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:
And they’re just beautiful.
Back when men and women actively tried to look polished and attractive and had class.
Blake Lively can’t hold a candle to prime Gloria Swanson
"Oh, TLS, you're only into White women from that time! They're just whores!"

Wrong again. I loved Fredi Washington from Imitation of Life. I find big band music from Black bands to be better than their White counterparts (of course, that's just jazz, but whatever.) Hattie McDonald makes a great mammy if the role required it.
 
Yeah but it was all fake. They were actors, it's in the job description. You watch your average 50s movie and it's like bullshit that didn't match up to reality. Chinatown couldn't have been done in 1957.
Okay. So I would like to read biographies about them or see interviews featuring them to see the actress outside the cameras. If anything, they're more interesting when they're themselves. That just strengthened their roles on camera.
 
the yaoi paddle from hell. a weapon to be feared among all fujoshi.

Especially in times where antibiotics didn't exist. You really didn't need much to kill a man.
modern medicine has been such a tremendous boon to humanity that people have completely forgotten what life looks like without it, even simple first-aid and antiseptic practices were something invented relatively recently.
 
Don't know if this was shared yet, but does everyone remember that bull-dyke fire chief from the LA fires?


Hardly surprising. There were rumors that the mayor tried to fire her while the fires were still raging after the fire chief and done a televised interview where she said that the city had let the fire department down. I'm assuming that some staffer talked the dumb cunt mayor down because even if the dyke fire chief was an incompetent DEI hire everyone else looked even more incompetent by comparison and that firing the chief while the fires were still raging would look terrible and would be political suicide.

I can't think of any creature so vindictive as an unqualified black women put into an undeserved position of power, so anyone who didn't see this coming a mile away wasn't paying attention. I hope the fire chief burns the mayor in retaliation. Bass probably doesn't win reelection anyway, but I'd love to see her political career completely torpedoed and no one event wanting to associate with her because she's become too poisonous to go near. The dumb bitch absolutely deserves it and I hope the rest of the jackals in the Democrat party machine in California throw her under the bus just as hard.
 
We have reached Peak Trump.

When you stop and think about it, that is a thoroughly remarkable thing to write in the year 2025. Donald Trump first arrived on the political scene a decade ago. He won the presidency in 2016, served as president from 2017 to 2021, and, during that time, was impeached twice. He lost reelection, brazenly lied about it, helped inspire a riot, and was subsequently convicted of a series of felonies. And yet it is now — not five years ago, or six months ago, or for a brief hour the day after he beat Hillary Clinton, but now — that Trump has reached the apex of his popularity and power. Objectively, that is astonishing, isn’t it?

Human beings tend to overestimate how important or unusual the things currently happening to them are, but, in this case, some superlatives are in order: This has been the most impressive comeback in the history of modern politics. And it is precisely because it was the most impressive comeback in the modern history of politics that the scale of Trump’s second victory has tended to be overstated. Relative to most of the elections in America’s past, his win in 2024 was decisive but ordinary. Relative to where Trump found himself two years ago, it was a landslide. This mismatch — between the size of his triumph (and the size of his party’s majorities in Congress) and the scope of the “vibe shift” that attended his election — is the source of most of the opportunities that Trump now enjoys. It is also the source of all the risks. Formally, there is no such thing as a “mandate” in American politics — and there is certainly no such thing as a mandate that permits the president to violate the Constitution, refuse to faithfully execute the laws, reject Congress’s oversight, abuse prosecutorial powers, or ignore court decisions. Still, voters do tend to internalize the manner in which a president came to occupy the office, and, for now at least, voters are higher on the new Trump administration than they were on the first one.

Simultaneously, they are unusually sour toward the Democrats, who have just recorded their lowest approval rating in decades. Were an alien to come down from Planet Sprog and spend a couple of days examining our politics, he could be forgiven for concluding that American progressivism had been totally and permanently vanquished and that Trumpism was set to romp for 20 years. The Right is jubilant, confident, and impatient. The Left is shocked, dispirited, and unsure where next to feint.

A key reason for the Democrats’ having adopted their supine posture is that, ten years into the Extended Donald Trump Experience, they are at a loss as to what else they might try. And, at this point, who can blame them? They warned the public that Trump was a threat to democracy. It didn’t work. They enmeshed Trump in a series of legal fights of varying legitimacy. It didn’t work. They tried to project Joe Biden’s age and senility onto Trump. It didn’t work. They insisted that, if Trump did win, it would be the result of America’s esoteric institutions — in particular, the Electoral College — and thus that it would not really count. It didn’t work. Worse still, Trump swept the swing states, won the popular vote, and put up unusually good numbers for a Republican among young people and minorities. It is telling that, three weeks into the second Trump administration, the real venom from the Left was being launched not at the president but at Elon Musk. It is also telling that, despite Trump’s having been cast as something uniquely dangerous, the Democrats feel most comfortable going after his administration for its desire to cut government spending, abolish federal departments, and reduce the power of the bureaucracy — all priorities that Republicans held long before he took over the party — rather than for his demolition of the DEI infrastructure, his ostentatious deportations, or his destruction of the Biden administration’s electric-vehicle agenda.

For a long time, it was reflexively assumed that a second Trump administration would be a catastrophe from the start. “Who will want to staff it?” asked skeptical observers. “What could its objectives possibly be?” Truth be told, I was among those who were sympathetic to this view. But I was wrong. Not only was Trump well prepared to take office, as the flurry of executive orders he immediately issued confirmed, but the aims that those orders reflected were both numerous and ambitious. As ever, I have many disagreements with Trump and those who surround him. I also like a great deal of what he has done thus far. In any event, he has hit the ground running, not only on his signature issue of immigration enforcement but in areas as diverse as climate, energy, civil rights, women’s sports, and light bulbs. There are many downsides to being a lame duck president, but there are advantages, too — especially if you have already given up trying to get good press coverage. I have long been irritated by the claim that “only Trump” could have won the elections in 2016 and 2024, or proposed this or that policy, or screwed his courage to this or that sticking place, because, usually, it is untrue. In the last few weeks, however, I have been handed a few persuasive counterexamples. Would another Republican president really have had the guts to reverse affirmative action policies all the way back to 1964? How about embarking on an audit of the entire federal government, headed up by the world’s most eccentric inventor? I’m not so sure.

He’s available, too. Love him or hate him, the man is around. Not long after his inauguration, Trump sat for hours in the Oval Office, surrounded by journalists, chatting about anything that entered his head. The sight was shocking for two complementary reasons: (1) for the last two years of his presidency, Joe Biden may as well have been dead, and (2) however alive a different replacement president might have been, he would still never have quite reached the level of relaxed showmanship that Trump is currently exhibiting. The man is sui generis. He is genuine, too — in ways that are both disastrous and useful. Currently, while he remains in the afterglow of his victory — a victory that he clearly regards as a vindication — this authenticity is mostly useful. From the outset, Trump’s core message has been that everyone else in politics is a faker. This isn’t true, yet one cannot help but feel that, as has long been the case, Trump has been fortunate in his enemies. He took over from a president who was the beneficiary of a gigantic cover-up, having beaten a nominee who was singularly unable to decide what she believed or what motivated her, much less put it into words. For a few months, at least, his habit of emphatically sharing every thought that enters his head will be sanctioned if just for its stunning contrast with what come before.

And then? Well, therein lies the risk. Far and away the greatest risk attendant to Peak Trump is that, having been caught up in its euphoria, the MAGA movement will conclude that History is over, that a new age is upon us, and that it is destined to win forever. This instinct is common. It is also extremely foolish. There is no such thing as a permanent victory in politics, and, given how uniquely restless the American electorate tends to be, there is rarely even such a thing as a generational advantage here. Once upon a time, George W. Bush’s reelection supposedly heralded disaster for the future of the Democratic Party. Just four years later, we were told that the Republicans had been reduced to a “rump.” In the time since that latter declaration, Congress has flipped between the parties many times, and we have had two Democratic presidencies (Obama and Biden) and two Republican presidencies (both Trump). Today, some are convinced that a new permanent majority has been born. It has not. It is indisputably true that Donald Trump has tapped into dissatisfaction with the status quo. It is not true that this talent inoculates him against traditional political dynamics. If he, too, becomes disdained, he and his party will be kicked out of office in the same way everyone else has been.

Trump won last year because the American public disliked Joe Biden, resented the inflation that he and his party had helped cause, wanted the border secured, and had tired of wokeness. He also won because Kamala Harris was a shallow, babbling, arrogant idiot. Up to a point, voters will indulge Trump in his foibles — his political survival has made that much clear — and they will tolerate his more eccentric projects. But, once the honeymoon is over, they will continue to do so only if he can deliver on the basics. The electorate is much less ideological than are most political obsessives. If the ideas that a given candidate presents happen to line up with material improvements in their lives — even if by accident — they will typically support them. If they do not, they become annoyed. Polls consistently showed that, by the summer of 2024, Americans had come to look back on the Trump years — in particular, at 2019 — as a time of peace, prosperity, and relative cultural sanity. It is unlikely that the Democrats’ attempt to cast Elon Musk’s DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) project as a “constitutional crisis” is going to yield many benefits for the party. Likewise, I am skeptical that the Left will regain the affections of the country’s swing voters by returning to the hyperbolic everyone-is-Hitler playbook that now seems so tired and pathetic. But as stand-ins for other sins, those gripes could yet become potent again. “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” remains the most powerful question in politics. Ensuring that the answer is yes ought to be the Trump administration’s No. 1 goal.

This involves keeping its eyes squarely on the ball. It also involves remembering that reputations are easier to lose than to acquire. One of the greatest strengths that Donald Trump has at present is that he is broadly associated with “common sense.” Inexplicably, the Democratic Party has decided to cede the field on questions such as affirmative action, men in women’s sports, plastic straws, elementary border security, school curricula, antisemitism, and more, and, unable to believe his good fortune, Donald Trump has stepped in to fill the void. But with power comes temptation, and with the assumption of unending power comes seduction toward recklessness. As a rule, the American public tends to side against whomever it considers the zealots in the culture war. Currently, that means the Democratic Party. But, given the thermostatic nature of the modern electorate, it does not have to. In areas such as taxation, spending, immigration, affirmative action, and gender ideology, the Trump team is perceived as a corrective. If, as is entirely possible, it begins to exhibit some fanaticism of its own — as it did with Trump’s blanket pardons for the criminals of January 6, as well as his gleefully threatening Canada with massive tariffs — that will change. There exists a considerable gap between the political views of the median voter and the political views of the dedicated New Right. If Trump and his team forget that, Peak Trump will swiftly plummet to the nadir.

For a while now, observers have been asking why the two parties can’t bring themselves to be “normal.” “To be normal,” I have often heard it said, “could be to dominate American politics for a generation.” That, evidently, is an overstatement. But there is some truth to it nevertheless. At his best, Donald Trump is an iconoclast whose mission is to cut through the establishment with the simplicity of a small child asking “Why?” At his worst, he is an ill-disciplined narcissist whose chief political instinct is to search for praise and supplication. Which Donald Trump we see more of over the coming year will determine whether Peak Trump ends up being a transient artifact of the last election cycle or a genuine reorientation of the country and the world.

 
My wife is native. When she moved in with me, she got a job in a factory and this old white guy there was trying to cozy up to her.. so what was his line? “Fuck the police, right? Black Lives Matter!”

Jesus Christ. Lefties have no fucking clue.

Who even came up with BIPOC? No, black people are not indigenous to North America, and Native Americans aren’t black

Also, we kept a box with the Land O Lakes girl before they got rid of her. It’s a family relic now

My wife is latina, and laughing at liberals who assume she's progressive is one of our favorite passtimes.

nowhere in the document does it say that all the money congress allocates for the federal government MUST BE SPENT. it says that it must be withdrawn by congress, with zero statement about forced spending. she's just using as much weasel wording as she can, hoping nobody else has read the fucking constitution.

Thinking that the money HAS to be spent is the reason we have the deficit we do. I like to ask people "If you budget for $40/week in gasoline, but you stayed home for a week sick, are you still obliged to go out and buy $40 in gas?" I've approved my budget, the gas station is expecting my weekly fill up, do I HAVE to go spend the money? Same shit going on here.

because I'm southern, even if I was french, I would be the upgrade that is the cajun culture. but Im texan, and near lousiana, so Im basically already cajun just by culture alone.

Woah woah woah now. I don't know too much about indian culture, but I for sure know that Texans ain't "basically cajun". We share and get along like brothers, but we definitely ain't the same.
 
Thinking that the money HAS to be spent is the reason we have the deficit we do. I like to ask people "If you budget for $40/week in gasoline, but you stayed home for a week sick, are you still obliged to go out and buy $40 in gas?" I've approved my budget, the gas station is expecting my weekly fill up, do I HAVE to go spend the money? Same shit going on here.
The way I see it, you spend what you need/have to. If the gas tank is half full, spend what you need to fill up the rest. Just because you HAVE money, doesn't mean you always have to SPEND it. I have to tell myself that. It takes $40 to fill the gas tank. That doesn't mean I ALWAYS have to spend $40 for gas.
 
PCMAPG: Pre-Columbian Meso-American Politics General
i think we need to provide each congressman a shard of obsidian to fight for their constituents with, and whoever stands t riumphant on the house floor becomes god-king of the North American Nation.

The way I see it, you spend what you need/have to. If the gas tank is half full, spend what you need to fill up the rest. Just because you HAVE money, doesn't mean you always have to SPEND it. I have to tell myself that. It takes $40 to fill the gas tank. That doesn't mean I ALWAYS have to spend $40 for gas.
and if you don't spend it all, it's not like you burn it. you can put the other 35, or 20, or 3 dollars in a jar for leftover money, and then when an emergency comes up and you need extra money, you have it. this is the very most basic concept of protecting yourself from scarcity by saving up resources when they're unnecessary to expend. the democrats cannot even understand this most basic facet of existence for a living creature, i am not surprised they struggle with advanced biological concepts like dick n' balls=man.
 
Unless Reddit's stock keeps dropping I don't see reddit doing anything about this, Not like the fed poster misgenderd someone.
But in all seriousness I'm not expecting Reddit to take any action on this until a redditor does a left wing terrorist attack which I think with some of the rhetoric they've been saying make me feel like it's going to happen at some point.
 
I don’t recall ever meeting an Indian. At some point in my life, I may have randomly conversed with one, but it mustn’t have been that impactful to leave an imprint. They are relatively normal people, as long as they don’t live in cities or universities, where White women coddle them like endangered animals.

Also, Indians are very nationalistic. Some of my favorite bands have themes of Indian nationalism. As such, this group is good in my book.

In other news, Germany seems to be on fire, and the New York Times is partly blaming the AfD’s rise on the support that Trump, Vance, and Musk has given them. The European left are in full panic mode.
IMG_2022.jpeg
In the final days of Germany’s abbreviated election campaign, the task facing its next chancellor has snapped into focus. It appears far more existential, for the country and for all of Europe, than almost anyone initially imagined.

Germany’s coalition government came apart just a day after the U.S. presidential election last November. As a result, a vote that was supposed to come this September is now set for Sunday. German leaders quickly realized that meant their campaign would be largely fought in the early days of President Trump’s second term.

They were nervous from the start. But they were nowhere near prepared.
In just a few short weeks, the new Trump team has cut Ukraine and Europe out of negotiations to end the war with Russia, and embraced an aggressive, expansionist regime in Moscow that now breathes down Europe’s neck. It also threatened to withdraw troops that have protected Germany for decades.

How Germans vote will now be a critical component of Europe’s response to Mr. Trump’s new world order, and will resonate far beyond their borders.

“It is not just another change of government” under Mr. Trump, Friedrich Merz, the leading candidate for chancellor, warned on Friday after taking the stage for an arena rally in the western town of Oberhausen, “but a complete redrawing of the world map.”

Perhaps no one has distilled the stakes of the election more succinctly — ironically enough — than the prime minister of Greece, a country that famously clashedwith the Germans when it was digging out of a financial crisis a decade ago. Kyriakos Mitsotakis, a fellow conservative, addressed Mr. Merz in a recorded message broadcast to 4,000 attendees at the Oberhausen rally. He reminded the audience of Greece’s emergence from its economic woes, and encouraged Mr. Merz to engineer a similar turnaround.

“Dear Friedrich,” Mr. Mitsotakis said, “Germany and Europe need your leadership.”

Mr. Merz and other candidates, including the current center-left chancellor, Olaf Scholz, have warned of strained or even severed ties with the United States, while vowing to fill a continental and global leadership vacuum.

Mr. Merz openly questioned this past week whether the United States would remain a democracy much longer — or slip into full autocratic rule — and whether NATO would continue to exist. Mr. Scholz has said that Germany and Europe must be prepared to go it alone without Mr. Trump.

The question is what any of the candidates will be able to do about that.

Germany has been weakened by crises at home and abroad. The country’s export-driven industrial business model is broken. Its economy is no larger today than it was five years ago, and it is losing ground to the rest of Europe and other wealthy nations on several key measures of economic health.

Its domestic politics are mired in disputes about immigration, regulation, government spending and the mountains of paperwork that Germans must navigate to deal with daily tasks.

Among the other challenges for Germany is that Trump administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Elon Musk, have also embraced a hard-right political party, the Alternative for Germany, or AfD, that revels in Nazi slogans and is ostracized by all of the country’s mainstream parties.

Its likely second-place finish on Sunday is expected to heighten the sense of fracturing and potential paralysis in German politics.

The last German chancellor to be seen as a leader of Europe was Mr. Merz’s longtime party rival, Angela Merkel. She did so in part by forging a partnership with President Barack Obama. The current moment might demand the opposite.

No European head of state has emerged to lead the continent in opposition to Mr. Trump’s foreign policy or his economic plans, including threats of tariffs that could target European companies. Two leaders who might have filled that role, President Emmanuel Macron of France and Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain, have been hurt in their efforts by low approval ratings at home.

Nonetheless, they will travel separately to the White House this week, hoping to at least persuade Mr. Trump to slow the pace of his possible disengagement from Europe.

It could be weeks or months for a new German leader to join them. Even after the votes are counted, the winner will need to form a governing coalition, a historically plodding process.

Polls suggest that Mr. Merz will almost certainly not win a majority in Sunday’s vote, and that he could enter with relatively low approval ratings for a chancellor-to-be. Still, his fresh face could provide a jolt Europe needs.

“With a waning or even unreliable U.S. presence on the continent,” said Sudha David-Wilp, the vice president of external relations of the German Marshall Fund in Berlin, “Merz could be the chancellor at the right moment to heed the call.”

The incumbent, Mr. Scholz, has been hindered globally ever since his government crumbled last fall. He is now polling in third place, behind Mr. Merz and the AfD — a party that no other mainstream party will invite into government.

Mr. Scholz has shed some of his stoic image in recent days and grown more combative, both toward Mr. Trump and toward Mr. Merz. He promised stronger German leadership to nearly 2,000 supporters at his final campaign stop on Friday. He was in Dortmund, one of the last remaining strongholds for his Social Democratic party, and just an hour down the road from Mr. Merz’s rally.

“I find it irritating how everyone is now surprised by the current American administration. You could read all of this beforehand,” Mr. Scholz said. “And in this respect, we as Germany must also be capable of acting, namely by solving our problems in Germany and Europe and by sticking together in doing so.”

“We can do this,” he added. “The European economic area, with its 450 million inhabitants, is larger and stronger than the United States. We can manage our own affairs.”

Polls suggest that Mr. Scholz is a long-shot to retain his job. The more intense guessing game among German political analysts is what sort of coalition might emerge from Sunday’s result, with Mr. Merz at the helm — and how much it might help or hurt Mr. Merz’s global ambitions.

If his Christian Democrats win around a third of the vote, or if only a few other parties pass an electoral threshold for taking seats in Parliament, Mr. Merz could likely form a government with just one other party.

He has said that would never be with the AfD, parts of which Germany’s domestic intelligence agency considers extremist, though together they are expected to have a majority.

If the vote is more splintered and more parties clear the threshold, Mr. Merz could be forced into a three-party coalition. As Mr. Scholz learned, three-party governments tend to be more fragile, and more prone to infighting that slows down major legislation.

Being forced into a larger coalition, many Christian Democrats and their supporters concede, would almost certainly sap Mr. Merz’s power to push deregulation, tax cuts and other domestic initiatives through Parliament in a bid to boost the economy.

And if Mr. Merz is unable to reignite growth, analysts say, he will struggle to project the economic power needed to lead Europe — or to find the revenue to help Germany accelerate its rearmament.

Mr. Merz betrayed few worries on Friday, flogging his potential future coalition partners, including the Social Democrats and the Green Party, in his speech in Oberhausen.

“We look forward to seeing you here again in a few years,” he told the crowd — four years from now, perhaps, at the end of the next federal election campaign.

“Then we will look back at this year 2025, on the federal elections and the results,” he said. “And then we will be asked whether we have correctly assessed the situation, and whether we have drawn the right conclusions from it.”
 
Last edited:
For me, it's less with the storytelling of old movies but more with the glamour and class that said actresses had from that timeframe. Also, many old movies have set the standard for their respective genres that may or may not have been replicated today. It's American ingenuity on the silver screen that shows the talent of directors and actors for anybody to experience.
For me, it's just I like looking at them because they are very pretty. They could be thrown into our local Aztec's volcano for all I care. Total celebrity death.

That said, I'm kind of surprised how Karoline Leavitt makes me so thirsty.
 
Back