today's climate, especially with every second judge being a political activist.
Presiona para expandir...
Clarence Thomas is heavily influenced by his background as a black separatist who argued for creating a parallel black society to mainstream America.


By consensus, Thomas is the most conservative member of the Court. So it’s surprising that the central theme of his jurisprudence is race. When he was nearly forty years old, just four years shy of his appointment to the Court, Thomas set out the foundations of his vision in a profile in The Atlantic. “There is nothing you can do to get past black skin,” he said. “I don’t care how educated you are, how good you are at what you do—you’ll never have the same contacts or opportunities, you’ll never be seen as equal to whites.” This was no momentary indiscretion; it was the distillation of a lifetime of learning, which began in the segregated precincts of Savannah, during the nineteen-fifties, and continued through his college years, in the sixties. On the Court, Thomas continues to believe—and to argue, in opinion after opinion—that race matters; that racism is a constant, ineradicable feature of American life; and that the only hope for black people lies within themselves, not as individuals but as a separate community with separate institutions, apart from white people.
Presiona para expandir...

The idea that black people can advance only with the help of whites is anathema to Clarence Thomas, who has identified with Wright’s protagonist throughout his life. For him, white benevolence denies black people the pride of achievement. By contrast, if one is black and overcomes the barriers of Jim Crow, one can be assured that the accomplishment is real. Thomas often invokes the example of his grandparents, who, despite segregation, managed to acquire property and support their family. Though they “had to work twice as hard to get half as far,” they knew, however far they got, that the distance was theirs. When black people succeed in the shadow of white benefactors, that certainty is lost.
Presiona para expandir...

In the 1995 case Missouri v. Jenkins, the Court’s conservative majority held that federal courts could not force Missouri to adopt policies designed to entice suburban white students to predominantly black urban schools. Thomas joined the majority. In the Court’s private deliberations about the case, he argued, in the paraphrase of a profile of Thomas in The New Yorker, “I am the only one at this table who attended a segregated school. And the problem with segregation was not that we didn’t have white people in our class. The problem was that we didn’t have equal facilities. We didn’t have heating, we didn’t have books, and we had rickety chairs. . . . All my classmates and I wanted was the choice to attend a mostly black or a mostly white school, and to have the same resources in whatever school we chose.”
Presiona para expandir...
His concurrence in Missouri v. Jenkins was “the only opinion,” legal scholar Mark Graber argues, “that questioned whether desegregation was a constitutional value.” If anything, Thomas believes that the state should—where it can, within the law—support the separation of the races. Looking back on his education, in an all-black environment, Thomas has admitted to wanting to “turn back the clock” to a time “when we had our own schools.” Much of his jurisprudence is devoted to undoing the “grand experiment” of which he believes himself to be a victim. As he made clear in 1986, “I have been the guinea pig for many social experiments on social minorities. To all who would continue these experiments, I say please ‘no more.’ ”
Presiona para expandir...

I'm not a legal expert but I imagine it would be hard to replace someone with such unique insight and perspective.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo