Miscellaneous Trump (4 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?

 

[Optimus Prime]

I know that the Washington Post kept a tally of Trump's lies in his first term (over 30K!!)

I've cancelled my subscription, anyone know if they are still lie tracking, and if so what it's up to in less than 3 months?

 

[fooferdoggie]

Will they figure out to do a $5K tax on minority babies? (with no bonus of course)

yep only white kids.

 

[MT15]

 

[longtime lurker]

VA asks employees to report ‘anti-Christian discrimination’ to new task force

The VA task force asks employees to report if they were disciplined for refusing vaccine mandates, performing abortions or administering hormone therapy.

federalnewsnetwork.com

 

[fooferdoggie]

VA asks employees to report ‘anti-Christian discrimination’ to new task force

The VA task force asks employees to report if they were disciplined for refusing vaccine mandates, performing abortions or administering hormone therapy.

federalnewsnetwork.com

This is so wrong. But Christian nationalism is fake, right?

 

[fooferdoggie]

 

[bird]

So Russia proposed an Easter ceasefire in Ukraine and then promptly ignored its own proposal. Vladimir Putin announced, around 4 p.m. local time Saturday afternoon, that a ceasefire to honor the risen savior would commence at 6 p.m. By noon Sunday, according to The New York Times, Russia had fired 445 rounds of artillery and launched 300 drones and 45 infantry assaults. (Russia says Ukraine violated the ceasefire first.)

Surprised? After what Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Friday, why should we be? He told reporters that if the United States can’t get a peace deal very soon, we’ll just wash our hands of the whole affair and “move on.” How do you think that was heard in the Kremlin? Green light, baby! Do whatever you want, Vlad.

Rubio’s eh-whatever statement that “it’s not our war” will live in infamy next to James Baker’s unprincipled 1995 avowal, with respect to the Serbs’ war on Bosnia, that “we don’t have a dog in that fight.” (Why is it always tough-talking Republicans who hand democratic regimes to authoritarian ones on a silver platter?) But as I watched Rubio speak Friday, and then rewatched since, one thought keeps popping back into my head: Who were these people who were gullible enough to believe Donald Trump’s bullshirt?

How many times did Trump say he’d end that war on the first day of his presidency? It had to have been hundreds. I saw a lot of those clips on cable news over the weekend, as you may have. He did not mean it figuratively. You know, in the way people will say, “I’ll change that from day one,” and you know they don’t literally mean day one, but they do mean fast.

But that isn’t what Trump said. He meant it literally. He used the phrase“in 24 hours” many, many times. So I ask you: Who really believed that?

Ditto with tariffs, “the most beautiful word in the dictionary.” Just wait, Trump said, until you see me unveil my beautiful tariffs. They’ll fix everything.

Well … it’s not as if there weren’t hundreds of economists and others pointing out how much smoke he was blowing. Experts predicted exactly what has unfolded: that he’d start a trade war, which would roil the markets and result in higher prices, and that the rest of the world would stop trusting us.

Who’s looking more right today, Trump or the experts? The hated experts, by a mile. In fact, if anything, the experts understated the problem because Trump’s tariffs (at least the latest incarnation of them; it’s hard to keep track) have been higher than everyone thought they’d be.

Again: Who on earth believed his nonsense?

Four days before the election, Trump campaigned in Dearborn, Michigan. Obviously, one can understand the anger Arab Americans felt toward the Biden administration and Kamala Harris over Israel’s destruction of Gaza, and Harris handled the whole matter in a craven fashion.

But did anyone seriously think Trump was going to be better? The war, after a very brief respite, is back on; there’s the usual finger-pointing about who’s to blame, but the fact remains that Israel cut off humanitarian supplies and started bombing again.

Since Israel broke the ceasefire on March 18, about 1,800 Palestinians have been killed. Israel has Trump’s full backing in this. How full? This full: “There was no need for a green light because Trump gave us the option to open the gates of hell,” an Israeli source told The Jerusalem Post.

Again I ask: Who ever believed otherwise?

Trump is the biggest liar in the history of American politics. And no, I don’t know the precise extent to which Millard Fillmore or Benjamin Harrison was prone to prevarication. And yet, I write that sentence with serene confidence because I know enough about Fillmore and Harrison and the whole lot of them to know that, while many of them were mediocrities and some operated according to a rather elastic ethical scale, none of them was an outright sociopath.

But Donald Trump is. He will say anything to anyone at any time with utterly no thought of consequences or ever being held accountable. When the moment of accountability comes, he just tells another lie. When he was just a sleazy real estate grifter, this was merely annoying. But now that he’s the president, and he has an army of propagandists behind him insisting that he is American history’s great truth-teller, it’s sick and it’s dangerous..............

Who Were Those Gullible People Who Believed Donald Trump’s Bullsh*t?

His campaign promises, from peace in Ukraine to “beautiful” tariffs, were truly unbelievable. And yet, somehow, many people believed him.

newrepublic.substack.com

Cultists gonna cult.

 

[Dragon]

VA asks employees to report ‘anti-Christian discrimination’ to new task force

The VA task force asks employees to report if they were disciplined for refusing vaccine mandates, performing abortions or administering hormone therapy.

federalnewsnetwork.com

How about we just start by prosecuting religious discrimination—you know, honoring the part of the Constitution that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."


It’s called the First Amendment for a reason.

 

[Dragon]

How about we just start by prosecuting religious discrimination—you know, honoring the part of the Constitution that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."


It’s called the First Amendment for a reason.

All religious discrimination, Joe—not just against Christians, but also against Muslims, Jews, and even those who choose not to follow any religion.

• When Christianity is taught in public schools to children whose families follow other faiths—or none at all—that’s religious discrimination.
• When women are pressured out of the workforce because “the Bible says they should stay home,” that’s religious discrimination.
• When Jewish Americans are allowed to protest Middle East policy but Muslims are silenced or demonized for doing the same—that’s religious discrimination.
• When the moral code of one religion is imposed on everyone else, regardless of their beliefs—that’s religious discrimination.
• When people try to erase LGBTQ+ rights because their church calls it a sin—that’s religious discrimination.

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion—for those who choose that path. That’s the very foundation of a truly free and pluralistic society.

 

[TampaJoe]

All religious discrimination, Joe—not just against Christians, but also against Muslims, Jews, and even those who choose not to follow any religion.

• When Christianity is taught in public schools to children whose families follow other faiths—or none at all—that’s religious discrimination.
• When women are pressured out of the workforce because “the Bible says they should stay home,” that’s religious discrimination.
• When Jewish Americans are allowed to protest Middle East policy but Muslims are silenced or demonized for doing the same—that’s religious discrimination.
• When the moral code of one religion is imposed on everyone else, regardless of their beliefs—that’s religious discrimination.
• When people try to erase LGBTQ+ rights because their church calls it a sin—that’s religious discrimination.

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion—for those who choose that path. That’s the very foundation of a truly free and pluralistic society.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I can read. I haven’t advocated establishing a theocracy or forcing religion on anyone. I also haven’t advocated preventing anyone from exercising their religious beliefs.

But you can’t dictate to people what should inform their individual moral codes without violating free exercise. Freedom of religion also doesn’t mean protestors get to prevent others from exercising their rights or harass others who are going about their daily lives.

So I agree with you that we should have a single standard that applies to all and is enforced equally and without fear or favor.

 

[Dragon]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I can read. I haven’t advocated establishing a theocracy or forcing religion on anyone. I also haven’t advocated preventing anyone from exercising their religious beliefs.

But you can’t dictate to people what should inform their individual moral codes without violating free exercise. Freedom of religion also doesn’t mean protestors get to prevent others from exercising their rights or harass others who are going about their daily lives.

So I agree with you that we should have a single standard that applies to all and is enforced equally and without fear or favor.

You already have that standard. It says religion is personal and should not be forced on people who don't share your beliefs.

You have argued heavily against LBGT - saying it was immoral. Well according to YOUR religion it maybe but you have no right to force that belief on other or on society as a whole just as Muslims have no right to tell you that you can't eat pork or that a women should cover their hair in public.

What you are arguing for is a laws that support YOUR worldview which again is based on your religious beliefs.

 

[TampaJoe]

You already have that standard. It says religion is personal and should not be forced on people who don't share your beliefs.

You have argued heavily against LBGT - saying it was immoral. Well according to YOUR religion it maybe but you have no right to force that belief on other or on society as a whole just as Muslims have no right to tell you that you can't eat pork or that a women should cover their hair in public.

What you are arguing for a laws that support YOUR worldview which again is based on your religious beliefs.

I have NEVER argued against LBGT. Never. So back that up with a reference or retract it.

 

[Dragon]

I have NEVER argued against LBGT. Never. So back that up with a reference or retract it.

Well I am not going to search 340 pages on my phone so If I remember wrong - I retract it. I was quite sure of it but that part will have to wait until I get home

I do seem to remember you arguing that life starts at conception however - which again is a religious belief that you want to be law

 

[TampaJoe]

Well I am not going to search 340 pages on my phone so If I remember wrong - I retract it. I was quite sure of it but that part will have to wait until I get home

I do seem to remember you arguing that life starts at conception however - which again is a religious belief that you want to be law

I have never made that argument either.

For the record, I favored gay marriage and I was against overturning Roe. I know that shatters your preconceived notion that all conservatives think alike.

So search all you like. I have been consistent in those positions for decades.

 

[Dragon]

I have never made that argument either.

For the record, I favored gay marriage and I was against overturning Roe. I know that shatters your preconceived notion that all conservatives think alike.

So search all you like. I have been consistent in those positions for decades.

Welll I respect that. Then let me ask you straight up. Do you support the rights to religious freedom? Both the right to follow and the right to not have a religion which you don't follow, imposed by law? Like teaching creationism in schools ? or having christian parts of the bible posted on school walls?

 

[TampaJoe]

Welll I respect that. Then let me ask you straight up. Do you support the rights to religious freedom? Both the right to follow and the right to not have a religion which you don't follow, imposed by law? Like teaching creationism in schools ? or having christian parts of the bible posted on school walls?

I support an individuals right to believe as they choose. I would not advocate promoting religion in schools. The whole creationism versus evolution argument is part of our history and can be addressed in an objective nonbiased manner as part of historical study. Evolution is scientific theory and can be covered as such. If you teach kids how to think instead of what to think, they will figure things out for themselves.

Personally, I would teach etiquette in schools. How to converse and argue politely and respectfully. How to tolerate people with different beliefs and points of view. We don’t have to agree but we should be agreeable. We have lost that as a nation. Everybody in DC goes there to “fight” for this, that or the other. What they should be doing is working towards a consensus that works for everyone. The majority shouldn’t always get everything it wants. The minority shouldn’t be ignored or dismissed. Everyone should be heard and respected. We haven’t been anywhere near that kind of mutual respect in decades. It’s our greatest weakness.

Lastly, I favor school choice especially for poor kids trapped in underperforming schools. The mission is education. I don’t care who provides the service as long as the service is delivered. Be it public or private, religious or secular. That is up to the parent and the student as far as I am concerned.

 

[Dragon]

I support an individuals right to believe as they choose. I would not advocate promoting religion in schools. The whole creationism versus evolution argument is part of our history and can be addressed in an objective nonbiased manner as part of historical study. Evolution is scientific theory and can be covered as such. If you teach kids how to think instead of what to think, they will figure things out for themselves.

Personally, I would teach etiquette in schools. How to converse and argue politely and respectfully. How to tolerate people with different beliefs and points of view. We don’t have to agree but we should be agreeable. We have lost that as a nation. Everybody in DC goes there to “fight” for this, that or the other. What they should be doing is working towards a consensus that works for everyone. The majority shouldn’t always get everything it wants. The minority shouldn’t be ignored or dismissed. Everyone should be heard and respected. We haven’t been anywhere near that kind of mutual respect in decades. It’s our greatest weakness.

Lastly, I favor school choice especially for poor kids trapped in underperforming schools. The mission is education. I don’t care who provides the service as long as the service is delivered. Be it public or private, religious or secular. That is up to the parent and the student as far as I am concerned.

I know you support school choice, but how do you feel about what’s happening in Tennessee, where a school voucher is worth more than what the state spends per child in public schools? This is taxpayer money. And since private schools often require additional co-pays on top of the voucher, the system effectively takes resources away from low-income families, whose children are left with underfunded public schools—and fewer opportunities.

Worse still, private schools aren’t required to accept students with learning disabilities. So these children, who often need the most support, are left in public schools that now have even fewer funds to help them succeed. How is that fair?

Shouldn’t all children—regardless of their parents’ income—have the right to a quality education? Why should the state invest more in children whose parents can afford private school tuition, while spending less on those who need public education the most? Isn’t public funding supposed to serve the public—not just those with means?

 

[coldseat]

I know you support school choice, but how do you feel about what’s happening in Tennessee, where a school voucher is worth more than what the state spends per child in public schools? This is taxpayer money. And since private schools often require additional co-pays on top of the voucher, the system effectively takes resources away from low-income families, whose children are left with underfunded public schools—and fewer opportunities.

Worse still, private schools aren’t required to accept students with learning disabilities. So these children, who often need the most support, are left in public schools that now have even fewer funds to help them succeed. How is that fair?

Shouldn’t all children—regardless of their parents’ income—have the right to a quality education? Why should the state invest more in children whose parents can afford private school tuition, while spending less on those who need public education the most? Isn’t public funding supposed to serve the public—not just those with means?

This is the same everywhere school choice/vouchers are tried. All it turns into is a funneling of tax money to private religious schools via rich parents who already send their kids to private religious school. It doesn't improve education one bit for the vast majority of American children. It doesn't matter the reasons supports of school choice, like Tampa Joe, say they want school choice. The facts prove that it is not accomplishing anywhere near that goal other than with maybe anecdotal cases. This is just another right wing emotional play so that public money is funneled into private hands via the rich.