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:
Click to expand...
Romulus augustulus said:
You dumb nigger, SCOTUS's ENTIRE JOB is to interpret the constitution. THEY DECIDE WHAT IT MEANS. IF the presidents attorneys make a compelling enough argument to sway at least 5 justices they will change the law.
Click to expand...
Hm, i checked so i could call you a fag, but it turns out you are correct! I personally believe this should be done through congress/senate though.I guess the 1st and 2nd are next on the chopping block.
 
babyDunk said:
Hm, i checked so i could call you a fag, but it turns out you are correct! I personally believe this should be done through congress/senate though.I guess the 1st and 2nd are next on the chopping block.
Click to expand...
Wait, what did you think the Supreme Court did?
 
Gregis said:
Wait, what did you think the Supreme Court did?
Click to expand...
I did not think that a president could affect the "interpretation" of an amendment, but now that i think about it, normal people have been able to sue, get the case to SCOTUS, and then get a new "interpretation" based on the judges there at the time.

Had a bit of a retard moment i think.

I still think they might reject it because of the procedural issue though.

Mister Fister said:
It's the farms, calling someone a faggot is saying hello.
Click to expand...
:trump:
 
Last edited:
babyDunk said:
I did not think that a president could affect the change on the "interpretation" of an amendment, but now that i think about it, normal people have been able to sue, get the case to SCOTUS, and then get a new "interpretation" based on the judges there at the time.

Had a bit of a retard moment i think.

I still think they might reject it because of the procedural issue though.
Click to expand...
calm your tits man, good lord you are being a bit of a snippy asshole. That's really unlike you, you are one of the better posters in here tbh. i am not trying to be condescending here, not at all, but roe v wade was thrown out because it was a shitty interpretation, Trump appointed justices that seen it as a shitty interpretation. That's exactly why the 'birthright citizenship" shit is liable to be thrown out as well. It's a win to even get it talked about, it's a win to get this shit framed as a bad interpretation.

i'm not sure what you are arguing, seriously, i don't know. Dems will win, dems will get a couple justices, and dems will claim 'oh, y 'all really don't get free speech or gun rights', that's your fear, right? some perceived loss down the road? have you seen the assfuckign we've been getting for a generation? it's our turn to spit on the head of our dicks and start ripping and tearing for a bit.
 
Sammich said:
calm your tits man, good lord you are being a bit of a snippy asshole. That's really unlike you, you are one of the better posters in here tbh. i am not trying to be condescending here, not at all, but roe v wade was thrown out because it was a shitty interpretation, Trump appointed justices that seen it as a shitty interpretation. That's exactly why the 'birthright citizenship" shit is liable to be thrown out as well. It's a win to even get it talked about, it's a win to get this shit framed as a bad interpretation.

i'm not sure what you are arguing, seriously, i don't know. Dems will win, dems will get a couple justices, and dems will claim 'oh, y 'all really don't get free speech or gun rights', that's your fear, right? some perceived loss down the road? have you seen the assfuckign we've been getting for a generation? it's our turn to spit on the head of our dicks and start ripping and tearing for a bit.
Click to expand...
CALM YOUR FUCKING TITS YOU FUCKING STUPID JEWISH FAGGOT. I WILL PERSONALLY GO TO YOUR HOUSE AND STONE YOUR WIFE IF YOU DON’T CHILL OUT A BIT. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST HOW MANY GOD DAMN TIMES DO I NEED TO REPEAT MYSELF?

But yeah you’re right there’s a chance that birthright citizenship could get thrown out. I don’t see it as likely, though, unfortunately.
 
Gregis said:
Imagine how fucked everyone there would be if they just enforced the federal law on weed.
Click to expand...
Possessing small amounts was decriminalized in 2014 by referendum but violations are still Federal:

"Although the District of Columbia has decriminalized possession of up to two ounces of marijuana for persons over the age of 21, federal law continues to prohibit the possession or use of any amount of marijuana. As a result, federal law enforcement officers may arrest anyone in the District of Columbia for possession or use of any amount of marijuana as a violation of federal law."

 
babyDunk said:
I did not think that a president could affect the change on the "interpretation" of an amendment, but now that i think about it, normal people have been able to sue, get the case to SCOTUS, and then get a new "interpretation" based on the judges there at the time.
Click to expand...
He's kind of in a unique position to get them to consider his takes, by pretending to be retarded and instructing people (say through an executive order) to act contrary to standing rulings, which cannot help but generate court cases.

I brought up Roe v Wade before, which decided there was a Constitutional right to abortion based on a Constitutional right to privacy. The case is held up as an example of motivated reasoning and judicial activism, but I wanted to check, which part of the Constitution did they reference; turns out it was actually the 14th Amendment! You know what's funny? The word "abortion" doesn't appear in the 14th Amendment, but you want to guess what other word doesn't appear? ifonlyyouknewhowbadthingsreallyare.jpg
 
Catch The Rainbow said:

This explains why the electrical bills in NJ have been so high lately.

Basically, Phil Murphy decided to shut down the state's nuclear energy and coal plants, being "progressive", but without any plan to provide enough electric energy to make up for the loss
Click to expand...
If you check /r/newjersey, they're all either denying that OP's electric bill is as high as they say it is, blaming OP for using too much power, blaming Trump for shutting down offshore wind construction, or blaming nonexistent AI datacenters.

They will never learn.
 
quaawaa said:
If you check /r/newjersey, they're all either denying that OP's electric bill is as high as they say it is, blaming OP for using too much power, blaming Trump for shutting down offshore wind construction, or blaming nonexistent AI datacenters.

They will never learn.
Click to expand...
/R/newjersey sounds like one of the worst cesspools on Reddit
 
I remember when Microsoft bundled software like Frontpage with the office suite.

As the more pajeetish they have gotten post 2003 along with rest of big tech.

The real diversity is all gone.

For those who missed it, the pajeets at Microsoft plan to fuck up Windows further by making it all AI based and no longer needing a mouse.

Basically fuck up the entire formula and turn it demonic since Windows XP.

Windows 7 was a dead cat bounce.

 
babyDunk said:
SCOTUS cannot change the CONSTITUTION based on an executive order simple as.You know why? that indicated that any president can make changes to how the constitution of the US is interpreted or applied based ENTIRELY off the president at the time.Are you sure that's what you want? What do you think happens once opponents decide to reinterpret the 2nd or 1st amendment? Yes, they have tried to multiple times, but why do you think they've largely failed?

They will not decide the case based on merit , but its lack of procedure
Click to expand...
SCOTUS interprets the law and POTUS enforces it.

If POTUS is misinterpreting the law than SCOTUS can slap his pee pee and tell him to fuck off.

SCOTUS can reinterpret their previous decisions.
 
Breadbassket said:
This is one of the most pressing matters there as of this time.

View attachment 7764736

The subreddit is also upset over some stickers at a local restaurant.

View attachment 7764753
Click to expand...

Mamdani is a pozzed uberlibtard pajeet baboon commie, but you can respect him for wanting to see Jew York City as his top priority rather than visiting Israel as the first priority to fix New Jersey.

Which has pajeets on almost every gas station and street corner while their roads crumble and people look miserable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom