Miscellaneous Trump (6 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]

Executives from a trio of the biggest and most widely known companies in America are lining up behind President Donald Trump’s plan to create investment accounts for children born during his second term as an enticement to pass his divisive One Big Beautiful Bill Actcurrently under consideration in Congress.

Dell Computer founder Michael Dell, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, and Goldman Sachs boss David Solomon appeared at the White House on Monday alongside Trump for an event to promote what the bill labels “Trump accounts” as a way of promoting financial literacy and encouraging Americans to have more children.

Each announced that their respective companies would be willing to contribute to accounts established for children of their employees. The “Trump accounts” would be tax-deferred and would start with a one-time contribution of $1,000 from the federal government.

Funds deposited into the accounts would be invested to track the overall stock market and be accessible when the children reach age 21.

Trump hailed the business leaders for participating in the project, calling them “the greatest business minds we have today.”……

Trump says corporations will pay $1K for each baby born with ‘beautiful bill’

The ‘Trump accounts’ plan echoes a years-old proposal for ‘baby bonds’ introduced by New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker

www.independent.co.uk

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Executives from a trio of the biggest and most widely known companies in America are lining up behind President Donald Trump’s plan to create investment accounts for children born during his second term as an enticement to pass his divisive One Big Beautiful Bill Actcurrently under consideration in Congress.

Dell Computer founder Michael Dell, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, and Goldman Sachs boss David Solomon appeared at the White House on Monday alongside Trump for an event to promote what the bill labels “Trump accounts” as a way of promoting financial literacy and encouraging Americans to have more children.

Each announced that their respective companies would be willing to contribute to accounts established for children of their employees. The “Trump accounts” would be tax-deferred and would start with a one-time contribution of $1,000 from the federal government.

Funds deposited into the accounts would be invested to track the overall stock market and be accessible when the children reach age 21.

Trump hailed the business leaders for participating in the project, calling them “the greatest business minds we have today.”……

Trump says corporations will pay $1K for each baby born with ‘beautiful bill’

The ‘Trump accounts’ plan echoes a years-old proposal for ‘baby bonds’ introduced by New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker

www.independent.co.uk

It's OK when we do it!

 

[DaveXA]

It's OK when we do it!

The small government GOP has long been a myth, lol.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

US Constitution Non-Binding Suggestion. Thanks GOP

 

[SamAndreas]

US Constitution Non-Binding Suggestion. Thanks GOP

Trump says Saturday, and Aaron Rupar says it's happening on Sunday.

Saturday or Sunday, I know what I'm going to be doing. When I go to the top of my mountain and shout loud, folks can hear me from a long ways away.

He's a blowhole. I bet I won't see a heavy force when I do it. I would think there will be a 5 mph breeze, and it will be hot. It's always hot this time of year.

I'll invite my lion friend to go to the mountaintop with me, she likes to follow me around in my yard, likes to watch what I do from a distance.

So far thirty feet is as close as she's gotten to me. She likes it when I purr. That's when she comes the closest to me. A hint, don't purr with rolling t's, use v's instead. Cats don't like the sound of rolling t's. Go with vhhh, vhhh vhhh, softly. they can hear very well so there is no need to be loud.

This is her:

 

[Huntn]

US Constitution Non-Binding Suggestion. Thanks GOP

See what he did there? Ah, The Emperor just declared war on peaceful protests.

 

[Optimus Prime]

President Donald Trump on Tuesday claimed he would restore the names of Confederate traitors who fought to keep Black people enslaved to American military bases across the country despite Congress mandating their removal in a law enacted over his veto five years ago.

Speaking to active duty troops at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, Trump told the assembled soldiers he would be restoring the names of Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Rucker, Fort Polk, Fort AP Hill and Fort Robert E Lee, all of which were placed on facilities in the Southern United States — the former pro-slavery confederacy — by racist lawmakers who sought to honor the “Lost Cause” of the fight against emancipating Black people from slavery.……

Trump to restore Confederate generals like Robert E. Lee to military bases

Congress mandated removal of Confederate traitors from base names in late 2020

www.independent.co.uk

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

This is just sad and embarrassing, it calls in to questioning the leadership of today's armed forces. I'd had thought I would never see something like this from our servicemen, a lot has changed since I retired 15 years ago. Shameful.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

He led soldiers, in other words, in a display of unseemly behavior that ran contrary to everything the founder of the U.S. Army, George Washington, strove to imbue in the American armed forces.

The president also encouraged a violation of regulations. Trump, himself a convicted felon, doesn’t care about rules and laws, but active-duty military members are not allowed to attend political rallies in uniform. They are not allowed to express partisan views while on duty, or to show disrespect for American elected officials. Trump may not know these rules and regulations, but the officers who lead these men and women know them well. It is part of their oath, their credo, and their identity as officers to remain apart from such displays. Young soldiers will make mistakes. But if senior officers remain silent, what lesson will those young men and women take from what happened today?

ALL.OF.THIS.

If the Commander at Bragg has any integrity, he should resign, his troops embarrassed him.

 

[SamAndreas]

This is just sad and embarrassing, it calls in to questioning the leadership of today's armed forces. I'd had thought I would never see something like this from our servicemen, a lot has changed since I retired 15 years ago. Shameful.

That comment Mart Ortega made about it being a ten alarm fire is overboard. I dislike overboard liberal rhetoric more than I dislike conservatives being their usual crass selves. What is happening is Trump is inciting violence, and is getting what he desires because he is good at inciting violence, so it isn't a ten alarm fire. It's an everyday occurence with him. He creates about ten outrages every day so that his name will be in every news story, every day.

I've seen a lot of days when he is in every news story on the US Google news index. He even manages to make about half of the world news stories as well.

The clip has no cheering when he made his asine Newscum remark. They cheered when he said he was giving them a raise in pay. Of course they cheered for that.

He isn't giving that raise to them. Congress is giving them that raise. It's just a scheduled cost of living raise.



About his slurred Newscum comment, that induces me to call him ye ole vagina neck to get back at him. I'm calling Trump that because he actually has a vigina neck. Even his wife has commented in the past on that.

It looks like he has a naked exposed vagina hanging below his chin. They ought to X rate him for exposing himself that way.

 

[SamAndreas]

ALL.OF.THIS.

If the Commander at Bragg has any integrity, he should resign, his troops embarrassed him.

Unlikely to happen, his troops did not embarrass him. They cheered the new that they are getting a raise in pay.

About the Generals silence, that is covered in the uniform code of military justice, they are required by law to act like they have been acting. You need to realize that the military is a society apart from civilian society and there is a damned good reason it is that way. Military personnel are in the CIC's direct chain of command. Love him, hate him, whatever the Generals and everyone else in the military are not allowed to mix in politics, and that is necessary,

It's a good law that they aren't allowed to say more.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

That comment Mart Ortega made about it being a ten alarm fire is overboard. I dislike overboard liberal rhetoric more than I dislike conservatives being their usual crass selves. What is happening is Trump is inciting violence, and is getting what he desires because he is good at inciting violence, so it isn't a ten alarm fire. It's an everyday occurence with him. He creates about ten outrages every day so that his name will be in every news story, every day.

It is in NO WAY an overstatement, what happened at Bragg has NEVER happened before today. It highlighted a complete breakdown of our values and our adherence to the UCMJ and the fact that these soldiers were so willing to participate with this clown shows a lack of command leadership.

I attended formations for three Presidents, HW Bush, W, and Clinton, neither of these CIC's ever made a political speech in front of the troops. All of them focused their visit on us, not themselves.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Unlikely to happen, his troops did not embarrass him. They cheered the new that they are getting a raise in pay.

About the Generals silence, that is covered in the uniform code of military justice, they are required by law to act like they have been acting. You need to realize that the military is a society apart from civilian society and there is a damned good reason it is that way. Military personnel are in the CIC's direct chain of command. Love him, hate him, whatever the Generals and everyone else in the military are not allowed to mix in politics, and that is necessary,

It's a good law that they aren't allowed to say more.

WRONG. Did they not boo elected officials? Did they not cheer trump's partisan comments?

 

[SamAndreas]

It is in NO WAY an overstatement, what happened at Bragg has NEVER happened before today. It highlighted a complete breakdown of our values and our adherence to the UCMJ and the fact that these soldiers were so willing to participate with this clown shows a lack of command leadership.

I attended formations for three Presidents, HW Bush, W, and Clinton, neither of these CIC's ever made a political speech in front of the troops. All of them focused their visit on us, not themselves.

It's happened before. Grover Cleveland is a good example. Grant is another example. Presidents have done it before, but our military has not taken the bait, not now not before.

 

[SamAndreas]

WRONG. Did they not boo elected officials? Did they not cheer trump's partisan comments?

NO, watch that speech again this time ignoring the asine narrative that the poster of that speech created when he posted the video.

They cheered when they learned they were getting a raise in pay. otherwise they were a well behaved group of troops being used as a political backdrop for a bastage.

And what is wrong with cheering a pay raise, a raise is not a political thing.

They didn't break that law, nor was what they did unsavory. I watched that speech from start to finish, and I didn't see or hear otherwise.

I was an officer in the Air Force, I've been well trained to spot things like that. I was primed on aspects of military law when I was in college during my military training. For them to do what you say they did would be a violation of military law. What I saw was good troops being quite good. While the President was being a foul mouthed pig.

 

[SamAndreas]

I agree with this. Retired General Hertling addresses this well. He's retired so he can speak out.



The first statement he posts is not his statement, it's the words of Tom Nicholds which he doesn't completely agree with.

What he says to rebut this misstatement is:

"Those troops & their leaders ought review the army’s rules regarding political activity in uniform & the oath to the Constitution"

He doesn't say their officers ought to speak out, he knows they can't do that. Nor does he criticize the low level troops who were there. He deals with this as what they ought to do in the future.

What he does in effect say is their leaders ought to review the law about sending troops to places were they will be used as a political backdrop for a political bastage.. And that is what they ought to do. Deny Trump the opportunity in the future to use their troops that way.

That is difficult for them to protect their troops if Trump orders them to provide troops for his political use. Orders from the CIC are orders even if they are asine, but are not quite a direct violation of law. It's a grey zone the high ranking general officers can't take it to court even if they want to.



So Hurtlings criticism seems to be upon other general officers for not pulling out all the stops to prevent this from happening again. In reality what he is doing is trying to get the attention of politicians and judges in the public sphere who could do something about it while making it look like he is talking to the generals.

He's not actually telling the troops or the generals what they ought to do, he's telling the politicians, judges, and newscasters what they ought to do.

He's doing that for the active generals who aren't in a position to do that which he can do because he is retired. He has the ear of newscasters because he appears on a lot of news shows as an expert on military matters.

He doesn't criticize the troops for being where they were ordered to be.

 

[Dragon]

I agree with this. Retired General Hertling addresses this well. He's retired so he can speak out.



The first statement he posts is not his statement, it's the words of Tom Nicholds which he doesn't completely agree with.

What he says to rebut this misstatement is:

"Those troops & their leaders ought review the army’s rules regarding political activity in uniform & the oath to the Constitution"

He doesn't say their officers ought to speak out, he knows they can't do that. Nor does he criticize the low level troops who were there. He deals with this as what they ought to do in the future.

What he does in effect say is their leaders ought to review the law about sending troops to places were they will be used as a political backdrop for a political bastage.. And that is what they ought to do. Deny Trump the opportunity in the future to use their troops that way.

That is difficult for them to protect their troops if Trump orders them to provide troops for his political use. Orders from the CIC are orders even if they are asine, but are not quite a direct violation of law. It's a grey zone the high ranking general officers can't take it to court even if they want to.



So Hurtlings criticism seems to be upon other general officers for not pulling out all the stops to prevent this from happening again. In reality what he is doing is trying to get the attention of politicians and judges in the public sphere who could do something about it while making it look like he is talking to the generals.

He's not actually telling the troops or the generals what they ought to do, he's telling the politicians, judges, and newscasters what they ought to do.

He's doing that for the active generals who aren't in a position to do that which he can do because he is retired. He has the ear of newscasters because he appears on a lot of news shows as an expert on military matters.

He doesn't criticize the troops for being where they were ordered to be.

I get that it puts officers in a tough spot—but that’s exactly why precedent matters. Each time something like this happens, it shifts the line further, making it harder to resist next time. And with someone like Trump, who constantly pushes boundaries, that slippery slope becomes dangerous fast. At some point, someone has to say no.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

The first statement he posts is not his statement, it's the words of Tom Nicholds which he doesn't completely agree with.

What he says to rebut this misstatement is:

What misstatement?

"Those troops & their leaders ought review the army’s rules regarding political activity in uniform & the oath to the Constitution"

Seems to me that Hertling agrees with my original assessment of their behavior at that rally.
You say that you were an Air Force Officer, do you know that as an officer, you are specifically called out in Art. 88 of the UCMJ for your behavior towards elected officials?

He doesn't say their officers ought to speak out, he knows they can't do that. Nor does he criticize the low level troops who were there.

I didn't say these officers should have said something publicly, their failure came before this event. They fostered an atmosphere where those soldiers felt embolden to cheer on partisan rhetoric while representing the US Army. It demonstrated a total break down of "good order and discipline".

There's nothing preventing officers from addressing this issue with these soldiers, that's what Commander Calls are for! That is why when you see this type behavior from soldiers in uniform, you step in and put an end to it instead of letting that behavior continue.


According to your previous post, there nothing for them to correct for future events.