Miscellaneous Trump (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Huntn

    Misty Mountains Envoy
    Joined
    Mar 8, 2023
    Messages
    337
    Reaction score
    282
    Location
    Rivendell
    Offline

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


    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?
     
    He’s so dirty. We will never know the half of it.

     
    the pertinent findings.

    "Without oversight from qualified pharmacy staff, the White House Medical Unit’s pharmaceutical management practices may have been subject to prescribing errors and inadequate medication management, increasing the risk to the health and safety of patients treated within the unit. Additionally, the White House Medical Unit’s pharmaceutical management practices ineffectively used DoD funds by obtaining brand‑name medications instead of generic equivalents and increased the risk for the diversion of controlled substances.1 We found that the White House Medical Unit provided a wide range of health care and pharmaceutical services to ineligible White House staff in violation of Federal law and regulation and DoD policy.

    Additionally, the White House Medical Unit dispensed prescription medications, including controlled substances, to ineligible White House staff. In analyzing the testimonies of former White House Military Office employees, we found that White House Medical Unit senior leaders directed eligibility practices that did not comply with DoD guidance. This analysis also found that several former White House Medical Unit military medical providers stated that they were unable to act outside of the White House Medical Unit’s historical practices and that they were not empowered to deny requests from senior 1 Diversion is the unlawful distribution or use of prescription medications in any manner not intended by the prescriber. White House Medical Unit leaders.

    Additionally, we found that the White House Medical Unit did not follow DoD guidelines for verifying patient eligibility, and the Defense Health Agency and Service Surgeons General did not oversee the White House Medical Unit’s eligibility practices, as required by Public Law 114‑328, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017,” section 702. As a result, the Military Health System did not bill non‑DoD beneficiaries for services rendered, and we found that the DoD funded and resourced care for an average of 6 to 20 non‑DoD beneficiary patients per week. Multiple former White House Medical Unit medical providers stated that they requested an early departure from the unit due to the unit’s practices. Furthermore, we found that the National Capital Region Medical Directorate executive medicine facilities did not have consistent eligibility criteria for determining eligibility or access to care. This occurred because of a lack of oversight of executive medicine services. As a result, medical care was prioritized by seniority rather than medical need, which increased the risk to the health and safety of non‑executive medicine patients."

    Don't know how this isn't a bigger story.

     
    The last person who occupied the job of US vice-president ended up the target of a violent mob calling for him to be hanged. Even so, as Donald Trump closes in on the Republican nomination for 2024, there is no shortage of contenders eager to be his deputy.

    It is safe to assume that Mike Pence, who was Trump’s running mate in 2016 and 2020, will not get the job this time. His refusal to comply with his boss’s demand to overturn the last election caused a permanent rift and made Pence a perceived traitor and target of the January 6 insurrectionists.

    Undeterred, Trump’s campaign surrogates in the recent Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, both of which he won handily, have been trying to outdo each other with extravagant displays of fealty. “It’s very clear he’s holding these open auditions like it’s The Apprentice,” said Kurt Bardella, a Democratic strategist. “He will flirt with everyone. He will make them dance. They will all debase themselves and humiliate themselves and jockey for that spot.”


    When he first ran for president in 2016, Trump understood that he needed a vice-presidential pick who could help shore up support among Republican evangelicals and social conservatives, who were suspicious of the thrice-married reality TV star. Pence, the then Indiana governor and fierce social conservative, was from what Trump likes to call central casting.

    This year Trump’s allies and Republican strategists believe that he needs help attracting suburban swing voters in a handful of battleground states, where November’s election will likely be decided. Many commentators therefore predict that he will choose a woman or a person of colour, especially since the demise of the constitutional right to abortion.

    Michael Steele, a former chair of the Republican National Committee, said one of the factors important to Trump is “just how much of a sycophant they would be, not just in terms of ‘Oh, I love you, Donald Trump’, but do you love me enough when I tell you to violate your oath of office in the constitution that you’ll do it?’ And that person for me is Elise Stefanik.”

    Stefanik, 39, the highest-ranking woman in the Republican conference in the House of Representatives and one of the first members of Congress to endorse Trump, appears to have timed her run perfectly.

    She gained national prominence last month after embarrassing the heads of three top universities about antisemitism on their campuses during a congressional hearing, which prompted two of them to later resign. Stefanik claimed victory and declared: “I will always deliver results.” Trump reportedly described her as a “killer”.

    Since then she has outdone even the notoriously obsequious Pence. Soon after Trump described those convicted of crimes in the insurrection as “hostages”, she parroted the same term on NBC television’s flagship Meet the Press programme. When Trump confused rival Nikki Haley with former House speaker Nancy Pelosi while discussing January 6, Stefanik brazenly denied what everyone had heard.


    Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said: “She’s running flat out for it. That’s the only explanation for the things she says and does. I’m embarrassed for her but she’s not embarrassed because she only has one career goal. She says whatever she thinks he’ll like. He does like it.”…….

     
    While reading one of Donald Trump’s recent Truth Social posts, my eyes focused on two words and a slash. “A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE FULL IMMUNITY, WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM/HER TO PROPERLY FUNCTION.”

    Him/her. It seemed like such an oddly mindful accommodation. Here was Trump grandiosely declaring his office above the law, but in the course of doing so he was going out of the way to note that a woman could be president, too. I don’t know a lot of conservative septuagenarian men who would have remembered to add that nod to gender equality in the middle of an all-caps rant.

    The question of Donald Trump’s misogyny is something I’ve been thinking about recently, as he was ordered by a jury to pay E. Jean Carroll $83 million — and as he is supposedly simultaneously considering several female politicians as running mates. Donald Trump is a vulgar man. A vindictive one. Self-centered, all of it. But … exactly how sexist is he?

    Because I have a wild theory.

    If you’ve read along this far, you might think I’ve just asked a very stupid question. The answer seems self-evident. During Trump’s first presidential campaign eight years ago, some two dozen women accused him of sexual misconduct (he denied all of it); last year, a jury found him liable for sexually abusing Carroll in 1996. If you believe those jurors were competent — and I do — and if you believe it would be truly extraordinary for some two dozen women to have independently cooked up a sexual misconduct conspiracy, then you could argue that he’s not only sexist but criminally so.

    Back when the “Access Hollywood” video showed Trump bragging that his celebrity status enabled him to grope women at will, back when he called Hillary Clinton a “nasty woman,” back when he acknowledged calling Rosie O’Donnell a “fat pig,” this was the one thing the country briefly seemed to agree on: Donald Trump was a sexist boor. Investigation complete.

    But the other thing about Trump is that he is cruel. To women, to men, to immigrants, to the media, to Democrats and often to fellow Republicans. He is cruel to anyone he sees as an enemy, and his insults are regularly recycled.

    As I was familiarizing myself this week with the oeuvre of Trump’s attacks, I noticed something interesting. News outlets have published lots of lists with headlines like, “11 insults Trump has hurled at women.” But when I cross-checked the so-called women-specific insults, I found that many of them were actually levied against men as well.

    “Nasty woman” — the term he flung at Hillary Clinton, which her supporters then reclaimed with feminist pride — sure seemed sexist. But then last week Trump used the same insult against Lewis Kaplan, the male judge presiding over his defamation trial: “He’s a nasty man, a nasty judge.” Other public figures that Trump has deemed “nasty” include Nancy Pelosi; Ted Cruz; Meghan, Duchess of Sussex; and Lindsey Graham and Mitt Romney (a joint insult). “Nasty” flies out of his mouth so often I’m not certain that it is sexist so much as it’s a verbal tic.

    Similarly, I’d originally spotted breathtaking sexism and racism in his description of Rep. Maxine Waters as a “low I.Q. person” in 2018 — but then he later used similar phrases to describe Joe Biden (“a low I.Q. individual”) and George W. Bush. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd was deemed “crazy,” but then again, so was CNN’s Jim Acosta. Ann Coulter was a “nut job,” but then again, so was Anthony Scaramucci.

    Parsing his insults sometimes requires some subjective judgment: Is it worse to call Stormy Daniels a “horseface” than it is to call Adam Schiff a “little pencil-neck”? Is it appreciably different to call Rosie O’Donnell a “fat pig” than it is to get on a podium, as Trump once did, and say, of Chris Christie, “He’s eating right now; he can’t be bothered”? (Trump then playfully reminded his audience that they weren’t “allowed” to call people “fat pigs” anymore.)

    He referred to journalist Mika Brzezinski as a “ditzy airhead,” which definitely seemed sexist. But the attacks he lobbed at her husband and co-host Joe Scarborough — “psycho,” “dumb and sick” — don’t seem much better.

    How do we measure sexism anyway? Do we measure it by insults? Do we measure it by policy positions? Do we acknowledge that every one of us was born into a society with sexist roots, and that many men of Trump’s generation might have been raised to see nothing wrong with calling female aides “sweetie” or “honey,” as former Trump official Miles Taylor has alleged the former president did?

    There’s definitely a lot of evidence that Trump is a misogynist! But how much more sexist is he than his cohort?

    Business associates have remembered that Trump’s top lieutenants were often women. According to data from the Center for American Women and Politics, during Trump’s time in the White House, he appointed a total of seven women to Cabinet or Cabinet-level positions, including Gina Haspel, the first woman to helm the CIA.

    That’s a far lower number than Joe Biden’s 13 women (at maximum level, Biden’s Cabinet was 52 percent female, the first administration to have true gender parity). But it’s just a hair lower than the number of women Barack Obama appointed in either of his terms (eight apiece), and it’s higher than George W. Bush’s record (four women per term). Recent Republican presidents have appointed fewer women than Democratic ones, but their bench is shallower, with fewer female politicians in general.


    Trump also nominated a woman to the Supreme Court, which leads to another question: Do we measure misogyny by intention, or by effect? Because whether or not Trump thought that he was championing women by nominating Amy Coney Barrett, her support of the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade (which was also backed by Trump’s other appointees, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh) had disastrous effects for millions of women around the country.

    Trump seems to view reproductive rights as a malleable political tool — years ago he said he was “very pro-choice,” then later said abortion should be banned, then later said Florida’s ban was “a terrible thing.” His promise to nominate antiabortion judges was probably a political calculation to shore up support from evangelical voters — but in effect it harmed women................


     
    There was so much corruption during Trump’s term, we may never know all of it. I was only vaguely aware of this, for example. He should have been impeached for this alone.





     
    There was so much corruption during Trump’s term, we may never know all of it. I was only vaguely aware of this, for example. He should have been impeached for this alone.






    This is hard to understand, because I thought revoking the agreement with Iran hurt their economy. It seems contradictory that he would funnel money to Iran.
     
    This is hard to understand, because I thought revoking the agreement with Iran hurt their economy. It seems contradictory that he would funnel money to Iran.
    It may not be the case regarding Trump and Iran, but if someone is benefiting from helping Iran to circumvent sanctions, then revoking a deal that removed sanctions from Iran would create the opportunity for someone to benefit from helping Iran circumvent the sanctions that were reinstated by revoking the deal.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom