• 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

newyorkguy said:
Another bonus for the MAGA crowd. From the article linked:


Heavier rainfall linked to climate change? Man, they ain' no such thang!

View attachment 60517
........MAGA!!!
Click to expand...
Oh those lefties will just blame everything on climate change... Flooding, unseasonable heatwaves, prolonged heatwaves, wildfires, unprecedented wildfires, melting glaciers, crops failing. I mean, everything!
 
Trump defunded NPR etc. He is going after Wikipedia. Is there no way non-profits can move to Canada?
They can have employees in the US as long as they deal with education etc.
He will go after Sierra Club too.
 
zooterkin said:
If only there were some mechanism by which the American people could protect themselves against tyrants. You'd think they'd have thought of that, given the way the country was founded. What was the reason for all those guns, again? The NRA has been very quiet.
Click to expand...
Slight tangent here.

I know that's the popular perception of the 2nd Amendment, but my take on it is quite the opposite. The amendment itself has the "well-regulated militia" part that everyone seems to either skip over or assumes the militia would support a popular uprising, but that's not at all what the Constitution says. The militia itself is discussed in Article I Section 8 and its role is "to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

Article II Section 2 says "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,
and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

Maybe there's some wiggle room on the "when called into the actual service" part, but to me, it certainly looks like the Constitution intends for all those guns to be used for keeping a president in power rather than enabling a popular uprising.

As I understand it, Madison did view the militia as a way for the states to rise up if (when) necessary against the federal govt, but that's not how I'm reading the actual constitution.

I'm not a legal or constitutional scholar, and others here (Jay?) will undoubtedly have better insights into this.
 
The militias guarding things and shooting cicilians that threatend order? When did that ever happen? Oh, those kids going to school in Little Rock. But then there was Kent State.
 
Darat said:
As we've seen from his own mouth, he doesn't know what the declaration of independence was.
Click to expand...
How can you doubt the scholarship of the great Dump? Who else knew about the raids on the English airfields during the revolution? He truly has a knack for digging up all sorts of obscure facts no one else knew about. The Crossing of the Tarmac, exploding trees, groceries, there's no limit to the things only he knows about!
 
dasmiller said:
Slight tangent here.

I know that's the popular perception of the 2nd Amendment, but my take on it is quite the opposite. The amendment itself has the "well-regulated militia" part that everyone seems to either skip over or assumes the militia would support a popular uprising, but that's not at all what the Constitution says. The militia itself is discussed in Article I Section 8 and its role is "to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

Article II Section 2 says "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,
and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

Maybe there's some wiggle room on the "when called into the actual service" part, but to me, it certainly looks like the Constitution intends for all those guns to be used for keeping a president in power rather than enabling a popular uprising.

As I understand it, Madison did view the militia as a way for the states to rise up if (when) necessary against the federal govt, but that's not how I'm reading the actual constitution.

I'm not a legal or constitutional scholar, and others here (Jay?) will undoubtedly have better insights into this.
Click to expand...
The founders of the US would have meant militia in there sense they were familiar with it from England. Following the English civil war the crown was forbidden from maintaining a standing army.

One of Parliament’s roles is to give its consent to the raising and keeping of standing army during peacetime; this requirement is set out in the 1688-89 Bill of Rights, one of the great historic documents that regulate the relations between the Crown and the people.

The Bill of Rights sought to limit the power of the Crown by preventing monarchs from trying to change laws, raise taxes or maintain an army without Parliament’s consent: “By raising and keeping a Standing Army within this Kingdome in time of Peace without Consent of Parlyament and Quartering Soldiers contrary to Law.”

A former Defence Minister, Baroness Goldie, said the annual consideration of the 2006 act “reflects the constitutional requirement under the Bill of Rights that the Armed Forces may not be maintained without the consent of this Parliament.”
Click to expand...

The army could be considered as two main components, the household guards who protected the King (and were and still are referred to as guards to distinguish them from being a standing army) and were full time regulars (4 infantry and two cavalry regiments). And the part time county based regiments, the militia who included both infantry and cavalry. The role of the militia was to maintain order, putting down riots and insurrection and defend the nation from invasion.

Militia regiments in a similar fashion were raised in the American colonies, part time soldiers who would respond to threats internal and external. Just as you describe.
 
and while perhaps there's some historical context in which this wasn't true that i'm not aware of, but i think it's pretty widely accepted that anyone sworn into government service swears an oath to the constitution first, and the president second. so in certain contexts the 2nd amendment would be used to keep a president in power, that's not necessarily always true.

but at the end of the day you can't really make anyone really believe in the oath they swear
 
Canada Freezes US Travel as Air Canada, WestJet, Porter, and Flair Slash Routes to Major Cities Including San Francisco, Miami, New York, and Washington to Tap Growing Demand in Europe
Canada is rapidly reshaping its aviation ties with the US as declining travel demand, rising diplomatic tensions, and shifting consumer preferences drive major airlines—Air Canada, WestJet, Porter, and Flair—to slash routes to key U.S. cities including San Francisco, Miami, New York, and Washington. With a significant drop in both leisure and business travel from Canada to the U.S., carriers are now reallocating capacity toward Europe, where demand remains strong and political conditions are more favorable.
Click to expand...

Cross-Border Travel in Decline​

In recent months, both business and leisure travel from Canada to the United States have seen a dramatic downturn. Data from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shows that entries from the northern border fell by 12.5% in February and a further 18% in March, indicating sustained contraction in cross-border movement. This retreat comes amid growing discomfort among Canadian travelers, fueled by strict U.S. border enforcement, electronic device inspections, and political rhetoric painting Canada as “the 51st state.”

Further compounding this decline, Flight Centre Travel Group Canada reported that Canadian business travel to the United States plummeted by 40% in the early months of 2025. Tourism Economics forecasts a 15.2% decline in international visitors to the U.S. this year alone, a downturn echoed by decreased arrivals from key European markets like Germany and Spain—down 30% and 25%, respectively, in March.
Click to expand...

Political Fallout Behind the Travel Freeze​

The downturn in U.S.-bound travel from Canada coincides with an atmosphere of political friction. While President Donald Trump dismissed concerns in an April 27 media exchange—calling the tourism slowdown “not a big deal”—his rhetoric and policy decisions have sent ripples through bilateral travel flows. Two days after denying the downturn, Trump stated in an ABC interview that “tourism is way up,” a claim that was fact-checked and corrected live on air.

Meanwhile, Canada has issued updated travel advisories cautioning citizens about “strict enforcement” at U.S. borders and warning of increased scrutiny of electronic devices. Similar advisories have been issued by France, Belgium, Finland, Portugal, and the United Kingdom, reinforcing the perception of heightened tension and risk when entering the United States.
Click to expand...
 
All those graduates will be working steel and pouring concrete for Trump.

Trump: "For the business majors here today, I challenge you not merely to use your talents for financial speculation, but to apply your great skills that you've learned and had to forging the steel and pouring the concrete of new American factories, plants, shipyards, and even cities."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1918106800773120391
 
Safe-Keeper said:
I'd like to know why he wants business majors specifically to forge steel and pour concrete, but I know there's no reason, and trying to make sense of his ramblings always makes my head hurt.
Click to expand...
It's America's great leap forward.

Which, just like China's before it, will leap to some time in the mid-20th century. Hopefully with a few million fewer needless deaths.
 
Last edited:
Tero said:
The militias guarding things and shooting cicilians that threatend order? When did that ever happen? Oh, those kids going to school in Little Rock. But then there was Kent State.
Click to expand...

Cicillians? They missed their chance when the Mafia was at it's height.
 
dirtywick said:
and while perhaps there's some historical context in which this wasn't true that i'm not aware of, but i think it's pretty widely accepted that anyone sworn into government service swears an oath to the constitution first, and the president second. so in certain contexts the 2nd amendment would be used to keep a president in power, that's not necessarily always true.

but at the End of the Days you can't really make anyone really believe in the oath they swear
Click to expand...


FTFY, or at least that's how it feels.
 
Andy_Ross said:
All those graduates will be working steel and pouring concrete for Trump.

Trump: "For the business majors here today, I challenge you not merely to use your talents for financial speculation, but to apply your great skills that you've learned and had to forging the steel and pouring the concrete of new American factories, plants, shipyards, and even cities."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1918106800773120391
Click to expand...

It's okay, they've all got BAs in "Screwing in tiny iPhone screws"
 
P.J. Denyer said:
It's okay, they've all got BAs in "Screwing in tiny iPhone screws"
Click to expand...
So many opportunities under Dump. Braving explosive coal dust in a mine, doing the same repetitive task for 14 hours a day in a sweatshop, working in a factory around dangerous machines that will mangle or kill you if you're not careful. Lots of farm jobs too, now that we've finally kicked out all those illegal brown people who stole all those Murican jobs!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom