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:
I'm honestly surprised no one is posting left-wing cope and seethe that the BBB got passed. I wasn't sure if it would go through, but the fact that Trump got a big win in Congress like this is a very good sign for the rest of the year. All I'm seeing on major outlets is stuff about how Republicans actually hate the bill (which they passed) and how this new bill is going to eliminate everyone's gibs, which it really only does to illegal immigrants.
Wait it already passed the senate?
 
Wait it already passed the senate?
There is only one Senator (Ron Johnson) making a huge stink about it. Josh Hawley just wants to make sure there are no Medicaid cuts for his constituents, which is as simple as a Senate rewrite (not that it matters because the bill doesn't cut Medicaid). Rand Paul might also vote against it, but that would still be 51 Republicans in favor of it. I'm pretty confident it will pass.
 
Makes sense given how the vast majority of them are a bunch of bull dykes who'll never have children.
I've always found it funny that the people who by far get the most weepy and hysterical about abortion are dykes or hags in their 60s and 70s that even in the most delusional of feminist fantasies are not capable of becoming pregnant.
 
not his fault that a hispanic gay wrote a musical about him to blackwash the founding of america
Hate Alexander Hamilton all you want but his views on a strong federal government and central bank won out in the end in comparison to Jefferson.

His views on immigration were as follows:
Hamilton, like most Federalists, was concerned about French influence on American politics. Although the French Revolution had descended into terror and led to the rise of Napoleon, Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican Party persisted in their attachment to the French. Hamilton feared that Jefferson’s proposal for unlimited immigration would lead to the triumph of the radical principles of the French Revolution over those of the more moderate American Revolution.

Writing as “Lucius Crassus,” Hamilton argued: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.”

Invoking Jefferson’s own “Notes on Virginia,” Hamilton observed that “foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners.” He argued that “it is unlikely that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism.”

Maybe if his stance on standing armies was taken more seriously, the White House would not have gotten burnt down in the War of 1812.

From Federalist No. 24:
Previous to the revolution, and even since the peace, there has been a constant necessity for keeping small garrisons on our western frontier. No person can doubt that these will continue to be indispensible, if it should only be12 against the ravages and depredations of the Indians. These garrisons must either be furnished by occasional detachments from the militia, or by permanent corps in the pay of the government. The first is impracticable; and if practicable, would be pernicious. The militia13 would not long, if at all, submit to be dragged from their occupations and families to perform that most disagreeable duty in times of profound peace.14 And if they could be prevailed upon, or compelled to do it, the increased expence of a frequent rotation of service and the loss of labor and disconcertion of the industrious pursuits of individuals, would form conclusive objections to the scheme. It would be as burthensome and injurious to the public, as ruinous to private citizens. The latter resource of permanent corps in the pay of Government amounts to a standing army in time of peace; a small one indeed, but not the less real for being small. Here is a simple view of the subject that shows us at once the impropriety of a constitutional interdiction of such establishments, and the necessity of leaving the matter to the discretion and prudence of the Legislature.

In proportion to our increase in strength, it is probable, nay it may be said certain, that Britain and Spain would augment their military establishments in our neighbourhood. If we should but15 be willing to be exposed in a naked and defenceless condition to their insults or encroachments, we should find it expedient to encrease our frontier garrisons in some ratio to the force by which our western settlements might be annoyed. There are and will be particular posts the possession of which will include the command of large districts of territory and facilitate future invasions of the remainder. It may be added that some of those posts will be keys to the trade with the Indian nations. Can any men think it would be wise to leave such posts in a situation to be at any instant seized by one or the other of two neighbouring and formidable powers? To act this part would be to desert all the usual maxims of prudence and policy.\

If you want to dislike him (for reasons other then his complicit behavior with slavery and economic policy) do it for the fact he generally did not trust the masses of society and liked the idea of a life-time executive and Senate:
Yet, I confess, I see great difficulty of drawing forth a good representation. What, for example, will be the inducements for gentlemen of fortune and abilities to leave their houses and business to attend annually and long? It cannot be the wages; for these, I presume, must be small. Will not the power, therefore, be thrown into the hands of the demagogue or middling politician, who, for the sake of a small stipend and the hopes of advancement, will offer himself as a candidate, and the real men of weight and influence, by remaining at home, add strength to the state governments? I am at a loss to know what must be done; I despair that a republican form of government can remove the difficulties. Whatever may be my opinion, I would hold it however unwise to change that form of government. I believe the British government forms the best model the world ever produced, and such has been its progress in the minds of the many, that this truth gradually gains ground. This government has for its object public strength and individual security. It is said with us to be unattainable. If it was once formed it would maintain itself. All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government. Can a democratic assembly, who annually revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Their turbulent and uncontrouling disposition requires checks. The senate of New-York, although chosen for four years, we have found to be inefficient. Will, on the Virginia plan, a continuance of seven years do it? It is admitted, that you cannot have a good executive upon a democratic plan. See the excellency of the British executive. He is placed above temptation. He can have no distinct interests from the public welfare. Nothing short of such an executive can be efficient. The weak side of a republican government is the danger of foreign influence. This is unavoidable, unless it is so constructed as to bring forward its first characters in its support. I am therefore for a general government, yet would wish to go the full length of republican principles.

Let one body of the legislature be constituted during good behaviour or life.

Let one executive be appointed who dares execute his powers.

It may be asked is this a republican system? It is strictly so, as long as they remain elective.

And let me observe, that an executive is less dangerous to the liberties of the people when in office during life, than for seven years.

It may be said, this constitutes an elective monarchy? Pray, what is a monarchy? May not the governors of the respective states be considered in that light? But by making the executive subject to impeachment, the term monarchy cannot apply. These elective monarchs have produced tumults in Rome, and are equally dangerous to peace in Poland; but this cannot apply to the mode in which I would propose the election. Let electors be appointed in each of the states to elect the executive—(Here Mr. H. produced his plan, a copy whereof is hereunto annexed,)19 to consist of two branches—and I would give them the unlimited power of passing all laws without exception. The assembly to be elected for three years by the people in districts—the senate to be elected by the electors to be chosen for that purpose by the people, and to remain in office during life. The executive to have the power of negativing all laws—to make war or peace, with the advice of the senate—to make treaties with their advice, but to have the sole direction of all military operations, and to send ambassadors and appoint all military officers, and to pardon all offenders, treason excepted, unless by advice of the senate. On his death or removal, the president of the senate to officiate, with the same powers, until another is elected. Supreme judicial officers to be appointed by the executive and the senate. The legislature to appoint courts in each state, so as to make the state governments unnecessary to it.

All state laws to be absolutely void which contravene the general laws. An officer to be appointed in each state to have a negative on all state laws. All the militia and the appointment of officers to be under the national government.

I confess that this plan and that from Virginia are very remote from the idea of the people. Perhaps the Jersey plan is nearest their expectation. But the people are gradually ripening in their opinions of government—they begin to be tired of an excess of democracy—and what even is the Virginia plan, but pork still, with a little change of the sauce.
 
Last edited:
Why do leftists hate Jews again? Rebecca Sugar made Steven Universe, the gay rock show that was Tumblr incarnate, and she's a Jew. Shouldn't they worship them or some shit, being the leftist hive mind?
They hate Judeo-Christians entirely because the #1 brown people pedo religion, islam, is against them. Enemy of the enemy of my friend stuff.
 
Why do leftists hate Jews again? Rebecca Sugar made Steven Universe, the gay rock show that was Tumblr incarnate, and she's a Jew. Shouldn't they worship them or some shit, being the leftist hive mind?
The fun answer: the golems are attacking their creators.

The real answer: leftists see Palestinians as poor, oppressed victims of Israeli neocolonialism. Of course they say nothing about Chinese neocolonialism in Africa, but that's irrelevant. There is a lot of Chinese and Middle Eastern money in American universities stoking these ideas and it coincides with existing hatred for Jews that's been around on the Internet as long as the Internet has existed.
 
The real answer: leftists see Palestinians as poor, oppressed victims of Israeli neocolonialism. Of course they say nothing about Chinese neocolonialism in Africa, but that's irrelevant. There is a lot of Chinese and Middle Eastern money in American universities stoking these ideas and it coincides with existing hatred for Jews that's been around on the Internet as long as the Internet has existed.
Foreign money has to do with it to an extent but there is also the fact Western universities and countries with imported Muslim populations are naturally inclined to dislike Israel and Jews regardless of any cash being thrown around.
 
Foreign money has to do with it to an extent but there is also the fact Western universities and countries with imported Muslim populations are naturally inclined to dislike Israel and Jews regardless of any cash being thrown around.
They brought it on themselves. Those dirty longnoses Killed Farfour.
 
The fun answer: the golems are attacking their creators.

The real answer: leftists see Palestinians as poor, oppressed victims of Israeli neocolonialism. Of course they say nothing about Chinese neocolonialism in Africa, but that's irrelevant. There is a lot of Chinese and Middle Eastern money in American universities stoking these ideas and it coincides with existing hatred for Jews that's been around on the Internet as long as the Internet has existed.
....
I feel like something has been stolen from me as a Chud and I want it back. Stolen Valor. You can't just say "I don't like em", you have to dress it up with neocolonalisam faggotry.
Foreign money has to do with it to an extent but there is also the fact Western universities and countries with imported Muslim populations are naturally inclined to dislike Israel and Jews regardless of any cash being thrown around.
Well Muslims in American campuses are another problem that I'm glad Trump is dealing with currently.
 
Free college courses...for actual college credit? Or just free information which you can already get from a million other sources?
It'll be uniparty propaganda. "Here's why the evil orange man is a horrible person for demanding we stop selling American education seats to Foreigners, hosting domestic terrorists, and illegally discriminating against White people and Asians."

They're probably going to try and use the "credibility sink" effect.

See, 1000 people claiming orange man is wrong about X is good! But 1000 people claiming "snopes says that's false (even when Snopes is full of shit)" or "Harvard says trump's a dictator" is even better, especially after millions of people have propped up the credibility of those institutions. If they can sink an infinite amount of credibility -- even from their ideological opponents -- into something and then claim ownership of that credibility (via entryism, subversion, et cetera), well.

That's the credibility sink tactic in a nutshell. Get everyone to agree something is a credible source, then subvert it for your ends so your idiot brownshirts can claim that credibility for themselves.

Correct. It was made with normal people in mind, not jews.
Every other country in history warned us, and we still didn't think they'd do it to us. Amusing.

Isn't that just who Hasan Piker is?
Yes, most of Breadtube is operating under this model, or a related one. Watch out going forward for discount wish dot com versions of stuff like Critical Drinker, who has spicy takes but "ultimately didn't hate the film, go see it" or what have you.
 
another thing - @Chuckwagon 's post and paying attention to the volkswanderung period in general should make a person give some thought to white ethnogenesis.
Do future readers a solid and link it rather than say how awesome it is?

Yep, the native Irish landholders were completely dispossessed and destroyed by the Tudors (who targeted mainly the Gaelic nobility) and again in the English Civil Wars (this time targeting the Hiberno-Normans, the descendants of Norman knights who had gone native). Ireland at this time was in the grip of the Protestant Ascendancy, which explicitly aimed to reduce the Irish to serfs completely at the (nonexistent) mercy of the empowered Anglican aristocracy (and to a lesser extent, their mostly Presbyterian Scots-Irish footsoldiers, who also got a raw deal but one that was less shitty than the one handed to Irish Catholics, comparable to how poor white enforcers & employees were obviously better-treated by Southern planters relative to black slaves).

As late as 1870, 97% of the land in Ireland was owned by absentee English landlords who didn't even live in Ireland. And that was after some emancipatory reforms made by the British once they decided it might've looked a little bad to keep being mega-cunts to the Irish right across the sea when they were fully getting into their Victorian humanitarian phase & sinking slaver ships throughout the Atlantic or characterizing the Tsar of Russia as a cruel despot lording it over an empire of slaves and imprisoned nations (presumably Russian lampooning of the British treatment of the Irish whenever London tried moralizing to them about the plight of their own serfs, the Poles, etc. was the 19th-century precursor to Soviet accusations of 'you are lynching negroes!' every time a 'Murican started talking about their famines or the Great Purge in the Cold War).

There was definitely a racial & religious element to it all though. The idea that the Irish weren't 'really' white was definitely not unique to America, it was very much in vogue in Britain as well and the stereotype of the Irish back then was not some redheaded hottie or fun leprechaun: it was that of dark-haired, thuggish, bestial and superstitious Papist savages who yearned for a return to the Dark Ages in-between drinking themselves to death and breeding armies of children with FAS, and the enlightened Anglo aristocrat would be shocked & offended at the suggestion that he was of the same stock as them. The Irish founding myth of descending from 'Milesians' who came from Iberia was reappropriated by the Brits to form theories like this famous one:

Scientific_racism_irish.webp

The famine was further used by Protestant missionaries as an opportunity to convert Catholic Irish to the new, ascendant church. Don't want to starve? Great, just forsake the last scraps of your heritage and you can have this soup. Suffice to say, 'souper' remains basically the Irish equivalent for race traitor/Uncle Tom/hanjian/etc. to this day. The Great Hunger was 1000% an English op to genocide the Irish, whether physically or spiritually, I don't think Sir Charles Trevelyan and those above him in the British government particularly minded either way.

Tl;dr the more one reads about Anglo-Irish history, the harder it gets to fault the Irish for wanting to get the Brits to fuck off by any means necessary and to dissociate from the English identity being pushed on them so rabidly, whether it was by becoming more Catholic than the Popes or reviving their ancient Gaelic language. (You can and should, however, still blame them for thinking turning to Communism was a good idea starting around the mid-20th century.)
It's still a matter of scholarly debate, but the most popular & enduring theory about the origin of the Huns (who kickstarted the Migration Period) is that they were originally a Turkic nomadic tribe called the Xiongnu who established an empire stretching from eastern Kazakhstan to Mongolia & western Manchuria, got their asses kicked by the Han dynasty, and then fled westward to avoid further buckbreaking by both the Chinese and their own former subjects (such as the proto-Mongol Wuhuan). Eventually by the mid-4th century they ended up moving into the Ukrainian steppe, where the Goths actually had a settled kingdom already; then they buckbroke the Ostrogoths, chased the Visigoths into Roman history, and the rest is history. Another branch of the Xiongnu also fled south and established the Hephthalite or 'White Hun' Empire in modern Afghanistan & the neighboring 'Stans, becoming a pain in the ass for the Sassanid Persians and Gupta Indians for even longer than the 'Black Huns' were for the Roman world.

Also the fall of the Romans had less to do with the barb migrations themselves, and moreso 1) endless civil wars & corruption death spirals and 2) an inability to assimilate said barbs as they had done many other peoples before, not helped by the chaos in 1). The Romans allowed barbarian tribes like the Visigoths to stay together as one unit, basically forming their own ethnic enclave in Roman territory, and to preserve their own power structure (kings, warlords, their own Arian priests for those tribes which did convert to that heretical sect of Christianity, etc.) which obviously prevented them (in fact, actively disincentivized) from assimilating into Romanitas and accepting Roman rule in the long term as peoples like the Gauls, Britons, Greeks and Syrians already had. Probably a lesson in there that's still applicable for modern America. Worth noting that the Germs who did assimilate, like Stilicho (a Vandal) or Aetius (probably a Goth, and the guy who beat Attila), actually proved enormously helpful to Rome in its twilight years and had a good chance at saving the Western Empire if they hadn't been killed by, respectively, the conniving Senate and the paranoid, incompetent Emperor Valentinian III.
 
In DEI related news, American Airlines is collaborating with a company that has an explicit "90/10 Rule" which means 90% of their brands are "Black-and Brown-owned."

American Airlines gave passengers this note confirming the collaboration:
View attachment 7410562
Makes you want to pop the emergency exit door at 40,000 feet.
 
Back