Trump Enslavement Syndrome - Orange man good. /r/The_Donald and any public demonstration of rabid pro-Trump enthusiasm in spite of all reason.

View attachment 8869090
The Pope does not represent the Catholic Church guys. Pack it up, we were wrong. Paint the Sistine chapel’s ceiling, give it a nice popcorn finish.
this is so rapidly turning into a Henery the 8th wanting to annul his marriage turning into the english reformation

This time id argue the stakes are even lower, has anyone been able to isolate the clip or excerpt from the pope that pissed Trump off so bad? My nigga president is trying to cause a religious schism over twitter fingers.
 
has anyone been able to isolate the clip or excerpt from the pope that pissed Trump off so bad?
The initial message was a private session so no audio, just rumored phrases. He's made some open criticisms now directly calling out billionaire war mongers without naming direct names. But you'd need to be retarded to not know who he's ralking about.
 
Nah, that's just MAGAloid cope said by retards who Fell For It Again. Harris can hate Iran and not want to invade it. Despite what MAGAloids would have you believe, the Democrats have generally been the party that hasn't sent troops to die for the past few decades. Obviously there's been a few here or there, but there's a difference between sending a few special ops to take out Bin Laden and trying to bomb and invade a country
This is generally my stance when it comes to debating whether or not Iran would have happened under Democrats. There is definitely a big chunk of them that are warmongers as seen with the repeated failures of war powers votes, but I don't think they would willingly push war with Iran if it wasn't already done by someone else. The Israel asskissing is just an unfortunate issue for both parties though.
 
You guys might want to check out the Styxhexenhammer666 thread to witness a terminal migger meltdown.
View attachment 8867616
Jesus fucking Christ, what happened to him? Did he discover meth, coke or heroin or something in the last couple of months?
Nah, that's just MAGAloid cope said by retards who Fell For It Again. Harris can hate Iran and not want to invade it. Despite what MAGAloids would have you believe, the Democrats have generally been the party that hasn't sent troops to die for the past few decades. Obviously there's been a few here or there, but there's a difference between sending a few special ops to take out Bin Laden and trying to bomb and invade a country
Gotta disagree here, simply because Obama was the one who made it from "US fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan" to "US is in 7 different countries" or whatever it was, when he started drone warfare and military raids in Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc. On top of sending more troops to Afghanistan and Iraq (though, tbf, he recalled some of them as the drone striking became the primary method.) Even his Dem predecessor, Bubba got into it with Bosnia, Kosovo, Sudan, etc. with random bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan in between to keep Saddam and the Taliban in line.
I think the more "appropriate" term would be Dems have not sent troops to die in UNNECESSARY wars, unlike Bush Jr. who was bought and paid for by oil execs, and Donny who's attached to Israel so hard he might well be a siamese twin with it.
This is generally my stance when it comes to debating whether or not Iran would have happened under Democrats. There is definitely a big chunk of them that are warmongers as seen with the repeated failures of war powers votes, but I don't think they would willingly push war with Iran if it wasn't already done by someone else. The Israel asskissing is just an unfortunate issue for both parties though.
I get the feeling, under someone like Kamala, the US would not have gone into open war with Iran. At best, maybe some CIA/Spec Ops shit. They just would've had more missiles and weapons delivered to Israel with a "do what you will. It's out of our hands." Message.
Essentially, under Dems, the US would be the Romans at Jesus's trial. Under Donny, the US became the pharisees.
 
sources that strongly opposed border security, used the smear that it was basically racist, which the leftist themselves ended up falling for, essentially turning the border into a race issue
well, it started with Obama, and the birth certificate thing. You know, only Americans can be president.
>> NOOOOO you cant say that thats racist you just hate him cause he's black.

for real, if we don't care about the president's nationality, then they don't give a fuck about anything else. and thats what its about. cant bring up the birth certificate issue without some dipshit calling you racist. ..or maybe pushing one of those stupid ideaologies about the birthers, the sources of that then delves into the sources of where everyone got the Cohencidence's (Cohen) thing at. Which that was the ear guy. WHo was a shill, I think. Who mixed lots of false positives in with some really actual rational ones everyone has always known since the internet started. Which is something they don't want to talk about at all. but that dipshits main focus was having the president show birth certificate to be president. Which I can understand both sides. one, its a slave ticket. Two, was there birth certificates when this country started? Going back to orgins. Ok fine the original long form one is fine, but the short form one is the slave ticket. That guy who started that (ears and all that) won't seperate those issues.
 
Something like this doesn't happen without money being involved. From chosenites, from rightoid griftees, or maybe both.
This is what happens when you spend years hiding in some frozen eastern european hellhole with users of this site being the only people you have to talk to.
IMG_8029.jpeg
How long till they start getting "Not My Pope" tattoos?
Jesus fucking Christ, what happened to him? Did he discover meth, coke or heroin or something in the last couple of months?
Started worshiping a gay demon owl from some shitty animation and larping as Captain Jizz Swallows.
 
I blame Vance for saying yes to being his VP. I know that being the vice president of the United States is an enticing offer and you're taking a gamble by running yourself, but JD is a good person who even wants so far as to call Trump worse than Hitler.
I highly recommend reading his book or even watching the movie about it if you don't have the attention span for the book. He had a pretty bogus life and he was able to turn it around who determination and hard work.
It sucks to see that a genuinely good and for the most part inoffensive person like him is going to have the stink of Donald Trump on him for the rest of his political career.
I mean good on him for turning his life around when life dealt him shitty cards. However, his association with Peter Thiel and how he hardly lifted a finger to help Ohio (can he do anything to help? I honestly don't know) during that train derailment incident does not fill me with confidence.
 
Apparently Republicans tried passing FISA extension in the middle of the night and it went to hell so they're trying to just get a two week extension going so they can argue about it more.



2026-04-17.png



House punts on FISA, extends spy powers program for two weeks​


House lawmakers moved to extend key government spy powers for two weeks after Republican infighting tanked a longer renewal sought by President Donald Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson.

House members early Friday morning voted by unanimous consent to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, for two weeks. Earlier in the morning GOP hard-liners tanked a series of votes for either a 5-year or 18-month renewal.

The measure now heads to the Senate, which faces a tight deadline before the April 20 expiration as most senators have left Washington D.C. for the weekend.

The House’s effort would extend the program until April 30.

“We were very close tonight. There’s some nuances with the language, and some questions need to be answered, and we’ll get it done,” Johnson told reporters after the vote series. “The extension allows us the time to do that.”

The vote’s failure illustrates the growing likelihood that GOP leaders and Trump must allow lawmakers to either pass a shorter extension or make further changes to the legislation in exchange. Trump administration officials have been arguing in conversations with lawmakers that the country is at war and the national security program is paramount amid threats from Iran, according to five people involved in the conversations.

Twenty conservatives voted against the procedural step early Friday morning amid concerns the underlying bill doesn’t sufficiently protect the privacy of U.S. citizens, whose information can get swept up in warrantless probes of foreigners allowed by the program.

Republicans who voted against advancing the legislation include: Reps. Tim Burchett, Eric Burlison, Michael Cloud, Andrew Clyde, Andy Harris, Mark Harris, Scott Perry, Ralph Norman, Thomas Massie, Keith Self, Andy Ogles, Warren Davidson, Diana Harshbarger, Mary Miller, Paul Gosar, John Rose, Lauren Boebert, Victoria Spartz, Sheri Biggs and Eli Crane.


Four Democrats crossed party lines to vote with the bulk of Republicans.

Some Republican members were livid that Johnson’s proposal earlier in the evening also didn’t include any ban on a central bank digital currency, which had been in negotiations, according to one person granted anonymity to discuss private conversations.

The proposed text included some new provisions aiming to protect U.S. citizens’ privacy.

“There are significant changes here,” Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) said from the House floor defending the language.

But the language focused on preventing the targeting of U.S. citizens and largely codified existing law. Its inclusion was one of the options leadership had been debating but which had disappointed privacy hawks. The surveillance law can already not be used to intentionally target Americans.

It seems like a McCarthy move from Johnson, forcing a vote and trying to pressure everyone as much as possible to just go along with it. Which failed similar to how it often did for McCarthy. But I suppose it's easier for them to try then actually working on compromises.
 
Shut. Up.
This isn't satire?
07.15.25_-_Noahs_Ark_-_Listing_Image_1.webp07.10.25_-_Noahs_Ark_-_Listing_Image_2_1.webp07.11.25_-_Noahs_Ark_-_Listing_Image_4_1.webp
This is an actual real product that people buy, and it's not a gag gift but something they actually are using to teach children Bible stories?
I like how it's obvious AI slop even in their own promo images (the actual book does have legible text, but they couldn't be bothered to take a real photo).

Screenshot 2026-04-17 at 10.55.56.jpg

Of course, Trump loves AI slop, so kind of on-brand. But also off-brand, because this shit isn't licensed. The legality of using Trump's AI generated voice for commercial purposes is pretty questionable.
 
Jesus fucking Christ, what happened to him? Did he discover meth, coke or heroin or something in the last couple of months?
wow... I was never a fan of him. So I didn't know anything about his older stuff. My introduction to him was mostly through the Casino, and MATI. Opening that thread on the first page, and seeing what he used to be like a decade ago. He was... reasonable. Now he's a fucking insane person that dresses like a pirate.

I think the more "appropriate" term would be Dems have not sent troops to die in UNNECESSARY wars, unlike Bush Jr. who was bought and paid for by oil execs, and Donny who's attached to Israel so hard he might well be a siamese twin with it.
Looking back at Bush. I don't know if I would put all the blame on the oil execs. Especially in retrospect, I think Israel has as much of an influence then (maybe just slightly less in bush's decision) as they do now. The big difference, is if you said anything about it back then you were completely fucked. The whole world would turn on you, and label you an antisemite, and you wouldn't have any way to tell you side of the story like people can now.

I think if the public consciousness was like it is now on this issue we would see Bush's involvement in the middle east in a completely different light now.
well, it started with Obama, and the birth certificate thing. You know, only Americans can be president.
I'm not so sure that's what started it. I'm pretty sure I remember bad faith claims (likely originating from lobbies, or other special interest groups) about illegal immigration even back when I was a kid. There has been attempts to poison that issue for a long time, from the people that stand to benefit from it. And there are a ton of useful idiots that will side with the lobbyists because they haven't critically thought about what they are really supporting. And the people on the right that make it about race are doing just as much damage. They are reinforcing the lefts position, and proving them right (in their eyes).

But still, immigration isn't the only thing this tactic is used on. Our support for Israel is another like the person I replied to was getting at. Most issues where race get's brought into it, I would ask if race is even inherently part of the issue, or if it was used to turn it into a political stalemate that preserves the status quo. In general culture was shit has made any kind of real political change in America almost a fantasy. Because you now have to deal with people propagandized into sticking with their side because they both think the other is legitimately evil, and both basically shut down their brain when they hear an opposing thought they've been trained to no listen to.
 
USA Today published a photograph of what 'steak, crab and lobster' Hegseth is having served up to ZOGbots on the USS Tripoli. (Fun fact, $13.30 a day comes out of the salaries of the jew troops for the pleasure of eating this stereotypically nasty goyslop).
1776419646930.png
Oh, and it turns out, 'care packages'? Bit hard to deliver when your bases in the region are rubble and you've replaced most of your actually functional purpose built COD aircraft from the 1960s with inferior, less safe, fundamentally shitty Ospreys which can only carry half the payload, for two thirds of the range lollmao
Meanwhile, the IRGC Aerospace Forces eat delicious saffron-spiced lamb shanks in their missile mountains as they receive further deliveries of MRBMs from the women they have enslaved to take on most STEM jobs in the wicked Iranian regime including their missile factories.

MAGAts have very reasonable opinions about the fact that the sailors they are happy to see die for the jews would be eating better if they were solely living off expired Chicken Chunks MREs:
1776420518294.png
1776420622745.png
1776420686886.png
"We have an ice cream ship"...

MAGAts raped by daddy @grok:
1776420578208.png
My response to all MAGAts:
 
Last edited:
I get the feeling, under someone like Kamala, the US would not have gone into open war with Iran. At best, maybe some CIA/Spec Ops shit. They just would've had more missiles and weapons delivered to Israel with a "do what you will. It's out of our hands."
Yes, and I strongly doubt a normal Republican administration would have gone in on Iran either. Israel's been pushing us to do it for a long time and everyone kept declining.

Bibi just lucked out with Trump and Hegseth. Trump's senile and Hegseth in any other circumstance would be a failure to launch dude who just drinks and plays Call of Duty all day.
 
Trump UK prime minister.png
Archived Article
Original Article
Imagine if a leader as blunt as Donald Trump was prime minister and Ireland was suing the UK. Imagine that such a personality was in Downing Street when the Republic was not merely taking a legal case in Strasbourg against Britain over the latter’s handling of the legacy of the Troubles, but was doing so on flagrantly hypocritical grounds (Dublin is suing London over the last government’s now shelved plans for a conditional amnesty, yet one of its former justice ministers says Ireland has been operating and undeclared amnesty for the IRA).

US President Donald Trump with Sir Keir Starmer at Chequers last year. Mr Trump as prime minister would not be so weak towards Ireland as Sir Keir has been, who has not even criticised Ireland suing the UK.


Then imagine that this Trumpian style UK leader was responding to the fact that Ireland is not only suing Britain on legacy, but has been allowed to evade all its on responsibilities on how the past is examined, such as IRA terrorists using the Republic as a safe haven.

Advertisement

Hide Ad


And finally imagine that this tough, fictional prime minister was weighing up the fact that Ireland is paying next to nothing on defence, is reliant on the already strained UK military to defend its waters and airspace and critical infrastructure, and is then using the vast Irish coffers (bolstered by being a highly successful tax haven) to spread money on targeted projects in Northern Ireland to make the huge subsidies that London pumps into this province look insufficient.


Do you think that this Donald Trump-style PM would be doing nothing?

Do you think that he would be holding gushing summits with Irish leaders while they continue to sue the UK?
Do you think that he would be too timid even to criticise the Irish legal action?



Do you think that he would be merely letting Ireland ignore its legacy failures, instead of taking unilateral action to put a spotlight on that past?

And above all: Do you think that this Trumpian leader of the UK would striking deals with Ireland to defend them militarily when they have made a deliberate choice not to spend their own wealth on those defences, and that he would be merrily making that deal while asking them to pay nothing? And then ask yourself this: would such an imaginary UK leader be doing all of this when UK veterans face endless investigations into the Troubles at vast UK taxpayer expense, while IRA leaders either face none, or somehow seem to shake off the minor investigations they do face. We all know that such a leader would not tolerate any of these things for five seconds. Yet Keir Starmer has done, and the Tory government before him was hardly much more robust. In fact Sir Keir doesn’t even criticise the Irish legal action against the UK, as my question to him in Lisburn last month confirmed (click here to see that question).



You do not, however, need to long for a Trumpian prime minister. We just need a reasonably strong one who will at last respond forcefully to Dublin. This week our political editor David Thompson interviewed Sir Nick Parker, a former head of the British army who was also in charge of the military here in NI. David interviewed a former SAS commander her during the Troubles, George 'Geordie' Simm. Those interviews are in today’s newspaper (Click here: Former top Army general questions UK government's focus on legacy deal with Ireland) or were published earlier this week (where they can still be read online, click here ‘Troubles bill could affect UK's national security’ says former army head, and also click here: ‘UK forces more restrained in Northern Ireland than any other civilised nation would have been - ex SAS commander’). I also spoke to both men. It is astonishing that the UK patiently saw off IRA-led terror over 30 years, and ushered in peace to Northern Ireland, yet has latterly been so inept on legacy that military men of this stature are having to speak out with growing anger as to what is happening.


Labour seems set to push its legacy plan through the House of Commons in the coming weeks. There might be slight improvements to the ‘protections’ it supposedly promised to veterans on legacy, that were agreed with the Irish government and thus – surprise – were soon shown to be useless or equally applicable to terrorists.
The daughter and and grand-daughter of the late Airey Neave wrote to the Daily Telegraph recently about this scandal. Mr Neave was murdered when he was Margaret Thatcher’s shadow Northern Ireland secretary, weeks before her 1979 election (of the seven MPs murdered over the last century, five were killed by such republicans).
Marigold Webb, Mr Neave’s daughter, and Kate Holland, his granddaughter said: “The fact that the new bill may try to make the actual prosecution [of veterans] appear like a visit from the district nurse is immaterial.”
What a demolition of the government.
Men such as Sir Nick Parker and George 'Geordie' Simm are now openly saying that the UK government is putting the interests of an Irish government that has behaved in such an unfriendly way over the interests of its own Troubles veterans.

I've seen many non-American Trump supporters online claim their country needs a "man with a backbone" to lead their country. OK fair enough, we all desire politicians who defend our own nations' interests. However, do you also want a political leader who has
  • lied through their teeth and made empty promises during an election campaign
  • wasted taxpayer money on vanity projects
  • alienated your nation's closest key allies through stupid political decisions
  • ran their mouth and displays a poor sense of decorum online and in person
  • committed war crimes and will most likely be tried by a tribunal in the future
  • been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women and maintained a relationship with a convicted sex offender and human trafficker
  • attempted to interfere in foreign elections
  • kowtowed to authoritarian regimes and autocrats who violate democratic human rights
Those definitely aren't traits and behaviours found in a president or prime minister who is forceful yet diplomatic.


I also find it amusing that USPG2 Miggers who know nothing about Northern Ireland and have never stepped foot there believe Northern Irish Unionists and Loyalists are da heckin' based saviours of the white race. Northern Irish Unionists are generally alright people IRL when they're not seething about Ireland and muh fenian bastards online. Northern Irish Loyalists on the other hand, are literal white trash who do nothing but chimp out over flags, deal drugs, and pimp out women in their own community. Trust me, I lived there.
 
Back
Top Bottom