TheVat
Valued Senior Member
For real truth in naming after potus 47, Lake Michigan becomes Lake Meshuga.
en.wikipedia.org
Trump 2.0
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
I give it two years max, then Turnip tosses her to the curb, the petals fall from her eyes and Harp becomes harpie.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I understand she is 36.
#horselove | #WhatTheyVotedFor
Here's a lede for you, via CBS News:
The FBI previously refused to hire job applicants if they admitted to hiring sex workers or stealing from an employer — or engaging in acts of bestiality.
Today, those acts, which are mostly illegal across the country, are no longer automatic deal breakers for applicants to the nation's top law enforcement agency.
Today, those acts, which are mostly illegal across the country, are no longer automatic deal breakers for applicants to the nation's top law enforcement agency.
I don't write 'em. And, where I'm from, this is particularly poignant. I mean funny. I mean poingant … -ly hilarious.
Actually, it's tragically stupid, and also kind of alarming.
In June, the FBI quietly lowered some of the standards it uses when it conducts background checks on would-be federal agents and other personnel. According to multiple sources briefed on the matter, the FBI did so to facilitate hiring in some cases, even if candidates acknowledged they engaged in sexually deviant activities or stole from an employer.
The move comes as the FBI has lost scores of employees through firings, retirements and resignations since the start of the Trump administration.
The move comes as the FBI has lost scores of employees through firings, retirements and resignations since the start of the Trump administration.
Horsefuckers! What They Voted For!
Or, like they always promised: Government just doesn't work.
____________________
Notes:
Lynch, Sarha N. and Daniel Klaidman. "At the FBI, a history of hiring prostitutes or stealing from employer may no longer be a barrier to being hired". CBS News. 28 August 2026. CBSNews.com. 28 August 2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-candidates-prostitutes-theft/
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Snort! Certainly stretches the imagination to imagine applicants owning up to bestiality or other deviance in an FBI interview. Oh to be a fly on that wall!
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Doesn't the First Amendment say something about the right to "petition for a red dress of grievances"?
#iykyk | #WhatTheyVotedFor
Rep. Jack Kimble (R-CA54)↱, two weeks before inauguration:
President Trump's second term is off to a GREAT start.
I'll be introducing legislation ASAP to officially change the name of the Lake Ontario to its rightful name, Lake America! Let's make the Great Lakes great again!
I'll be introducing legislation ASAP to officially change the name of the Lake Ontario to its rightful name, Lake America! Let's make the Great Lakes great again!
Because, as Gino the Ghost↱ observes, "this administration is literally beyond parody".
DHS Secretary Doesn't Know Who's President
Y'know, the whole thing with Republicans constantly making excuses by blaming other people is what it is, but Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, appointed by President Donald Trump, thinks Joe Biden is still president: "And when they see their industry run, because you have a Biden administration that is failing the American people, because they're allowing millions of people to come to this country illegally …".
Y'know, the whole thing with Republicans constantly making excuses by blaming other people is what it is, but Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, appointed by President Donald Trump, thinks Joe Biden is still president: "And when they see their industry run, because you have a Biden administration that is failing the American people, because they're allowing millions of people to come to this country illegally …".
How It's Going (Comedy & Sketch)
So, here's the setup: DoD has received a number of notices of nonconcurrence from the officers charged with carrying out certain orders and duties; the mission will still go forward, the officers will obey and abide, but they have formally registered their dissent in declaring nonconcurrence. Washington Post broke the story, by the way, and WaPo columnist Marc Thiessen has called for the sources to be prosecuted, prompting Ben Mullin↱ of New York Times to observe, "This is unusual: a Washington Post columnist is calling for the prosecution of the newspaper's sources".
Meanwhile, an unfolding scandal is that the Department of Defense has a professional troll army. Libertarians against Trump↱ explains one of the implications:
(There's a Brian Williams joke in there↗, somewhere↗. #nevermind)
So, here's the setup: DoD has received a number of notices of nonconcurrence from the officers charged with carrying out certain orders and duties; the mission will still go forward, the officers will obey and abide, but they have formally registered their dissent in declaring nonconcurrence. Washington Post broke the story, by the way, and WaPo columnist Marc Thiessen has called for the sources to be prosecuted, prompting Ben Mullin↱ of New York Times to observe, "This is unusual: a Washington Post columnist is calling for the prosecution of the newspaper's sources".
Meanwhile, an unfolding scandal is that the Department of Defense has a professional troll army. Libertarians against Trump↱ explains one of the implications:
Before Massie's primary, Cynical Publius ran a relentless anti-Massie campaign, called him a 'toxic narcissist,' his supporters 'dimwits,' even linked Massie fans to antisemitism. Turns out he's Thomas R. Anderson, listed in Pentagon, assigned to a DoD office, the entire time
(There's a Brian Williams joke in there↗, somewhere↗. #nevermind)
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Yes, the Pentagon has been appointing civilians (retired military) as propaganda influencers to boost Hegseth et al and attack any critics of Turnip admin.
And Thiessen has long been at WaPo as "balance" - if balance is defined as "counterbalance responsible journalism with RW partisan lapdogging and hatchet jobs on Libs." I read him a few times when I subscribed, soon learned to avoid his drivel.
And Thiessen has long been at WaPo as "balance" - if balance is defined as "counterbalance responsible journalism with RW partisan lapdogging and hatchet jobs on Libs." I read him a few times when I subscribed, soon learned to avoid his drivel.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Assault on Constitution continues. Will this whistleblower help defend it?
apnews.com
The U.S. Postal Service is poised to launch a hastily built, error-riddled computer system that could jeopardize the process of mail voting relied upon by one-third of all voters, according to a whistleblower statement released Tuesday by Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal.
The effort is part of the implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting mail voting and has been temporarily halted by a federal judge. The ruling is being appealed by the administration and the directive may ultimately end up back before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The disclosure from the unidentified whistleblower contends that the Postal Service has been scrambling to try to build a complex system that would normally take a year or more in only three months, sometimes in defiance of the judge’s orders halting work. The goal is to have it ready for use in the midterm elections.
(...)
A report by the Brookings Institution published in 2025 found that mail voting fraud occurred in only about four cases out of every 10 million mail ballots cast.
Postal Service work to comply with Trump's executive order is rushed and sloppy, a whistleblower contends
A whistleblower for the U.S. Postal Service is warning that a new mail ballot system being hastily built to comply with President Donald Trump's executive order restricting that method of voting could lead to the rejection of huge numbers of mail ballots.
apnews.com
The U.S. Postal Service is poised to launch a hastily built, error-riddled computer system that could jeopardize the process of mail voting relied upon by one-third of all voters, according to a whistleblower statement released Tuesday by Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal.
The effort is part of the implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting mail voting and has been temporarily halted by a federal judge. The ruling is being appealed by the administration and the directive may ultimately end up back before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The disclosure from the unidentified whistleblower contends that the Postal Service has been scrambling to try to build a complex system that would normally take a year or more in only three months, sometimes in defiance of the judge’s orders halting work. The goal is to have it ready for use in the midterm elections.
(...)
A report by the Brookings Institution published in 2025 found that mail voting fraud occurred in only about four cases out of every 10 million mail ballots cast.
If this gets through the Supreme Court as acceptable, it surely destroys the Elections Clause / federalism principle whereby States determine their own rules for how elections are carried out, unless overridden by Congress. This matter with the postal service effectively vetting who gets a mail-in ballot, with the risk that it could prevent many valid ballots not being sent, is not something Congress have legislated, but is entirely through an Executive Order. So if the SCOTUS deem it acceptable in principle - whether or not they pay heed to and ultimately reject it due to the Purcell principle (the idea of not making changes too close to an election) - then it's another nail in the Constitution's coffin. Hopefully the SCOTUS will simply chicken-out of making a decision until after the mid-terms, but that's wishful thinking on my part.
I wonder about the rank and file that make it possible.
I mean, the cops, for instance, we know about them.
But, really? The post office?
So now we have to think of postal couriers, so many of them veterans, as enemies domestic, because conservatives voted for the end of the Republic?
If I ask what the hell is going on in this country, it's like, oh, they're so upset because gas hit three dollars, and then four so it's even worse, except where I'm from four-dollar gasoline would be price relief. Maybe the four-dollar gas chorus should shut the fuck up; they did this to themselves, and we were paying four before the war.
And, again, people are upset because food costs are up, and we are, regionally, wondering who is so upset by seven-dollar beef, because that would be between twenty and twenty-five percent price relief for us.
Around here, postal couriers have done a fine job handling our ballots; clearly, postal leadership is out on a political adventure, and now we must ask ourselves the question of whether the Post Office is really going to be a part of all this.
It feels like people are describing a different circumstance, like they're fighting over make-believe.
And now they're going to put the post office in those ranks. We'll have to see what the local effect is. Around here, when people accidentally run cars into ballot boxes, the post office reminds to not tamper with ballots. It will be interesting to see them suddenly become the problem.
I mean, the cops, for instance, we know about them.
But, really? The post office?
So now we have to think of postal couriers, so many of them veterans, as enemies domestic, because conservatives voted for the end of the Republic?
If I ask what the hell is going on in this country, it's like, oh, they're so upset because gas hit three dollars, and then four so it's even worse, except where I'm from four-dollar gasoline would be price relief. Maybe the four-dollar gas chorus should shut the fuck up; they did this to themselves, and we were paying four before the war.
And, again, people are upset because food costs are up, and we are, regionally, wondering who is so upset by seven-dollar beef, because that would be between twenty and twenty-five percent price relief for us.
Around here, postal couriers have done a fine job handling our ballots; clearly, postal leadership is out on a political adventure, and now we must ask ourselves the question of whether the Post Office is really going to be a part of all this.
It feels like people are describing a different circumstance, like they're fighting over make-believe.
And now they're going to put the post office in those ranks. We'll have to see what the local effect is. Around here, when people accidentally run cars into ballot boxes, the post office reminds to not tamper with ballots. It will be interesting to see them suddenly become the problem.
Well, unsurprisingly the SCOTUS have allowed the development of the White House ballroom to continue. The surprising thing was that in the first line of their judgement they lied. "In October 2025, the federal government started a project to replace the East Wing of the White House". Only it wasn't the "federal government" but rather Trump. The President is not the federal government. So the SCOTUS lied in the first line.
The decision was 5-4 in favour, with Justice Roberts joining the three Democrats on the bench to dissent. "The President ordered the demolition of the East Wing of the White House to make way for a new, privately funded state ballroom in its place.... That construction is likely unlawful..." and goes on to quote the legislation that the construction breaches, notably through not seeking the approval of Congress.
I'd like to say that you should expect better from your Supreme Court, not least to get the most basic facts of the case correct. But, well, these are disappointing times at the moment, so it's not the shock it really ought to be. Ah, well.
The decision was 5-4 in favour, with Justice Roberts joining the three Democrats on the bench to dissent. "The President ordered the demolition of the East Wing of the White House to make way for a new, privately funded state ballroom in its place.... That construction is likely unlawful..." and goes on to quote the legislation that the construction breaches, notably through not seeking the approval of Congress.
I'd like to say that you should expect better from your Supreme Court, not least to get the most basic facts of the case correct. But, well, these are disappointing times at the moment, so it's not the shock it really ought to be. Ah, well.
Okay - next up in the clown show...
I could have posted this in this thread or in the Business/Economy section, but it's Trump being, well, Trump, so here it is...
Trump clearly wants the Fed to lower interest rates. So, to pressure them into doing so he has said (in a post on Truth Social) that they should "LOWER THE RATE OR I'LL STOP TRADING WITH COUNTRIES WITH WHICH WE HAVE A DEFICIT."
Only Trump doesn't set monetary policy, and the Fed doesn't set trade policy. So, well, there's that.
Secondly, in his post he argues that the Fed should lower the rate because "the USA is a much stronger credit than it was just a short time ago!" and "A STRONG COUNTRY MEANS A LOWER INTEREST RATE - IT'S A BETTER CREDIT... Very simple!", once again showing that he was wide awake during whatever lectures he claims to have attended at the Wharton School of Business. See, it's not the Fed rate that is affected by being a "better credit" or not. That is the bond yield on the open market, which is presently at, or near, multi-decade highs, indicating that other countries see the US as not such a strong credit as it was.
Furthermore, a cut in rates would raise inflation alarms, with inflation still stubbornly c.3.4-3.5%. Lower credit-card bills and borrowing costs (not necessarily mortgage) will put money into pockets, demand goes up, supply lags, so inflation.
Then, on the back of the inflation fears, institutional investors demand higher yields so as to protect against eroding returns, so the bond sell-off continues and even deepens. Yields go up. And as the national debt is refinanced, the higher yields mean higher servicing costs.
And fixed-rate mortgage rates will rise, being based not on the Fed's rate but the long-term Treasury yields. Those on variable rates will see an initial fall (and fuel inflation), though, but longer-term rates will go up.
So, yeah, great plan.
This is before you consider that the US economy has just posted reasonably solid job numbers, so doesn't need a rate reduction to stimulate the economy. And at the last meeting of the Fed the split was 9-3 to keep rates as they were, with the 3 dissenters both looking for a slight increase rather than decrease.
Which all leads to the question: what will Trump personally gain from a rate cut by the Fed? There must be something, right, for him to risk trashing not just the US economy but the global economy if he doesn't get his way?
But maybe first he should just go back to school.
Get the popcorn ready, though: the Trump v FED battle is about to begin!
I could have posted this in this thread or in the Business/Economy section, but it's Trump being, well, Trump, so here it is...
Trump clearly wants the Fed to lower interest rates. So, to pressure them into doing so he has said (in a post on Truth Social) that they should "LOWER THE RATE OR I'LL STOP TRADING WITH COUNTRIES WITH WHICH WE HAVE A DEFICIT."
Only Trump doesn't set monetary policy, and the Fed doesn't set trade policy. So, well, there's that.
Secondly, in his post he argues that the Fed should lower the rate because "the USA is a much stronger credit than it was just a short time ago!" and "A STRONG COUNTRY MEANS A LOWER INTEREST RATE - IT'S A BETTER CREDIT... Very simple!", once again showing that he was wide awake during whatever lectures he claims to have attended at the Wharton School of Business. See, it's not the Fed rate that is affected by being a "better credit" or not. That is the bond yield on the open market, which is presently at, or near, multi-decade highs, indicating that other countries see the US as not such a strong credit as it was.
Furthermore, a cut in rates would raise inflation alarms, with inflation still stubbornly c.3.4-3.5%. Lower credit-card bills and borrowing costs (not necessarily mortgage) will put money into pockets, demand goes up, supply lags, so inflation.
Then, on the back of the inflation fears, institutional investors demand higher yields so as to protect against eroding returns, so the bond sell-off continues and even deepens. Yields go up. And as the national debt is refinanced, the higher yields mean higher servicing costs.
And fixed-rate mortgage rates will rise, being based not on the Fed's rate but the long-term Treasury yields. Those on variable rates will see an initial fall (and fuel inflation), though, but longer-term rates will go up.
So, yeah, great plan.
This is before you consider that the US economy has just posted reasonably solid job numbers, so doesn't need a rate reduction to stimulate the economy. And at the last meeting of the Fed the split was 9-3 to keep rates as they were, with the 3 dissenters both looking for a slight increase rather than decrease.
Which all leads to the question: what will Trump personally gain from a rate cut by the Fed? There must be something, right, for him to risk trashing not just the US economy but the global economy if he doesn't get his way?
But maybe first he should just go back to school.
Get the popcorn ready, though: the Trump v FED battle is about to begin!
The need for a ballroom at the White House has been recognized for over a century. It may be the one thing Trump got right. I would like it better without the gilt. With all the gilt the Oval Office looks like the boudoir of a whore house madame.
Whatever name is on the Kennedy Center people will always refer to the complex as the Kennedy Center.
I detest the whole arch idea so I hope it is stopped.
Whatever name is on the Kennedy Center people will always refer to the complex as the Kennedy Center.
I detest the whole arch idea so I hope it is stopped.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Your analysis seems spot on, and I've been head scratching over this latest, which seems on the face of it so utterly clueless and nationally self-harming. Clearly it's about his own gain, he remains a sociopath who couldn't give the tiniest shit about America except as a grifting teat, but...this seems to further confirm dementia. I mean, most sociopaths try to be a little more covert when they're going suck the life out of something until it's a dried husk.
I don't think the issue was ever whether or not a ballroom was needed, but rather the way Trump has gone about it. Had he sought and gained Congress' approval, gone through all the necessary design and approval processes, then noone would care too much about it. The various approval panels (e.g. heritage?) could field the questions as to why knocking down the East Wing and rebuilding was appropriate etc.
But instead Trump just declares it, says it won't touch what was the East Wing, says it will be funded by private donations (which in itself is a significant red flag), and then immediately knocks down the East Wing, expands the initial design, and then intends to seek $1bn for construction. All without any approval, especially from Congress. That's the issue.
I also think that the design is likely to be tack and gaudy, and inflicting his Dictator-chic taste on his temporary dwelling is its own disappointment.
Similarly with Kennedy Center, no approvals sought, just do it and hope it sticks. Pretty much sums up his entire administration. Not to mention that he seems more focussed on his ego-stroking developments (ballroom, Kennedy Center name, reflection pool, arch etc) than on governing for the American people.