• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

Not a lot of posts coming from Trumpers in the forum about this. I wonder why? Are they waiting to be told what to think?
At least a coherent way to articulate it. Trump certainly is failing at providing a coherent rationale for invading Venezuela. Rachel Maddow presented the questions I have about this in this quick 1 minute YouTube short.
 
Trump pulls a random number out of his ass, says that our military has eliminated 97% of all narcotics being trafficked into America. Watch Rubio's response
I'd rather not. What was his response?

Translation: States rights can go and get ◊◊◊◊◊◊.
Wasn't there some kind of scuffle about that a while back?
 
Checked in on my ex-friend on FB who's lost the plot but posts publicly. He posted a picture asking why the left didn't complain when .... Note the uniforms worn. My Spanish is weak but I suspect "Policia Nacional de Honduras" are not a branch of the US army.
View attachment 67726
Yep, he was arrested by Honduran authorities and extradited to the US to face drug charges. He was convicted of drug trafficking and Trump pardoned him. And the US didn't suggest that the US was going to run the Honduras. No sign they were going to take over their oil exports. Maybe because the Honduras doesn't export any oil?
 
At least a coherent way to articulate it. Trump certainly is failing at providing a coherent rationale for invading Venezuela. Rachel Maddow presented the questions I have about this in this quick 1 minute YouTube short.
I'm surprised she hasn't caught up yet. Trumps regime has been very open about the fact that they did it for oil. And the cult is lapping it up. My Magga 'friends' on social media are wholeheartedly endorsing it, cause "the US built/supplied/trained Venezuela" to be an oil powerhouse, and since Russia and China want their oil too, it is totally fine for us to break International law to get control of it before they do. That's their reasoning...
 
I'm surprised she hasn't caught up yet. Trumps regime has been very open about the fact that they did it for oil. And the cult is lapping it up. My Magga 'friends' on social media are wholeheartedly endorsing it, cause "the US built/supplied/trained Venezuela" to be an oil powerhouse, and since Russia and China want their oil too, it is totally fine for us to break International law to get control of it before they do. That's their reasoning...
Oh, I think Maddow very well knows it's about oil. But she is pointing out that any other reason doesn't have any ring of truth to it. This is resource theft. And the idea that Trump is doing it for any other reason than oil barons want it is patently absurd.
 
Yep, he was arrested by Honduran authorities and extradited to the US to face drug charges. He was convicted of drug trafficking and Trump pardoned him. And the US didn't suggest that the US was going to run the Honduras. No sign they were going to take over their oil exports. Maybe because the Honduras doesn't export any oil?
He also wasn't in office as head of state when the US authorities acted. At least Biden waited a couple days after he left office before swooping in.
 
I'm surprised she hasn't caught up yet. Trumps regime has been very open about the fact that they did it for oil. And the cult is lapping it up. My Magga 'friends' on social media are wholeheartedly endorsing it, cause "the US built/supplied/trained Venezuela" to be an oil powerhouse, and since Russia and China want their oil too, it is totally fine for us to break International law to get control of it before they do. That's their reasoning...
America doesn't give a rat's ◊◊◊◊ about international law. Never have. Just look at the disdain some Americans on this forum have for the UN and the ICC.
 
A better way of looking at fairness of aid given to Ukraine rather than in absolute terms is by proportion of GDP. Denmark on this basis is the top donor (1.83% GDP)and the US (0.35%) is way down the list (16th). UK gave 0.45%, Germany 0.37%, Canada 0.39%,


Just as a general comment on this, which applies to ANY federal spending for ANYTHING at all:

Also, remember that its the blue states (and only 2 red states: Texas and Florida - barely) that contributes positively to the US treasury. Every single blue liberal states pay more in taxes than we receive back from the federal government. And every single red state receives more from the federal government than they pay in. And yet, it's the RED STATES the ones that whine the most about federal spending!

And even then, most of the wealth that the red states do generate, are generated in their big blue southern and midwestern red state cities: Dallas, Houston, Miami, Orlando, Atlanta, Nashville, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Louisville, St. Louis, Indianapolis, etc, etc, etc, etc.

More than 70% of Americans reside in those small little blue dots, generating 95% of the nation's wealth. With 30% of the nation only generating 5% of the wealth.

Meanwhile, those 30% of Americans, are WAAAAYYY over-represented in the federal government. In the Senate in particular, of course, but also in the House due to small states being guaranteed a minimum of 3 representatives, and the total number of representatives being artificially capped at 435. Which means the House is NOT balanced based on state population the way it is meant to be. The district with the largest population it represents, is from Delaware at nearly 990,000 people. The average is 761,000. And the smallest is a district in Montana with just 542,000. The blue Delaware district has nearly 65% MORE people it represents than the small Montana district.

And yet, red staters STILL think that they should have MORE representation, as well as complete and constant control over all of that blue state wealth that WE create!

Blue states are the ones that see the importance of keeping Russia in check; to keep them from being tempted to expand this war by making it as prohibitively as expensive for Russia as we possibly can. In a recent essay of mine in this thread, I talked a lot about how this is financially killing Russia far more than it is Europe and especially the United States. Add in the fact that Russia is losing lots of manpower, not only for their armed forces, but also for their factories on top of what the government is spending, and all of the lost revenue and profits for their private industries with all of the sanctions. The loss of manpower to the front, and to death and dismemberment of individual soldiers to the tune of millions now, is lost productivity back home. Also, will put a big strain on their health care system, not just now, but in the future for at least an entire generation. They will be having a lot of disabled veterans, and a lot of physically healthy ones with major mental damage to deal with: extreme depression, PTSD, alcoholism, domestic abuse, homelessness, unable to work, etc, etc, etc.

Red states think they are entitled to tell their financial benefactors (all of the blue states) that we can't spend federal dollars on national infrastructure, education, healthcare, food stamps, social security, and that we cannot tax the billionaires like we used to in the 20th century that kept the government solvent and the entire economy prosperous for literal decades at a time.

How the ◊◊◊◊ did we, the more powerful, populous, and wealthy states, give up all of our power to the small poo-dunky ◊◊◊◊◊◊ little states that can't even run their own economies, never mind the national economy?
 
Meanwhile, those 30% of Americans, are WAAAAYYY over-represented in the federal government. In the Senate in particular, of course, but also in the House due to small states being guaranteed a minimum of 3 representatives, and the total number of representatives being artificially capped at 435. Which means the House is NOT balanced based on state population the way it is meant to be. The district with the largest population it represents, is from Delaware at nearly 990,000 people. The average is 761,000. And the smallest is a district in Montana with just 542,000. The blue Delaware district has nearly 65% MORE people it represents than the small Montana district.
The highlighted is not true. The least populous states have only 1 representative in the House of representatives. At this time, the states with only 1 US representative are Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.

All states have at least three electoral votes, because the number of electoral votes is equal to the number of representatives plus the two senators. And the District of Columbia, a non-state, also gets three votes in the electoral college, bringing the total number of electoral votes to 538.
 
(snip)

How the ◊◊◊◊ did we, the more powerful, populous, and wealthy states, give up all of our power to the small poo-dunky ◊◊◊◊◊◊ little states that can't even run their own economies, never mind the national economy?
It's not totally nuts. States with smaller populations wanted to make sure that they would not be drowned out by larger states and built that into the deal for joining the USA. Without that, there would not be the USA with residents wondering why we give extra representation tot eh states with smaller populations, so it's kind of a self-fulfilling question.

The whole money thing is largely the result of money based capitalism, with rural resource extration (mining, farming, etc.) areas having less money than urbal production areas (factories, offices etc.) as the cost of a toaster will always be greater than the cost of the materials that go into the toaster.

I'm actually perfectly happy with wealthier blue areas subsidizing poorer red areas. I am well aware that the food I get at the store comes to the store from someone working somewhere else.

Little less happy about those people calling me a lazy parasite as they take my money though. Even less happy when they think they should tell me how to live my life, and start asking for far more than their share of the power.
 
They don't exist...unless it is useful if they do.
It honestly feels like yet another rehash of "State's Rights" as they've been used since before the Civil War, with the right to own slaves, for example. Virtually no one actually cared about State's Rights on that issue (like virtually every other issue it has been applied to), but it was invoked frequently by the pro-slavery side of the debate as if it was a free "let me do what I want to do" card that they would be happy to ditch the moment that they thought it would stop them from getting their way.
 
The only question is whether the Judge is willing to disregard Maduro's unquestionable immunity as a Head of State.
The Supreme Court will say since the drug deals were a part of his official presidential duties he gets presidential immunity.
 
Well .. to be fair, US is governed by binary logic. Two parties. Two options on anything, no nuance, no middle ground, only the extremes. Love or hate, no indifference. Also every topic supported by one party is opposed by the other party, which sometimes leads to really weird associations .. like if you are against abortions (to any extent, don't forget, no nuance) you must also support military action against Venezuela (again, to any extent).
US is screwed and us non-US as well.
You can get the same results in countires with pure parliamentary systems, where a couple of extremist parties, thoug small in membershipt, hold the edge since you need them to make ruling majority.
I get the feeling you just do not the US very much because it is not Europe.
 
It's not totally nuts. States with smaller populations wanted to make sure that they would not be drowned out by larger states and built that into the deal for joining the USA. Without that, there would not be the USA with residents wondering why we give extra representation tot eh states with smaller populations, so it's kind of a self-fulfilling question.

The whole money thing is largely the result of money based capitalism, with rural resource extration (mining, farming, etc.) areas having less money than urbal production areas (factories, offices etc.) as the cost of a toaster will always be greater than the cost of the materials that go into the toaster.

I'm actually perfectly happy with wealthier blue areas subsidizing poorer red areas. I am well aware that the food I get at the store comes to the store from someone working somewhere else.

Little less happy about those people calling me a lazy parasite as they take my money though. Even less happy when they think they should tell me how to live my life, and start asking for far more than their share of the power.
I mean, yes. That is how it was structured, but only really for the Senate. The House of Representatives was NOT supposed to give more power to the smaller states per capita. That's why we have two houses of Congress, the Upper (Senate), and the Lower (House of Representatives.)

It was a way for smaller states to have SOME say, but not for them to be able to have such overwhelmingly over-representation. It was only in 1929 with the Permanant Apportionment Act where they set the House at strictly 435 members. Nevermind the fact that 2 more states would eventually join the union, and the fact that some states would naturally grow even more disproportionately larger than others. When you throw in the guaranteed minimum of 3 Representatives for every state, that's where the larger states are having less and less and less say per voter.

Basically, if you look at the math, there is no way for the larger states to have the actual Constitutional power in the House that they are MEANT to have. In essence, the Apportionment Act of 1929 is unconstitutional. And since the presidential electors are based on the number of districts each state is apportioned, that's yet another portion of the federal government where the majority of Americans do not have the proper representation. And since the president gets to nominate the SCOTUS justices, and the House gets to approve, that's YET ANOTHER portion of the federal government where the larger states are unconstitutionally misrepresented.

Obviously, there was a practical reason for the House to be limited to 435 members in 1929. There is only so many members that can safely and comfortably fit inside of a finite-sized chamber. However, this is now the 21st century, and we no longer need to be restricted to the size of a physical chamber inside of a physical building. There is no reason why they can't use 21st century technology. There's no reason why they can't construct another chamber to expand the House, for overflow purposes in case too many representatives show up in person for a particular meeting of the House members. As I understand it, not every representative shows up in person for every meeting for voting sessions anyway.

At the VERY least, we COULD do away with the electoral college altogether. At least give the presidential elections into the hands of the majority of voters. The easiest way to do that, is for a few more states to pass what is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would effectively nullify the electoral college through an interstate agreement for all states who signed on, to throw all of their electoral votes behind the popular vote winner. Before this compact can go into effect, they need enough states that equals 270 electoral votes. Right now, we have enough states that have enacted this that equals 209 electoral votes. With three more states pending that equals another 34 votes. If those three states (Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Kansas) enact it, then we only need two more states to enact this compact for it to go into effect, to effectively bypass the electoral voting system altogether without the need for a constitutional amendment to revise it.

The Compact mentioned above would at least bring us closer to what the Constitution itself actually calls for: More representation in the hands of the larger states, at least for presidential elections. The issue with the large states being unconstitutionally under-represented in the House would still need to be fixed. And all that needs to be done, is repealing the 1929 Apportionment Act, which is NOT a Constitutional amendment. Which means that the Supreme Court COULD rule it unconstitutional, as it ought to be. Or Congress could just simply repeal it altogether.

If the majority of voters were able to get what they want, as they should, it would encourage a higher voter turnout with people happier with the results, and therefore, happier with the government. A populist getting low-education, low-information voters to vote for him, like Trump, would be a lot less likely to occur.
 
The highlighted is not true. The least populous states have only 1 representative in the House of representatives. At this time, the states with only 1 US representative are Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.

All states have at least three electoral votes, because the number of electoral votes is equal to the number of representatives plus the two senators. And the District of Columbia, a non-state, also gets three votes in the electoral college, bringing the total number of electoral votes to 538.
Oh, that's what it is. 3 electoral votes. Not 3 representatives. Here, I thought that the electoral votes were based on the number of districts that are apportioned to each state for the House as well. Thanks for correcting me on that error.

But. Well. still. The fact that the House is permanently apportioned to 435 members is giving less and less representation to more populous states with every passing election cycle, as populations continue to disprortionately grow. And if PR were ever to join the union, it would dissolve the larger populations a bit further.
 
Last edited:
Because I am a geek I occaisionally go to watch congressional hearings. Among the most entertaining are the house oversight hearings. My shock tonight when I went to look for some entertainment maybe should not have been shock. I have been shocked to watch the growth of a cult of personality in real time but this shocked me. An entire page on the house oversight committee to “the Biden auto pen presidency.” No hearings but it appears lots of interviews. Too late to peruse it now but the fact that this sits on a house committee webpage tells me that the cult of personality has gone farther than I thought. Link to house page below:
 

Back
Top Bottom