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:
Is there a more punchable phenotype than this?
View attachment 7487506
This soy motherfucker looks exactly like if Shaggy (specifically from the live-action movies; seriously this faggot looks exactly like a half-baked Matthew Lillard) half-attempted to troon out only to have failed and then de-transitioned back. The green shirt doesn't help either.
 
It’ll be like those “big nation wide” DOGE protests. A bunch of smelly trannies and gross old boomers. Handfuls except for in the usual shitlib hellholes.
Nah they'll have cartels force their slaves so they don't have to pay off for a month or two (so a bunch will go), pedo worshipers will push a bunch of towel heads to go wild, China will try to push some of their "intl students", what's left of Blue sky faggots, trannies, and boomers who never had a mutt over for dinner.

Hopefully it'll be interesting.
 
He was being contrite brother, no need to pile on.
Maybe these youngins listen to MATI and get confused by Josh’s voice.

It is, but it’s not really relevant to what we were talking about, which is the fact that I incorrectly assumed almost everyone on Kiwifarms was about the age I am. It’s just a random ad hominem attack. It also has nothing to do with American politics and I’m gonna stop discussing it so as not to clog the thread.
I’m the one you were grilling over being old and having kids, so let the record show that I’m not and haven’t been offended by it.

But when you get to the wrong side of 40, you’re not going to grow out a Gandalf beard and start wearing robes around. In my mind, it’s hard to pin down a difference between now and ten years ago.
 
. And in theory, Roberts will be forced to stop
people have been using this exact phrase for 20 years now, and its been proven wrong every time. Roberts will die before he "ruins his legacy"
I'm walking proof you can. Clean for almost a decade. Probably why i'm so touchy about it, and why i try to pay that forward.
nope, Johnny already said it. you deserve to be killed. please never come back to this site.
The optics of the mexican flag as the rallying point for this riot is so bad for the libs and they dont understand why it looks bad.
Trumps says they are invaders that hate the us, so they wave a non us flag and attack the us.
its "trump's for us, democrats are for they/them" all over again. they are in too deep to realize how bad it looks.
Look for articles and books pre-2000 as the trans Mafia has dedicated considerable resources shilling the lie that trannies did the stonewall riot, writing lie filled books and documentaries to rewrite history to hijack this moment in gay history
i literally read the New York Post article covering the attack when it happened, they straight up point out a man in a dress demanding to be called ladies pronouns and going by a lady's name.

While trans were never the dominant force, the freaks have always been around, and their attention whoring means they are always popping up, especially in conservative papers covering fag events. i do suspect a lot of freaks that would have become trannies back in the day were just gay especially back then, but in general are more deranged than any sexual orientation.
 
I’m the one you were grilling over being old and having kids, so let the record show that I’m not and haven’t been offended by it.

But when you get to the wrong side of 40, you’re not going to grow out a Gandalf beard and start wearing robes around. In my mind, it’s hard to pin down a difference between now and ten years ago.
It’s all good, I was only teasing you. Just trying to understand how life should shake out as I transition into independent adulthood.
 
There is nothing faux about their nationalism. They aren't smart. They are beaners. They believe in the idea of taking 'their' land back, the state paying for shit, all while being proud of being Mexican.
Amusing, since just a few hundred years ago these niggers were ritualistically sacrificing each other to retarded cheetah "gods" in loincloths. God bless Cortez.
 
Amusing, since just a few hundred years ago these niggers were ritualistically sacrificing each other to retarded cheetah "gods" in loincloths. God bless Cortez.
salute the spaniards who bred the natives into a stabler, albeit still savage, state

who fucking knows what everyone south of the border would be like if that didn't happen
 
FDA set to issue first federal definition of ultra-processed food: Report
Straight Arrow News (archive.ph)
By Evan Hummel and Kalé Carey
11 Jun 2025 15:01:21 UTC

Full story​

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is set to issue the first federal definition of what constitutes an ultra-processed food, a mainstay of many American diets. The labeling could have significant impacts on a variety of cereals, snacks, meals and drinks.

The New York Times first reported on the anticipated change Tuesday, June 10.

What are ultra-processed foods?​

Currently, nutritionists broadly define ultra-processed foods as products created through industrialized processes and items that use ingredients typically not found in a household cupboard.

These include high-fructose corn syrup, chemical additives and charged oils. Ultra-processed products are also made with artificial flavors, sweeteners and ingredients that keep them preserved for longer periods of time.

What could a federal definition impact?​

The FDA could create its own definition by studying the chemicals and other additives in American foods, examining the number of ingredients, or assessing a product’s nutritional value. The definition could impact school lunches, prison meals, foods that are covered under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and federal dietary guidelines.

The FDA and U.S. Department of Agriculture will be accepting public comment before deciding on a definition, according to The Times.

FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary told The Times that the definition could lead to new “non-ultra-processed” labels that might attract health-conscious consumers, similar to marketing campaigns promoting organic and sugar-free foods.

Makary said the agency is not looking to outlaw ultra-processed foods, but simply inform customers and encourage companies to “compete based on health.”

Change amid health concerns​

The push comes as many Americans view ultra-processed foods –– which can range from breakfast cereals, instant noodles and protein bars to yogurt, hot dogs and protein shakes –– as detrimental to their health. Doctors are increasingly blaming ultra-processed foods for diseases such as Type 2 diabetes, various cancers and heart problems, as well as bowel and stomach issues.

The anticipated decision also comes as several states move to regulate ultra-processed foods sold and served in schools. In West Virginia, a new law has banned certain artificial food dyes. In Arizona, state lawmakers narrowly defined ultra-processed foods as containing certain additives and dyes.

The FDA’s deputy commissioner, Kyle Diamantas, told The Times that the agency is examining the use of artificial dyes, emulsifiers, and preservatives as a means to define what qualifies as ultra-processed. Diamantas said the definition may eventually be used to regulate food served at Veterans Affairs hospitals, within the military and in prisons.

Resistance from major food companies​

Food nutrition experts predict that defining ultra-processed products will be met with resistance from major corporations that have long relied on artificial preservatives and ingredients to create cheap foods quickly and in large quantities.

They also warn against broadly defining ultra-processed foods and “demonizing” some foods that are not harmful to consumers. Similarly, they caution against a definition that is too narrow in scope and misses other unhealthy ingredients.

A ‘big step forward’​

Health academics believe a federal definition would be a “big step forward,” noting that it could lead the way for new types of warning labels or determine which products companies can continue to market to children.

Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University, told The Times, “All of those are up for grabs if there’s a definition. It matters a lot.”

Alex Delia (Deputy Managing Editor), Joey Nunez (Video Editor), and Drew Pittock (Digital Producer) contributed to this report.

:ratface:
 
Amusing, since just a few hundred years ago these niggers were ritualistically sacrificing each other to retarded cheetah "gods" in loincloths. God bless Cortez.
The Spaniards, among a few other colonizing efforts, is why South America has advanced at all and even has electricity. They actually made the natives genetically smarter. Not by much, but still.
 
Back