Miscellaneous Trump (9 Viewers)

[Huntn]

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'​

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the 2024 election.

www.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – It looks like American politics is entering a new age of anxiety, triggered by an unprecedented legal development: The potential indictment of a former president and current presidential candidate.

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests by his followers – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the unknowable impact all this will have on the already-tense 2024 presidential election

I’ll reframe this is a more accurate way, Are Presidents above the law? This new age was spurred into existence when home grown dummies elected a corrupt, mentally ill, anti-democratic, would be dictator as President and don’t bother to hold him responsible for his crimes, don’t want to because in the ensuing mayhem and destruction, they think they will be better off. The man is actually advocating violence (not the first time). And btw, screw democracy too. If this feeling spreads, we are In deep shirt.

This goes beyond one treasonous Peice of work and out to all his minions. This is on you or should we be sympathetic to the idea of they can’t help being selfish suckers to the Nation’s detriment? Donald Trump is the single largest individual threat to our democracy and it‘s all going to boil down to will the majority of the GOP return to his embrace and start slinging his excrement to support him?

 

[Dragon]

Not really. But suffice it to say that there are differences between my position on school choice and parental rights and Harris‘s position. She isnt, as another poster has characterized, an “old time republican”. Failure to recognize that is nobodys fault but your own.

When you claim there are differences you should also be able to say what those differences str - although I suspect you won't be able to do that at all... Just the usual generic "differences" Your "argumentations" are like a broken record that keep playing the same line over and over again

 

[J-DONK]

Lapaz asked you the following: "Do you acknowledge that Democrats and Harris wanted to pass conservative immigration legislation, but it was blocked by Trump's backers to create an issue to bash Democrats?"

Your answer: "I acknowledge that an immigration bill did not pass in an election year."

This implies that you do not acknowledge what Lapaz asked, which was if you acknowledged Trump's role in it, which is well documented. Acknowledging Trump's involvement in the bill being squashed is acknowledging reality. Failing to do so is more evidence that you don't comport with reality. It's a simple question, Joe.

Most Republicans will tell you it was an obvious play by Democrats because they didn't poll well on the topic, and this would close that attack vector for Democrats.

That is true.

It's also true, Donald Trump killed the bill to keep the issue as a campaign topic.

Also, motivation doesn't change the legislation. It did contain massive concessions to conseratives so it would pass.

Joe should have no issues with this topic since the real critique is about Trump, who he claims to not support.

 

[TampaJoe]

Most Republicans will tell you it was an obvious play by Democrats because they didn't poll well on the topic, and this would close that attack vector for Democrats.

That is true.

It's also true, Donald Trump killed the bill to keep the issue as a campaign topic.

Also, motivation doesn't change the legislation. It did contain massive concessions to conseratives so it would pass.

Joe should have no issues with this topic since the real critique is about Trump, who he claims to not support.

If the assertion was that the legislation failed primarily because Trump wanted it as campaign issue, I would agree.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I havent read the bill so I do not know that I would agree with Lapaz characterization of the legislation as “conservative”. I do acknowledge what is widely known. Trump did not like the legislation and so stated and it failed as a result. What more do you need?

You seem to have a lot of trouble saying, "I agree that Trump worked to kill a bipartisan bill in order to use it as a campaign tool to bash Democrats." It's really simple.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Not really. But suffice it to say that there are differences between my position on school choice and parental rights and Harris‘s position. She isnt, as another poster has characterized, an “old time republican”. Failure to recognize that is nobodys fault but your own.

It actually has been posted, though. People have posted her position on education. People have told you that school choice/vouchers and parental rights are not federal issues. Still, you keep on about it. It's almost as though you have no ability to think for yourself, so you keep parroting lines of attack from other sources and have no idea what to say when people use logic and fact as a rebuttal.

 

[Ayo]

Not really. But suffice it to say that there are differences between my position on school choice and parental rights and Harris‘s position. She isnt, as another poster has characterized, an “old time republican”. Failure to recognize that is nobodys fault but your own.

I'll ask again: what is your position on school choice and parental rights and why? You say you are "for them" but they vary in meaning as well as meaningless when often used in political contexts. What parental rights? What materials? What school choice model? Why that one? If it's just a talking point and you've no interest in giving anything further, you can just say that, too.

 

[TampaJoe]

I'll ask again: what is your position on school choice and parental rights and why? You say you are "for them" but they vary in meaning as well as meaningless when often used in political contexts. What parental rights? What materials? What school choice model? Why that one? If it's just a talking point and you've no interest in giving anything further, you can just say that, too.

As far as school choice is concerned, I think for lower to middle income kids, the money should follow the kid. Standards should be set as far as basic education but thedcision on where the kid goes to school is up to the parent and the student. I have seen way too mamy kids trapped in underperforming schools waiting for the world to change. The mission is education. First and foremost. It doesnt matter to be if that is a secular school or a religious school as long as a basic eduction is delivered to the student.

As far a parental notification, in our society, parents have primary responsibility to raise their children. That includes anything that can affect the childs physical or mental well being including education and curriculum. Its that simple.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, reportedly hoped to avoid an antitrust lawsuit trial by offering to settle with the Federal Trade Commission for $450 million rather than $30 billion - and wanted his ally President Donald Trump to help.

In March, the Facebook founder called the head of the FTC to see if he could work out a deal to avoid a trial over what the FTC alleges was a breach of antitrust laws when it acquired Instagram and WhatsApp, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

Zuckerberg reportedly offered $450 million, though the FTC wanted $30 billion.

Having met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in November, donating $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund and axing policies at Meta that did not align with Trump’s agenda, Zuckerberg was hopeful Trump would support the company’s offer.

The tech billionaire had also met with Trump administration officials at the White House in February and March, seemingly to lobby them to support the company’s deal.……:

Zuckerberg cozied up to Trump to settle his FTC lawsuit for less: report

Zuckerberg attempted to settle an antitrust lawsuit with the FTC with the support of Trump – but it was ultimately unsuccessful

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Optimus Prime]

As far as school choice is concerned, I think for lower to middle income kids, the money should follow the kid. Standards should be set as far as basic education but thedcision on where the kid goes to school is up to the parent and the student. I have seen way too mamy kids trapped in underperforming schools waiting for the world to change. The mission is education. First and foremost. It doesnt matter to be if that is a secular school or a religious school as long as a basic eduction is delivered to the student.

As far a parental notification, in our society, parents have primary responsibility to raise their children. That includes anything that can affect the childs physical or mental well being including education and curriculum. Its that simple.

Are you saying you believe every parent has the right to dictate exactly what and how their children are taught?

What is a parent doesn’t believe in homework?

Homework doesn't align with our family values. Here's how I explain that to teachers and my kids.

Her kids' school gives about 40 minutes of homework a day, but she's told the teachers they won't do it. She says it takes away from family time.

www.businessinsider.com

What if a parent doesn’t believe in tests?

“If he/she has an ‘A’ on all the coursework they obviously know that material what’s the point of a stressful test? Nope, won’t be taking that”

Where do you draw the line? Or are you suggesting that there is no line?

 

[MT15]

I didn’t know much about Pritzker until recently, but I like what I have learned so far.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I didn’t know much about Pritzker until recently, but I like what I have learned so far.

“and I don’t care how many afterschool specials you watched saying otherwise”

 

[TampaJoe]

Are you saying you believe every parent has the right to dictate exactly what and how their children are taught?

What is a parent doesn’t believe in homework?

Homework doesn't align with our family values. Here's how I explain that to teachers and my kids.

Her kids' school gives about 40 minutes of homework a day, but she's told the teachers they won't do it. She says it takes away from family time.

www.businessinsider.com

What if a parent doesn’t believe in tests?

“If he/she has an ‘A’ on all the coursework they obviously know that material what’s the point of a stressful test? Nope, won’t be taking that”

Where do you draw the line? Or are you suggesting that there is no line?

How about taking things to extremes. School choice mend allowing the pants to decid for themselves and their children to choose where a child goes to school. The money follows the student.

Parental notification is whatit sounds like. Notification. Im not talking about education a la carte. Obviously better informed parents can make their opinions and wishes known at election time and t school board meetings. Ya know. Democracy.

 

[efil4]

How about taking things to extremes. School choice mend allowing the pants to decid for themselves and their children to choose where a child goes to school. The money follows the student.

Parental notification is whatit sounds like. Notification. Im not talking about education a la carte. Obviously better informed parents can make their opinions and wishes known at election time and t school board meetings. Ya know. Democracy.

Uh oh...bot be glitchin out.

 

[Ayo]

As far as school choice is concerned, I think for lower to middle income kids, the money should follow the kid. Standards should be set as far as basic education but thedcision on where the kid goes to school is up to the parent and the student. I have seen way too mamy kids trapped in underperforming schools waiting for the world to change. The mission is education. First and foremost. It doesnt matter to be if that is a secular school or a religious school as long as a basic eduction is delivered to the student.

As far a parental notification, in our society, parents have primary responsibility to raise their children. That includes anything that can affect the childs physical or mental well being including education and curriculum. Its that simple.

What does "the money should follow the kid" mean?

Where will lower income kids go? To which schools? What about rural areas where there are no other options in the area because private schools won't or can't operate there and the public school operates with significant help to stay open? What about parents of kids with special needs who have to attend schools that provide help, using special personnel and resources - often that cost LOTS more money than for average students? What do you say when you are told that your plan is actually removing educational options and funding for the neediest students?

Have you seen the stats about money disbursements from states and where that money goes to? In terms of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, faith, and other demographics?

What about the lack of certification requirements and oversight and regulation?

If "education" and its delivery is your primary interest, surely these things give you some pause, because under your proposal they are ALL worse.

The second paragraph doesn't say anything. It feels like you're trying to hide behind ambiguities. Schools aren't taking any parental rights away is what you're tacitly admitting, because you haven't pointed to any specific rights. There's nothing to respond to, but nobody is saying parents don't have a right to raise their children.

There are exceptions when the child is in danger, of course. Teachers have a social, moral, ethical, and professional responsibility to operate in loco parentis, for the welfare of the child. Yes, this subverts some "rights" of the parent, to use your language, but we're talking about instances of abuse.

Not sure if you've ever had to call CIS because of suspected abuse... but it's a total shirtshow. Awful. Painful. I *promise* you that no teacher is actively looking to do this. Other than that, I'd like to know what you mean.

And I don't think you are arguing against that role, but other than that I really have no idea what you mean and you can't give details, nor can you provide examples. You seem quite fearful of and/or adamant about it, that I would've expected something more specific and informed without the need for so much prompting.

If you believe in it so earnestly, because it's being violated or removed or whatever, than you must have really strong reasons. I just have no idea what they are.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Interesting article
=============

…….What do these athletes see in Trump? He is a wrestler’s opposite in nearly every way. Though he has a weird habit of trying to dominate handshakes, he’s never been a serious athlete, despite his boasts. His privilege has shielded him from accountability throughout his life.

Among high-level wrestlers, personal accountability is a deep, almost spiritual core value. Most wrestlers never reach their athletic goals, regardless of how hard they work. I can attest that such failures are crushing. And yet, when it comes to losses, most wrestlers reject any form of excuse.

Two years ago, in a bout considered one of the all-time college upsets, Matt Ramos of Purdue pinned Iowa superstar, Spencer Lee. Lee, who was injured, said in a Barstool interview, “I saw people say I lost because I was hurt … That’s not true. I got beat. I hate when people try to make excuses for me when I got outwrestled and beat.”

Trump has yet to publicly concede his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election.

This paradox is not surprising. Many of Trump’s fans voted for policies that will not benefit their lives. Their support is based on emotion, not logic.

Viewed through this lens, college wrestling’s embrace of Trump makes sense. Trump’s antagonistic relationship with higher ed matters little when, to wrestling, he and his allies say, “We love you, we’re proud of you.”…….

Negative attention is nothing new for wrestling. Fifty years ago, there were more than 150 D-I wrestling programs; as of 2025, there are 79. My alma mater, Boston University, cut its program in 2014 to make space for men’s lacrosse.

To me, an elite urban school rejecting wrestling for a sport associated with affluence felt like a rejection of my home state, and, more broadly, of rural America.

Herein lies the other thread that tethers wrestling to Trump: while wrestling programs of all levels exist in various parts of the country, wrestling is largely associated with rural America. The urban-rural divide has continued to widen since Trump first entered the political arena.

Many rural voters have voiced feelings of being unseen – or, if seen, of being scorned – by the political elite. Trump’s policies do not improve life for most of his rural constituents – quite the opposite. Nonetheless, to these voters, Trump routinely says, I see you……

Perhaps the wrestling world’s embrace of Trump is a metonym for our historical moment. How to positively reengage young men is the question with which America must grapple if it is going to wrest democracy from the jaws of defeat. The whistle has already been blown; the match is underway………

Trump in the Circle: Wrestling and the battle for American masculinity

Wrestling is a brutal but beautiful sport. So why are its brightest stars drawn to the US president? The answer lies in marginalization and the need to be seen

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

From Robert Reich
===============

It was bound to happen.

Encouraged by the ease with which many big US institutions caved in to their demands, the Trump regime – that is, the small cadre of bottom-feeding fanatics around Donald Trump (JD Vance, Elon Musk, Russell Vought, Stephen Miller and RFK Jr) along with the child king himself – have overreached.

They’ve dared China, Harvard and the supreme court to blink.


But guess what? They’ve met their matches. None of them has blinked – and they won’t.

China not only refused to back down when the Trump regime threatened it with huge tariffs, but also retaliated with huge tariffs of its own, plus a freeze on the export of rare-earth elements that the US’s high-tech and defense industries depend on.

Harvard also pointedly defied the regime, issuing a clear rebuke to its attempt to interfere with academic freedom.

The supreme court – in a rare unanimous decision – ordered Trump to facilitate the return of a legal US resident wrongly deported to a dangerous prison in El Salvador, without any criminal charges.

But the White House was defiant. On Monday, both Trump officials and El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, said they could not return Kilmar Ábrego García.

“Of course, I’m not going to do it,” Bukele saidwhen asked. Trump sat by his side with a smile on his face. The US attorney general, Pam Bondi, joined in the cruel imitation of justice: “That’s up to El Salvador if they want to return him.”


What’s next?

I suspect the testosterone-poisoned lackeys around King Trump are urging him to hit back even harder, escalating their confrontations with China, Harvard and the supreme court. They view these showdowns as ultimate tests of the regime’s strength.

Think of it – they must be telling themselves and their boss – what prizes! If they defeat China, they have brought the world’s other economic powerhouse to its knees!

If they defeat Harvard University, they have been victorious over the world’s intellectual powerhouse!

If they defeat the supreme court, they have conquered the entire US government!

Win these battles and no one will ever again doubt the power and resolve of the Trump regime!


Hopefully, Trump is smarter than this. He knows these three institutions will not back down. They are rich and powerful enough to defy Trump’s escalating threats and demands. They cannot and will not cower.

If Trump escalates his wars against them, they’ll become even stronger in the eyes of their supporters and constituents, and much of the world.

The American people will see that Trump is actually a blowhard with no real power at all.

So if he’s smart, Trump will try to de-escalate these three conflicts.

He’s already hinted at an off-ramp with China. He will probably find some way to claim that Harvard has capitulated to his demands. He will avoid a showdown with the supreme court.……

Finally, the Trump regime has met its match | Robert Reich

The administration dared China, Harvard and the supreme court to blink. They haven’t

www.theguardian.com

 

[bird]

From Robert Reich
===============

It was bound to happen.

Encouraged by the ease with which many big US institutions caved in to their demands, the Trump regime – that is, the small cadre of bottom-feeding fanatics around Donald Trump (JD Vance, Elon Musk, Russell Vought, Stephen Miller and RFK Jr) along with the child king himself – have overreached.

They’ve dared China, Harvard and the supreme court to blink.


But guess what? They’ve met their matches. None of them has blinked – and they won’t.

China not only refused to back down when the Trump regime threatened it with huge tariffs, but also retaliated with huge tariffs of its own, plus a freeze on the export of rare-earth elements that the US’s high-tech and defense industries depend on.

Harvard also pointedly defied the regime, issuing a clear rebuke to its attempt to interfere with academic freedom.

The supreme court – in a rare unanimous decision – ordered Trump to facilitate the return of a legal US resident wrongly deported to a dangerous prison in El Salvador, without any criminal charges.

But the White House was defiant. On Monday, both Trump officials and El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, said they could not return Kilmar Ábrego García.

“Of course, I’m not going to do it,” Bukele saidwhen asked. Trump sat by his side with a smile on his face. The US attorney general, Pam Bondi, joined in the cruel imitation of justice: “That’s up to El Salvador if they want to return him.”


What’s next?

I suspect the testosterone-poisoned lackeys around King Trump are urging him to hit back even harder, escalating their confrontations with China, Harvard and the supreme court. They view these showdowns as ultimate tests of the regime’s strength.

Think of it – they must be telling themselves and their boss – what prizes! If they defeat China, they have brought the world’s other economic powerhouse to its knees!

If they defeat Harvard University, they have been victorious over the world’s intellectual powerhouse!

If they defeat the supreme court, they have conquered the entire US government!

Win these battles and no one will ever again doubt the power and resolve of the Trump regime!


Hopefully, Trump is smarter than this. He knows these three institutions will not back down. They are rich and powerful enough to defy Trump’s escalating threats and demands. They cannot and will not cower.

If Trump escalates his wars against them, they’ll become even stronger in the eyes of their supporters and constituents, and much of the world.

The American people will see that Trump is actually a blowhard with no real power at all.

So if he’s smart, Trump will try to de-escalate these three conflicts.

He’s already hinted at an off-ramp with China. He will probably find some way to claim that Harvard has capitulated to his demands. He will avoid a showdown with the supreme court.……

Finally, the Trump regime has met its match | Robert Reich

The administration dared China, Harvard and the supreme court to blink. They haven’t

www.theguardian.com

Trump isn’t smart. That being said he is shrewd and cunning.

So, the question really is this: will enough people in this country say “No, we do not want a Stalin, a Mao, a Hitler, a Mussolini.”? Or will the people just keep their heads buried in the internet or the Bible or whatever distraction they metaphorically inject into their brains?

 

[Huntn]

This is exactly how Russian Agents operate on social media sew dissension, tear down Russia’s enemies, deflecting inquiry into their positions. Note, I don’t have enough info to make accusation in this case, just saying this the same pattern that someone who is being dishonest in their argumented positions.