US US Politics General 2 - 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/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
View attachment 6974274

sorry if this has already been posted but google calendars has removed pride month, black history month, Jewish heritage and all the rest from their their official app

reddit is very mad
I didn't fucking want them anyway. I don't think anyone did. If I want a holiday on my calendar I'll add it.
 
Didn't Putin START the war?
Depends on who you ask. I've seen a few "The west made them do it" things in the related debate threads we have in Happenings. We've seen our, and their whole "special military operation" spiel, but the Russians have been getting their own version on their side. Someone who knows more about it than me should explain it.
 
that stops the moment the privacy turns up. black men are some of the most abusive on the planet when it comes to domestic violence stats. as bad or worse than lesbians, i think.
That's because a lot of the men are alcoholics or drug addicts. It's honestly sad. One girl I dated told me I was a pussy for not hitting her when she was acting insane. That relationship ended quickly. It's a bit TMI but I think exemplifies how fucked up the black community can be.
Some studies have suggested that domestic violence particularly within black relationships leans more towards being bidirectional than just mainly perpetrated by men. Men are often too embarrassed to admit their women beat them or just man up and endure through it while keeping their mouths shut because they believe that's what men do. Both men and women participate in the violence, and in many cases it's the women that instigate and keep pushing until the man hits back.

You've seen how aggressive some black women are (a behavior that is cheered on and encouraged by the majority of black women), you are aware that the black community is a matriarchy that often produces subservient son-husbands and concu-serf men, one of your girlfriends tells you you're a pussy for not hitting her (which black men have heard themselves.) and then you say that drug addled and addicted black men are the reason for the higher domestic violence rates? lol
In the black community, often takes two to tango, but one side is allowed to be a lot more vocal about what happens behind closed doors (and in public).
 
Last "thirst" post I'll make about Tulsi, but to me, she has the traits of Hedy Lamaar, Lucille Ball and Carole Landis. That is sexy as hell. I hope she rules with an iron fist. She's like the villain in charge behind the curtains.
We're lucky there aren't any alien plants that know you or you'd be dropping motherfuckers left and right for that date with Hedy Lamaar.
 
this one is so absolutely retarded that it's putting up wax paper in front of a tiger swiping at you.


they're working on this one too, for certain. the one that got struck down here was the important one that was actually obstructing forward progress with things like USAID.


a lot of people don't even really know what to look for in documents like this. a lot of the posters here aren't any kind of legal mind, they're just shitposters from other backgrounds, myself included. trump will still continue to take these things to the supreme court if his advisors say it's not going to let him do whatever he needs/wants to do right now, without question.
This is the text of the order:
On January 31, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued an order granting the plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"). On February 6, 2025, the District Court entered a text order extending the TRO. And, on February 10, 2025, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' Motion for Enforcement of the Temporary Restraining Order ("February 10 Order"). The defendants have appealed these orders. They have also filed with this Court two motions (contained within a single document) for, respectively, (1) a stay pending appeal, which they ask us to resolve by February 14, 2025, and (2) an administrative stay pending resolution of their motion for a stay pending appeal.1 The sole motion we address in this order is the motion for an administrative stay.

This Circuit has not addressed whether or when an administrative stay of the sort being requested here may be issued, and there is well-recognized uncertainty as to what standards guide the decision to issue one or not. See United States v. Texas, 144 S. Ct. 797, 798 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring). Here, the defendants have requested a stay pending appeal from the District Court, which has not yet ruled on their motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1)(A) ("A party must ordinarily move first in the district court for . . . a stay of the judgment or order of a district court pending appeal . . . ."); id. 8(a)(2)(A)(ii) (requiring, in the absence of a showing that "moving first in the district court would be impracticable," that the party moving for a stay pending appeal must "state that . . . the district court denied the motion or failed to afford the relief requested and state any reasons given by the district court for its action"). Moreover, a centerpiece of the dispute between the parties in this appeal concerns the proper way to construe the February 10 Order. Finally, insofar as we have jurisdiction to consider this request for an administrative stay arising out of a temporary restraining order, cf. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. v. Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps., AFL[1]CIO, 473 U.S. 1301, 1306 (1985) (Burger, C.J., in chambers) ("ince the Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction over the appeal from the District Court's order denying the temporary restraining order, the motions panel was necessarily without authority to grant such a stay."), the defendants do not cite any authority in support of their administrative stay request or identify any harm related to a specific funding action or actions that they will face without their requested administrative stay.

In these circumstances, we assume we have jurisdiction, see Doe v. Town of Lisbon, 78 F.4th 38, 44-45 (1st Cir. 2023), and deny the motion for an administrative stay without prejudice. We are confident the District Court will act with dispatch to provide any clarification needed with respect to, among other things, the defendants' contention that the February 10 Order "bars both the President and much of the Federal Government from exercising their own lawful authorities to withhold funding without the prior approval of the district court." We note in this regard the plaintiffs' statement in their Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Administrative Stay Pending Appeal that, consistent with the TRO, the February 10 Order "does not stop defendants from limiting access to funds without any 'preclearance' from the district court 'on the basis of the applicable authorizing statutes, regulations, and terms.'" The parties may file any further memoranda in support of their positions on the motion for a stay pending appeal in this court by 5:00 PM on Thursday, February 13, 2025.

I’ve bolded the relevant parts. Basically, they deny a stay of the TRO and clarify that if the executive acts according to a statute, regulation, or term, then nothing needs to be stopped or cleared by the court. Arguments as to a stay of the TRO (stopping the TRO entirely) will be heard by the District Court who (in my reading between the lines, with the benefit of knowing how the Circuit Courts do things internally) is instructed to deal with the issue quickly and competently.

The greater issues are not concluded in Trump’s favor. They’re just sent back to be dealt with by the District Court in the course of things.
 
Trump will nominate free speech lawyer to public diplomacy role
Semafor (archive.ph)
By Mathias Hammer, Eleanor Mueller, and Ben Smith
2025-02-12 16:23:23GMT
The Scoop
US President Donald Trump is set to nominate a slate of top State Department officials, including the third-highest ranking position at the agency and several crucial posts overseeing arms control, the Middle East, and South and Central Asia, according to a list of nominees from the White House dated Feb. 11 obtained by Semafor.

The nominations include a New York lawyer, Sarah Rogers, who has defended the National Rifle Association on free speech grounds and litigated against content moderation. Her appointment to be the under secretary for public diplomacy — a role that had, in the Biden administration, been involved in efforts to combat false information on social media, signals that the Trump administration is planning to globalize its push to force social platforms to allow a wider range of speech.

Rogers will replace Darren Beattie, an outspoken and divisive MAGA figure who is acting in the role. Beattie, who was never expected to take the role on a permanent basis, had courted controversy in the past for associating with extreme figures and espousing foreign policy views at odds with Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s hawkishness.

Rogers has no obvious foreign policy experience, but brings a similar point of view on key issues around speech and social media platforms. A partner at the New York litigation boutique Brewer, Rogers represented the National Rifle Association alongside the ACLU in a winning appeal to the Supreme Court last March. She also represented the NRA against the New York State Attorney General, who was seeking to dissolve the organization, which the NRA beat back on First Amendment grounds. And she represented the playwright David Mamet in an amicus brief in support of a Texas law barring platforms from moderating content based on political viewpoints.

Know More
Rogers is one of a handful of top State Department officials proposed for Senate confirmation.

Allison Hooker has been tapped for under secretary for political affairs, the third most senior role in the department. Hooker is an expert on Indo-Pacific security and previously served in Trump’s first administration as the lead Korea specialist on the National Security Council.

Trump has also tapped Thomas DiNanno of the Hudson Institute as under secretary for arms control and international security, meaning he could play a crucial role in potential “denuclearization” talks with Russia and China — something the president has said he wanted.

Christopher Pratt, who was the principal deputy special envoy for hostage affairs in the first Trump administration, has been selected to become assistant secretary for political-military affairs, a key role managing arms transfers and security partnerships.

Joel Rayburn, a former diplomat and Middle East specialist who worked for Sen. Bill Hagerty, a Tennessee Republican, has been tapped as the department’s top Middle East official. Paul Kapur, a professor at the US Naval Postgraduate School, will be nominated to lead the department’s efforts in South and Central Asia. And Caleb Orr has been selected to lead the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, which oversees global trade and sanctions efforts.

The White House and State Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
 
Didn't Putin START the war?
Yeah, but while our media portrayed it as “Putin the rabid dog swallows neighbor,” the reality of it was more like “Russia is very uncomfortable about western powers toppling the government of their neighboring county and calculate that a high cost would be worth it to get globohomo to leave their shit alone”
 
I feel like I'm being gaslit, less because people brush it under the rug and more that nobody ever seems to press on that fact. The guy spent his campaign talking about kids playing with his leg hair, but only at that exact moment he got swapped out was it clear he was going senile.
You are being gaslit and the reason isn't because they expect you to believe them. They want your kids to not believe you. So that when the Uniparty rises again, and gets another shot at government, then they won't listen their lying eyes. Always remember, the Democrats game of revisionist history isn't for you. It's for future generations so they can never learn about the horrible atrocities of the Uniparty.

Part of why I spit in people's faces when they ask for "source?" isn't just because I'm an ass hole. It's because often times, I can't even find my source anymore. Journoscum is changing article titles, taking them down, memory holding stories constantly. You can't find anything anymore. Try finding any articles on some of the Russiagate stuff. You won't find the stuff about the bar in Australia. You can barely find a lot of the Quid Pro Quo stories anymore. It's a complete vacuous memory hole. Even articles from a month ago, I have a lot of trouble finding them. Some just straight up don't exist anymore. The idea being that once we're all old, our kids and grandkids won't listen to us. We'll just be crazy grandpa and grandma. "I looked it up on google and can't find anything on that, so it must've never happened and Dad is having a senior moment." Or "I asked Google AI and it says that never happened". The article and narrative memory holing is completely under everyone's radar too. Nobody is really talking about this or addressing this.

At this point, the best place to look up "sauces" for me, has been here on KiwiFarms.
 
We're lucky there aren't any alien plants that know you or you'd be dropping motherfuckers left and right for that date with Hedy Lamaar.
What does that mean? Like abduct me and the aliens make a deal with me in exchange for a date with Lamaar? Explain your scenario, please.
 
Back