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:
I heard that RFK Jr. wanted Coca-Cola to change their recipe to use cane sugar as a healthier alternative. At least with that claim, you cannot say that RFK Jr. is working with Big Soda for his policies. Trump, however, with his love of Diet Coke... well, he can afford it I guess.
Like mexican coca-cola or republic dominican one...and YOU taste the difference.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Margo Martindale
All this stuff about restricting food stamps and adding more barriers to getting them or what you can buy with them will INCREASE the costs of the program in question, not decrease them. The people arguing for such things forget that bureaucrats oversee these programs and the more complexity you add to something like SNAP, the more of those bureaucrats will be needed to oversee it.

Honestly, if saving money is the goal, (And you don't want to lose every election for the next twenty years because you got rid of a program that exists to feed the poor, primarily.) you'd be better off replacing welfare and SNAP with a lump sum payment equivalent to the dollar value those two programs pay in benefits to those who qualify for said programs.

Even this would be difficult to do though, because the various state-level bureaucracies would absolutely lose their shit over this, because they know their petty sinecures would be under threat if this happened. Mostly because some of their positions would be made irrelevant by doing this.

Retards will hear stories like this, and then go "yeah mandatory child support is a good thing actually." As if denying a father access to his child leads to stellar outcomes for both. Or that arresting a non-violent man and putting him in prison for failure to pay is somehow beneficial to society. Given A) you now have to house him, B) he isn't paying taxes, C) is now a registered criminal which will effect his future employment options, or D) that the resulting overcrowding doesn't enable liberal parole boards to put actual violent criminals back on the streets. Its an asinine society that tolerates women surrendering children at fire stations, or hospitals, but locks up a man for not being able to pay child support for a child he can't even see.


Oh, I'm totally sure @DSaC's uncle's girlfriend totally made clear her intentions to abscond with the child to another state. Or that she was totally looking to become a parasite on someone's back.
A lotta people on here (and elsewhere too, honestly) are naive about modern relations between the sexes. Telling men to accept playing a rigged game, or to settle for someone they're not attracted to when porn and prostitutes exist, are examples of such naivety.
 
Last edited:
I mean, yeah, I'm all for it. I just want to use the moment to get people talking about what we eat in general.
This could easily turn into a whole-ass argument, because it always does with me involved. But I've given my take on goyslop plenty of times to the point you could probably train a shill-bot on my posts on the topic alone:
People worry about it too much. If you're not fat and you don't feel like shit all the time, whatever you're eating is probably fine and you're probably gonna die in your late 70's to mid 80's from heart disease or cancer like everyone else in the developed world.
If you are fat or you do feel like shit all the time, whatever you're doing wrong is probably so patently obvious that a child could work it out.
 
I used to process WIC customers when I worked at the supermarket. They actually did have to fuck around with a stamp book. The restrictions were utterly RETARDED because everyone and there molester uncle had their hand in the program. You can't buy REGULAR cheerios; you have to buy the WIC cheerios that are one ounce smaller and look almost identical.

It got to the point my manager had me close a register and walk the WIC women through the store, showing them what they could and could not buy.

Everyone thinks "restricting luxuries" will reform EBT. It won't. It will only cause more fucking problems.
 
Menthol1400.jpg

>be me
>highly addictive
>srsly I make your dopamine go brrrr
>niggers crave me almost as much as crack
>absolutely no medical use
>nogs don't care, they love me
>should probably be illegal
>should probably be more regulated than I am
>Jew lobbyists protect me because I'm profitable
>Jewry so good I'm not even considered a Schedule 1 narcotic
>feelsgoodman.jpeg
>I'm high fructose corn syrup, and niglets drink me by the barrel
>pic unrelated
 
All this stuff about restricting food stamps and adding more barriers to getting them or what you can buy with them will INCREASE the costs of the program in question, not decrease them. The people arguing for such things forget that bureaucrats oversee these programs and the more complexity you add to something like SNAP, the more of those bureaucrats will be needed to oversee it.
I'm not blaming you for thinking this way, but it's funny how twisted they've conditioned people's outlooks. Easy solution, a very quick whitelist of what can be bought. Nothing else, done. No bullshit, no complex committee of SNAP benefit food inclusion. Some small enforcement branch to make sure some kike retailer isn't labeling cigarettes as beans and rice.

The bureaucratic mindset is a cancer that chokes the life out of a nation and dehumanizes its citizens. They are like journalists and think they can engineer people's behaviors to suit some arbitrary set of political whims. Bureaucrats are subhuman monstrosities that deserve nothing but scorn and contempt.
 
Even convenience stores have good options hidden in corners. Like Milk and Bananas. Also, if there was actually a demand for things like Salads and wat not, they would absolutely sell it.
I'm not entirely sure if it's true or not, but I heard someone say that when it comes to grocery store layouts, the healthier foods are on the outer ring and corners of the store.

Fruit and vegetables, meats, dairy, breads and bakery items tend to be on the outer rims, while isles have things like processed cereals, kraft dinner, high-sodium condiments, soda and chips, and so on.
 
I have a long-standing joke/theory that Americanized Chinese food is as unhealthy as it is to make Americans fat and lazy.
What they actually eat looks nothing like the stuff we have.
Yeah, but as a person who eats at actual legitimate chinese food places, in heavily chinese areas, for nothing but FOBs as customers (there are places on the side streets in flushing, queens that don't even have english menus), I'd go so far to say that the normal Chinese diet isn't something that Americans are gonna go for.

Unless Chicken feet, jellied duck's blood, and crispy jellyfish suddenly become comfort food for some crazy reason.
 
Actual question, if inmigration causes crime, why are current studies skewed to say otherwise? Is it faulty methodology, or the statistics themselves are cooked?
Immigration? Which immigrants? They're not all the same.
If you are fat or you do feel like shit all the time, whatever you're doing wrong is probably so patently obvious that a child could work it out.
🤔🤔🤔 . . . :null:
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnitaSarsleezian
I used to process WIC customers when I worked at the supermarket. They actually did have to fuck around with a stamp book. The restrictions were utterly RETARDED because everyone and there molester uncle had their hand in the program. You can't buy REGULAR cheerios; you have to buy the WIC cheerios that are one ounce smaller and look almost identical.

It got to the point my manager had me close a register and walk the WIC women through the store, showing them what they could and could not buy.

Everyone thinks "restricting luxuries" will reform EBT. It won't. It will only cause more fucking problems.
WIC isn't like that anymore. It's on a card and you have x amount of ounces of 'healthy' cereals you're allotted a month. Kroger, haven't seen it at Wal-Mart, even has a tag on the shelves showing you what's allowed on WIC. If you're not going to send out big blocks of government cheese and shit like that, reforming SNAP along the lines of WIC would be a better model.
 
Easy solution, a very quick whitelist
That whitelist will be a battleground every fucking election, even among the same party. I had to force myself to eat more beans and less red meat, and I can honestly say, while healthy, beans are one of the least fucking satisfying things in the world you can eat.

And sure, let's break it down. What kind of beans are on the program? Uncooked? You think the people on EBT are going to learn to rinse their beans for 24 hours? No they're going to buy the bullshit Bush's "no sugar added" garbage that's pumped full of fucking sucralose. And if you ban the diet coke beans, they're going to be screaming.
 
Back