Trumped

Dalit

Star
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
1,696
Very interesting. I'm subbed to Corbett Report but never get notifications.

A timely re-post came today on gaslighting....this was based on Obama....Trump has took this to a completely new level.

Holy crap! This reveals so much. Have experienced this in romantic relationships. Thanks be to God for getting me away from those sick bastards.

Also, yes, Winnie the Pooh could use some pants. Disney is sick.

Plus that bit on GWB and Karl Rove was more than a bit disturbing. Politicians think they create reality.
 






Last edited:

Awoken2

Star
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
4,026
Holy crap! This reveals so much. Have experienced this in romantic relationships. Thanks be to God for getting me away from those sick bastards.

Also, yes, Winnie the Pooh could use some pants. Disney is sick.

Plus that bit on GWB and Karl Rove was more than a bit disturbing. Politicians think they create reality.
Our biggest enemies are the people who try and change our perception of reality. It's only when you discover this has happened to you, is when you can stop it from happening.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
8,291
Donald Trump was handed a major victory on his signature issue — building a wall on the US-Mexico border — on Friday, as the US Supreme Court approved the use of $2.5 billion in military funding for the purposes of wall construction.

In a 5-4 decision on Friday, the Supreme Court overturned two decisions by a federal judge that had barred the Trump administration from using military money for the wall. The federal judge had ruled the executive branch could not appropriate money for a purpose not specifically authorized by Congress.

“Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall,” Trump tweeted in response to the Supreme Court’s decision.

The money in question comes from the Pentagon’s budget; it had been initially approved for military personnel and training purposes. In two separate cases earlier this year, US District Court Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of Oakland blocked these funds from being reappropriated and put toward building a border wall. The administration argued that such redistribution of government funds was allowable given the president had declared a national emergency at the border in February.

The cases heard by Gilliam were lawsuits brought by the ACLU on behalf of the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition, something that became key to the Supreme Court’s decision. In its ruling, the Supreme Court found that private groups are not appropriate parties to challenge the allocation of federal dollars.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas ruled in favor of lifting the Gilliam’s injunction. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor supported the lower court’s decision.

Justice Stephen Breyer supported neither side, and proposed a compromise instead, suggesting the court clear the administration’s path in setting up contracts for construction without allowing it to start building anything.

Litigation over the funding will continue; the case will return to an appeals court. In the meantime, the Trump administration will be able to tap into these funds and begin construction on the wall, reports the New York Times.

The ruling followed an emergency filing from the administration at a time when the Supreme Court is typically on summer recess. The filing stated that a decision needed to be reached so that the Trump administration could spend the money it wanted to appropriate before the federal government’s fiscal year ends in September.

All told, the government plans to divert $6.7 billion from federal agencies, including the US Treasury and the Department of Defense, to construct the wall.

In a statement on Friday night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized the decision.

“The Supreme Court’s decision tonight to allow President Trump to defy the bipartisan will of the Congress and proceed with contracts to spend billions of dollars on his wall undermines the Constitution and the law,” she said.

The court cases were about immigration, the environment, and the Constitution

The construction of a wall along the US-Mexican border has been a signature policy since the earliest days of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, and challenges to the wall’s construction have been making their way through various US courts for years.

Recent lawsuits argued by the ACLU on behalf of the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition have asserted that the wall would “irreparably” harm the environment, and have made the case executive branch appropriations for the wall represent a misuse of military funding.

The second argument moved the wall debate beyond immigration and environmental policy and into the realm of how separation of powers is outlined in the Constitution. Judges were asked to consider whether the executive branch, overseen by the president, can bypass funding decisions made by Congress. Traditionally, Congress has had to approve the appropriation of funds; this role was outlined in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution, which states: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

Congress had previously allocated about $1.4 billion in border funding; the administration requested $6.7 billion. To get around this difference, the Trump administration announced plans to use other federal funds for the wall, arguing that the fact the president had declared a national emergency allowed for the appropriation of funds.

The money at the heart of Friday’s Supreme Court decision — which stemmed from the lawsuits brought by the ACLU and Sierra Club — came from the executive branch’s “reprogramming” of funds earmarked for the military.

In the lower, federal court, federal judge Gilliam twice found that the Trump administration had illegally planned to use misappropriated Congressional funds for the purpose of building the wall.

In June, Gilliam ordered that work be stopped on a stretch of the wall between California and Arizona. Vox’s Gabriela Resto-Montero reported that the $1.5 billion in financing for that 79-mile portion would have come from “military pay and training accounts through a Department of Defense counterdrug program.” In May, Judge Gilliam ruled that a stretch of wall being built between Arizona and Texas likewise could not draw upon reprogrammed $1 billion in Army personnel funds.

Taken together, these two cases blocked access to $2.5 billion of the $6.7 billion that the Trump administration hoped to appropriate for its border wall. Gilliam rejected the argument that the national emergency allowed for the appropriations, and ruled that Congress still had to approve the redirection of funding.

At the time, he wrote that the public interest would be “best served by respecting the Constitution’s assignment of the power of the purse to Congress, and by deferring to Congress’s understanding of the public interest as reflected in its repeated denial of more funding for border barrier construction.”

Friday’s decision reverses that decision, effectively freeing up a third of Trump’s requested border wall funding. The environmental groups that brought those challenges were deemed inappropriate parties to bring a lawsuit about transferring federal funds, an argument put forth by U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco.

“Interests in hiking, birdwatching, and fishing in designated drug-smuggling corridors do not outweigh the harm to the public from halting the government’s efforts to construct barriers to stanch the flow of illegal narcotics across the southern border,” Francisco said.

The Supreme Court apparently agreed.

The decision is the latest in a series of immigration wins for Trump

Trump heralded the decision as a victory on Twitter:

It’s one of several recent wins for his administration’s immigration agenda. A deal with Mexico — announced in June but reached in March — has led to an increased presence of Mexican security forces along that country’s border with Guatemala in order to reduce the number of migrants coming north from Central America. That agreement came after Trump threatened to impose steep tariffs on Mexican imports that would have damaged the nation’s economy.

Border crossings also appear to be on the decline, following Mexico’s changes to its immigration enforcement, and arrests at the border dropped by 28 percent in June.

Another win came on the same day as the Supreme Court decision. Earlier on Friday, Trump signed a deal alongside Guatemalan president Jimmy Morales that will direct Central American migrants seeking asylum in the United States to first apply for asylum in Guatemala instead.

The Trump administration has long pursued such a deal with both Guatemala and Mexico; Mexico has made it clear it has no plans to sign such an agreement. Guatemala had refused to sign the deal as well, until relenting under economic pressure Friday.

The Trump administration hopes the agreement will curb asylum applications from Honduras and El Salvador, the Central American countries that neighbor Guatemala and countries from which the bulk of asylum-seekers at the US border originate.

As Vox’s Jen Kirby has reported, this policy “would, with few exceptions, make it extraordinarily difficult for anyone not coming from Mexico or on a plane to be eligible for asylum in the US.”

Despite the Supreme Court’s decision, court challenges to the US-Mexico border wall remain

The wall was one of Trump’s signature campaign issues; he has said that it will curb trafficking and illegal immigration at the southern border. Opponents, including Congressional Democrats, say the wall is immoral — and pricey.

Fights over the wall have been ongoing since Trump took office, and Congress has repeatedly declined to provide wall funding. Notably, this resulted in a partial government shutdown that began in December of last year and lasted for 35 days.

In April, House Democrats said they would sue the Trump administration over his use of a national emergency to try and free up funds. They lost that case, but have signaled they plan to file an appeal.

And that case isn’t the only one the Trump administration faces. Despite Friday’s Supreme Court decision, opponents to the border wall will continue to challenge its construction in the courts. In fact, the ACLU and Sierra Club cases will continue to be litigated in lower courts.

“We will be asking the federal appeals court to expedite the ongoing appeals proceeding to halt the irreversible and imminent damage from Trump’s border wall,” Dror Ladin, an attorney with the ACLU, said in a statement. “Our Constitution’s separation of powers will be permanently harmed should Trump get away with pillaging military funds for a xenophobic border wall Congress denied.”
If there was that much expendable money to be found in these agencies 1) that’s a problem 2) why the hell did we increase the military budget again?
 






DesertRose

Superstar
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
5,664
President Nixon’s Accomplishments in Protecting the Environment Are Being Destroyed by the Trump Regime

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/08/15/president-nixons-accomplishments-in-protecting-the-environment-are-being-destroyed-by-the-trump-regime/

excerpt:

"Americans blame presidents for their own failings. Democracy requires an alert citizenry. Democracy fails when the citizens are insouciant. A country with an inattentive population and a media hijacked by interest groups cannot hold government or interest groups accountable.

Additionally, US elections seldom depend on policy issues. We have a politics of name-calling and smears. The Democrats’ case against Trump largely rested on claims from porn stars and prostitutes that they had sexual affairs with Trump and on the Russiagate hoax. The manner in which the United States functions politically is a very bad advertisement for democracy.

Globalists who move America’s jobs offshore and neoconservatives who attempt to implement US hegemony have undone President Reagan’s accomplishments of restoring the economy and ending the Cold War. Now it is the environmental protections put in place by the Nixon administration that are being overthrown. With the Constitution overthrown by the “war on terror,” the outlook for Americans is dismal. Their insouciance has cost them their country."
 






Awoken2

Star
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
4,026
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-16/trump-s-interest-in-buying-greenland-met-with-dismay-in-denmark

(Breakfast table at Trump towers)

Melania: What do you mean you want to buy Greenland!?!?)

Trump: It's the world's biggest island....Epstein has an island....I'm gonna get a bigger island.....nobody is gonna out island meeee!

Melania: But it's not for sale you dimwit!

Trump: EVERYTHING is for sale....if the price is right.....I remember the day you told me you wouldn't marry me for ten million dollars....got you for 12 though......ha!

Melania: (under her breath) that's peanuts compared to what the divorce will cost you.

Or it could just be the Trumpsters latest conspiracy theory.

Headline reading... Trump wants to move to Greenland to avoid worldwide apocalypse!!!
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,088
Absolutely predictable to finish Trump’s first term by trying to make the spying program a permanent fixture in America. At this point, I’m not confident he will have a second term, but who knows. Either way, I would love to hear there is another side of this, but I don’t think there is. I think this just solidifies that trump was always part of the establishment. It was always theatre and a temporary endorphin rush to think he wasn’t.

“Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates raised alarm Thursday after the Trump administration called on Congress to reauthorize an NSA mass surveillance program that was exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The New York Times, which obtained the Trump administration’s request to Congress, reported that “the administration urged lawmakers to make permanent the legal authority for the National Security Agency to gain access to logs of Americans’ domestic communications, the USA Freedom Act.”

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/trump-nsa-spying-snowden/
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
8,291
Yeah and he’s “cutting payroll taxes” to compensate for the mess his tax cuts and trade wars have caused to the economy as well. So that down the line real soon they can see “oh sorry have to cut grandmas benefits, can’t afford them”

Worst. President. Ever.
 






z gharib

Established
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
478
Trump slammed for saying any Jew voting Democratic is 'disloyal'
Amid ongoing attacks against Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, Trumps calls majority of Jews in the US uninformed.

Activists, politicians and many within the American Jewish community slammed US President Donald Trump on Tuesday for saying any Jewish person who votes Democratic shows "either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty".
He made the comments despite recent polling, which shows that a majority of Jews in the US identify as Democrats.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/trump-slammed-jew-voting-democratic-disloyal-190820205832592.html

(thank God ! ..... I feared he would say 'Anti-Semites" )
 






The Zone

Star
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
2,463
Yeah and he’s “cutting payroll taxes” to compensate for the mess his tax cuts and trade wars have caused to the economy as well. So that down the line real soon they can see “oh sorry have to cut grandmas benefits, can’t afford them”

Worst. President. Ever.
Where is Obama when you need him? I miss wars and fewer jobs. If Trump is the worst president ever, who is the best? As if we have choices since Kennedy ....
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
8,291
Please stop with that tired shit... I was never a fan of obama, but he inherited a recession he didn’t cause it and we came out of it before trump, only to apparantly be slammed back into another because of him. Also I haven’t seen the end to any war... it’s the same now as it was.

Don’t know who’s the best since Kennedy. They all suck, in different ways to different extents. But this guys the worst During my lifetime. It’s not like I have a whole ton of choices.
 






The Zone

Star
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
2,463
Trump inherited war and a bad economy, so not sure how he is worse than Obama. Some could argue he inherited what was turning into racial problems as well, people forget that those problems were ripe under the 8-year president as well but the republicans were not acting like babies when they lost. Heck, republicans were dead until Trump came along. What was Obama's legacy? And why is he not the worst president ever? Do you really think Trump is worse than Bush? Bill Clinton was a good one too. LOL Trump is not all that but he is not the worst president we have had unless you are all in on MSM. And just yacking not trying to incite you. I thinl Trump saved us from full-on PC Culture or at least slowed its crawl. And some will hate the sitting president no matter who he is.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
8,291
Yeah he did.. but he’s made no moves to get out of those wars despite promising to, the economy is in the verge of yet another recession due in large part to changes and policies he himself has made, he purposely inflamed and exploited those racial tensions to get voted in exacerbating an already bad situation... etc etc

Acting like babies? So criticizing or voicing opposition to the president is acting like a baby? That’s literally how democracies work man. And the republicans weren’t silent and accepting of obama at all (see the birther movement spearheaded by none other than our current president for just one example). I get that revisionist history is ripe around these parts but typically it isn’t arrempted while shits still going on.

I’m not parroting an msm I don’t even watch. Kudos on hitting every play in the wife beaters handbook tho: deflection, projection and gaslighting to name just a few. “But but.. look what THEY did” doesn’t work past grade school. Sorry.

Edit: if I hear trumps abhorrent behavior excused one more time because of “but atleast he’s not pc” I’m going to vomit.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
8,291
Wife beaters handbook? Well just blame someone, that is out of the victim playbook. Sheesh.

I don't like him much myself but more-so than Hillary. It is not like we have several or perfect choices. And the recession is coming no matter who is in office for they do not control the Fed.
The recession is coming because he cut tax revenue (from the people who could afford to pay it most on top of it), increased the deficit exponentially by doing so, and then started trade wars which hurt American businesses and American consumers.

You keep saying the economy is GREAT! Trump has been great for the economy!! And now your saying the recession is coming, so which is it?

If you don’t want me to point it out then stop using dishonest tactics to try to discredit anyone who criticizes the man.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
8,291
I have said the recession is coming for years because of the fake money fed but I also gave Trump credit for making some adjustments when he came into the office to make it better -- more jobs, low gas prices and actually attempting to right the wrongs of those who gave away money for nothing to other countries.

I do not have magical powers to halt your criticism nor is that my intent. I am trying to wake people up to not take out all their angst on a single man. Your criticism, IMO, is over the top and that will be met on a discussion board with some push back.

As for the tactics you label me with, well .... I say this with as much respect as possible, but you protest and complain about a lot. You seem to think Trump is to blame for the same things you may or may not complain about if he was not in the office.

So, you are really blaming a recession that is not here quite yet on one move by Trump and not worldwide problems? The recession I am talking about will be worldwide and not just in the US. I made a thread on that. A recession also happens when people want too many free benefits expecting the government to foot the bill and citizens wanting to live beyond their means.

I resent you trying to make me a bully wife-beater with nefarious tendencies. I am the same person who took up for you when you had a stalker and was at the front of the line to do so.

Lastly, Trump is CONSIDERING a payroll tax cut. It has not happened yet, so why are we acting as it has? So, maybe the secondary point here is can we stick to facts? Seriously, your hate for Trump does not seem really healthy to me but I actually support your freedom to complain. Just maybe consider you will hear differing views when doing so. And I know this will seem standoffish in your view, but if MSM does not play a role in your take, then why do you hit their talking points? I mean, we have to get our information in some way from reading or listening to others.

The alternative to Trump is the crazed socialism bent left. The Democrats who run cities which are overrun by homelessness and crime. The ones who had us in conflicts with Isis, etc and catered to the Military-Industrial Complex. The ones who want to open the borders which will essentially halt all hand out programs for our poor in that the money will run out. The ones who will help deliver us into eventual one-world rule where our thoughts will send us to jail.

Trump is a blowhard and hard to stomach and more or less has been neutralized and may be sold out, but I would take him over Hillary any day of the week and I will begrudgingly back him over any socialist candidate. I realize he is not really in control but others seem to think he is. But I do like the slowing of the roll into all-out madness the Democratic party I once belonged to wants.
1) we were already steadily adding jobs to the economy before trump took office. And the jobs that have been added under both obama and trump have been shit. Low paying, no benefits, shitty hours etc.

Gas is hovering around $3/gallon where I live, has been for a long time. So I don’t see low gas prices either. And even if it was that is based on global factors, not trump.

He’s also still giving away money to other countries last time I checked.

2) would you rather me say “the republicans led by trump and neo liberals?” Trump is the president. The head of his party. Hence trump takes the most heat. It isn’t like he’s out there actively opposing the things his party is doing that I don’t agree with, he’s supporting or even pushing for them.

3) id complain about these things no matter which president was doing them. I chose to be a social worker, these were issues ALWAYS important to me or I wouldn’t have chosen a profession that is literally all about them.

4) it’s not one move.. come on. He gave the richest Americans a tax cut - the money they saved isn’t getting pumped back into the economy because no matter how rich you are there’s only so much money a person can spend. And businesses don’t hire because they have more money, they hire because they have more work. If the people needing the work don’t have money both they and the businesses they would use if they did suffer. And the tax cut ended up being an increase for a lot of people in the upper middle class - the people who actually do spend money and pump it into the economy. The poor didn’t see more or lose more so it was a wash.

Then add in the trade wars which are hurting American businesses and consumers. Businesses are losing revenue and consumers are paying more. This isn’t good. Not for anyone.

So we have less government revenue to do things, people have less to spend, and costs are increasing. How was that not going to cause or seriously contribute to a recession?

5) I don’t want you to resent me and I will always appreciate what you did for me in that situation. Always. But this specific issue is bringing out a side of you I’ve never seen and don’t specifically like. I’m not saying you are that way generally but on this issue that is how you are behaving. I’m looking at green grass and your trying to convince me it’s purple. When I won’t accept it’s purple you tell me I’m brainwashed or deflect to tell me well the grass may be green but can you believe what those clouds did? It’s not an honest debate method. It’s not cool. I’ve never once expressed support for Hilary or obama but every time I criticize trump you try to throw them in my face, then blame msm, then tell me I’m delusional like I can’t trust my own eyes ears and experience.. this seems to be an emotional issue for you but you don’t want to say that. I will freely admit it is for me. The things he is attacking are fundamentally important to me. Both personally and professionally.

6) there has been a republican goal of cutting social security, Medicaid and Medicare for YEARS. It has always received a ton of push back so they haven’t gone there... but this is an indication they found a new way to frame it and make it atleast temporarily acceptable. Because people don’t naturally think long term, they think “oh great more money in my paycheck” and th fact that it will come at expense of their retirement or disability doesn’t register until it’s too late.

5) you are talking about neoliberals, not the left I support. There’s a big difference. And the republicans in general are no better on any of those issues.
 






Aero

Star
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
4,652
As far as the economy goes, the market is due for a correction. It's just a question of if there's a hard or soft landing. Now the real problem is that everything is overvalued. You know? It's that whole race to the top mentality. So as the cost of everything skyrockets one must ask, who benefits the most? Well, let me enlighten you, it's the banks that benefit.

More inflation means bigger loans, more fees, and more ways to finger fuck the books. Sounds risky though right? Except it's not because the banks hold enough power to negate all that risk. It's called quantitive easing and public bailouts. When the banks over-leverage themselves we will all have to pay for it.

Given all that, I find it amusing when Americans are worried about socialism. I mean what I'm describing is a redistribution of wealth in it's purest form. All our money is going to banks, and a few corporations milking cash cows. I don't call that capitalism, It's more like pillage and plunder.

I'll tell you what really keeps me up at night though. It's how the race to the top is completely stifling innovation. New technologies are being kept from the public, and that's like keeping us in the dark ages when we could see the light. The way things are going now a lot of us will end up old and sick with a safety net full of holes.
 






Top