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:
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: the aging locust., Hassou Tobi, Based Downie and 145 others
Click to expand...
Oxyjen said:
Greenlanders! You can’t wait to be ruled by retarded kleptocrats and repopulated with pajeets, yes?

View attachment 7132136
Click to expand...
I think Trump doesn't want to actually buy that shithole, but he bullshitted about it and now has to put his money where his mouth is. The easiest way to fix this is to send the least appealing organism on the planet (indian, woman) and ask Greenlanders "Don't you want to be ruled by this?" They vote No, you keep your money.
 
  • Disagree
  • Lunacy
Reactions: AmateurComedicTaxidermist, The Womb Ripper and UnidentifiedFlyingOrchid
Dammit Mandrake! said:
View attachment 7129985
We must seize the lugenforume for the shitposters!!
Click to expand...

Suffer (more)!

Useful_Mistake said:
In your suggested example, they literally are an enemy. The State should not permit children mutilations. Anyone who advocates that the State has no role in this is an enemy, for they are advocating for the destruction of your civilization.
Click to expand...

The state should not, but the state should not bar people from saying that they're in favor of the state permitting child mutilations. The problem with your reasoning is that anyone could apply it to whatever they perceive as immoral or displeasing. A far-left person would likely state that "the state should not permit racist speech." Meanwhile I believe it's my inalienable right to call someone a nigger and I believe that advocating for the right of all men (including eurocucks though they stretch the definition of the word as much as the average pooner) to be free to do the same as well as advocating for the position that if more people were told to quit acting like niggers there would be far less of the behavior in the first place.

I don't believe that banning any kind of speech actually does anything to change people's minds. All it does is force it underground where it might fester and lead to reinforced beliefs. I believe that the most effective cure is rigorous public debate (more free speech) which forces people to confront ideas contrary to their own. It is our moral duty to tell people who want a kids drag show that they're exposing their children to molesters and rapists and that when their kid gets sexually assaulted we're going to suggest that the government charge them as an accessory to the crime for enabling it.

I forget who said it, but defending free speech does mean having to defend some of the most stupid, vile, or outright evil ideas and the people who espouse them. Of course no one can agree on just what those ideas are. I'm sure that we're both on someone's list of those people just for posting here.

ShitLurker said:
I have gone from "small goverment" to "goverment that supports my ideas" and I have stopped giving a shit about attempting to be neutral and above it. My moral opposites certainly don't care and I'm only weakening my position.
Click to expand...

I think that this is what most people tend to believe or act out in reality even if they're not as honest as you are to admit it. The problem is that if you create a government that enables this you will create a strong incentive for your enemies to seize control of the government and use the very laws you enacted to persecute you. Your system is great as long as your side is in power, but we've already seen what happens when they aren't. Almost all governments are too powerful and that attracts the worst sort of people to them. I want the government as weak as possible when it comes to infringing on individual liberties, even if that means allowing people to make some terrible choices.

Ultimately the problem with libertarianism is that you'll never convince a majority of the population to vote for or follow those principles. You have to accept that fact that at least 5% of the population would be incapable of surviving without a government teat and that unless they receive personal charity they will effectively die on the streets. There's also another 15% of the population that's mentally incapable of understanding these principles at all and will think free speech is good up until they disagree with it and are incapable of understanding that other people could similarly apply that logic to their own speech. Some people are incapable of the personal responsibility required to live in a society that affords them immense personal freedom. The problem is that the argument can always be made to curtail those freedoms just a bit more in order to "help" those poor people.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: CeleryBread, CEO of Gay, GunCar Gary and 5 others
LiquidKid said:
This was very clearly an intentional leak. It’s obvious both by what they talked about, how they talked about it, and who in particular got added to the group. There’s no way the person orchestrating it didn’t know the journalist was in there. You don’t accidentally add a journalist into a secret military briefing
Click to expand...
Obviously it was intentional. But why are they on a 3rd part site where something like this is possible to begin with?

all of these communications should be happening on a proprietary app so something like this physically can't happen. If some faggot is going to be sneaky and leak stuff to the media, make it so they have to actively send it to them so they can charge them with something instead of being able to just go "oops! Guess I added a media ghoul on accident."
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Fascist Kirk and Gog & Magog
(°▽°) said:
Disingenuous bleeding heart bullshit! Single mothers qualify for WIC
Click to expand...

Incomplete knowledge. It's available for a defined slice of caretakers (caretakers of kids up to 5 years old, not "single mothers")
WIC is available for income-eligible pregnant and postpartum women, breastfeeding moms, and children under five (up to their fifth birthday). Dads, grandparents, foster parents, and anyone raising kids under five can receive apply for support for the kids in their care.
Click to expand...
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Coo Coo Bird, spiritofamermaid and Gog & Magog
Just make it so you can't get SNAP or any benefits if you're fat. This will have two clear benefits.
1: Fatties will starve and become thin or die trying
2: The Fatties who don't want to starve will run to the arms of a loving man who gives them lots of food, and that's where Jersh comes in.

I really hope RFK can get Pharma ads banned. That shit is so fucking manipulative not only to viewers but it also manipulates the news. When was the last time you saw a report that honestly held big pharma to account? The scary fact is alot of those ads aren't even really for drugs, they're for drugs ON TOP of drugs already prescribed. Most of those "anti-depressants" aren't actually anti-depressants, they are shit to take alongside another drug. Like the equivalent of smoking weed to mellow yourself after doing coke, fucking lunacy. That's part of why they have so many insane side effects, because it's adding more meds on top of meds already being taken. Because if a drug isn't working JUST ADD MORE DRUGS WHAT COULD GO WRONG? That's actually what the infamous Unedited Footage Of A Bear short was about.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: think, scallion, Pope Urban and 15 others
Useful_Mistake said:
In your suggested example, they literally are an enemy. The State should not permit children mutilations. Anyone who advocates that the State has no role in this is an enemy, for they are advocating for the destruction of your civilization.
Click to expand...
Very true. Mutilating children is always wrong whether it by scalpel, sword, bullet, or Kh-101 cruise missile.
 
COME ON OUT YOU RAPIST said:
I think Trump doesn't want to actually buy that shithole, but he bullshitted about it and now has to put his money where his mouth is. The easiest way to fix this is to send the least appealing organism on the planet (indian, woman) and ask Greenlanders "Don't you want to be ruled by this?" They vote No, you keep your money.
Click to expand...

Trump wants Greenland because the assumption is the ice caps will melt and we will be able to ship straight across the pole.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: mandatorylurk, invisibult plus+, spiritofamermaid and 4 others
Friend of Dorothy Parker said:
Incomplete knowledge. It's available for a defined slice of caretakers (caretakers of kids up to 5 years old, not "single mothers")
Click to expand...
I'm replying to his whining about single mothers, not trying to describe the WIC program, thanks. Unless you think there are single mothers who are starving in America because they don't have food (I do not), it's beside the point.

Fair enough, though, you're right that not all single mothers are automatically eligible for the entire childhood of their children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back