US US Politics General 2: Hope Edition - 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/
 
Ostatnio edytowane przez moderatora:
Love all the gardening talk, I have a really nice garden that gets a little bigger and more practical with each passing year.


Big cities are designed to make owning your own car as hostile and inconvenient as possible. To incentivize using public transport, Climate change policy isnt really about climate change. Its about consolidating money and power away from the average person.
Oh, man. I feel like we live on different planets.

It is inconvenient to own a car, because cars are inherently inconvenient. They're expensive, they're money pits, they break, you need to find a place to park them, you need to worry about every other asshole on the road. But in the U.S. and Canada, it's infinitely more convenient to own one than not to. Cities aren't built with pedestrians in mind at all outside of that one token, historical, bohemian neighbourhood. If you have a home, getting to and from it just became your life, as you begin to navigate and endless sprawl of automobile-centric infrastructure. As Emily Haines put it, "Buy this car to drive to work/Drive to work to pay for this car." If you're unlucky enough to be homeless without a car, it's a completely different situation than being homeless with one.

And anyone with a car has an easier time getting around than anyone without one in most places. The opposite of what you said is true. Over the last century, the automobile industry has gutted public transit. Major cities are better off than other places, but even there, it's a shadow of what it could be. The use of public transit isn't incentivized, it's ruthlessly stigmatized. The average person would have more power if public transit were more accessible. North America is owned & operated by the petroleum and automobile industries, who knew as early as the 1910s that their project would result in global warming and began aggressively misinforming the public about climate change as early as the 1970s. It will take years of public awareness campaigning to reverse the damage they've done.


It literally doesn't include public parks. Yellowstone isn't touched nor should it be
Agreed, but what is included? Apprehensive about this. Feels like more and more of what ought to belong to the people belongs to private equity.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Oh, man. I feel like we live on different planets. It is inconvenient to own a car, because cars are inherently inconvenient. They're expensive, they're money pits, they break, you need to find a place to park them, you need to worry about every other asshole on the road. But in the U.S. and Canada, it's infinitely more convenient to own one than not to. If you have a home, getting to and from it just became your life, as you begin to navigate and endless sprawl of automobile-centric infrastructure. As Emily Haines put it, "Buy this car to drive to work/Drive to work to pay for this car." If you're unlucky enough to be homeless without a car, it's a completely different situation than being homeless with one. And anyone with a car has an easier time getting around than anyone without one in most places. The opposite of what you said is true. Over the last century, the automobile industry has gutted public transit. Major cities are better off than other places, but even there, it's a shadow of what it could be. The use of public transit isn't incentivized, it's ruthlessly stigmatized. The average person would have more power if public transit were more accessible. North America is owned & operated by the petroleum and automobile industries, who knew as early as the 1910s that their project would result in global warming and began aggressively misinforming the public about climate change as early as the 1970s. It will take years of public awareness campaigning to reverse the damage they've done.
Get rid of the niggers and we can have public transit and cities again.
 
Here is a recent article on Senator Mike Lee's land sale provision in the Big Beautiful Bill.

Mike Lee Shoves Another Bad Land Sale Provision into the Senate’s Final Budget Bill​

Universally reviled legislation that will sell up to 1.25 million acres of BLM land around the West starting this fall has been placed in the Senate’s final budget bill which will face floor votes as early as today.

Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that oversees the Interior Department’s budget, released new language Friday night that doubles down on his longstanding desire to reduce the federal estate, using veiled language that justifies land sales to alleviate housing shortages in fast-growing Western cities.

The bill’s latest draft tightens problematic language of earlier versions that risked being flagged by the Senate parliamentarian as non-conforming for a reconciliation bill, say sources who reviewed Lee’s draft late last night. But it contains the most unacceptable provisions to public-land advocates, and could open some of the West’s most remote and cherished public lands for sale. Because it now includes unallocated mineral leases, it could also balloon the amount of land eligible for sale.

Specifically, the final draft expands the definition of eligible BLM land, which Lee says is designed to promote affordable housing and urban infrastructure, by prioritizing federal land sales within five miles of the border of “population centers.” Instead of using the commonly accepted definition of a population center as a municipality of 2,500 or more people, the new draft defines a population center as “a census-designated place or incorporated municipality with a population of not less than 1,000 persons.” This provision greatly expands the eligibility of BLM land that could be sold surrounding unincorporated rural communities.

Last night’s draft also now allows leasing of some previously protected lands, omitting national preserves, national seashores, lakeshores, national historic sites, and national memorials and battlefields from the categories of land that could not be considered for sale. It includes unallocated subsurface mineral leasing as a qualifying covenant for land sales, along with earlier drafts that omit active surface uses and BLM land with active livestock-grazing leases from sale consideration.

This allowance of unsubscribed mineral rights could greatly increase the number of eligible acres for sale to something over 3 million, say sources. That’s because the BLM administers subsurface mineral rights on some 700 million onshore and offshore acres. If millions of those acres now qualify for sale because of Lee’s new language “we could be talking about the sale of way more than 1.25 million acres,” says a land-use expert who was still researching the question as of this morning. “We could be talking 3 million and more, depending on the answer to the question of whether the BLM owns those rights or simply administers them.”

Lee’s latest draft also changes the definition of who can bid on this “surplused” public land. Nominations for tracts can come from what Lee defines as “qualified bidders.” That term is not defined in the bill.

The bill extends the mandatory sale deadline from five to 10 years and increases the amount of federal money that will be used to execute these sales from $5 million to $15 million.

But what’s especially galling to critics of the bill, who note the many loopholes that allow disposal of federal land for purposes other than affordable housing, is that the new draft adds criteria for disposal of our most valuable lands to include a mechanism for consolidating large ranches and for including “isolated tracts that are difficult to manage.” That last provision could list for sale some of the most valuable hunting and fishing acreage in the West.

Sources noted, with rising alarm, that Lee’s latest draft appears to be calibrated to make it through Senate parliamentary scrutiny.

“This appears to be an effort to try and survive parliamentarian review,” says David Willms, associate vice president for public lands for the National Wildlife Federation. “Adding a priority of selling the highest value lands, and including subsurface rights along with the surface rights seems to be an effort to sell the provision as one with primarily budget impacts, which is necessary to survive the Byrd Rule” that requires items in reconciliation bills to have budgetary, rather than policy, implications.

“Obviously, to anyone that cares about public lands, however, that’s simply a smokescreen to sell an area more than twice the size of Rocky Mountain National Park to an as-yet-undefined ‘qualified bidder,’” says Willms. “But it’s also an indication of the sloppy and haphazard nature of this latest bill.”

Lee’s new draft is so contrary to and tone-deaf to the hundreds of thousands of calls, letters, and emails to congressional offices over the past week that some critics of the bill suggest that it’s designed to fail in full Senate voting that starts today. In an Instagram reel, New Mexico Sen. Martin Heinrich (D) noted that the groundswell of calls to congressional offices is the “broadest and deepest coalition that I have ever seen for public lands in my life. Keep it up. We are winning.”

Fellow Republican Senators, including Montana’s Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy and Idaho’s Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, have publicly stated their opposition to the bill. The news site NOTUS yesterday reported that Daines has the votes to kill Lee’s draft in the budget reconciliation process. That’s the expedited process that requires only a simple majority in both the House and Senate for passage. Republicans hold a 3-vote majority in both chambers.

At least five Republicans in the House of Representatives have said they won’t vote for any version of the budget bill that contains the land-sale provision. They include Montana’s Ryan Zinke, Mike Simpson from Idaho, Dan Newhouse from Washington, Oregon’s Cliff Bentz, and David Valadao from California — all Westerners with large public-land holdings in their congressional districts.

“At the end of the day, I would bet on this [bill language] getting kicked out, but it’s gonna be a slog,” says a public-land advocate who asked not to be named as they were still reviewing the bill draft. “I’m still wondering if, in the long run, Lee is doing more to help public lands, by inspiring so much advocacy, than to hurt them.”

Land Tawney, whose group American Hunters and Anglers has been a vocal opponent of the land-sale legislation, says the latest draft confirms Lee’s inability to read the national mood.

“Regardless of how Mike Lee polishes his public lands sell off proposal, it’s still a piece of shit,” says Tawney. “Not a square inch of our public lands should be used to pay off tax breaks for billionaires.”

Archive Link
 
Read the bill. Then you will know. They aren't selling parks or the forest. They are selling off junk basically.

Yes, out of the full goodness of their hearts too! I'm sure that's what the politicians are thinking. I'm sure that's what the corps are thinking. Such kindness in their hearts for the public!

Or maybe, hear me out here, there's something else to it. You know beyond your talking points meant to shut down critical inquiry.
 
I don't get it. Why would you need society to say that forcefully having sex with somebody is bad?
How would you ever understand what sex is or why you shouldn't do it if you were completely unsocialized? It's not about society telling you this specific thing is bad, but even having a conception of the terms or a worldview that allows you to understand them.

If you think that's ridiculous I invite you to search for a video of Indian men expressing the view that most rape is consensual.
 
I know it isn't new information but jesus christ on a cracker the law subreddit is fucking cancer they are acting like the ruling in the birthright citizens case was related to the birthright citizenship issue and it's just 100% orange man bad posts it's been like that for a while but to see them so blatantly misrepresent what the ruling actually said is wild
Yup, and it's every single source close to leftists. Only you csn defeat gell mann amnesia, every single journo is a retarded faggot. That's a fact
 
But in the U.S. and Canada, it's infinitely more convenient to own one than not to.
It’s more convenient to own a car everywhere. Even in anti-car cities like NYC, London, and Paris, it’s still faster to drive to majority of places, they’ve just priced the majority of the population out of using a car. You won’t see the rich on the train in those cities as they’re all in chauffeured SUVs.

American cities are orders of magnitude more convenient than other countries’. It’s amazing that we can go from anywhere in the country to anywhere else in the country without doing anything more than typing an address into a computer. No schedules, no connections, privacy, and comfort.

Giving that up because of “muh carbon” or a childish desire to live atop a shopping mall is dumb.

Also, transit is far more expensive than owning a car, it’s just that someone else is paying most of the bill for you. Road infrastructure is orders of magnitude cheaper than transit infrastructure and is mostly funded by its users.
 
in the U.S. and Canada
You're probably right, but you're also probably Canadian, because no one in the US fucking cares. Anyway, no, I'm not super keen to talk environmentalism with you, so let me make it quick.

If we detonated every nuclear weapon on earth in a big pile, it would be a couple orders of magnitude short of the Tambora eruption; this eruption caused a "year without a summer" due to the clouds of ash. In terms of geological history, the planet undergoes climate shifts greater than worst estimates of anthropogenic climate change. This is all dwarfed by things like meteor impacts which can cause mass extinction.

The point here is that the obvious answer to any kind of climate change is only ever to increase our own industrial capacity so that we can mitigate it to ensure human flourishing, and potentially intervene to preserve ecosystems we favor. The idea that it is our capability itself which causes our downfall is a bizarre doomsday cult.

Also warming is good because the places that are already hot and will become uninhabitable are full of browns (I will have the courtesy to anticipate your response about migrants, please anticipate my rebuttal), and we can just annex your gay country once it starts thawing; I really hope we don't let you guys vote but even if we do, Canada pop~=California pop.
 
Found this looking for the Planeteer Alert.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=i__ztikjTok
Why does Hitler have a Fu Manchu?

Proof for Your Evangelical Friend: jUdEoChRiStiAn 🪤


Wyświetl załącznik 7570746
mintpress_taybeh.mp4

⭕️Israeli settlers are burning down the Christian town of Taybeh in the West Bank

The village is known for its uniquely all-Christian population.

Cars, lands and home all attacked in a series of violent pogroms aimed at uprooting Palestinian communities.

Incidentally, "Judeo-Christian" strikes me as a contradictory term. As a Christian I have no desire to take part in any Jewish feasts or practices; I personally would not want to be a part of a people my Lord and my God called "synagogue of Satan" twice. I wonder what would happen in your average church in America if someone played these videos. People have post-ww2 brain and give Jews a "pass", but if you've got a Bible handy, you have a historical record of Jews messing up for literal thousands of years.
 
Is it weird to say I never understood why child labor is a thing? Like the aveegre child is weaker that the avenge adult man and you want them to run a factory that would require a good bit of strength? That doesn't make sense to me the only reason why you would hire children is if you could pay them less(which is the reason why they did that) its even stranger now that there are some people (you know exactly which ones I'm talking about) want to bring child labor back like why? Why repeat the same mistakes again just so you could make 0.5% more money.
Children are of marginal value as laborers when heavy lifting is required, but they require less food, are easier to cow into submission, can fit into smaller places and their smaller hands can often be more suited to detailed work. Once the Industrial Revolution got started they were the perfect mill workers.

Of course this meant that child workers were confined and forced to work long hours around industrial equipment, so there were some quality of life issues, which is why people are so touchy about child labor these days, despite it being perfectly normal before the Industrial Revolution.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole