US US Politics General 2: Hope Edition - Discussion of President Trump and other politicians

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
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:
View attachment 7132919

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...the-attorney-generals-delegation-of-authority (A)

Blondie has revoked the ATF's ability to ban people from owning guns, or certain types of guns, as it was always something the Attorney General had delegated to them, and the AG can un-delegate it at any time. (The ATF was prohibited by law from un-banning people for decades.) I'm not sure but I think this kills red flag laws stone cold dead?

There's no way in hell they let her/Trump do this, so place your bets: Which corrupt judge announces the TRO preventing her from doing her job because it's not being done in a way the left approves of?
What this order does is remove from the ATF the responsibilty for the review process for restoring firearms rights to people who have lost them. If you committed some sort of felony 25 years ago and have been law-abiding ever since, you're SUPPOSED to be able to apply to have your firearm rights restored. The ATF is SUPPOSED to have been reviewing these applications, but they haven't been, because Congress has not appropriated any money to the ATF to review these requests since 1992. They claim that it took too much time and money to investigate. The yearly funding appropriations to the ATF has specifically EXCLUDED reviewing these applications, effectively making it impossible for anyone to get their firearms rights restored once they're taken, ever.

This order also hints at reforming the review procedure to make it more efficient and less costly, since that was the excuse made in 1992, when the ATF stopped reviewing the applications. It's in no way specific in how the process might be reformed, however.

My sheer speculative guess is that they may reduce the process to a simple background check of recent criminal history, and approval/denial left up to a team of relatively low level employees. As it is now, the applications must be round-filed in triplicate, suggesting that three people needed to sign off on any restoration of rights (if they'd actually been doing them).

idk if this will affect red flag laws. It doesn't really seem that way right now. But I guess if you were wrongfully put on the red flag list, you'd now have a method to get your rights restored some time in the future.
I skipped about a hundred pages of the thread to get through the food stamp conversations
"Hi I haven't read the thread and know nothing about the subjects being discussed, but I sure do have strong and important opinions about it anyway that surely haven't been repeated 1,000 times over in the last 100 pages so I'm going to post my hot takes about it anyway.."
 
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
Its a violation of your rights if the taxpayer doesn't buy soda for you? Not only do I have to pay for your food, but I HAVE to pay for your candy? Donald Trump drinks soda all the time, sure, but the man doesn't get it through food stamps.
 
"Hi I haven't read the thread and know nothing about the subjects being discussed, but I sure do have strong and important opinions about it anyway that surely haven't been repeated 1,000 times over in the last 100 pages so I'm going to post my hot takes about it anyway.."
You're mad that I haven't read enough of your 5-paragraph essay posts, I take it. Well get ready to get madder.
 
I think it's fucked up that America is dictating to the lower class what they can and cannot put in their bodies. This is no different from when they were enforcing the vaccine on everyone, where are the truckers out protesting this appalling overreach of authority? Let's get out there and call on Congress to Dew it Right™
Here at A&N, we believe that every African-American should have access to healthy food and productive job opportunities. Our prisons are full and "slavery" has become something of a dirty word, so this is option #3.
 
we have starlink and doordash boss, the beer and porn will come to the trenches dont you worry
You're stuck in the trenches fighting your fellow countrymen, the UN, and just about every opportunistic vulture wanting their slice of the American dream. Then you hear a drone. You look up and it's heading your way. The worst part of this, you don't know if it's carrying explosives or if it's going to give you what you need to get through another day.
 
The torturing comment is ridiculous but in terms of ideas to fix SNAP, "just ban all soda" is retarded. I don't trust the fucking government to decide what a "necessity" is. I'm still paying into it with my tax dollars whether or not welfare recipients can buy sugar. It's a nothingburger so they can pretend they're doing something about SNAP/EBT when they aren't.
Then why ban them from buying anything at all? If the government shouldn't decide they can't buy soda, why not let them buy McDonald's?

Why even say they have to spend it on food? Why not just give them the full no strings cards they can use to buy big screen tvs and jewelry or whatever? That would give them some small amount of happiness in their poor person lives, right?

Hell, why not just them cash so they can buy drugs? "Here's $1200 a month, go buy vegetables or soda or fent or whatever"

At what point is it reasonable for the taxpayers paying in to this to have some say over what the people using it spend it on (whether they are taxpayers too or not)?
 
According to Scott Jennings, Signal was being used for communication prior to the Trump admin being sworn in. Pretty much proves that the only thing that's been keeping government secrets from getting out for the past two decades is pinky-promising you won't forward the Invite link to Jewish journos.
Source | Archive
 
Last edited:
Because white Americans are the majority of SNAP recipients at 62% and historically, only a handful of White Americans actually can make something tasty out of those ingredients. The rest will make inedible slop unfitting for animals. If snap was only Black Americans, some asshat would push their hardest to make sure it was only (seasonings will not be allowed) ,Meat, Potatoes and maybe an Orange once a month.
Edit: Why do you think they changed the name from Food Stamps to SNAP? Because White Americans were asshurt about being on Food Stamps.
>Look at all these white people on food stamps!
>Points at mexicans
Anyway I hate white niggers as much as I hate regular niggers so I'm not sure what your point is. The point still stands, cut the junk food and let them learn to cook.
 
Does anyone here know uniforms? I'm wondering what branch they're from. Olive drab flight suits had me thinking they were IDF until I saw the flag.
My guess is they're personnel from the Air Force. The same guards can be seen in footage when Hegseth arrived in Hawaii on Monday.



There's a good possibility they traveled with the rest of the crew on board considering that usually to my understanding the Secretary of Defense is usually greeted with soldiers in a more ceremonial uniform which certainly doesn't look like a flight suit.

image.png
 
Last edited:
Just some food for thought, our ancestors went to war with the largest superpower in the world for a few percentage points in excise tax
Britain was not the largest superpower in the world at the time. France and Spain were each stronger than Britain back in the 1700s, and BOTH OF THEM helped the USA.

Britain could've won the war if it was just them vs. the filthy colonials; they could draw troops in from loyalists in the colonies, back from Britain, even foreign troops from Germany and India, considering the fact that the British had influence there at the time, since the King of England was a German prince. But when the Spanish and French empires joined the fray, the British stood to lose more than just the colonies; they could've lost India, their crown jewel, and once the fighting got too hot, they pulled out and allowed the dirty colonials to go free.

Britain's reputation as a military power during the colonial era was largely overblown, considering the fact that they did well against coastal enemies, but struggled against other European powers or nations with sufficient technology. A backwater country like Russia could give the British enough resistance that the Brits would need the French to help them keep Moscow away from gobbling up the Ottomans. It got to the point where, in the 1870s, one full century after the American Revolution, the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck once said that "If the British army lands on Europe, I'll get the Belgian Police to arrest them!" Similarly, Britain's "naval tradition" had its own skeptics back home, with Winston Churchill of all people saying that it's nothing more but "rum, sodomy, and the lash." Especially since they tended to "recruit" drunks who passed out at the taverns.

So no, the American founding fathers didn't go to war with the largest superpower on earth for a few percentage points in excise tax. They already had their own governments, their own army, and they shrewdly knew that if Britian fought hard against them, the other colonial powers would sweep in and take advantage of Britain's weakness, and that would cause the British to call it quits and reach for a compromise. It's like going after someone on the street when you know you have two other guys that are just as strong, if not stronger than him, backing you up.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom