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:
Bring back Biden. He’d release all the documents publicly by accident while talking about trans lumberjacks or some shit, stare into space for 15 minutes and then walk into a wall.

Much more entertaining than these Twitter grifters.
But his handlers would have to kill him for that, though. Should a sweet innocent angel child like Biden be put to death for goofin' around? He shook hands with the pope, you know!
 
Reread my post and come back to me. You either ban abortion and pay for the unwanted kids or ban welfare for families free lunches etc

Pick one lane. And btw retard kids cost about 4 million during their lifetime on average . Homeless ferals cost the government even more, institutionalised individuals which basically prisoners also cost money around 50k per head per year.

Do the math faggots and don't cry to me about the tax bills or stolen shit like your retarded libshit counterparts .
There is nothing that says any of these children, or the non working mothers, should be fed in the first place. If you're able bodied enough to fuck youre able bodied enough to earn a living.

Reread my post and come back to me. Why are you letting them get pregnant in the first place? You want a government check? Forced sterilization. You have a kid you cant support? Off to Angola to work in the fields. enjoy prison child maker.

Why is it "Let them be comfortable and fuck consequence free while the government pays for everything"? Nip the problem in the bud. if you can kill the baby, why not just kill the baby maker before? Pre-abortion sounds like an even better tax saver. Do the math faggot. A bus trip to a tall cliff is about 6 bucks for a gallon of diesel. Gravity is free.

See, no lanes need to be picked!

(edit. I'm not mad ya'll, I'm just showing how the "pick a lane" is a bullshit argument and can be hilariously countered)
 
Yeah it is a rare case, but I've heard horror stories of it in the past that for the life of me i can't remember (I'll take my licks for it.) you are absolutely correct that abortion is not at all the solution. But considering the state's.... standard of care. Is it safe to leave it to them? I'm not disagreeing with you that it's the best option. But it's the best out of a bunch of equally shitty if not worse options. Is it possible to have an alternative? I apologize i'm drawing blanks here.
it's another of those infinitely expanding questions. if you want the state to ensure the safety and care of children who aren't aborted but saved from psychotic mothers or just parents in general, you also should want the state to have a high quality of care for those children, which mandates X, which mandates Y... it is a very exhausting conversation. suffice to say, this topic doesn't ever have any good outcome to it, and the ultimate solution is unfortunately impractical, because men are horny, and women are horny, and people don't contain themselves or consider future problems, especially at a young age.

societal constructs exist to help and perpetuate those behaviors, and no interest in pulling away from them is ever shown by anyone with the power to influence this change. the tragedy is not that justa or i can't agree on it, the tragedy is the children who get caught up in a bad home, or get aborted, or get adopted into something evil. the world is a tragic place, and the abortion debate is probably the most tragic. i'm sorry i don't have a further answer either. i wish i did.
 
is the idea of people actually taking accountability for having sex and creating children really so inconceivable to you that you would prefer to increase the amount of abortions instead? why is abstinence before you're prepared for a child wrong in your eyes?
Yes because most abortions are done by niggers and coalburners FFS. They will never start thinking further than "damn that pussy nice".
 
it absolutely does always take two people, except in the most absolutely insane fringe cases of post-coitus condom theft from other people, or something equally as criminally insane. in that case, the woman wouldn't be mentally sound enough to care for the child in the first place.
In this case you are correct that two people did commit to do the deed. The specific scenario i'm referring to is the woman decieving the man by sabotaging the condom beforehand to ensure it doesn't work or lying about being on birth control. The man has no idea that the woman wants to get pregnant. He believes he's having some fun or he doesn't believe he's ready for a child or wants to avoid stds or any number of reasons. The sad truth is quite a large portion of the population view abstinence as an outdated concept. Is it moral? Maybe or maybe not, it's not my place to judge them. But what is concerning to me is the aftermath of such an ordeal.
 
is the idea of people actually taking accountability for having sex and creating children really so inconceivable to you that you would prefer to increase the amount of abortions instead? why is abstinence before you're prepared for a child wrong in your eyes?
You already tried abstinence it failed miserably and currently you act like your libshit counterparts expecting people to act certain way because it offends your sensibilities and not be humans. We live in reality. Why can't people doesn't work in reality.


The reality is majority of those abortions are shaniquas the reality is those kids will either get pimped out or tossed into the foster system and grow out of it either into homelessness or straight to prison. One of the reasons why violent criminals are let go because the prisons are overcrowded. You are paying on average according to Google 64 k a year for Tyrone cot and three meals. Or you can pay 100 bucks to give shankqua an abortion.

Pick one.
 
The Twitter files thing made perfect sense, because it was allowing access to a giant pile of raw info to a handful of journalist so that they could pick through it. In the case of the Epstein files, the people who got binders have been some of the main drivers for digging up and releasing info on Epstein, including Cernovitch being THE guy who kept filing FoIA requests for years and years before Epstein was arrested and killed. He was hounding that kike back when most thread posters were still radiant over voting for Obama.
twitter files were done correctly, the critique i present there is that most people outside the journos just wanted the blood that would be spilled, that's all. people hated it, not that it was the wrong move at the time.

i don't like cernovich for other reasons, but it's a personal criticism of him rather than professional. he's an okay journo, as far as they all go. it's the same reason i don't buy that his association with dershowitz is an instant killshot, or that even dershowitz has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. it's just a big foggy mess with no actual resolution, and every time we think we're going to get something, it's got some new level of bullshit associated with it.
 
it's another of those infinitely expanding questions. if you want the state to ensure the safety and care of children who aren't aborted but saved from psychotic mothers or just parents in general, you also should want the state to have a high quality of care for those children, which mandates X, which mandates Y... it is a very exhausting conversation. suffice to say, this topic doesn't ever have any good outcome to it, and the ultimate solution is unfortunately impractical, because men are horny, and women are horny, and people don't contain themselves or consider future problems, especially at a young age.

societal constructs exist to help and perpetuate those behaviors, and no interest in pulling away from them is ever shown by anyone with the power to influence this change. the tragedy is not that justa or i can't agree on it, the tragedy is the children who get caught up in a bad home, or get aborted, or get adopted into something evil. the world is a tragic place, and the abortion debate is probably the most tragic. i'm sorry i don't have a further answer either. i wish i did.
I understand. It's a complicated discussion and a horrible part of the world we as humanity have built for ourselves. I didn't expect you to have an outright answer. I just honestly wanted your insight on this topic since it's something you clearly feel passionate about.
 
Justa said nothing about that.
justa's arguments completely ignore that if two consenting adults do not come together to create a baby, in the overwhelming and overfilled majority of cases, there will be no baby to abort in the first place. i'm addressing an inadequacy i see in the argument, not a statement she's made outright. also, any chance you could let the woman herself respond instead of doing it for her, o alabaster knight?
 
the argument that i find the most compelling is that no one should be involved in straight, vaginal sex unless you're prepared to handle a child, because it is not fair to any child to have to be aborted 'because it'll be too awful to raise them' or 'because they'll suffer horribly' when all it took was the two people involved in making a child not having that sex to prevent it from happening. personal responsibility is a very important thing to look at here, because it takes two people to make the decisions necessary to create a child.
This is completely retarded. If personal responsibility is so important, people without it should be reproducing less, not more, and blameless children should not be subjected to terrible lives as some kind of cosmic punishment for the sins of their parents. If you want to really want to morally grandstand about how chaste women should be, the appropriate punishment would be forced abortion and sterilization (sterilization for both involved parties).

I mean, what's the logic here? Somebody does something irresponsible, and because they suffer as a result, that means the result is inherently just? So is suicide bombing A-OK in your book because the perpetrator is killed as "punishment"? (In this comparison, the child whose life is doomed from the start is analogous to the victims of the suicide bomber.)
 
justa's arguments completely ignore that if two consenting adults do not come together to create a baby, in the overwhelming and overfilled majority of cases, there will be no baby to abort in the first place.
And you realize none of this shit happens in reality? Yeah? You realize the hood exists? You know teenagers still knock each other up? I met a few pregnant black women in high school. You're spouting hypothetical moral olympics rather than what constantly happens regardless of government interference or your moral compass. People who have sex tend to not think about all of this shit that you do even with warnings. 2/3 of you EXIST because your parents didn't follow this shit you believe in.
 
You shouldn't be surprised that some people are responding to these releases like retarded pundits or retarded comedians, and you certainly shouldn't be surprised at who specifically is responding like this.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Failed Lurker
Justa is a mother. I think her opinion is more valid than half the chat who "joke" about torturing women and shit.
And I'm a father of 3.

Trying to force someone to pick between not paying shit to irresponsible parties or banning abortions is the epitome of a false dichotomy.

Let the babies live full stop, then argue about shanqueequa gibs. I'm all for sacrificing gibs to fund better oversight and care for abandoned children who can't be placed with close family.
 
Back