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:
It's a little more eggheaded than that, but your description does accurately convey how the scale of death is higher with agrarian communists. The Khmer Rouge were another example of agrarian communism in action.

Most modern communists in the US are Maoist bordering on juche (North Korea), which is why they're scarier than your average Marxist-Leninist or Stalinist.
The Khmer Rouge also had some weird cultural philosophy angles to it, and genocide was seen as a key part of enacting the cultural renewal that Pol Pot was seeking to bring about. Almost like a scarier hybrid of Nazis and commies.
 
Any means necessary to deport potential terrorists is a good means to deport potential terrorists
I think the question is: what constitutes anti semitism? Is it just criticizing a country or outright calling for the countries and ethnicities extinction? Could be a slippery slope if it's not outright defined.

Edit: it seems like it is defined as even criticism is labeled anti semetic.
 
It's so weird how many boomers and silent gen relics would be perfectly fine with a hot war with China involving mass death and potentially nuclear annihilation but think a bloodless trade war is unthinkable, it makes zero sense.
They were told war make line go up with only 1 datapoint of WWII. They also ignored that things got better after WWII because the crippled crypto-commie FDR croaked and many (but not all unfortunately) of his terrible policies were removed.
 
View attachment 7202001
Pedo Biden is a nice touch.
THe random shot at 0:39 of him just flying in some weird steampunk ghibli thing makes this. It's the only part that doesn't reference any kind of political event or trump thing, it's just "trump but in ghibli". The moment where the gag kind of breaks the fourth wall and is shamelessly upfront.

I don't know the exact term for that exact comedic technique but i see it in a lot of things and it always cracks me up.
 
View attachment 7202372
Zion Don at it again. You can hate Whit people Christians even America itself and that will not disqualify you from citzenship meanwhile being "antisemitic" will.

Also They adopted IHRA Definition of antisemitism which makes the most benign criticisms of Jews and Israel equate to antisemitism.
I think it’s actually a great filter/excuse to get rid of migrants and to stop migration. Yeah I’d rather it be hatred of the majority population that lives here but as long as it keeps them out or kicks them out, I find it acceptable.
 
The quote from Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani (a member of Iran's parliament) is sourced from this Iranian news site article. It is in Persian. Here is a translation from Google Chrome:

I feel that Iran has obtained a nuclear bomb | Kharazi's words are an introduction to the announcement of reaching a nuclear weapon | China and Russia should vote in our favor in the Security Council

Ahmad Wardesh Ardestani, representative of the ninth and twelfth assemblies, in analyzing the recent talks of Kamal Kharrazi to the۲ event, says Iran has a nuclear bomb. He believes Iran's attack on Israel was due to having a nuclear bomb and thinks China and Russia will support a nuclear Iran.

Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, said yesterday that Iran has the ability to build a nuclear bomb, but «if we are forced to change our nuclear doctrine.» These words drew criticism and, of course, widespread reflections. Ahmad Wardeshi Ardestani, a faculty member at Imam Sadiq University, representative of the ninth and twelfth periods of parliament and a former member of the National Security Commission, says in this regard to the۲ event: Regardless of Mr. Kharrazi's analysis, I feel that when Iran threatened U.S. positions in Iraq and attacked with ۱٫ missiles, and when Iran sent ۳۰ missiles to Israel kurd Usually, in political culture, it is understood that it has a power in its calculations.

Read the most important parts of this conversation

Iran seems to have acquired a nuclear weapon that has been able to invade Israel with this confidence and before that invade the US base in Ain al-Assad.

* I think we have reached a nuclear weapon, but we do not declare. That is, our policy of action is to have a nuclear bomb, but our policy of declaration is currently to move within the framework of the JCPOA policies. That's why when countries want to confront, they have to be the same, Iran's alignment with the United States and Israel means that Iran has to have a nuclear.

*When Iran invaded Israel, it was hitting the United States because it is complementary to Israel, the United States, Britain and France, and the United States itself has a nuclear bomb, and Iran usually does not need to water it if it does not have a nuclear bomb, because it is possible that if war breaks out, the other side will use a nuclear bomb.

There is no need for the Agency to be announced that we have a nuclear bomb, some places Iran has said sentences and then the Agency has noticed this and sometimes Iran itself declares to have a visiting agency. In a space where Russia has attacked Ukraine and Israel in Gaza and Iran is a staunch supporter of the resistance front, it is natural that the deterrence system demands that Iran have a nuclear bomb, but now that Iran declares it is another debate.

*The Agency quickly declares if it knows Iran has a nuclear bomb, but states its limits on Iran's progress that it will take time to approach a nuclear bomb and, if it wishes to build a nuclear bomb, it will take two months, for example.

*I feel for Bob Iran's treatment of the US and Israel has achieved a nuclear bomb, but does not state. Will IAEA inspectors be taken to the point where Iran is building a nuclear bomb? Iran is a large country and ۱ million and ۶۴ thousand square kilometers; do we take the agency to where it is being built؟ No I tell the agency to visit such centres or the agency itself announces which centres it wants to visit.

I'm making these remarks now as an expert and analyst, and I still don't have the official position of the representative to inspect the sites for my words. As an analyst, I present this analysis, given Iran's behavior in aggressive realism, which says that Iran can sleep at night in comfort to have a nuclear bomb, because Iran's rival, Israel, has a nuclear bomb.

*If one day Iran will not have a nuclear bomb, it means that its rival, Israel, should not have either.

*The leadership's philosophy about the banning of a nuclear bomb is activism, that is, we are not moving towards this at the beginning, meaning that we have no place for a nuclear bomb in our defense policies, but sometimes you are forced and passively from a state of action. Indeed, the leadership fatwa includes Iranian activism, but when your rival in the region has a nuclear bomb and is always harassing you, we are turning from a state of action to a reaction. Iran’s reaction to the nuclear issue means having it, that is, we want to sleep easily.

Iran should have a backing in the recent attack on Israel, because Israel has a nuclear bomb, we should have a nuclear bomb that we want to drop ۳۰ bombs on them.

*The United States and Israel know that Iran is close to building a nuclear bomb, but they may not know that it has developed a nuclear bomb, but they know that Iran is capable of it, so they are constantly pressuring Iran and sending IAEA inspectors to Iran, but again, this does not mean that Iran is providing all its sites to inspectors.

*That some people, including Mr. Kharrazi, speak of the possibility of changing the nuclear doctrine is the prelude to the announcement of reaching a nuclear bomb, in fact we want to announce that we have arrived slowly and we do not want to declare at once and frighten the world.


Read more: Kharrazi: We have the capacity to produce a bomb, but we do not decide | if Iran's existence is threatened, we will have to change our nuclear doctrine



We don't want to scare Russia and China. However, if Russia is our strategic ally, if it realizes that we have a nuclear weapon, it should use its veto in the Security Council to our advantage, but I don't think Russia is interested in us having nuclear weapons. Iran is slowly making preparations for the announcement of a nuclear bomb.

*I don't think this has much of an impact for us in the international community, Iran is popular in the region and in the world after the attack on Israel. After the war in Gaza, Iran raises a head and neck, and I think Iran will resolve its issues with the United States, and their relationship will become not strategic but formal.

*After the announcement of reaching a nuclear bomb, whether sanctions against us increase or not I have to say that we have seen all kinds of sanctions. That is, a fuss is being made against us, but that fuss will be no more than an Iranian attack on Israel. I hope that if Iran has obtained a nuclear weapon and the Security Council wants to have a resolution against Iran, the Russians will this time, unlike، ۱۸ AND ۱۸۲۲ and, contrary to all their past policies, use their veto power in favor of Iran. Now that we have a ۲۰-year contract with the Russians and ۲-year-old to the Chinese, they also support us here so that we will not be condemned.

*But I believe Iran's nuclear status is being slowly accepted. When you enter the nuclear club, they have to accept you. This same deterrence will make the world understand to observe Iran's contribution. Now the collective wisdom in the US realized that they could not ignore Iran.

In the article Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani is making a conjecture that Iran has a nuclear weapon, because Iran attacked Israel and it would be foolish to attack Israel without having nuclear weapons. He is not saying he is certain Iran has nuclear weapons.

This other Iranian news article (archive) [in english] explains more of the context at that time. It includes this text: Moreover, he drew attention to remarks by Kamal Kharrazi, senior foreign policy advisor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Thursday, who said that Tehran will change its nuclear doctrine if Israel attacks its atomic facilities.

The Iranian parliament member doesn't know for sure.

The United States Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard stated in the report: We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so. In the past year, there has been an erosion of a decades-long taboo on discussing nuclear weapons in public that has emboldened nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decisionmaking apparatus. Khamenei remains the final decisionmaker over Iran’s nuclear program, to include any decision to develop nuclear weapons.

You can choose to believe the assessment of Trump's choice for DNI or some Iranian parliament member's guesse.
 
Last edited:
They were told war make line go up with only 1 datapoint of WWII. They also ignored that things got better after WWII because the crippled crypto-commie FDR croaked and many (but not all unfortunately) of his terrible policies were removed.
And a lot of Europe was destroyed due to the fucking war that just happened.
 
The Khmer Rouge also had some weird cultural philosophy angles to it, and genocide was seen as a key part of enacting the cultural renewal that Pol Pot was seeking to bring about. Almost like a scarier hybrid of Nazis and commies.
But the victims were not from the tiny hat tribe, so this genocide is not brought up ad nauseam.
 
The Maoists used their revolution as a way to exact revenge against the upper classes in China by murdering as many as possible, where the Soviets got their class vengeance by enslaving the upper classes with less outright murder.
The class enemies the Bolsheviks really hated was the rising middle class and landowning peasants, whom they murdered in huge numbers.
 
The Khmer Rouge also had some weird cultural philosophy angles to it, and genocide was seen as a key part of enacting the cultural renewal that Pol Pot was seeking to bring about. Almost like a scarier hybrid of Nazis and commies.
Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge are what happens when intellectuals go unchecked. At least Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao sorta cared what poor people thought. Pol Pot just killed everyone who disagreed with him. It was fucking weird as shit.
You can choose to believe the assessment of Trump's choice for DNI or some Iranian parliament member's guise.
When someone tells you what they're doing, you should believe them.
 
I think the question is: what constitutes anti semitism? Is it just criticizing a country or outright calling for the countries and ethnicities extinction? Could be a slippery slope if it's not outright defined.

Edit: it seems like it is defined as even criticism is labeled anti semetic.
I really don’t care about that, because if you’re not a citizen you should shut the fuck up about politics while you’re in my country.

We’re so culturally fucked up we can’t even bring ourselves to be offended when guests are impolite.

Immigration should be a high standard. It being a super low fucking standard is why we have illegals speaking at rallies and protests bragging about how their illegal ass ain’t takin no shit from YT
 
I told her "no, a guy actually died, it was real." My sister's reaction was "oh... well it's all bullshit anyway."
I feel like i tend to be obnoxiously optimistic sometimes, but I really feel like this is exactly what a dying zeitgeist sounds like.

I've been seeing it all over the place, from my friends, online interactions, just certain "vibe shifts" that I can't really put into words but you can feel it in the air, like something my monkey brain is picking up on. It reminds me so much of the last days of the bush right's post 9/11 patriotism, the tea party, the atheist movement, even smaller things like sports teams losing their momentum and musical genres dying (currently it's happening big time with rap dying).

That interaction with your sister
>Make claim
>Debunked
>Appeal to nihilism

Always happens when people start to realize that deep down, they know they're wrong and were manipulated and lied to. They start to realize they didn't think all this through, they just saw people screaming, got scared, and formed a worldview. It's kind of sad to see honestly.
 
I'm starting to suspect that Trump doesn't actually have a plan besides manipulating the market every couple of weeks for the next four years.

The plan for decades was to use the threat of economy-crippling tariffs against countries who depend on trade with us to eat and have heat in the winter to get them to lower the unfair trade barriers they've erected against our companies. It is not a hard concept. Yet, somehow, if it causes the stock market to burp for 24 hours, OH MY GAWD WE'RE ALL GONNA DIEEEE BLUUUMPF YOU MOROOOOON.
 
It's a little more eggheaded than that, but your description does accurately convey how the scale of death is higher with agrarian communists. The Khmer Rouge were another example of agrarian communism in action.

Most modern communists in the US are Maoist bordering on juche (North Korea), which is why they're scarier than your average Marxist-Leninist or Stalinist.

Edit for specificity, in case anyone cares: in Soviet (Marxist-Leninist) communism, which was more urban and industrial, the idea was that you needed a combined effort of different groups who agree on the same set of ideas and goals. Mao thought the true revolutionaries were the rural peasants while Marx and the Russians thought it was the urban poor who would bring about global communism. Soviet- and European-style communism believed that you need an ideological vanguard, a Popular Front (a coalition or, in the case of weirder stuff like juche, a nigh-priestly caste), to keep everything in order. In Maoism, which was more rural and agrarian, the idea was that revolutionary activity was primary and everything else was secondary. In short: you do the revolution first and then figure out what it all means and what it's all for. Popular fronts and coalitions are seen as a hindrance: direct action is necessary, planning too much wastes time. That's why Maoists are so much more violent.
I don’t have the paper with me but I remember reading about how essentially the maoists betrayed the peasants and ultimately served the interests of the cities. And that this frequently occurs with communist revolutions betraying the initial rebels in favor of low ranking bureaucrats and politicians. Essentially they used them and afterwards were afraid of them overthrowing them afterwards, so fucked them up with famine.

I found some cope: “Trump is dropping oil prices and tariffs are so bad they’re accidentally destroying Russia, his ally.”

If Biden actually cared to end the war in favor of Ukraine he would’ve dropped oil prices too because it would’ve hurt Russias ability to fund the war. But imo the majority of the establishment wanted to make money off it, considering how little aid made it to Ukraine. (And Ukrainians being Slavs I imagine a good chunk of the aid they did receive was misappropriated too).
 
I don’t have the paper with me but I remember reading about how essentially the maoists betrayed the peasants and ultimately served the interests of the cities. And that this frequently occurs with communist revolutions betraying the initial rebels in favor of low ranking bureaucrats and politicians. Essentially they used them and afterwards were afraid of them overthrowing them afterwards, so fucked them up with famine.
Communism always reverts to oligarchy. Also, Mao didn't really betray the peasants because they accomplished the revolution, you see. There's no Popular Front that was betrayed, no ideology and thus no hypocrisy. Funny how that happens. Tee hee!

:tomgirl:
 
I think the question is: what constitutes anti semitism? Is it just criticizing a country or outright calling for the countries and ethnicities extinction? Could be a slippery slope if it's not outright defined.

Edit: it seems like it is defined as even criticism is labeled anti semetic.
Criticism of Israel is decent enough for casual antisemitism, but if they want to stay in our country we're gonna need to hear some hardcore virulent antisemitism. I want to see some screeds and diatribes, not plain ol' "hurr durr free Palestine".
 
View attachment 7202372
Zion Don at it again. You can hate Whit people Christians even America itself and that will not disqualify you from citzenship meanwhile being "antisemitic" will.

Also They adopted IHRA Definition of antisemitism which makes the most benign criticisms of Jews and Israel equate to antisemitism.
Zionism truly knows no bounds (he spies Martian facebook to protect the chosen people)
 
  • Informative
Reactions: IAmNotAlpharius
The plan for decades was to use the threat of economy-crippling tariffs against countries who depend on trade with us to eat and have heat in the winter to get them to lower the unfair trade barriers they've erected against our companies. It is not a hard concept. Yet, somehow, if it causes the stock market to burp for 24 hours, OH MY GAWD WE'RE ALL GONNA DIEEEE BLUUUMPF YOU MOROOOOON.
What trade barriers? Can you give any examples?
 
Back