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:
When the punishment is being flown off to a black hole to never be heard from again, yes we should be sure that we are sending the right people.

Intent matters. Or it used to. A guy jumping the border to be a low-wage contractor off the books is not the same as a guy jumping the border to sell drugs and commit reprisals for the boss back home.

Both should be removed from the country, but only one should be sent to what is effectively a black site.
Sure but blame lies at the feet of mass-immigration activists. When they flooded America with immigrants they ensured that something terrible would happen to a large group of people; they were just banking on the victims being the native Americans instead of the immigrants. Deportation will always carry suffering but it has to be done. Purposefully ferrying in a massive population so large that it necessitates deportation to protect the natives is a sin and should be considered a large scale war crime. The same thing will be coming for Europe and the Anglo Commonwealth nations soon.
 
Because the government should always be made to prove their actions.

The government says that they are getting rid of the bad people. I do not trust them on their word that they are doing the right thing. They need to demonstrate that the power they wield is being used appropriately.
This is only possible if you have a venue to do it that isn't itself politically captured.
 
The plight of boys and men, once sidelined by Democrats, is now a priority
This article is bizarre. They say things that act like they get it, but then
Moore will hold a cabinet meeting in April to discuss plans for the state agencies, but he has some initial goals: to encourage more men in his state to pursue jobs in education and health care, help boys within the juvenile justice system, and make sure he solicits input from boys and men on how the initiatives are designed.
shows that they don't. Hopefully someone else can better explain my confusion.

Other articles were good, but I was mostly focused on this one. I get the same feeling reading it as I do listening to women talk to other women about what men are into (and vice versa), and maybe that's the underlying issue. This part was hilarious though:
The governors’ speeches touched on many of these issues, and earned cautious applause from masculinity researchers, who said they reflected a promising shift.
(Bolding mine)
 
They do not have rights.
They do actually, it's just that under Enemy Alien's act, the President can suspend some of those rights (like the right for a day in court). See:
I recently came across an interesting Supreme Court case.

"As Congress explicitly recognized in the recent Administrative Procedure Act, some statutes "preclude judicial review." Act of June 11, 1946, § 10, 60 Stat. 237, 243. Barring questions of interpretation and constitutionality, the Alien Enemy Act of 1798 is such a statute. Its terms, purpose, and construction leave no doubt. [...] "The act concerning alien enemies, which confers on the president very great discretionary powers respecting their persons," Marshall, C.J., in Brown v. United States, 8 Cranch 110, 126, "appears to me to be as unlimited as the legislature could make it." Washington, J., in Lockington v. Smith, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8448 at p. 760. The very nature of the President's power to order the removal of all enemy aliens rejects the notion that courts may pass judgment upon the exercise of his discretion. This view was expressed by Mr. Justice Iredell shortly after the Act was passed, Case of Fries, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5126, and every judge before whom the question has since come has held that the statute barred judicial review. [...] But such a finding, at the President's behest, was likewise not to be subjected to the scrutiny of courts. [...] The Act is almost as old as the Constitution, and it would savor of doctrinaire audacity now to find the statute offensive to some emanation of the Bill of Rights. The fact that hearings are utilized by the Executive to secure an informed basis for the exercise of summary power does not argue the right of courts to retry such hearings, nor bespeak denial of due process to withhold such power from the courts." - Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 68 S. Ct. 1429, 92 L. Ed. 1881 (1948)

Tldr: The courts have no authority to review Trump's Alien Enemy act orders, and any hearings (regarding the usage of this law) Trump attends are not obligation, but merely a choice.
 
You know how when you go to the store to buy your cavity-creating fat guy drink, there are these bottles of clear liquid in the very same aisle? Those are actually for drinking, too.

4L water: $1.43
4L Coca-Cola: 2 x $2.74 = $5.58

View attachment 7133606View attachment 7133612

Next time you are waddling through the junk food section, check it out.
But muh food desert.
Muh food desert (in fucking America, the most food-ridden country in the world).
 
The French actually committed a significant number of troops. The majority of the forces at the Battle of Yorktown were French, about two thirds actually, and the French fleet blockaded Chesapeake Bay and defeated a portion of the British Navy there. France may have been going broke, but they still had a lot of men, ships, and muskets.
Yeah, I shouldn't have suggested they did nothing (which I don't believe is the case; we could not have won that war without their help), but I was more wanting to make a point that Britain was not yet falling off the wagon, and still had gas in the tank for local affairs for some decades to come.
They do actually, it's just that under Enemy Alien's act, the President can suspend some of those rights (like the right for a day in court). See:
I was actually just going to dig up the post when you pointed this out to me. This will be the second time I've seen you have to do this. I'm still baffled that it's a thing.
 
Apparently, a fatwa has been issued to MAGA shill accounts on behalf of BIG SODA to post in favor of keeping soda in food stamps—for seemingly no reason. Some pretty big accounts are involved (and also Ian Miles Cheong, too), and allegedly, they're paying up to $1,000 per shill
Archive
View attachment 7123044View attachment 7123045
Came to pop in to say Cole Zero is a two pack of ass. Get Pepsi instead. Or regular cocaine.
 
Trump should give the gangbangers their day in court and he was wrong not to do so,
I don't know dude, typically if someone i don't know was going to illegally and forcefully enter my home, id want them out or shot, I wouldn't sit them down at a table and ascertain their intentions first
 
Wine contains water, but only the water component of the grapes it was made from. Beer does contain additional water but it's boiled and then the beer is fermented.

It's both of those things that result in them being cleaner than whatever water you might otherwise have available.
There is a great documentary called "How Beer Saved the World" that goes more into this. At one point they made a fairly decent lager (by letting random people taste it) out of duck pond water to show how the process works and can make almost water drinkable.
 
*in moderation

Don't get drunk.
Its actually not true. This misunderstanding is owed to a study that found people who had a glass of wine a day had healthier hearts on average...As opposed to people who drink more than just one glass a day

In reality no amount of alcohol is healthy for you.
 
I am very receptive to the arguments that the Venezuelan gang people should have gotten a day in court to make their case.

I am also extremely concerned about the judicial branch and its politicization.

And I am outright enraged over my principles being taken advantage of by bad actors so that they can do awful things that hurt me and the country.

Ultimately this whole situation has come about because the judiciary got way too involved with politics and now the level of distrust in the law as an institution is at critical levels. Trump should give the gangbangers their day in court and he was wrong not to do so, but Trump has legitimate reasons not to trust anyone in a black robe.

It is a sad state of affairs.
I've gotta disagree with you there. Every sobbing gangbanger you'll see in the coverage would have told you he knows where Jimmy Hoffa was buried if it meant he could go home. They'll say anything. If they wanted to come here, they ought to have done it by the books. This problem doesn't have a pretty solution, and it's not the baby or the bathwater that need to get thrown out, it's the entire tub. It's an extraordinary situation that requires an extraordinary use of the executive's power to begin to put on a reverse track. We simply do not have the time or the money to litigate each and every one of them, and these are the ones ICE already had the details on. The worst of them, and the priority.

More than that, the government has at this point given them several options and a generous amount of time to log in and self-report. Do it now the easy and dignified way, or face the consequences of being a criminal migrant. Being here illegally is in itself a crime.
 
Back