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:
Don't like it when it applies to lefties, huh? Kill yourself, faggot.
No, nigger, I don't like them at all.

Terrorism laws are a bullshit scam to take away our rights. I didn't like it when Biden used the DOJ to specifically target the J6 Unguided Boomer Tour and I don't like it now that Trump is using terrorism laws to protect fucking Tesla, for no other reason than he personally likes Elon Musk. Why didn't Trump use these bullshit terrorism laws on the people that attacked cops and tried to burn down police stations and federal courthouses in 2020?
 
Ah I see what you mean. It's still terrorism -- the government or its policies doesn't have to be the final target. It's violence being committed specifically to effect change (e.g. "stop building the killer robbits").
Interesting, and yeah something like "stop building the killer robots" is a good example. The anti-AI sphere has some people who have said it would ok to launch airstrikes on datacenters to stop the growth of AI because they're concerned about AGI or superintelligence being developed and that it would wipe out humanity.

There's an absurd amount of money that has gone towards anti-AI or "AI safety" shit: https://kiwifarms.st/threads/effective-altruism-eas.151752/post-20841036 and a lot of the key AI people seem to believe in Roko's Basilisk shit (basically if they don't help the AI come to life then it'll torture them for the rest of eternity or some shit)

Another good example would be the vandalism of 5G towers, but I never saw any terrorism charges stem from that? Most of the articles I found about 5G tower destruction didn't mention the word terrorism at all, but one case did: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-65377361 (but they were calling for politicians to be hung)

What's interesting is that telecommunications infrastructure is probably termed as "critical infrastructure" so the destruction of it might carry other charges that aren't related to terrorism.

Government policy doesn't really apply to stuff like that.

Anyway, an interesting thing to ponder and people's attitude towards giant corporations has become increasingly heated in recent history. That was why I was asking about the "terrorism" stuff btw - because I am certain in the near future we'll have some sort of scenario like the above that I mentioned start to happen.

(just to make clear I'm not advocating for anything, I am just curious about what happens in the near and far future)
 
No I'm not saying these hypothetical attacks would be aimed at changing government policy or politics but rather the policies of a private mega corporation.

Like think of the way people take rental escooters and deliberately damage them, or those little food delivery robots in the city. If people start firebombing those because the megacorp that owns them has caused job losses or is just shitty in general but is not politically attached to the government - what happens then? Like what if Amazon builds humanoid robots that are on every street corner and have taken a bunch of jobs or maybe one of them went haywire and killed some kid and people went apeshit and started destroying them?
It's still terrorism. You're trying to use violence, and the threat of more of it, to get people to do what you want.
 
It's still terrorism. You're trying to use violence, and the threat of more of it, to get people to do what you want.
Under the legal definition of terrorism in the US it wouldn't be considered terrorism:

There's a few things mentioned:
  • (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
  • (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
  • (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
Destroying megacorp's robot fleet doesn't fall under any of these because it isn't threatening or coercing a civilian population or the policy of a government and doesn't involve violence against a human.
There are provisions for critical infrastructure (such as 5G towers) but megacorp's robot fleet doesn't seem like it has some special legal provision/protection.
 
Burn a building down, arson. Burn a Tesla dealership down, arson with domestic terrorism modifier.

It's all bullshit. There are already laws to punish unlawful behavior
I don't think you grasp the law very well, it's understandable it can be confusing. If you rob someone with deadly force it's much more serious than strongarm robbery. Let's take a more simple case, murder; losing your shit and murdering someone is a much less serious offense than if you plan out killing your ex boss because he fired you. This stuff is in same vein.
 
No, nigger, I don't like them at all.

Terrorism laws are a bullshit scam to take away our rights. I didn't like it when Biden used the DOJ to specifically target the J6 Unguided Boomer Tour and I don't like it now that Trump is using terrorism laws to protect fucking Tesla, for no other reason than he personally likes Elon Musk. Why didn't Trump use these bullshit terrorism laws on the people that attacked cops and tried to burn down police stations and federal courthouses in 2020?
You're not wrong but so what, we should just allow Paid Protesters to torch down Tesla just because Elon sucks? I completely agree its bullshit that anyone can be organized as a terrorist organization on the whim of the President but these (more than likely paid) Protesters are literally burning down businesses in a coordinated attack all over the country at Tesla dealerships because they are upset Elon is finding fraud and abuse? Also in 2020 Trump was literally under so much scrutiny even by his own party he wasn't able to get anything done during that time. We should all be thinking about the American workers at those dealerships who have nothing to do with Elon or his politics and Feel unsafe at work now and are being targeted and harassed for no real reason other than having a job.
 
No, nigger, I don't like them at all.

Terrorism laws are a bullshit scam to take away our rights. I didn't like it when Biden used the DOJ to specifically target the J6 Unguided Boomer Tour and I don't like it now that Trump is using terrorism laws to protect fucking Tesla, for no other reason than he personally likes Elon Musk. Why didn't Trump use these bullshit terrorism laws on the people that attacked cops and tried to burn down police stations and federal courthouses in 2020?
These laws aren't going away, and if some Rand Paul figure got into office and abolished them the next Democrat after him will reinstate these laws. The best we can do is use the same power against the left.
 
I don't think you grasp the law very well, it's understandable it can be confusing. If you rob someone with deadly force it's much more serious than strongarm robbery. Let's take a more simple case, murder; losing your shit and murdering someone is a much less serious offense than if you plan out killing your ex boss because he fired you. This stuff is in same vein.
It's not that he doesn't understand the law, it's that nobody seems capable of grasping the simple point he's making.

Having a law against [thing] and a law against [thing] plus [feelings] is bullshit. Killing a person is killing a person regardless of the color of their skin, and applying additional draconic punishments for the same action because there's some magical intent behind it is easily abused. Due to political reasons, the punishment for a white man killing a black man can be way more severe than a black man killing a white man. Due to politics, firebombing car dealership A is a much worse crime than doing the same amount of damage to dealership B. Is this equal treatment under the law? There are existing laws that can be applied equally that already lock people away in all of these scenarios. Implementing conditional bonuses might sound fun in the moment, but it always just ends up making things shittier for normal people in the long run.

By the way that's just my devil's advocate defense of the point. Personally, I'm so sick of these fuckers, I think that the people should hand Trump a gold plated handgun, round them up with no trial (and a quarter of the judiciary too for good measure) place them on Fifth Avenue, and let him realize one of his classic comments - a DOGE approved cheap for the tax payer resolution to a lot of problems
Donald Trump:

I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters
 
Last edited:
It's still terrorism. You're trying to use violence, and the threat of more of it, to get people to do what you want.
I think a good comparison to draw would be me going down to Toyota and smashing up some Corollas. That's just plain vandalism. Now if I state I'm gonna start sabotaging a bunch of Tacomas and rigging them to blow IRA-style unless the government does something about emissions that'd be terrorism.

To be clear, I agree that the Tesla-smashers are acting as terrorists. Just because it's "just cars" and not people doesn't disqualify it; we reserve the same judgement for hippies trying to blow up pipelines.
 
Last edited:
These laws aren't going away, and if some Rand Paul figure got into office and abolished them the next Democrat after him will reinstate these laws. The best we can do is use the same power against the left.
Dang, you're right, nothing ever gets better ever so it's pointless to hope or try. May as well have fun rolling around in the mud before we turn ourselves in to executed in 4-? years
 
Under the legal definition of terrorism in the US it wouldn't be considered terrorism:
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter113B&edition=prelim
There's a few things mentioned:
  • (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
  • (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
  • (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping
You're right, retards going out of their way to vandalize/destroy civilians private property and/or sending them threatening messages, while simultaneously making extremely dangerous and lethal assaults vs the company of someone in government and posting that someone has to kill them and the president doesn't meet that definition at all
 
Sorry, I was wrong. It was fucking measles LOL.
Despite that he lived through it, crossed party lines, and ascended into one of the highest stations in the nation while you're here on your fat ass having nothing to show for your life but posting here. Would you like a medal?
 
You're right, retards going out of their way to vandalize/destroy civilians private property and/or sending them threatening messages, while simultaneously making extremely dangerous and lethal assaults vs the company of someone in government and posting that someone has to kill them and the president doesn't meet that definition at all
Nigger, why did you leave out the part where I specifically mentioned a scenario of Megacorp's robot fleet:
Destroying megacorp's robot fleet doesn't fall under any of these because it isn't threatening or coercing a civilian population or the policy of a government and doesn't involve violence against a human.
There are provisions for critical infrastructure (such as 5G towers) but megacorp's robot fleet doesn't seem like it has some special legal provision/protection.
It was a hypothetical situation that didn't relate to Tesla you dolt. And Megacorp's robot fleet wouldn't be "civilian's private property" because in the scenario I was talking about it would be the property of the Megacorp.
 
You're not wrong but so what, we should just allow Paid Protesters to torch down Tesla just because Elon sucks?
Absolutely not. They should be charged with arson, and if people were in the buildings, attempted murder. People should absolutely not be allowed to break the law or destroy property. I just don't like terrorism modifiers. I think they're Orwellian post-9/11 surveillance state bullshit which can be used to target whoever the current administration doesn't like. Same as hate crimes laws. Just because a victim is a faggot or a nigger doesn't mean it's a more serious crime. I think these modifiers are thinly veiled attacks on our rights.

I fully understand that they're the laws on the books and they were established decades ago by a different president. I am not blaming Trump for the laws, but I still don't like them being used.
These laws aren't going away, and if some Rand Paul figure got into office and abolished them the next Democrat after him will reinstate these laws. The best we can do is use the same power against the left.
Just because my position is unlikely to be adopted doesn't mean I have to like the status quo. I understand your point, and I don't even disagree that we have to use the same tools in the toolbox if, for no other reason, to protect ourselves, but it's still bullshit.
Having a law against [thing] and a law against [thing] plus [feelings] is bullshit. Killing a person is killing a person regardless of the color of their skin, and applying additional draconic punishments for the same action because there's some magical intent behind it is easily abused. Due to political reasons, the punishment for a white man killing a black man can be way more severe than a black man killing a white man. Due to politics, firebombing car dealership A is a much worse crime than doing the same amount of damage to dealership B. Is this equal treatment under the law? There are existing laws that can be applied equally that already lock people away in all of these scenarios.
Thank you for understanding my point. Sincerely. It is not that I don't think these people should be punished to the absolute fullest extent of the law, I just don't like the modifiers for [opinion]. Like I said, if I shot a black dude, I would expect to be charged with murder. If I shot a black dude and said "fuck you, nigger," I would be charged with murder plus a hate crime, which is total bullshit. Look at how many J6 defendants got 15+ years in prison because of these bullshit modifiers instead of 3 months in jail for breaking and entering or trespassing or some shit.
 
The entire Israel lobby spends nearly a hundred million dollars less than Liberia in lobbying dollars.
Those are maintenance payments. All of the " support Israel or perish" infrastructure is already built decades ago. It's like saying France spends $0 building the Eiffel Tower. It already exists and is obvious. Any money spent now is upkeep.
 
Back