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

  • 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...
StudMccool said:
the people who live in this area, that being the Fresno, Merced, Tulare, Merced counties are the SALT OF THE DANG EARTH, I cant say enough good things about it. If you hate California but you haven't come out to Tulare and meet some Almond farmers you dont know who your hating.
Click to expand...

And yet the central valley has high rates of meth use, low rates of litteracy, and very high rates of STI's.
 
babyDunk said:
How much tarrif money does he have though?
Click to expand...
The U.S. Treasury collected approximately $195 billion in tariff revenue during Fiscal Year 2025 (October 1, 2024, to September 30, 2025)
Click to expand...
Thats all??
mandatorylurk said:
SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor, no free gibs n' sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttt:
Click to expand...
Yaaay, no food for the starving miggers and trumpers!!
Blewberry Nausea said:
Look who signed it
View attachment 8140918
Click to expand...
No fucking way.looool Did they make her do this? :story:
 
Sensitive Young Man said:
if I get one more piece of bad news I am going to convert to Judaism and flee to Israel

EDIT: I FUCKING JINXED IT
View attachment 8140541
Click to expand...
I'm really doubtful Trump is gonna lessen or get ride of h1-b. he should though.

this is just trump rewarding loyalists. He loves doing that. quid pro quo. The gop nomination for government race hasn't even happened yet. Vivek still might lose.
 
Lucas Silva #4903141 said:


Just came upon this on twitter. Looks like GQ again.
The clip
G1LcwHgmzA_xNlMN.mp4
I don't think you're supposed to say this out loud.
EDIT: full interview here
it's from 4 days ago
Click to expand...

Colbert doesn't care. He's already made his deal, cashing in on his ten years of being an Anti-Life herald to restart his stillborn acting career once he's off the air next May... Unlike Kimmel, Colbert has people who will take care of him whereas Kimmel has no future unless he can bully ABC into renewing his show
 
I_Am_Not_Bruce_Willis said:
I think we might be on the verge of actually getting what I voted for.
MetokurGroomedMe

Law Thread 'Gay marriage at the Supreme Court? Justices weigh revisiting landmark issue'

Lauren Villagran
USA TODAY

The Supreme Court is debating taking up a case challenging the decade-old decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States.

The deliberations on Friday, Nov. 7, were closed-door, but the court could announce its decision to take up the case as early as Monday.

The case centers on former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who who appealed to the high court after she was ordered to pay a gay couple $100,000 for refusing to marry them in 2015. She argued that presiding over the marriage would violate her religious beliefs.

Davis, who served as clerk...
Reactions:Informative x 8 Winner x 1 Feels x 1 Like x 1 Optimistic x 8
Click to expand...

Don't be so sure as I can see them taking the case solely to shut down any chance of the courts killing gay marriage simply to provide cover for nuking the voting rights act and/or the tariff stuff.

Echo Rook said:
If the Republicans won't nuke the filibuster themselves, surely there's some legal theory to declare it unconstitutional, right?

Yes, the Senate has the power to declare their own rules (Article I Section 5). However, it is also declared that a bill passes the House and the Senate by a SIMPLE majority (Article I, Section 7). This filibuster is blatantly violating a section of the Constitution and is essentially clogging up one of three branches of our government to be non-functional, causing a fucking power grab between the judiciary and the executive.

Can we sue the Senate?
Click to expand...

At this point, both parties see nuking the filibuster as MAD combined with the super secret fear that even if one side DID nuke it, they'd never be able to weild the power doing so would give them as far as a dirty little secret becoming public that both sides are divided to the point that neither Democrats or Republicans can muster the 51 votes needed to get anything remotely controversial approved.
 
Should Republicans break the filibuster to end the Schumer Shutdown? Probably not; Democrats will have to end the shutdown anyway. If the GOP is going to break the filibuster, it should be for something more crucial — like the Whatfinger Compromise:
1762571973322.png
President Trump should champion a temporary suspension of the filibuster, but with ironclad restrictions—lifting it solely to pass comprehensive election reform legislation, as outlined by Gunther Eagleman in his powerful X post below.
Click to expand...

Eagleman neatly sums up what needs to be done: https://xcancel.com/GuntherEagleman/status/1986266993054392813
1762571953991.png

Democrats screech endlessly about imaginary threats to democracy, yet there is zero chance they would refrain from filibustering the commonsense requirements of proof of citizenship, voter ID, same day voting, and paper ballots. Consequently, the filibuster will need to be lifted to defend against election tampering — but:
Once these reforms are enshrined in law, we immediately reinstate the filibuster in full, restoring its protective role. …

[This] sets a precedent for “emergency overrides” in Senate rules, applicable only to existential threats like fraud that undermine democracy itself. Plus, by codifying the temporary nature—perhaps with a built-in sunset clause or explicit bill language—we build public trust, showing Republicans are committed to good governance, not power grabs.
Click to expand...

The effect could be saving the the USA from the fate of New York.

As [Democrats] spiral deeper into Marxist ideologies, their survival hinges on voter fraud—ballot harvesting, machine glitches, fake votes from illegal immigrants, and corrupted mail-in schemes. With these reforms in place, that lifeline vanishes.
Click to expand...

Curtailing election fraud could end the Democrat Party as we know it. To survive, the party would have to answer to the American people.

The challenge is to lock in breaking the filibuster as a once in a lifetime event. The alternative to trying is to wait for radicalized Democrats to take power — knowing they will break the filibuster anyway so as to pack the Supreme Court and consolidate control. That will allow them to render future elections futile with fraud-facilitating legislation like the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
 
Turkey Beef said:
The challenge is to lock in breaking the filibuster as a once in a lifetime event. The alternative to trying is to wait for radicalized Democrats to take power — knowing they will break the filibuster anyway so as to pack the Supreme Court and consolidate control. That will allow them to render future elections futile with fraud-facilitating legislation like the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Click to expand...
I agree this is what should be done, but I struggle to find a way to "temporarily" break the filibuster. This would just set a precedent that it can be broken at any time, thus rendering it useless. Still, a swift nuke of the filibuster, combined with as much legislation as possible to prevent the Democrats from ever gaining power in Congress or the Executive, is clearly what needs to happen. I cannot imagine what they would do if they find themselves in power again, but I know they will target anyone who does not support them.
 
Historical Strelkov said:
"The Judicial system made up a rule that says they have the right to do something that isn't explicitly enumerated within the constitution, based on their opinion regarding the rights of the individual vs the duty of the office, and if that isn't the case the constitution isn't binding."
View attachment 8140370

View attachment 8140386
How is Marbury vs Madison being applied here, again?
What individual rights are being taken away by Trump?
If not, what right does the judiciary have to interfere with a policy that Marbury vs Madison applies to? How does Marbury vs Madison give the judiciary the ability to stop the executive from executing the duties of the president and the executive branch? Makes no sense to me, but I didn't go to "Precedent > Law" school.
Click to expand...
Disagreeing with the Supreme Court giving themselves power not in the constitution is unconstitutional. They said so.
 
Echo Rook said:
If the Republicans won't nuke the filibuster themselves, surely there's some legal theory to declare it unconstitutional, right?

Yes, the Senate has the power to declare their own rules (Article I Section 5). However, it is also declared that a bill passes the House and the Senate by a SIMPLE majority (Article I, Section 7). This filibuster is blatantly violating a section of the Constitution and is essentially clogging up one of three branches of our government to be non-functional, causing a fucking power grab between the judiciary and the executive.

Can we sue the Senate?
Click to expand...
I believe the filibuster is a loophole utilizing the fact that there is limited time in a day, and since senators do not have a time limit on stating their opinions in front of the assembly (regardless of whether it is relevant), they can continuously talk until the meeting is adjourned, blocking the Senate from the opportunity to vote, thus keeping a simple majority from ever being technically achieved. This can be overruled by a 60+ vote to skip deliberations, a number I assume that the Senate made up decades if not centuries ago.
Now I do wonder how they are doing these filibusters, since I'm pretty sure they are not getting the decrepit up there to talk the whole time every day in order to stop the vote being put forward, so they must have made it lame and gay by allowing the Dems to just say "filibuster!" Or something and acting like they bravely stood on the podium and yapped until everyone gave up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom