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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
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:
Ron Paul also didn't help himself when he snubbed off the NRA. Love them or hate them him doing that cost him a lot of supsupport
If you're referring to Ron Paul criticizing NRA's idea of having armed guards in schools and daily searches of students into legislation, I still agree with Ron Paul that it's a retarded idea. Ron Paul has always advocated for people carrying guns though.
 
I believe a lot of the info related to the Lost Cosmonauts conspiracy is originally in Italian? I saw a really good (subtitled) Italian documentary on it many many years ago. I remember it theorized the Keksburg UFO crash in 1965 was a Soviet space capsule that crashed on re-entry, and the "alien bodies" allegedly recovered from the crash were the remains of Soviet Cosmonauts. The American government allegedly covered up the crash, because they didn't want the general public to know how far along the Soviets were in their own space program.
The entire keksburg thing is nothing more than "trust me bro it happened". And when some proof was given (photos of a truck carrying saucerlike thing I believe?) it turned out the truck in picture did not enter service until the 80s.

A LOT of people were trying to get on the ufo bandwagon. Some still do.
 
Don't underestimate her popularity in the state, she has a broad appeal even with the number of people who perennially claim they're fed up with her

She's succeeded in harsher circumstances and there aren't any challengers that can touch her that I'm aware of, in 2022 she fended off Kelly Tshibaka (who had endorsements from Trump and a host of other party big shots, as well as tons of Outside money coming in)

Her victory was by a few thousand votes but that's a lot in Alaska, a lot of state elections are nailbiters like that
She lost in primaries before and only won cause of very questionable write in stuff + shady behind the scenes shit. When she won in 2010 it was the lowest vote share for a senator in 40 years and was effectively her working with uniparty + constant hit pieces on Miller.

It took $6.5 million and effectively deceiving the people of her state for her to win her last election. If she ran in a real election she would lose easily but they spent millions to keep that from happening. Reminder that the GOP pulled all funds from winnable races in other states
(probably have 5 more house seats right now and maybe another senate seat) to fund Alaska keeping RCV so she could win just to fuck with Trump if he won.
 
If you're referring to Ron Paul criticizing NRA's idea of having armed guards in schools and daily searches of students into legislation, I still agree with Ron Paul that it's a retarded idea. Ron Paul has always advocated for people carrying guns though.
Nah, I meant him ignoring their candidate questionaire, refusing to speak at the expos, etc. etc.

Basically totally snubbing and ignoring them.

I was big into the NRA back in 2008 and it soured me on him pretty heavily.
 
I half wonder if the legal block on the buyout is the reason why they closed it so abruptly after that was overturned. No clue how long the window was planned to be open for beforehand but closing it after winning the right to keep going suggests there's a point being made that the Democrat lawfare fighting Trump is going to have consequences. There may have been some planning to take it who were stopped by the judge and now can't who've lost their jobs with nothing for it.
The offer was supposed to end last Thursday 2/6 at 11:59 PM and then got extended to this Monday 2/10, I think around the time of the hearing.
 
She lost in primaries before and only won cause of very questionable write in stuff + shady behind the scenes shit. When she won in 2010 it was the lowest vote share for a senator in 40 years and was effectively her working with uniparty + constant hit pieces on Miller.

It took $6.5 million and effectively deceiving the people of her state for her to win her last election. If she ran in a real election she would lose easily but they spent millions to keep that from happening. Reminder that the GOP pulled all funds from winnable races in other states
(probably have 5 more house seats right now and maybe another senate seat) to fund Alaska keeping RCV so she could win just to fuck with Trump if he won.
I honestly don't remember a lot about 2010, I do remember that Joe Miller was a very polarizing and pretty unpopular candidate in general (he's a nice guy in person but really laser focused on his issues, too much so if we're being honest)

For RCV, No On 2 was primarily supported by a group called Alaskans For Better Elections, whose primary donor was "Unite America", which is center-left at best

ETA: I'm curious to hear what you mean by "deceiving the people of her state", because that was what Tshibaka was doing moreso than Murkowski, everybody I knew across the spectrum knew that Kelly was a carpetbagger, Dunleavy brought her in under really questionable circumstances after John Quick proved too radioactive to handle. It was widely speculated that she was recommended by the national GOP as a replacement in preparation for a run at Murkowski and it was honestly really transparent once the records were made public
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid
I honestly don't remember a lot about 2010, I do remember that Joe Miller was a very polarizing and pretty unpopular candidate in general (he's a nice guy in person but really laser focused on his issues, too much so if we're being honest)

For RCV, No On 2 was primarily supported by a group called Alaskans For Better Elections, whose primary donor was "Unite America", which is center-left at best
Turtle himself spent $6.5 million of GOP PAC money to attack Tshibaka which is a fucking unreal amount of money for an election in Alaska. That was enough money to probably win in Arizona + 1 more state for multiple races but he decided to secure Murkowski a win.

Tshibaka was polling almost double digits ahead until basically an unheard of amount of $$$$ for Alaska politics was spent against her and the voters were fooled into RCV. Murkowski is not some sort of miracle candidate who is super popular she is carried across the line by huge $$$$ or shenanigans that help her.

If that money is spent correctly we have 55 senators right now and only 4 max are questionable votes so we can get whatever the fuck we want passed.
 
Turtle himself spent $6.5 million of GOP PAC money to attack Tshibaka which is a fucking unreal amount of money for an election in Alaska. That was enough money to probably win in Arizona + 1 more state for multiple races but he decided to secure Murkowski a win.

Tshibaka was polling almost double digits ahead until basically an unheard of amount of $$$$ for Alaska politics was spent against her and the voters were fooled into RCV.
Oh I see what you mean, yeah McConnell did some shit to try to torpedo Tshibaka because of her thumbs up from Trump, but I still maintain that Tshibaka wasn't viable due to the other things I mentioned above (plus she sucks as a person but again, opinion)

As far as RCV is concerned, I'm pretty sure its here to stay, the Yes on 2 folks are rallying but I perceive it as popular given that there's so many little niche candidates that wouldn't even get votes otherwise (the AIP boys love it for example)
 
As far as RCV is concerned, I'm pretty sure its here to stay, the Yes on 2 folks are rallying but I perceive it as popular given that there's so many little niche candidates that wouldn't even get votes otherwise (the AIP boys love it for example)
What's the reasoning against RCV vs FPTP?
 
How does the phrase Sydney Bay sound to you?

View attachment 6980821
Ehhh, At that range you'd catch a few people I care about in the blast.
Personally I'd say break everything east of the Great Dividing Range (the mountain Range that's the reason everything else is a massive desert) off like a kit-kat, and that'd probably do us pretty good. even if it becomes a second, even more awful new zealand.
 
Ron Paul also didn't help himself when he snubbed off the NRA. Love them or hate them him doing that cost him a lot of support.
The NRA was a horrifically disappointing organization for most of my life. In the 80’s and 90’s, they had a tendency to AGREE with democrats that hunting was the only legitimate purpose of firearms. They placidly went along with proposed restrictions and didn’t see handguns as anything in their wheelhouse

That’s why you saw Gun Owners of America spring up, with all its state level affiliates.
 
Turns out he was right, the NRA doesn't get things done anymore.
The NRA is a hate tank that lets the DPS gun rights agencies do their work, but that's all it is.
Ehhh, At that range you'd catch a few people I care about in the blast.
Personally I'd say break everything east of the Great Dividing Range (the mountain Range that's the reason everything else is a massive desert) off like a kit-kat, and that'd probably do us pretty good. even if it becomes a second, even more awful new zealand.
You tell them to leave first.
 
Nah, I meant him ignoring their candidate questionaire, refusing to speak at the expos, etc. etc.

Basically totally snubbing and ignoring them.

I was big into the NRA back in 2008 and it soured me on him pretty heavily.
I'd be interested in hearing Ron Paul talk about what he thinks about the NRA if he has before, but I could see Paul thinking of them in the same light he saw the neocons and dems in. He was always very pro-gun ownership and always urged Americans to carry guns with them so I never had any issues with Ron Paul's takes on guns in general which I think is more important than whatever his opinion on the NRA is.
 
What's the reasoning against RCV vs FPTP?
Ranked Choice allows you to choose candidates you like in order of preference. Say you're a Republican living in the blue stronghold that is California. You want the republican to win but you know it's a long shot but there's a "moderate" democrat running who isn't as bad as the full retard far left democrat that's running. So you choose the more moderate democrat as your second choice and so on. Now come election time, first candidate to get 50% wins and no gets 50%. With RCV they eliminate candidates with the least votes until they get the one with the largest share and hey, turns out the moderate democrat won because enough republicans chose them as their second pick.

FPTP is more straightforward. You win, or you don't. It's great for rallying a base around a candidate just to ensure the opposing side doesn't win but it also means you can be stuck having to vote for a shit candidate

Murkowski wins with RCV because there's enough dems in Alaska who pick her as their second pick since Alaska is a solidly red state and it fucks with the republicans since Murkowski is a RINO so she won't be lockstep with the party.
 
i don't see how they rebrand at this point. for the past 20 years they've been shifting the entire party away from the concerns of normal people to appeal to exclusively freaks, degenerates and minorities and they need them all to show up in record numbers in elections to even have a shot at winning. If they become less insane or try to walk back the crazy they will alienate that collation and they'll be screwed.

on the other hand the groups they've courted to their party don't vote in large number unless sufficiently motivated to, which is getting very hard to do since they all want different things and some groups in the collation actively hate each other (like feminists/trannies and muslims/jews) so if they don't do something the party will fall apart anyway.

They're just Fucked.
“Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you" was the message of the last election. If you eliminate the “they” it becomes “Kamala is for them, President Trump is for you"

In other words, it’s the oldest political slogan in history. “Us v. Them.” It probably pre-dates politics and is simply an expression of instinct.

Democrats need to focus on framing the minority populations they represent as a part of us again. Trump would not have been able to win on an “Us v. Them” platform in 2008 against Obama because Obama could at the time sell the notion that there was only an “Us” in America. In current year Democrats can’t say that because the other side is Nazis. They have said it too many times for their egos to allow them to make peace.
 
I'd be interested in hearing Ron Paul talk about what he thinks about the NRA if he has before, but I could see Paul thinking of them in the same light he saw the neocons and dems in. He was always very pro-gun ownership and always urged Americans to carry guns with them so I never had any issues with Ron Paul's takes on guns in general which I think is more important than whatever his opinion on the NRA is.
Bet he’s a member of GOA Texas
 
What's the reasoning against RCV vs FPTP?

Ranked Choice Voting (also known as the Alternative Vote system) allows for supporters of smaller parties to give their first preference to their preferred party before choosing which of the likely winning candidates they prefer. Therefore, smaller parties get more of the first preferences (which, depending on the country, will grant them more money\guaranteed airtime at the next election), and also in theory forces the bigger parties to pay more attention to their platforms in order to court their voters' preferences. It can also be used as a springboard for better election performances in a seat cycle-on-cycle; a party achieves 20% of first preferences in a seat in one election, they get more attention in that seat as a result, they then put more effort into that seat at the next election which delivers a better result, and the cycle builds from there until they (again, in theory) win.

So that is why smaller parties like RCV\AV over FPTP.
 
Back