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:
Watching Schumer, Hillary, and Pelosi and all going in unison we have to close the border and stop illegals is great. Remember when Hillary was against gay marriage too? 'Don't ask don't tell' all that. The democrats have no principles, they swing with the wind and entirely flip flop constantly and everyone forgets what they said a few years prior.
What’s funny is Trump arguably ran further to the left than the majority of democrat candidates in the past 50 years.
 
That's really rich when you say that right after the news broke that VA's Supreme Court found theirs unconstitutional.
House districts are supposed to be drawn after the census. It's literally the law, but the USSC said that states doing it mid-decade is okay when Donnie Dementia ordered it done in red states
 
What’s funny is Trump arguably ran further to the left than the majority of democrat candidates in the past 50 years.
The entire focus by the end of 2024 election from the dems was that if Trump wins one of the first thing he'd do is ban abortion nationwide. Um... Well, that was an obviously lie. He did the best possible thing to push it to be a state issue which it should've been from the damn start.
 
Hispanics also tend to get whiter every generation.

Even the darkest beaners have grandchildren that look Greek or Spanish at their darkest.
Hispanic is also weird as hell. Those % births by ethnicity treat Hispanic-White as Hispanic even when the kids are White as can be. I'd like to see the admixture percent of the Eses who voted R and speak English. I'm also convinced that Hispanics are separating back to base ethnicities over time.
 
House districts are supposed to be drawn after the census. It's literally the law, but the USSC said that states doing it mid-decade is okay when Donnie Dementia ordered it done in red states
If the USSC declared something constitutional, even if you can't stand it, that means by definition it's constitutional while it stands.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Hispanic is also weird as hell. Those % births by ethnicity treat Hispanic-White as Hispanic even when the kids are White as can be. I'd like to see the admixture percent of the Eses who voted R and speak English. I'm also convinced that Hispanics are separating back to base ethnicities over time.
The mestizo eses generally go lib. R voters tend be light skinned hispanics or the most blackest of cubans (dont call them black).
 
Yep, 2030 will be the real deal. They know they have to get in power by then and do their thing to open the border to flood in more illegals.
There is a real chance, a solid chance that we could see something fucking insanely good for us. If the save act gets rammed through, and the maps get drawn accurately.. It's not crazy to see the house at 300 red, and maybe 65ish senators..

Tha'ts possible, it's going to require pressure from the voters and "our" people listening to us.
 
However, this brings us another question, what if numbers don't match? Utah voted 40% democrat, yet they only have one democrat seat out of four. Would they get one or two seats, if we used proportional representation?
Utah voted 60% Republican. If there's 4 seats then it makes sense to have each one be at the 25% mark, so three seats for the Republicans. Or were you thinking of a system where the 20% more Republican votes get erased so that both parties get exactly get two seats?
 
I think the best thing is proportional representation with the rounding going to the majority winner of the state. I really don't think the benefits of districts outweigh the costs in a "objective democracy" sense. But lord knows that isnt happening anytime soon.
 
There is a real chance, a solid chance that we could see something fucking insanely good for us. If the save act gets rammed through, and the maps get drawn accurately.. It's not crazy to see the house at 300 red, and maybe 65ish senators..

Tha'ts possible, it's going to require pressure from the voters and "our" people listening to us.
Unfortunately there is a chicken and egg thing going on with SAVE. I don't see it happening this year, which means even in a good 2030 outcome things might not be good enough even then to pass it. We'll see.
 
If the USSC declared something constitutional, even if you can't stand it, that means by definition it constitutional while it stands.
USSC can be compromised, though. If they said Kiwi Farms has to be shut down because it hurts people's feelings, it would still be unconstitutional for them to do so
 
USSC can be compromised, though. If they said Kiwi Farms has to be shut down because it hurts people's feelings, it would still be unconstitutional for them to do so
Wrong. They define what is constitutional. There's been plenty of stuff I don't like that they do. You know that one about how you're not supposed to limit concealed carry very much and make it shall issue? There's blue states that flat out ignore it but hey, democrats are under a different standard.

ACB stabbed the right in the back a few times too. Especially on getting rid of the NFA. Sucks, but it's how the system is. And I've made posts on here to the effect I think the USSC should not have absolute final word on things, but they do. There should be a way to override a bad ruling by some high standard like 75% of congress saying it's wrong. It breaks checks and balances.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole