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:
You guys ever realize that redditors will one day go to a nursing home and slowly loose their minds as they still hold onto to hate of people they don’t even know?
 

Conservative Eric Erickson is non-too pleased about Trump Administration's plans to buy a stake of Intel, much like they did with MP Materials. Even going as far as to compare Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to Zohran Mamdani.
“The commerce secretary said Tuesday Intel must give the United States government an equity stake in the company in return for CHIPS Act funds. “We should get an equity stake for our money. So we’ll deliver the money, which was already committed under the Biden administration, we’ll get equity in return for it.” I’m sorry, but no, this is terrible. This is socialism!” Erickson fumed, adding:

The U.S. government would become the largest shareholder of Intel. This is actual socialism happening by a Republican administration. There’s no national security justification for this. In fact, I had some anonymous account on Twitter say, “Yeah, there is a national security justification for having control of Intel.” Really? We don’t have control of Raytheon. We don’t have government control of Nvidia. We don’t have government control of Apple. We don’t have government control of Boeing. We don’t have government control of Lockheed Martin. We don’t have government control of any major weapons developer or defense contractor.

But you want ten percent control of Intel in exchange for money the government already promised to give them? That’s socialism. You may be comfortable with socialism. You may decide you like socialism because someone from the Trump administration wants socialism, but my God, people, what have we been fighting for for the last decade?

You want smaller government? This expands it. You want the government not to go woke? Well, what happens when the Democrats get in charge and they become the largest shareholder of Intel? Good luck stopping that from happening. You know there’s no such thing as permanence in politics in the United States of America. You’re not gonna stop a Democrat from one day winning reelection or getting into the White House.

Having the government take control of a private corporation in exchange for government funding—first of all, they shouldn’t even get government funding. You should let Intel fall flat on its face for having a bad business decision and let the creative destruction of the marketplace pick them apart. Let other companies buy up their pieces or let them regroup.

A government bailout—you know what this does is it causes a distortion in the marketplace, something called the moral hazard, where more and more companies realize they can take extraordinary risks and fall flat—irresponsible risks, not extraordinary risks, irresponsible risks—and the government will just say, “Well, give me ten percent of your company and I’ll make you right.” This is a horrible precedent. This is socialism. All of you people were freaked out about Mamdani in New York City wanting government-run grocery stores and saying the people need to seize the means of production.

That’s what Howard Lutnick is doing right now, saying that the government must seize the controlling interest in Intel—the means of production—in order to get government money. You can’t just be against socialism when the left does it. If you’re not against socialism overall, guess what? You’re going to get socialism. So if you support socialism, apparently Donald Trump is your guy.

He’s now becoming a socialist administration if Howard Lutnick gets his way. Howard Lutnick wanted the tariffs on everybody. Howard Lutnick wants socialism. Howard Lutnick wants the government to interfere in the private sector economy.

Honestly, he is technically right. This is the same shit the CCP does in China with their private enterprises.

 
Screenshot 2025-08-20 200506.webp
This is pretty cool.
For people who don't know, pell grants are grants (as opposed to loans) that help people with no money pay for college.
It's not a ton of money, but helpful. It's not like a full scholarship or anything like, just couple of thousand bucks a year.
Plus there are restrictions on them, like you have to maintain certain course loads and actually get good grades.
Also you have to demonstrate a certain amount of financial need to apply for them in the first place.

This has been something people could apply for at 4 year and (i think) 2 year colleges, but now they're opening them up to trade schools as well.
No idea why that wasn't already the case, but whatever.

Good time for young people to learn to be an electrician/plumber/welder. or whatever
 
You guys ever realize that redditors will one day go to a nursing home and slowly loose their minds as they still hold onto to hate of people they don’t even know?
That's sad...i can't imagine holding that much hate for someone who doesn't know I exist. I can't imagine holding that much hate for Trump long after he's gone from the white house and the world.
 
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/c...dmin-for-wanting-to-takeover-private-company/
Conservative Eric Erickson is non-too pleased about Trump Administration's plans to buy a stake of Intel, much like they did with MP Materials. Even going as far as to compare Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to Zohran Mamdani.

Erick Erickson is a Never Trump faggot and can't see the reason Intel is needing to be bought is because it's basically been corporate sabotage with their new CEO destroying the company (which has its own fab facilities) in order to give Chyna (and Taiwan) more power in controlling processors. It's about some of the money, more about not letting a monopoly happen in an aspect of the economy that can't have more power given to Chyna. Intel is still salvagable, it's not like Chrysler/Stellantis.
 
It costs hundreds of thousands if you want to have reliable 24/7 power all year long without relying on the grid for backup. You have to greatly overprovision your panels and batteries such that you can both meet your energy needs and charge your batteries on the cloudiest, darkest, coldest day of the year. You'll have a huge surplus when conditions are good, but you have to prepare for the worst, not the average case.

If you just want to prepay your electric bill for the next couple decades (or take out a loan and pay interest as well), it works fine, but what's the point?
Oh yea sorry, guess I misunderstood. Yea if you want to go completely off grid, good luck unless you're rich. Realistically you'd need a generator if you wanted to be completely off grid.

I do think it's a good hedge against rising energy costs, which if you saw how Dems were running things, shutting down power plants and such, it seemed like a good bet. Less of a good bet now with what Trump's doing, but it's hard to forecast 4 years into the future, let alone 20. It also gives peace of mind, which if you have $30k to spare might be nice.
 
For context, Rich Grenell is gay. He's also said to be the one who was pushing to intervene with Romania to get Andrew Tate released, although I remember looking into that a little and not getting to the bottom of what was concretely true.
 
A Manhattan-based district judge has denied the DOJ from unsealing the grand jury records on Epstein. Now why would he do that? 🤔
The specific exceptions to grand jury secrecy under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allow disclosure of grand jury materials in limited circumstances. These exceptions, as relevant to the Epstein case and similar contexts, are:


  1. To a Defendant in a Judicial Proceeding: Disclosure may be permitted to a defendant if they show that a ground may exist to dismiss an indictment due to a matter that occurred before the grand jury (Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i)).
  2. In Connection with a Judicial Proceeding: A court may authorize disclosure at the request of the government, a defendant, or another party if the materials are needed for use in a judicial proceeding, such as to support or defend against a legal claim (Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i)). The requesting party must demonstrate a "particularized need" for the materials, meaning the information is necessary, relevant, and unavailable through other means.
  3. To Government Personnel for Criminal Law Enforcement: Disclosure is allowed to federal or state government personnel (e.g., prosecutors, investigators) to assist in enforcing federal criminal law (Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i) and (ii)).
  4. To Foreign Governments for Criminal Investigations: Disclosure can be made to foreign government officials to assist in their criminal law enforcement activities, subject to court approval (Rule 6(e)(3)(D)).
  5. To Prevent an Act of Terrorism or Foreign Intelligence Operations: Disclosure is permitted to government personnel (federal or state) to prevent or investigate terrorism or other threats to national security (Rule 6(e)(3)(D)).
  6. At the Request of a State or Foreign Government: A court may authorize disclosure to state, local, tribal, or foreign government officials in connection with their criminal investigations, provided they meet strict criteria (Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(iii)).
  7. Historical or Public Interest Exception (Limited): In rare cases, courts have recognized an exception for historical significance or public interest, as seen in cases like the Nixon grand jury testimony. However, this is not explicitly codified in Rule 6(e) and depends on circuit precedent. The 11th Circuit, relevant to Judge Rosenberg’s ruling, has not broadly endorsed this exception, limiting its applicability in the Epstein case.

the president could 100% sign an executive order to do it, even though it isn't expressed as one of those powers. (IE biden student loan order, which did nothing at the end of the day)
I think personally we have reached the public interest exception already but the cases where that's been used have been bonkers:
- FBI’s COINTELPRO Program
- Rosenberg Espionage Case
- FBI’s ABSCAM Investigation
- Clinton-Lewinsky Investigation
- Watergate Scandal
What I believe most likely is Trump is probably implicated in some Fraud or something? Or it would completely fuck over our relationship with Israel or another ally. Or Epstein was really just a good Jewish boy and was hypnotized by those evil Jew tits that noted redditor Ghislaine Maxwell has.
 
Back
Top Bottom