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:
TikTok influencer (Username is Your Favorite Corporate Auntie. 116,000 followers) issues direct threat to the 59 white refugees, says that black people will be hunting them down
59 people escape niggers who want them dead and are greeted with…niggers who want them dead. Not persecuted though!
 
Last edited:
Imagine getting jeeted that hard in front of all your super important frenemies

@WelperHelper99 Saudis make sense, but qatar has me scratching my chin. They’re the Muslim brotherhood headquarters and where Hamas leadership lives. The CIA is balls deep in Qatar.

Something has to be happening under the surface.
Qatar is still US aligned. Have been for a long time. And they're very rich. I imagine he wants it to stay that way and keep radical elements suppressed. He genuinely wants peace. That sometimes means making compromises.
 
The Saudis and the states around them recognize and respect power. Trump is powerful yet has restraint. He wants to make deals, not conquer. They can work with that. They can learn to love it.

People really need to remember this bit. Not everyone is some fat Ameri-cunt who was brought up on Western values and it's moral system.

The ragheads don't really give a shit about Christian morals as they are not Christian and expecting them to react as such is moronic. Ditto goes for the niggers in Africa who are barely out of the stone age and still in a tribal mindset.

These people respect and understand strength and displays of power and Trump does as well. With ragheads and nigger you need the big stick because that's what they value and understand, trying to reason with them so "everyone just gets along" is fucking stupid and always fails.
 
C.I.A. Fires Top Doctor Targeted by Far-Right Activist
The New York Times (archive.ph)
By Julian E. Barnes
2025-05-03 01:36:33GMT
Judge Allows CIA to Fire Doctor Who Helped Enforce Military COVID-19 Mandate
The Epoch Times (archive.ph)
By Tom Ozimek
2025-05-11 23:08:08GMT
A federal judge has denied an emergency bid by Dr. Terry Adirim to halt her dismissal from the CIA, rejecting her claims that political activists orchestrated her firing in retaliation for her role in enforcing the military’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

In a ruling issued on May 9, U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff found that Adirim had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim that the CIA violated her constitutional rights. The decision clears the way for the agency to proceed with terminating Adirim’s employment under a contract provision allowing dismissal with 30 days’ notice.

Adirim, a former senior Defense Department official who served as the CIA’s director of global health services, alleged in court filings that she became the target of a politically motivated campaign led by activist Ivan Raiklin. She claimed in her lawsuit that Raiklin defamed her as a traitor and “architect” of the Pentagon’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate and that he enlisted fellow activist Laura Loomer to persuade President Donald Trump to intervene with the CIA to have her fired.

Her lawsuit named the CIA, Raiklin, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and the conservative nonprofit America’s Future as defendants. It alleged due process violations, defamation, breach of contract, and a Privacy Act violation stemming from alleged leaks about her dismissal to Breitbart News.

In a 25-page opposition brief filed on May 6, Justice Department attorneys called Adirim’s theory “speculative and unsupported,” arguing that her theory relied on loosely drawn connections and unsubstantiated assumptions about political influence.

“Plaintiff pinpoints the blame not on the CIA, but on a non-governmental actor, Ivan Raiklin, whom she accuses of orchestrating her termination through a scheme of defamation and political influence,” the attorneys wrote. “Besides being farfetched—and untrue—Plaintiff’s allegations do not actually amount to any viable claim against the Federal Defendants, let alone any claim that merits an injunction.”

The Department of Justice acknowledged Adirim’s name appeared on Raiklin’s so-called Deep State Target List but said this had no bearing on the CIA’s decision.

“There is no reason other than the close timing of Ms. Loomer’s White House visit and the CIA’s communication of its termination decision to Plaintiff to suggest the two are linked,” the filing reads.

The CIA maintained that Adirim wasn’t terminated over politics but because of “multiple complaints” from CIA staff about her “inappropriate and harassing” conduct in the workplace.

According to a declaration from the agency’s deputy chief operating officer, senior leadership initiated a review of Adirim’s behavior weeks before Loomer’s reported White House visit and made the decision to terminate her independently.

The political and legal controversy surrounding the military’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate intensified just days before the court’s ruling. On May 7, the Pentagon issued sweeping new guidance acknowledging that the mandate had been “an unfair, overbroad, and completely unnecessary burden” on servicemembers. The memo directed military review boards to reinstate troops discharged over the mandate and remove related disciplinary records, declaring that the lack of due process in enforcing vaccine compliance was itself “an injustice.”

Adirim, who had signed key policy documents enabling the Pentagon’s mandate while serving as acting assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, became a focal point in that broader political reckoning—even as the CIA maintained her dismissal was unrelated.

In her complaint, Adirim contended that being fired just weeks before qualifying for federal retirement amounted to irreparable harm, that she had been defamed after decades of public service, and that her family had been endangered.

The CIA said the decision was internal, lawful, and based on employee complaints rather than political pressure.

In response to the May 9 ruling, Adirim’s attorney Kevin Carroll told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement, “We respect the court’s decision and look forward to litigating the underlying issues.”

The case remains active in federal court but, without the injunction she had sought, Adirim’s termination is now set to proceed as planned.

Raiklin, in a post on social media platform X, hailed the decision: “Terry Adirim, you’re fired!!! Your lawyer is next.”
 
I didn't know NDS was even a thing. TDS is so pervasive, it makes NDS look nonexistent (at least to me).
Because you grew up in a culture so pervaded with it that you probably took it for granted as just normal history. Did you know that Nixon:
- Nearly won with a unanimous electoral college victory (FLAWLESS VICTORY)
- Created the EPA
- Pushed Affirmative Action
- Gave the Indians their reservations back after FDR stole even that
- Ended Vietnam
- Did nothing that no other President since or BEFORE (JFK) didn’t do with illegal political espionage

If you’re the average American, you know none of these things and probably had an impression of him as being purely bad, purely defined by his Watergate scandal (only big because it was the first such, small potatoes compared to Obama shenanigans), far more Right wing than he was, and widely hated instead of widely loved. Because if I turn on a movie or TV show, especially a Groening one like Simpsons or Futurama, that’s all I’ll hear is the same Nixon jokes over and over.

He was hated by the same kinds of faggots that hate Trump, and sadly, unless there’s a giant war or revolution or something, Trump will go down the same way; people that were alive and paying attention at the time will remember how he was slandered, but future generations will having nothing to go off but the spin.
 
Imagine getting jeeted that hard in front of all your super important frenemies

@WelperHelper99 Saudis make sense, but qatar has me scratching my chin. They’re the Muslim brotherhood headquarters and where Hamas leadership lives. The CIA is balls deep in Qatar.

Something has to be happening under the surface.

Qatar is a gas station with the largest US military base in the region setting aside Israel.

They pretty much need the US military subsidies.
 
I'm not particularly educated on middle east politics but one thing to keep in mind is this:

The Qatar diplomatic crisis was a high-profile deterioration of relations between Qatar and the Arab League between 2017 and 2021. It began when Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt simultaneously severed their bilateral relations with Qatar and subsequently banned Qatar-registered aircraft and Qatari ships from utilizing their sovereign territory by air, land, and sea; this involved the Saudis' closure of Qatar's only land crossing, initiating a de facto blockade of the country. The crisis was brought to an end in January 2021, following an agreement between the Saudis and the Qataris.
-
United States President Donald Trump claimed credit for engineering the diplomatic crisis in a series of tweets.[80] On 6 June, Trump began by tweeting: "During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar – look!"[81][80] An hour and a half later, he remarked on Twitter that it was "good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would take a hard line on funding extremism, and all references [sic] were pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!"[82][83][84] This was in contrast to attempts by the Pentagon and the Department of State to remain neutral. The Pentagon praised Qatar for hosting the Al Udeid Air Base and for its "enduring commitment to regional security." US Ambassador to Qatar, Dana Shell Smith, sent a similar message.[85][86] Earlier, the US Secretary of State had taken a neutral stance and called for dialogue.[87] On the same day, Trump also had a phone call with Saudi King Salman and rejected a Saudi proposal to invade Qatar. Instead, the United States requested Kuwaiti mediation with the goal of resolving the conflict.[88]
It's really good that relations are now good. It means that Trump feels satisfied they are not funding terror at this point and it means Qatar isn't holding a grudge over it. The plane is a useful and meaningful and historic gift with all the value that comes along with that. It is appropriate for our nation to accept it and have our President travel the world in pursuit of peace in a plane highly symbolic of international peace and cooperation because it is a literal product of it. Let's display a national sense of tact and humility and be grateful for it.
 
Qatar is a gas station with the largest US military base in the region setting aside Israel.

They pretty much need the US military subsidies.

I think you need to do a little more research there bro. Qatar is the richest country in the world by far thanks to sitting on some of the largest, highest quality and easiest to access oil in the world.

They don't need no US dollars coming in. They play nice with the US because the US protects them from other nations who see such a small but super wealthy country as easy pickings.
 
Scoop: Trump impeachment called "idiotic" in House Dem meeting
Axios (archive.ph)
By Andrew Solender
2025-05-14 15:18:16GMT
A rogue Trump impeachment push was criticized as "idiotic" and "horrible" in a closed-door House Democratic meeting Wednesday, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: The comments from Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) were met with applause from lawmakers and backed up by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), according to six sources familiar with the matter.
  • Nadler, the former top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, called Rep. Shri Thanedar's (D-Mich.) efforts "idiotic" and urged Democrats to vote for a Republican motion to kill his articles of impeachment.
  • House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) said at the meeting that Democratic leadership will vote for the GOP motion.
State of play: The House is set to vote Wednesday evening on Republicans' motion to "table" Thanedar's seven articles of impeachment — which accuse the president of corruption, abuse of power and "tyranny."
  • Thanedar has ruffled feathers with his impeachment efforts, which many lawmakers believe is tied to his contested Democratic primary — a suggestion he denies.
  • Nadler was among the four lawmakers who were briefly listed as co-sponsors on the measure before withdrawing.
  • Sources previously told Axios that Thanedar wrongly led colleagues to believe leadership was supporting his efforts and added them as co-sponsors without notifying their staffs.
What we're hearing: Nadler argued that all Democrats should vote to table the articles of impeachment, according to multiple lawmakers and aides who were in the room.
  • He said that unity against the measure would help protect House Democrats who are politically vulnerable — either to primary challengers who say they need to do more to fight Trump, or general election opponents who would use a vote for impeachment against them.
  • "People's sense is that it's a total distraction and waste of time given [that there is] no path to victory," a senior House Democrat who was in the room told Axios.

The other side: Thanedar said in a statement to Axios, "I'm pursuing impeachment because the president has committed clear, impeachable crimes."
  • "I've heard from my constituents and people around the nation that they want this President held accountable and that's what I am doing," he added.
Zoom in: Pelosi, who as speaker oversaw Democrats' two impeachments against President Trump in his first term, echoed Nadler's criticism but did not explicitly urge Democrats to vote to table, sources said.
  • She said that, in the past, the party has always adopted a measured strategy when it comes to impeachment in order to avoid the appearance it being a purely political.
Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional reporting.
Should Gov. Pritzker seek a third term if he wants to be president?
Chicago Sun-Times (archive.ph)
By Dave McKinney
2025-05-13 17:53:57GMT
As he hedges about his future, Gov. JB Pritzker appears to be leaning toward a third-term run next year, but it’s a decision that could have an impact on any potential 2028 White House bid of his.

The governor is indisputably the most significant political domino left standing in Illinois, with the Chicago Democrat’s next move representing the most compelling, unresolved electoral storyline left now that Democratic five-term U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin has announced his retirement.

Even though Pritzker has not said so publicly, many in Springfield have said the governor will announce for reelection some time after state lawmakers are scheduled to finish their spring session later this month.

“I can only go on what I see, and what I see is someone who’s had a very successful two terms as governor and appears to look like he still enjoys the job,” Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch, D-Hillside, told WBEZ. “So when you’re passionate about something and enjoy something, you typically continue to do it. So my sense, just from observing him, is that he’s going to run for reelection as governor of Illinois.”

But is that what Pritzker should do if he’s remotely interested in testing the presidential waters 30 months from now and succeeding Republican President Donald Trump?

David Axelrod, former chief strategist and senior adviser to President Barack Obama in his winning 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, said if Pritzker harbors White House ambitions, he ought to think hard about leaving Springfield after two terms because of the political volatility that being governor can bring.

“Third terms are notoriously perilous, and things that can go wrong tend to go wrong in third terms,” Axelrod said. “If your attention is divided between running for president, which is a hellacious job in itself, and … dealing with crises at home, that is a very difficult balance to strike.

“I honestly think time may be better spent for him, if he wants to run for president, traveling the country and interacting with people and not just speaking, but listening. It would enrich him as a candidate and give him a head start. So you have to balance the risks and rewards of each decision. And in my view, the risks of running again [for governor] are greater than the possible rewards,” said Axelrod, a CNN commentator and host of the political podcast “The Axe Files.”

Pritzker’s cat-and-mouse game on his plans​

When Pritzker’s existing term ends in January 2027, he’ll have become the longest-serving Democratic governor in state history. Should he win and complete a full third term, he’d then be within two years of tying the record as the longest-tenured Illinois governor from either party.

On the flip side, if Pritzker relinquishes the state Executive Mansion to focus on a run for president, it would set up a historic political dynamic in Illinois. For only the second time in at least 86 years, voters would be tasked with filling vacant seats for governor and U.S. senator at the same time.

Pritzker waited until July 2021 to announce he’d be seeking a second term, and an announcement on a third term figures to follow a similar, summertime timeline.

With petition-circulating for the 2026 primary set to begin in early August, Pritzker’s campaign shed little light on the governor’s reelection thought process other than to state the obvious — that an announcement would be forthcoming.

“From nine credit upgrades to a historic plan to rebuild roads and bridges, raising the minimum wage and protecting rights, Gov. Pritzker has a long track record delivering for the people of Illinois,” Pritzker campaign spokeswoman Jordan Abudayyeh said.

“As he considers his future plans, the governor is focused on how he can best protect the people of Illinois from Trump’s destruction and continue making life better for working families,” she continued. “We expect he will make an announcement in the coming months.”

One sign that Pritzker may be eyeing reelection is that he and his campaign team have solicited input over the last few weeks about who might make a suitable running mate for him should he be on the ballot next year.

Pritzker’s lieutenant governor, Juliana Stratton, appears to be out of this picture after declaring her interest in running for Durbin’s open U.S. Senate seat. Pritzker has endorsed Stratton’s Senate candidacy.

For much of the last year, Pritzker has played a cat-and-mouse game publicly about his plans.

During last summer’s Democratic National Convention, he told an interviewer from Politico that it was possible he would seek a third term. He also offered to Illinois delegates that he didn’t have his mind set on breaking the four-term, 14-year record tenure of Republican Gov. James Thompson, set between the late 1970s and early 1990s.

Pritzker described his wife, Illinois first lady MK Pritzker, as his “term limit” and joked to delegates that “if all of you want to talk to her and convince her one way or another … you’re welcome to do that.”

As recently as three weeks ago, Pritzker told reporters he still had not made up his mind on seeking reelection. Pressed on whether his plans not to appear before Cook County Democrats during a 2026 slatemaking meeting in April could be read as a sign he is not running, the governor said, “That is a possibility.”

Potential eye on the White House​

The focus on Pritzker’s gubernatorial plans comes amid a growing sense he is positioning himself for a possible 2028 presidential campaign.

He continues to showcase himself as an effective communicator and Democratic attack dog against Trump by appearing on national news shows and entertainment programs like “Jimmy Kimmel Live” and by delivering thundering, anti-Trump messages on the stump.

In New Hampshire, a state seeking to regain its status as the first to vote in the 2028 presidential primary election, Pritzker stoked speculation in late April about his possible presidential ambitions. He urged Democrats to take to the streets to peacefully protest the president’s attacks on immigrants, decimation of federal agencies and seeming disregard for long-established constitutional norms.

Though Pritzker did not make the cut to be Kamala Harris’ vice presidential running mate last year, the governor has gotten high marks for his efforts to inspire a demoralized party after her crushing November loss to Trump. And he has spread money around the country through his political action committee. Just as it has been while he’s been governor, Pritzker’s ability to tap into his billionaire fortune is a major asset to make a presidential run viable.

If Pritzker seeks reelection and then opts to run for president, history has shown he’d be following a well-worn path.

Seventeen presidents had previous experience as governors, though no Illinois governor has gone on to be president.

Overall, six presidents won the White House as sitting governors, according to Rutgers University’s Eagleton Institute of Politics. The most recent example was Republican George W. Bush, who won the 2000 presidential election while he was Texas governor. Before him, Democrat Bill Clinton ran for and won the presidency in 1992 while serving as Arkansas governor.

Seven other presidents were elected after stepping down as governor, including Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Republican Ronald Reagan in 1980, the Eagleton Institute noted.

Eleven times, sitting governors were their party’s presidential nominees but lost the election, including Democratic Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson in 1952, who even lost his home state that year.

Democratic political strategist Pete Giangreco had roles in nine presidential campaigns dating back to 1984, including Obama’s two victories and the 1992 and 1996 wins by Clinton. Like Axelrod, Giangreco sees more time in Illinois’ Executive Mansion as a move fraught with risk for Pritzker if the governor has any desire to seek the White House.

“In my mind, there’s no reason to run for a third term as governor to improve your chances of being president,” Giangreco said in an interview, adding that Pritzker already has “got a great record to run on.”

Giangreco warned that Trump has great ability to undermine Pritzker by retaliating against him and the state for any barbs to which the president takes offense.

“Every time Gov. Pritzker goes to New Hampshire and starts swinging a bat at the president, the president’s going to retaliate,” Giangreco said. “If you have a guy at 1600 Pennsylvania who wakes up every morning trying to figure out how to screw Illinois because the governor said something, that’s like a new dynamic that no one’s ever seen before. It’s like you can do one or the other: You can govern or you can run for president.

“The stakes are too high to try to do both,” Giangreco said.

But back in Springfield, some of Pritzker’s closest allies say they hope he runs for reelection and that he can be both governor, and down the line, a presidential candidate should he choose that route.

“We built up incredible momentum in turning the state around, and I have enjoyed working with him, so I certainly hope he’ll consider running for reelection,” Senate President Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, told WBEZ. “I know that there’s work left to do, and if the nation calls after that, we can certainly find a way to have that conversation in Springfield.

“He is an excellent governor with an excellent staff. I imagine that they can do more than they’re doing now, without it being considered a distraction,” Harmon said, alluding to a scenario where Pritzker wins reelection and becomes a presidential candidate. “It would be a challenge, but we live in unprecedented times when we need to take on those sorts of challenges.”

Dave McKinney covers Illinois politics and government for WBEZ and was the longtime Springfield bureau chief for the Chicago Sun-Times.
 
Because you grew up in a culture so pervaded with it that you probably took it for granted as just normal history. Did you know that Nixon:
- Nearly won with a unanimous electoral college victory (FLAWLESS VICTORY)
- Created the EPA
- Pushed Affirmative Action
- Gave the Indians their reservations back after FDR stole even that
- Ended Vietnam
- Did nothing that no other President since or BEFORE (JFK) didn’t do with illegal political espionage

If you’re the average American, you know none of these things and probably had an impression of him as being purely bad, purely defined by his Watergate scandal (only big because it was the first such, small potatoes compared to Obama shenanigans), far more Right wing than he was, and widely hated instead of widely loved. Because if I turn on a movie or TV show, especially a Groening one like Simpsons or Futurama, that’s all I’ll hear is the same Nixon jokes over and over.

He was hated by the same kinds of faggots that hate Trump, and sadly, unless there’s a giant war or revolution or something, Trump will go down the same way; people that were alive and paying attention at the time will remember how he was slandered, but future generations will having nothing to go off but the spin.
The reverse of this, by the way, is Camelot (Kennedy Enslavement Syndrome). There are quite a few reasons to like JFK (he got shot by the deep state for threatening its power, he launched Apollo), but he is romanticized to hell and back for being a rich handsome Yankee that got shot. He’s a blank slate for libtards to write their utopian fantasies on. He can play Lincoln to Johnson - to his own Johnson - except unlike Lincoln he didn’t actually preside over much of note.

Never mind that JFK was not an especially popular politician when he drew breath, that his family were bootlegger crooks with mob connections (the dad was a Nazi supporter; to be fair, Nixon also had mob friends), that the election was rigged in Texas and Illinois (allegedly).

JFK isn’t a bad dude, all considered, but he’s far from the God Jesus he’s made out to be.
 
*sigh* Let's get this out of the way...

View attachment 7361332

Alright, so there still exists a power differential, so it's never a matter of a young boy "getting some" from their older teacher--it's a matter of the teacher ignoring and taking advantage of the position they're in to gratify themselves, regardless of the fact that the gulf between instructor and pupil exists for a reason, and crossing it risks all kinds of long-term damage to the younger and far more ignorant of the two.
We have a term for this. It's called rape.

Yes it's still rape if the hot pedophile teacher is female.

I don't know why this is controversial but it is. Probably a side effect of our society feeling an instinctive revulsion to the idea of making females take responsibility for anything, ever.
 
Saudis make sense, but qatar has me scratching my chin. They’re the Muslim brotherhood headquarters and where Hamas leadership lives. The CIA is balls deep in Qatar.

Something has to be happening under the surface.
qatar has been working on infiltrating the US and lobbying in the US, it's paid off

It means that Trump feels satisfied they are not funding terror at this point
Qatar is still pouring money into the Muslim brotherhood and their state media supports Hamas.

I think Qatari lobbying just reached its peak point
 
Should Gov. Pritzker seek a third term if he wants to be president?
Chicago Sun-Times (archive.ph)
By Dave McKinney
2025-05-13 17:53:57GMT
Like I've said multiple times I don't think he will be president eitherways. Too Jewish for Democrats, Too radical for Republicans and Moderates, his run would be just like Michael Bloomberg's in 2020.
 
We have a term for this. It's called rape.

Yes it's still rape if the hot pedophile teacher is female.

I don't know why this is controversial but it is. Probably a side effect of our society feeling an instinctive revulsion to the idea of making females take responsibility for anything, ever.
I don't know about you, but when I was 14, roughly a high school freshman, if I managed to get into the pants of a hot female teacher, I would be pretty stoked, and pretty shocked to find out that she was the one in trouble. On the other hand, if a male teacher got with a female student, I would have found that to be pretty fucked up. Because the two things are not the same.

Are you going to tell me that it's the exact same thing if the sexes were swapped? Do you seriously believe that gender is just a social construct and at their core humans are sexless androgynous things like yourself who are subject to the exact same traumas and psychological and social and hormonal pressures? Do you have an actual point to make?

Or are you just an autistic legalist who can safely be dismissed?
 
Back