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:
Call me a clueless retard but are they actually getting rid of the department of education? Why would they put a DEI reporting page on the website when its supposedly going to be dismantled? Why not make a separate website?

View attachment 7045019
They absolutely want to. And for good reason. The policies of the DoE have been consistently linked with lower results across the board. It has failed in every way and for every cause. Removing it and leaving it to the states individually to provide education outcomes, with subsidy from the federal government, is the goal and has a provably better outcome.

and can't refuse to spend the money in the budget allocated to education.
I need to correct something here. The executive absolutely can refuse to spend money.

Congress controls the purse strings, but this does not mean they control what is spent. They set the budget, allot money for tasks, and can even name specific things to spend money on. But the Executive is in charge of how and whether that money -is- spent. It cannot spend money allocated for a task on something else but it can just not spend the money. The actual spending is entirely on the executive to do.

The reason why is part of the whole "balance of powers" thing. This ensures neither branch has full control over federal finances but both can reign in the excesses of the other. Congress can refuse to fund things the executive wants, and the executive can refuse to go along with things congress wants. The U.S. system is -designed- to gridlock.

VP Vance decides to start asking very pointed questions of Zelensky.
At the risk of reigniting Ukrainian spergery. Consistent line from D.C. is that Zelensky outright refuses to let Vance come to Ukraine to try to hammer out deals like Trump has said he wants. So even before the blowup there was a lot of him trying to set the terms for talks. This is also, likely, why Trump had sat back and let Vance go off. Basically saying "Well, if you don't want to let my guy ask these questions at your house, we will ask them at mine". The goal was, in the end, probably to humiliate Zalensky... and somehow the man found a way to make it worse for himself.
 
As one of the UK prime minister’s allies put it before the meeting, there was no alternative to patching things up with the White House: “The PM will bring people together and politely make sure they realise that there is only one negotiation in town — and that’s President Trump’s.”
I think that's polite British-speak for "we're not giving you any money 'cause we're broke Eurofags. Either convince Trump to give you the money, or sign a peace deal."

“What Ukraine needs now is guns and butter,” said one Starmer ally. “It doesn’t need people tweeting and virtue signalling.” At Lancaster House on Sunday there was plenty of talk, but Europe knows it now needs to act.
...uh, what does "guns and butter" mean? Is this some weird British euphemism? More educated Kiwis, help me out - I can't find anything about it on Google (aside from a warning about not lubricating your guns with Cocoa Butter, it will cause buildup 🙃)
 
At the risk of reigniting Ukrainian spergery. Consistent line from D.C. is that Zelensky outright refuses to let Vance come to Ukraine to try to hammer out deals like Trump has said he wants

Which is a huge fuck you to The US btw. The Vice President is the second in command and sending him to negotiate instead of just an ambassador should be seen as the President taking your concerns seriously but Zelenksy is a tool and refused to see it that way because he won't get everything he wants
 
Last edited:
I need to correct something here. The executive absolutely can refuse to spend money.

Congress controls the purse strings, but this does not mean they control what is spent. They set the budget, allot money for tasks, and can even name specific things to spend money on. But the Executive is in charge of how and whether that money -is- spent. It cannot spend money allocated for a task on something else but it can just not spend the money. The actual spending is entirely on the executive to do.

The reason why is part of the whole "balance of powers" thing. This ensures neither branch has full control over federal finances but both can reign in the excesses of the other. Congress can refuse to fund things the executive wants, and the executive can refuse to go along with things congress wants. The U.S. system is -designed- to gridlock.

What I'm referring to is the impoundment cases and their results in the federal courts when Nixon was president. See in particular the Supreme Court case "Train vs. City of New York". It was a 9-0 decision at the time.

There is probably room to challenge the result of that case within the federal courts and to perhaps narrow the effect of those earlier decisions. But that has not happened yet But at the moment its considered settled law.
 
I think that's polite British-speak for "we're not giving you any money 'cause we're broke Eurofags. Either convince Trump to give you the money, or sign a peace deal."


...uh, what does "guns and butter" mean? Is this some weird British euphemism? More educated Kiwis, help me out - I can't find anything about it on Google (aside from a warning about not lubricating your guns with Cocoa Butter, it will cause buildup 🙃)
Europeans live exclusively off of a starvation diet of butter, bread, and cheese. Hence why they constantly whine about it in America, they think it's the only edible thing there is. If they do not have their bread, butter, and cheese they will resort to eating guns.
 
What I'm referring to is the impoundment cases and their results in the federal courts when Nixon was president. See in particular the Supreme Court case "Train vs. City of New York". It was a 9-0 decision at the time.

There is probably room to challenge the result of that case within the federal courts and to perhaps narrow the effect of those earlier decisions. But that has not happened yet But at the moment its considered settled law.
Fair point to that. Though I would note that since that case the Executive branch has come up with a -lot- of fancy ways to not spend the money it doesn't want to.
 
What the fuck does the military need to spend that money on that's more important than feeding its personnel?
TALK TO ME. Given what we already know about diet and its importance in creating, maintaining and repairing the body, it should be obvious that soldiers need high quality food. I notice how many ex combat soldiers have horribly eroded joints and other permeant wear-and-tear injuries… how much of that could be avoided with proper nutrition? But combat soldiers are usually white men, so you know how that goes (not that anyone in the military should be given goyslop).
 
Fair point to that. Though I would note that since that case the Executive branch has come up with a -lot- of fancy ways to not spend the money it doesn't want to.
Trump has actually publically said he wants to take back the power of impoundment and use it. He said it during his campaign. I'm too lazy to find it right now but if you search for it you should be able to find it.
 
Trump has actually publically said he wants to take back the power of impoundment and use it. He said it during his campaign. I'm too lazy to find it right now but if you search for it you should be able to find it.
All this money DOGE is finding that Trump isn't going to spend it where its allocated. Is he able to spend it elsewhere without congress? Perhaps even just funding existing programs congress already has approved that are underfunded?
 
All this money DOGE is finding that Trump isn't going to spend it where its allocated. Is he able to spend it elsewhere without congress? Perhaps even just funding existing programs congress already has approved that are underfunded?
I don't think so but I'm not sure. He just basically has the power to tell his kid who put in the Ebay bid for 10k worth of Yugioh cards "I'm cancelling that shit"
 
Back