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:
Regarding White Hispanics, I would say the Hispanos - the direct descendants of Spanish colonists in the Southwest who became Tejanos, Neomexicanos, and Californios - are the most fully integrated and Americanized, having dealt with enough of them from personal experience (one was lily white, spoke no Spanish, and loved baseball. How ‘Murrica can you get?). They also have the excuse, like the Creoles and Cajuns of southern Louisiana, of being annexed to the Union without a say in it so I am willing to give them that grace. Cubans in southern Florida from what I hear are also quite Americanized, patriotic, and probably just happy to see their homeland free from communism someday at this rate. They are also fine. Puerto Ricans, I don’t know enough yet to say.

It’s the rest of the massive LatAm migration to deal with, with White ones joining the above groups as likely being the 20th-21st century equivalent of the Italians and Irish Catholics into becoming White in all but surnames in terms of culture, and the rest too ethnoculturally different to bother integrating. That and a hopeful uptick of Non-Hispanic White births and numbers will hopefully see it become just “White” combined in the coming decades and back to the 80-85%-ish amount it should be in the country.

Once again my faith and optimism speaking there, so pop me the rainbows if you think I earned them.
 
My point being, how the hell was the great potato fucking so catastrophic to the population of Ireland? Like on paper it just dosent make sense, way less people to feed, far more fertile ground to grow things, more livestock, and allegedly better genes or just "superior white problem solving" or whatever the people like nick Fuentes believe.
ireland got hit with a crop disease that decimated the harvest, that's how.

also all these UN/NGO stats about "extreme famine" in this or that country are not to be trusted, they get fluffed and doctored like crazy to serve as marketing and propaganda. if you believe these organisations then the gaza strip has been in a constant state of famine or near famine for like 10 years straight now, yet when you visit the place people there are fat as fuck and when you look at demographic stats their population was steadily growing at a very fast rate the whole time. shit just doesn't add up.
 
My point being, how the hell was the great potato fucking so catastrophic to the population of Ireland? Like on paper it just dosent make sense, way less people to feed, far more fertile ground to grow things, more livestock,
Ireland was a net exporter of food throughout the 'famine,' producing far more food than was needed to support its population. It wasn't a famine in that all food crops failed. It was a famine because the food wasn't made available to people.
 
Regarding White Hispanics, I would say the Hispanos - the direct descendants of Spanish colonists in the Southwest who became Tejanos, Neomexicanos, and Californios - are the most fully integrated and Americanized
These types are usually also wealthier and go to college to become communists.
 
being alive in the west in the 20/21st century has rendered me wholly unable to understand how country wide famines even happen, let me justify this real fast before you call me stupid ( I am but hear me out)

you're not stupid this is something people are deliberately miseducated on

the irish potato famine is called an gorta mor, the great hunger, in Ireland because it was not a famine, it was an attempted genocide

you are correct that ireland had excellent productive land. this land was not in irish hands, it was owned by english what we would now call agribusiness. the irish had been being excluded from ownership for the good agricultural land for centuries and were subsisting on shitty land. if the potato hadn't been introduced they probably would have died out completely/been assimilated. but the potato allowed them not just to live on shitty land but for the population to boom.

this large rural population was entirely dependent on the potato. The potato began to fail in the 1840s. The blight was not contained to Ireland, it was widespread throughout Europe and a major contributer to political unrest. But elsewhere, peasants had other food sources.

the english landowners let the irish die. commodities were shipped out of ireland for sale rather than distributed to people literally starving in the roads.

you were deliberately miseducated on this because this history makes totally clear that the racial narrative of the evils of European colonialization is complete lies. There is nothing racial about one people doing this to another.
 
The problem for the Congo is logistics. It doesn't matter if you magically spawn all the fresh food you require if you don't have the means to store it or get it to everyone who needs it. That's why processed food was such a big deal in postwar America.
you misunderstand, I get why things are messed up in the Congo, what I dont get is how they havent had total population collapse like the Irish did, you realize what a paradox that is?

I think on a geopolitical level Africa has been given the "Dunce" cap and people assume they are they way they are because of lack of "intelligence" but Im starting to think thats not the case at all and if you are willing to look closely its ASTOUNDING how many people are alive and making lives in an area more or less purposefully not given the industrial revolution. You could argue that they should have "done it themselves" but that dosent hold water with comparable situations. Did the British write their own 95 theses or did they simply adopt the German innovation of Protestantism? When Newton discovered gravity (as a definable force) did Einstein after him need to re discover it for himself or did he simply stand on the shoulder of the giants before him who readily shared their knowledge? When Jonas Salk Discovered Penicillin did he wait and force each nation to "figure it out themselves"?

The European powers used Africa and India and south America as the resources and funding for all the advancements of the industrial revolution without sharing any of the expertise with the locals, they may have left refinery's but not one university.

Still trying to figure out what my complete thoughts are on the situation, far more complex than I have given it credit for.
 
In that case, I would definitely change my tune. What a pity to learn.
Some of them are more patriotic than others or have strong regional affections, but many others are standard lefty politicians like Polly Baca - whose claim to fame was failing to get a bill through the Colorado legislature, but succeeding in convincing Bill Brock to sign an executive order which got her way.
 
Pretty sure the Texans wanted to be part of America.
The Anglos (“Texians”) absolutely, who I will also say were the supermajority in the then province; the Hispanics (“Tejanos”) centered around San Antonio I read had some mixed reactions to the idea (majority liked the idea of less control from Mexico for sure but worried on treatment if annexed to America).
 
Im kinda getting the idea that Africa, or atleast parts of it may have just gotten a really rotten round of "wrong place wrong time" during the industrial revolution cause on paper the shit that brought European nations to their fucking knees is just tuesday for them.
It's not the place, it's the people. Yeah sure they are able to withstand a lot of horrible conditions. Guess what? So are a lot of retards. It's actually like a secret retard strength that they can endure a lot of messed up conditions because they're so detached from higher thought that they never consider trying to improve it. And it's not specifically a race thing but race factors heavily into it - there are tons of whites who are also too stupid to reach for grander things than living in a barren tundra and eating frozen fish every day. Africa has some of the greatest bounties of resources in the world and has very fertile lands, but the people who have lived in many parts of it since time began seem to just be too fucking retarded to make use of it. Lefties continually claim that muh colonialism stopped them from ever doing anything productive but there is a reason that the joke about Zimbabwe using candles for lighting after inventing electricity exists. There are tons of modern examples of colonial powers being driven out of Africa by marxist backed forces, and even after then fighting the marxists with their own nationalist forces, most African nations may as well be in the stone age in terms of development, they literally subsist off the overflow from other more prosperous nations.

Tl;Dr rhodesia was the best thing to ever happen to Africa and they ruined that too
 
@StudMccool you're not entirely wrong at all, one of the ways to think this through is to realize that "european colonization" isn't one thing and neither is africa

it's very easy to see that most places colonized by the british are doing waaaaaay better than places colonized by france, and this has the simple explanation that the british actively educated natives in bureaucratic administration and set up institutions to continue the practice (of course this is also why jeets are currently able to annoy us effectively)

another big missing piece when people try to think through this stuff is that when you're not talking about the new world, european colonization didn't come into an un-previously-exploited situation. Africa, the Middle East, and India had all been being conquered taxed and slaveraided by arabs and central Asian nomads.
 
It's not the place, it's the people. Yeah sure they are able to withstand a lot of horrible conditions. Guess what? So are a lot of retards. It's actually like a secret retard strength that they can endure a lot of messed up conditions because they're so detached from higher thought that they never consider trying to improve it. And it's not specifically a race thing but race factors heavily into it - there are tons of whites who are also too stupid to reach for grander things than living in a barren tundra and eating frozen fish every day. Africa has some of the greatest bounties of resources in the world and has very fertile lands, but the people who have lived in many parts of it since time began seem to just be too fucking retarded to make use of it. Lefties continually claim that muh colonialism stopped them from ever doing anything productive but there is a reason that the joke about Zimbabwe using candles for lighting after inventing electricity exists. There are tons of modern examples of colonial powers being driven out of Africa by marxist backed forces, and even after then fighting the marxists with their own nationalist forces, most African nations may as well be in the stone age in terms of development, they literally subsist off the overflow from other more prosperous nations.

Tl;Dr rhodesia was the best thing to ever happen to Africa and they ruined that too
Respectfully I have to disagree man, no white guilt or anything I LOVE BEING WHITE, its not a issue of politics or even opinion its damn close to objective fact that in the 17th and 18th century africa got fucked pretty hard. Blame the Warlords that played into the slave system or blame the "evil colonizers" the result is the same, when the other major powers in the west (yes Africa is in the west if Europe is) were abusing the fuck out of machined parts while most "developing nations" were still figuring out complex social structures. Like if I was playing a Vic 2 multiplayer match and IRL events started to happen id straight up ban the UK and French player for game ruining as would most multiplayer hosts, I know thats far from a 1 to 1 comparison but you get my meaning?

Also somthing I wanna remind everyone about electricity is at the end of the presitation where the guy make a bulb light up without a flame and everyone claps, under his breath, he is like

"Ohh btw to make it work you need to hang a fuckload of wires about 20 feet off the ground"

"Uhhh thats kinda a big disclaimer edison, where do we have to hang these wires?"

"everywhere"

"everywhere? like you mean...?"

"Everywhere you want electricity that is"

And no one batted an eye, neither you or me put down one inch of the infrastructure but we benefit from it and act very high and mighty to those without it, if it disappeared tomorrow how confident are you we could rebuild it?
 
The European powers used Africa and India and south America as the resources and funding for all the advancements of the industrial revolution without sharing any of the expertise with the locals, they may have left refinery's but not one university.
not true
india started industrializing long before the british left, some of the biggest industrial companies in the country today (like tata steel) were founded in 1800s british india, led by indians who had studied in british universities.
also, during this same time period, major universities in india were founded with british oversight/assistance that are today some of the largest in the world (mumbai university for instance)
south america was already largely independent at this time(chile, argentina, brasil all gained independence in the early 1800s)

in africa no such developments happened because there simply wasn't anything to work with. establishing universities and industry in india is one thing, the people there already had a very long tradition of civilisation and scholarship. meanwhile africans were unironically stone age level, lots of them didn't even have written languages, and in many places there the level of civilisation had barely progressed beyond small village subsistence agriculture and tribal kingdoms. there was a complete absence of formal societal organisation, and of infrastructure, both of which are prerequisites for further economic and intellectual development.
 
Guys I know we spend more on healthcare than any other nation while being one of the sickest, but if we reform it AT ALL some poor black person might lose their speech therapist, so is it really even worth trying?
1748101743230.webp
It's called creative destruction in economics. The speech therapy was only expensive because of government manipulation of healthcare and enriched themselves on Medicaid always paying a high $ amount. Perhaps a new cheaper speech therapist can come in to take it's place.
 
Back