US US Politics General 2 - Discussion of President Trump and other politicians

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
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'm intrigued by the Sunday talks and stances of US/IR coming into them

Iran: wants to have a nuclear program for "civilian purposes"


After Witkoff's comments over the weekend that the US will not allow uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, Iranian FM Araqchi said this evening that, "If the goal of the negotiations is to deprive Iran of its nuclear rights or to make other unreasonable demands, Iran will under no circumstances give up. Iran insists on its right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, including uranium enrichment."

US: Will allow this but requires full denuclearization, oversight, and enrichment not on IR soil

Trump administration envoy Steve Witkoff, in a significant statement ahead of the round of nuclear talks with Iran on Sunday, said, “We must dismantle the three uranium enrichment facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The uranium enrichment program in Iran can no longer exist. They can't have centrifuges. That's our red line - no enrichment! We will not accept a bad deal with Iran. We will withdraw if we feel the agreement is not strong. If we think the talks on Sunday will not be productive, we will choose a different path.
 
The problem is, they aren't just "asking for your ID" like a bouncer, they're storing your ID. They will then associate everything on your account with you personally and when that data is leaked, the company may have to pay a fine but so what, the damage is going to go well beyond that. As nice as it is to say "Well they shouldn't be looking at that stuff," that boils down to the same argument of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear." Which doesn't hold up.
again you can avoid this by not watching porn this is like getting mad at someone looking at your ID to buy cigarettes when nobody is making you buy cigarettes
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Sneedifarms
I am amused to no end watching people on a website dedicated to free, open, and unrestricted speech, art and criticism, which has a storied history of being persecuted by both government and private entities, and a vast distaste for government regulation, advocate vehemently for the government to start figuring out how to craft and implement the machinery to segregate the internet into silos and setup checkpoints where you have to show your papers to move around.
 
I am amused to no end watching people on a website dedicated to free, open, and unrestricted speech, art and criticism, which has a storied history of being persecuted by both government and private entities, and a vast distaste for government regulation, advocate vehemently for the government to start figuring out how to craft and implement the machinery to segregate the internet and setup checkpoints where you have to show your papers.
Not really surprised. It's also full of people who scream about "the slippery slope of gay marriage lead to your kids trooning out" but scream about how the slippery slope is a fallacy when it comes to the government stripping away your rights.
yeah i do actually
If you think that, than you're a retard.
 
Bongs never had a First Amendment, so it's apples to oranges. The First Amendment doesn't protect obscenity and it never has. These morons are just angry they won't be able to jerk off anymore without the state making sure they aren't underage.
The first amendment either protects all free speech or it really protects no free speech, it's that simple. "But nuh uh you can't threaten people!" You should be able to and the person you threaten should be within their rights to respond with equal or greater force in turn based on perceived danger.

But this isn't about what the bongs have vs what we have, it's about having enough brain cells to realize we aren't fighting something that will forever remain divided by borders. The globalist goal is a one world empire where they exert control. They have already tightened their grip on Europe, canada and Australia, and those people have themselves getting thrown into fucking prison and had the internet weaponized against them for wrongthink and wrongspeech. It's not just a "uwu bongs never had our super special constitution!" issue, it's a "the powers that be are inching toward their global new world order and this is one more thing they will have at their disposal for it."

Stop ceding freedoms based on your retarded coom based principles. Unless you're willing to literally go to war and shoot and kill and die over *checks notes* gooners getting on porn, stop advocating for shit that will just give the globalist faggots more power over all of us.
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Nope don't see a single line like "except for when sex or nudity is being discussed or depicted". The argument in support of obscenity laws being constitutional is solely that the founding fathers never would have classified obscenity as speech. Frankly I don't believe judges can talk to the dead and the founding fathers disagreed about a lot of things. Frankly I doubt Franklin or Jefferson would have agreed they were both perverts.
 
If you think that, than you're a retard.
there are a lot of reasonable regulations that have stopped where they should have stopped so i don't see why it wouldn't be the case here. if anything i think platforms requiring ID would be less of a legal thing and more of a thing they just do because they can get away with it
 
Except that's not what the Supreme Court has said over and over. Obscenity is not protected. Calling Obama a nigger on Kiwi Farms is.
Threatening someone was originally covered, under the first amendment after it was written I could tell you I intend to fucking murder you at 4210 wolfetown rd tomorrow and it wouldn't have been illegal and would have been up to you to respond.

Then the law was tightened and that was made illegal.

It used to be legal to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded building, try that shit today and see what happens.

Etc.

The point is that you are an actual retard if you think they wouldn't eventually do the EXACT SAME SHIT they did in bongland, and then retards like you would be gobsmacked and shouting MUH FIRST AMENDMENT while the witless cattle masses went along with it because it was dressed up once more as "protect the kids".

Fucking. Retards.
 
Except that's not what the Supreme Court has said over and over. Obscenity is not protected. Calling Obama a nigger on Kiwi Farms is.
There are plenty of time that SCOTUS has missed the mark.
It used to be legal to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded building, try that shit today and see what happens.
Fun fact: that quote comes from the case of Schenck v. United States involving a man protesting the military draft.
 
I am amused to no end watching people on a website dedicated to free, open, and unrestricted speech, art and criticism, which has a storied history of being persecuted by both government and private entities, and a vast distaste for government regulation, advocate vehemently for the government to start figuring out how to craft and implement the machinery to segregate the internet into silos and setup checkpoints where you have to show your papers to move around.
I'm amazed that the iconic logic of "am I gonna need a license for my damn toaster!" is playing out in real time over children being restricted from porn.

The idea that requiring an ID to access porn will 100% for certain lead to the entire internet requiring an ID just to shitpost seems like such a massive stretch. Besides, it's up the the people to make sure such a law wouldn't grow out of control to become unconstitutional like that. That's how this country is supposed to work believe it or not, we're not supposed to do nothing and accept our fate in a dystopian hell hole of a future for the sake of degenerates and junkies having the freedom to ruin their lives and everyone else's lives too.
 
Threatening someone was originally covered, under the first amendment after it was written I could tell you I intend to fucking murder you at 4210 wolfetown rd tomorrow and it wouldn't have been illegal and would have been up to you to respond.

Then the law was tightened and that was made illegal.

It used to be legal to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded building, try that shit today and see what happens.

Etc.

The point is that you are an actual retard if you think they wouldn't eventually do the EXACT SAME SHIT they did in bongland, and then retards like you would be gobsmacked and shouting MUH FIRST AMENDMENT while the witless cattle masses went along with it because it was dressed up once more as "protect the kids".

Fucking. Retards.
I'm sorry you might not be able to use porn sites so easily anymore. Maybe you'll go outside. Maybe not, who knows? Either way, I don't think porn sites requiring ID will lead to censorship of Kiwi Farms because obscene material is already not allowed and, thus, the website isn't affected.

You fucking retarded nigger.
 
Porn is not protected by the First Amendment.
Yes it is. See Miller v. California (1973). They've been shifty and vague about how they define "obscenity" in the intervening half-century (to the annoyance of many), but generally speaking they've held that pornography is in fact protected speech.

ETA: Oh and as for requiring ID to access adult sites: 1) it won't work anyway, 2) nobody will do it correctly (see #1), 3) it won't solve the alleged problem, 4) it's a slippery slope to easy government access to identity in online interactions, which is unconstitutional (anonymity is protected in the Amendments too). Waste of money. Moralfags suck my cock and go find another grift.
 
I'm amazed that the iconic logic of "am I gonna need a license for my damn toaster!" is playing out in real time.

The idea that requiring an ID to access porn will 100% for certain lead to the entire internet requiring an ID just to shitpost seems like such a massive stretch. Besides, it's up the the people to make sure such a law wouldn't grow out of control to become unconstitutional like that. That's how this country is supposed to work believe it or not, we're not supposed to do nothing and accept our fate in a dystopian hell hole of a future for the sake of degenerates and junkies having the freedom to ruin their lives and everyone else's lives too.
The Left has multiple has multiple times pushed the idea that you should not be able to express your opinion anonymously on the internet slopes are slippery when people want them to be slippery
 
Back