Well, certain thoughts.
Wake Up, America! Wake Up! PLEASE!!
- Thread starter Drillher4me
- Start date
- Status
It just occurred to me, we are dealing with a world class con man, Don the Con.
Trump experiencing 'mild symptoms' after testing positive for Covid-19
The president announced that he and first lady Melania Trump tested positive and are isolating. The diagnosis thrusts the White House, election into turmoil.www.nbcnews.com
This could be a ploy to stop the negative press and let him skip the debates, as well as address Melania's tape of her being a bitch, his economy falling, Covid numbers rising in red states, total shallacking on the first debate, more Republicans coming out against him, and the rest of his tax issues coming to light.
Stay quarantined until a few days out from the election and then miraculously they are cured.
If anyone knows the art of diversion it is him.....and he will do anything to change the subject....all his advisors told him it was bad debate...he claims he won.....he has already stated that if they change debate rules in anyway he is out...and they are not going to let him put on a ******* show like the last time.....and yes surprised at melania…..didn't think she cared for him that much...and I still don't just think maybe she was cornered who knows....and economy going down everyday with their refusal to work a deal on a new stimulus (think he needs more personal money since he refuses to say where it will all go)….but without stimulus airlines are going to lay off thousands...……….and the tax thing.....for whatever reason not working because the right just thinks it is great that he is getting away with whatever he can.....naturally that is how the right looks at it.....don't mind that the country is broke!
do NOT like this new format at all....when you reply to someone it doesn't show anymore who posted what you have to click off that thread and come back...….and the similar thread thing...wtf....think we all pretty much know those are there do not need to be shown...and when you click reply just a small box...does enlarge as you post...anyway ...I do not like changes....of any kind....hell I am still using the old browser and every site I go on tells me to change
really hate all the similar thread bullshit...…..you have to move on down PAST it to get the political discussion tab to go to the other political threads
really hate all the similar thread bullshit...…..you have to move on down PAST it to get the political discussion tab to go to the other political threads
use our own troops to keep him in office?
How Trump amassed a red-state army in the nation’s capital — and could do so again
The call that came into state capitals stunned governors and their National Guard commanders: The Pentagon wanted thousands of citizen soldiers airlifted to the nation’s capital immediately to help control crowds outside the White House in the wake of the death of George Floyd.
Presidents have routinely activated Guard troops to fight foreign enemies, and in extraordinary circumstances have federalized them to quell civil unrest, using the vast power of the commander in chief.
But the June 1 appeal to states was different. President Trump was drawing instead on an obscure law, changed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that made it easier for governors to voluntarily send guardsmen across state lines for counterterrorism missions. His action was not an order but a request, essentially inviting states to augment the D.C. National Guard, which he controls, in a potential clash with civilian protesters
The request had the effect of cleaving state militias along partisan lines, according to interviews and internal Guard documents. While red states jumped to answer the president’s call, governors and Guard commanders in blue states were incredulous. The result was a deployment to the nation’s capital that military historians say appears to have been without precedent: Over 98 percent of the 3,800 troops that arrived in the District came from states with Republican governors.
In a secure video conference that day with Guard leaders from across the country, Maj. Gen. David Baldwin, head of the California National Guard, questioned the need for the massive deployment. Baldwin, who has led the ******* under multiple Democratic governors, said the situation in D.C. appeared no more urgent than that in California, where his troops were already stretched thin by dozens of planned protests.
“I love you like a brother,” Baldwin said to the top D.C. Guard official on the call, according to three people who were listening, “but f--- this, I have other things to worry about,” he said, before dropping off the line.
Baldwin declined to comment for this story.
Officials in Utah, by contrast, scrambled to respond. Within hours, Utah National Guard members who were waiting for an expected deployment to Afghanistan were instead put on planes bound for D.C. In the three days that followed, armed guardsmen streamed into the nation’s capital, nearly all from Republican-led states such as Florida, Indiana, Missouri, South Carolina and Tennessee
The only Democratic-led state to send troops was New Jersey, which contributed fewer than 100 soldiers, and only on the condition that they be assigned security shifts at monuments and not engage with protesters outside the White House
The same ability to mobilize National Guard troops from sympathetic states into Washington remains readily available today to Trump, who has repeatedly declined to commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election. On Tuesday, in the first presidential debate, Trump suggested that the election was being “rigged,” declaring that “this is not going to end well.”
In an interview last month with Fox News personality Jeanine Pirro, Trump was asked what he would do if his opponents “threaten riots if they lose on election night.”
“We’ll put them down very quickly if they do that,” Trump answered. He pointed to a June guard deployment in Minnesota as an example of how he could move with speed and effectiveness.
“If we had to, we’d do that and put it down within minutes, within minutes,” Trump said. “In Minneapolis, they were having problems. We sent in the National Guard, within a half an hour, that was the end of the problem — it all went away.”
That deployment was the decision of Minnesota’s governor, a Democrat, not Trump.
Trump’s effort to marshal the National Guard to his side was in some respects a portent. Over the summer, he and Attorney General William P. Barr repeatedly flexed federal power in American cities, or threatened to do so, often against the wishes of local and state officials. Democrats leading many of those cities denounced what they said were authoritarian tactics aimed at seeking election-year advantage.
The White House declined to comment for this story, and the Justice Department did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the legal basis for the June deployment or on the partisan divide in the response by state militias.
But in a letter to D.C. officials in June, Barr wrote that the deployment was justified because the protests had not remained “within the control of local law enforcement,” had “threatened federal operations around the White House complex” and that television footage “conveyed the impression that the United States was on the brink of losing control of its capital city.”
Trump’s Army secretary, Ryan McCarthy, traveled to the hangar-like armory where the 1,200-person D.C. National Guard is based and ordered its commander, Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, to begin deploying available troops to Lafayette Square. The troops were to back up U.S. Park Police officers maintaining a one-block buffer between the White House and the protests.
The next day, however, the numbers of protesters only grew. Inside the White House, Trump fumed, worrying that the images showed the country as out of control, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations and deliberations of the president. In tweets and phone calls, Trump urged mayors and governors to “get tough” and to call out their own National Guard soldiers. For anyone contemplating breaching the White House grounds, Trump added a public warning that they would be attacked by “vicious dogs.”
That Sunday night, May 31, protests near Lafayette Square grew violent. An annex at the historic St. John’s Church was damaged by fire that appeared to have been set, and furniture in the lobby of the nearby AFL-CIO building was set ablaze.
The following morning, Trump, angry over what he perceived as the continued bad optics of the federal government lacking control, ratcheted up his call to restore law and order, the officials said. Trump wanted active-duty military on the streets of the capital by nightfall, one of the officials said.
Trump considered invoking the rarely used Insurrection Act of 1807, the two said. The power was tapped by presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy in 1950s and ’60s to ******* Southern states to integrate schools. President Lyndon B. Johnson used it to send 4,700 Army troops to quell the Detroit riots in 1967. It has been used infrequently since, mostly when a governor has requested federal help to enforce laws. The last time that happened was when President George H.W. Bush dispatched 4,000 troops to the Rodney King riots in California in 1992.
Milley told Congress in July that he counseled against such a move. Instead, he recommended that active-duty military be placed on alert and flown to bases near D.C., but remain outside the city.
“My assessment and advice was . . . that under the prevailing conditions active-duty troops were, and are, not necessary to deploy on the streets of America. The Insurrection Act was, in fact, never invoked,” Milley said.
Milley and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper both testified that they saw violence as the exception in the days after Floyd’s death. “We should be proud that the vast majority of protests have been peaceful. Peaceful protest means that American freedom is working,” Milley said.
Esper added that Americans were “understandably” wanting to exercise their right to free speech following Floyd’s death. He blamed rioting and looting on a small number of people seeking to exploit the demonstrations.
Trump, however, repeatedly disparaged the protesters in D.C. as “anarchists.” Esper told Congress the president set a goal for how many guard troops he wanted to see patrolling city streets that night: 5,000.
That day, Trump suggested in a call with governors that protesters were about to be met with overwhelming ******* in the nation’s capital
“If you don’t dominate your city and your state, they’re gonna walk away with you,” Trump said in a late-morning call, audio of which was soon leaked to reporters. “We’re doing it in Washington, in D.C. . . . We’re going to do something that people haven’t seen before,” he said, “we’re going to have total domination.”
Trump and his military leaders drew on the president’s little-known role as commander in chief of the D.C. National Guard, akin to that of a governor in a state, to facilitate the deployment.
But mobilizing so many guard troops on such short notice was highly unusual. It was complicated by the fact that more than 10,000 soldiers had already been called up by states to help shuttle supplies, take airline travelers’ temperatures and provide security at hospitals to help during the coronavirus pandemic.
In an interview, Walker, the D.C. guard commander, said he supported bringing in out-of-state troops. He likened it to requests from the guard every four years seeking troops from other states to help with inaugural events.
But the request was different. It was the first time a specific provision of federal law — 32 USC 502(f) — was used to provide federal funding for guard troops to travel to D.C. to counter acts of civil disobedience, a Defense Department spokesman acknowledged in an email to The Washington Post.
State Guard leaders said they were told at the time of the requested deployment that their states would be reimbursed under the provision. Barr also cited it as the authorizing language in a letter to D.C. officials on June 9.
For decades, the obscure statutory provision titled “Required drills and field exercises” dealt almost exclusively with how the U.S. government would reimburse states when guard soldiers were asked to travel for training exercises.
In the post-9/11 environment, guard troops had been patrolling airports and border crossings. The Pentagon was rethinking how, beyond emergency funding, it could facilitate the Guard responding to ongoing terrorist threats and any future attacks.
John Dehn, then a staff attorney at the U.S. Army Forces Command, was among a team working through the issues. Eventually, Congress addressed the funding issue by amending the training statute, making it possible for guard soldiers to be paid federally for “Support of operations or missions undertaken by the member’s unit at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense.” In 2006, Section F added two lengthy sentences.
“It was to deal with counterterrorism,” said Dehn, who is now a law professor and director of the National Security and Civil Rights Program at Loyola University’s School of Law in Chicago. “Nobody writing this new provision likely viewed it as ever becoming some sort of work around for the Insurrection Act.”
In its 15-year existence, the new provision had been used to pay guard soldiers deployed for inaugural events, *******-interdiction missions, surveillance and other support along the U.S.-Mexico border, and for small, ongoing rotations at ballistic missile sites.
Then came June 1, 2020.
From Trump and Esper, the request for troops to keep order in D.C. flowed to the Army, and to the chief of the National Guard Bureau. The group serves as the voice for state Guard forces at the Pentagon, and its leader is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
continue reading...…
How Trump amassed a red-state army in the nation’s capital — and could do so again
The call that came into state capitals stunned governors and their National Guard commanders: The Pentagon wanted thousands of citizen soldiers airlifted to the nation’s capital immediately to help control crowds outside the White House in the wake of the death of George Floyd.
Presidents have routinely activated Guard troops to fight foreign enemies, and in extraordinary circumstances have federalized them to quell civil unrest, using the vast power of the commander in chief.
But the June 1 appeal to states was different. President Trump was drawing instead on an obscure law, changed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that made it easier for governors to voluntarily send guardsmen across state lines for counterterrorism missions. His action was not an order but a request, essentially inviting states to augment the D.C. National Guard, which he controls, in a potential clash with civilian protesters
The request had the effect of cleaving state militias along partisan lines, according to interviews and internal Guard documents. While red states jumped to answer the president’s call, governors and Guard commanders in blue states were incredulous. The result was a deployment to the nation’s capital that military historians say appears to have been without precedent: Over 98 percent of the 3,800 troops that arrived in the District came from states with Republican governors.
In a secure video conference that day with Guard leaders from across the country, Maj. Gen. David Baldwin, head of the California National Guard, questioned the need for the massive deployment. Baldwin, who has led the ******* under multiple Democratic governors, said the situation in D.C. appeared no more urgent than that in California, where his troops were already stretched thin by dozens of planned protests.
“I love you like a brother,” Baldwin said to the top D.C. Guard official on the call, according to three people who were listening, “but f--- this, I have other things to worry about,” he said, before dropping off the line.
Baldwin declined to comment for this story.
Officials in Utah, by contrast, scrambled to respond. Within hours, Utah National Guard members who were waiting for an expected deployment to Afghanistan were instead put on planes bound for D.C. In the three days that followed, armed guardsmen streamed into the nation’s capital, nearly all from Republican-led states such as Florida, Indiana, Missouri, South Carolina and Tennessee
The only Democratic-led state to send troops was New Jersey, which contributed fewer than 100 soldiers, and only on the condition that they be assigned security shifts at monuments and not engage with protesters outside the White House
The same ability to mobilize National Guard troops from sympathetic states into Washington remains readily available today to Trump, who has repeatedly declined to commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election. On Tuesday, in the first presidential debate, Trump suggested that the election was being “rigged,” declaring that “this is not going to end well.”
In an interview last month with Fox News personality Jeanine Pirro, Trump was asked what he would do if his opponents “threaten riots if they lose on election night.”
“We’ll put them down very quickly if they do that,” Trump answered. He pointed to a June guard deployment in Minnesota as an example of how he could move with speed and effectiveness.
“If we had to, we’d do that and put it down within minutes, within minutes,” Trump said. “In Minneapolis, they were having problems. We sent in the National Guard, within a half an hour, that was the end of the problem — it all went away.”
That deployment was the decision of Minnesota’s governor, a Democrat, not Trump.
Trump’s effort to marshal the National Guard to his side was in some respects a portent. Over the summer, he and Attorney General William P. Barr repeatedly flexed federal power in American cities, or threatened to do so, often against the wishes of local and state officials. Democrats leading many of those cities denounced what they said were authoritarian tactics aimed at seeking election-year advantage.
The White House declined to comment for this story, and the Justice Department did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the legal basis for the June deployment or on the partisan divide in the response by state militias.
But in a letter to D.C. officials in June, Barr wrote that the deployment was justified because the protests had not remained “within the control of local law enforcement,” had “threatened federal operations around the White House complex” and that television footage “conveyed the impression that the United States was on the brink of losing control of its capital city.”
'Total domination'
The mobilization to D.C. that would ultimately involve guard troops from 11 states began on May 30, after protests over police ******* that were roiling the nation reached D.C.Trump’s Army secretary, Ryan McCarthy, traveled to the hangar-like armory where the 1,200-person D.C. National Guard is based and ordered its commander, Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, to begin deploying available troops to Lafayette Square. The troops were to back up U.S. Park Police officers maintaining a one-block buffer between the White House and the protests.
The next day, however, the numbers of protesters only grew. Inside the White House, Trump fumed, worrying that the images showed the country as out of control, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations and deliberations of the president. In tweets and phone calls, Trump urged mayors and governors to “get tough” and to call out their own National Guard soldiers. For anyone contemplating breaching the White House grounds, Trump added a public warning that they would be attacked by “vicious dogs.”
That Sunday night, May 31, protests near Lafayette Square grew violent. An annex at the historic St. John’s Church was damaged by fire that appeared to have been set, and furniture in the lobby of the nearby AFL-CIO building was set ablaze.
The following morning, Trump, angry over what he perceived as the continued bad optics of the federal government lacking control, ratcheted up his call to restore law and order, the officials said. Trump wanted active-duty military on the streets of the capital by nightfall, one of the officials said.
Trump considered invoking the rarely used Insurrection Act of 1807, the two said. The power was tapped by presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy in 1950s and ’60s to ******* Southern states to integrate schools. President Lyndon B. Johnson used it to send 4,700 Army troops to quell the Detroit riots in 1967. It has been used infrequently since, mostly when a governor has requested federal help to enforce laws. The last time that happened was when President George H.W. Bush dispatched 4,000 troops to the Rodney King riots in California in 1992.
Milley told Congress in July that he counseled against such a move. Instead, he recommended that active-duty military be placed on alert and flown to bases near D.C., but remain outside the city.
“My assessment and advice was . . . that under the prevailing conditions active-duty troops were, and are, not necessary to deploy on the streets of America. The Insurrection Act was, in fact, never invoked,” Milley said.
Milley and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper both testified that they saw violence as the exception in the days after Floyd’s death. “We should be proud that the vast majority of protests have been peaceful. Peaceful protest means that American freedom is working,” Milley said.
Esper added that Americans were “understandably” wanting to exercise their right to free speech following Floyd’s death. He blamed rioting and looting on a small number of people seeking to exploit the demonstrations.
Trump, however, repeatedly disparaged the protesters in D.C. as “anarchists.” Esper told Congress the president set a goal for how many guard troops he wanted to see patrolling city streets that night: 5,000.
That day, Trump suggested in a call with governors that protesters were about to be met with overwhelming ******* in the nation’s capital
“If you don’t dominate your city and your state, they’re gonna walk away with you,” Trump said in a late-morning call, audio of which was soon leaked to reporters. “We’re doing it in Washington, in D.C. . . . We’re going to do something that people haven’t seen before,” he said, “we’re going to have total domination.”
Trump and his military leaders drew on the president’s little-known role as commander in chief of the D.C. National Guard, akin to that of a governor in a state, to facilitate the deployment.
But mobilizing so many guard troops on such short notice was highly unusual. It was complicated by the fact that more than 10,000 soldiers had already been called up by states to help shuttle supplies, take airline travelers’ temperatures and provide security at hospitals to help during the coronavirus pandemic.
In an interview, Walker, the D.C. guard commander, said he supported bringing in out-of-state troops. He likened it to requests from the guard every four years seeking troops from other states to help with inaugural events.
But the request was different. It was the first time a specific provision of federal law — 32 USC 502(f) — was used to provide federal funding for guard troops to travel to D.C. to counter acts of civil disobedience, a Defense Department spokesman acknowledged in an email to The Washington Post.
State Guard leaders said they were told at the time of the requested deployment that their states would be reimbursed under the provision. Barr also cited it as the authorizing language in a letter to D.C. officials on June 9.
For decades, the obscure statutory provision titled “Required drills and field exercises” dealt almost exclusively with how the U.S. government would reimburse states when guard soldiers were asked to travel for training exercises.
In the post-9/11 environment, guard troops had been patrolling airports and border crossings. The Pentagon was rethinking how, beyond emergency funding, it could facilitate the Guard responding to ongoing terrorist threats and any future attacks.
John Dehn, then a staff attorney at the U.S. Army Forces Command, was among a team working through the issues. Eventually, Congress addressed the funding issue by amending the training statute, making it possible for guard soldiers to be paid federally for “Support of operations or missions undertaken by the member’s unit at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense.” In 2006, Section F added two lengthy sentences.
“It was to deal with counterterrorism,” said Dehn, who is now a law professor and director of the National Security and Civil Rights Program at Loyola University’s School of Law in Chicago. “Nobody writing this new provision likely viewed it as ever becoming some sort of work around for the Insurrection Act.”
In its 15-year existence, the new provision had been used to pay guard soldiers deployed for inaugural events, *******-interdiction missions, surveillance and other support along the U.S.-Mexico border, and for small, ongoing rotations at ballistic missile sites.
Then came June 1, 2020.
From Trump and Esper, the request for troops to keep order in D.C. flowed to the Army, and to the chief of the National Guard Bureau. The group serves as the voice for state Guard forces at the Pentagon, and its leader is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
continue reading...…
D
Deleted125623
Guest
Amy Coney Barrett has long wanted to end Roe v Wade
2020-10-01
Looks like Barrett ‘s past is coming back up to haunt her at a time that women’s rights are at the forefront of American Democracy. According to this 2006 ad, Amy Coney Barrett was indeed among the listeners on the letter that followed the ad proclaiming anti-abortion beliefs and that Roe v Wade should be effectively killed.
The letter goes a little something like this according to media reports in the area.
“We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death,” a statement on the ad’s first page reads. “Please continue to pray to end abortion.” Barrett’s name is listed on the page.
2020-10-01
Looks like Barrett ‘s past is coming back up to haunt her at a time that women’s rights are at the forefront of American Democracy. According to this 2006 ad, Amy Coney Barrett was indeed among the listeners on the letter that followed the ad proclaiming anti-abortion beliefs and that Roe v Wade should be effectively killed.
The letter goes a little something like this according to media reports in the area.
“We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death,” a statement on the ad’s first page reads. “Please continue to pray to end abortion.” Barrett’s name is listed on the page.
that's funny...…..it is what we hear after every shooting.....changes nothing.....so kind of a worthless statement
would this be the Chinese gov saying I told you so....mocking the trump virus catching up with the one responsible
Chinese state media mocks Trump's positive virus test: 'Paid the price for his gamble to play down' pandemic
The editor of a Chinese state-run media outlet on Friday mocked President Trump and first lady Melania Trump following their positive coronavirus tests, writing that they "paid the price for (Trump's) gamble to play down the COVID-19."
Global Times editor-in-chief Hu Xijin tweeted that news of the first couple contracting the virus shows the "severity" of the pandemic in the United States.
Chinese state media mocks Trump's positive virus test: 'Paid the price for his gamble to play down' pandemic
The editor of a Chinese state-run media outlet on Friday mocked President Trump and first lady Melania Trump following their positive coronavirus tests, writing that they "paid the price for (Trump's) gamble to play down the COVID-19."
Global Times editor-in-chief Hu Xijin tweeted that news of the first couple contracting the virus shows the "severity" of the pandemic in the United States.
This subject is a sore point for so many people in America and sadly most of them are so misinformed by one side or the other in a heated and sometimes violent way.
Roe V Wade while allowing abortion was not the reason for the high courts decision. The case was brought because a woman challenged the state over the right to control her own body. The court did not decide it was OK to ******* unborn babies. It did allow abortions but in reality they were never stopped in the first place. Thousands of women died every year from botched illegal abortions and there's no way to tell how many thousands had them without that outcome.
The real issue in law was the governments right to control any citizens body. Male or female every single one of us. I think of Hitlers Germany where men and women were sterilized because they changed the law to give the state the power to decide whats best . Do we really want to change that decision that's been challenged three times without success. It's not a permit to *******. It really confirms our right to decide what's best for us not some politician or government bureau .
Trump experiencing 'mild symptoms' after testing positive for Covid-19
The president announced that he and first lady Melania Trump tested positive and are isolating. The diagnosis thrusts the White House, election into turmoil.
only fair...the people responsible for so much suffering around the country.....finally get their share.....and pay the consequences...
As virus spreads across GOP ranks, some Republicans say party will pay price for ‘stupid’ approach
President Trump’s coronavirus diagnosis shook Republicans like an earthquake. Then came the troubling aftershocks.
There was the positive test result for a prominent conservative GOP senator, Mike Lee of Utah. Then another for Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Then the same news from Trump’s campaign manager, the chairwoman of the Republican Party and his former White House counselor.
And then on Saturday, as the president remained hospitalized, came word of two more high-profile Republicans close to the president testing positive for the virus — Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who had helped Trump prepare for last week’s debate.
After months in which Trump and others in his party questioned the danger of the virus and refused to take precautions such as wearing masks, the Republican Party is now coming face to face with the scientific realities of the pandemic.
The drip-drip-drip of positive tests, coupled with the specter of a president who as of Saturday was “not on a clear path to a full recovery,” as White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows put it, has prompted some Republicans to question whether the party is responsible for its own potential undoing.
And it has left them wondering how to wage a strong closing campaign when the judgment, actions and competence of its leaders were so squarely at issue just as voting is getting underway across the country.
As virus spreads across GOP ranks, some Republicans say party will pay price for ‘stupid’ approach
President Trump’s coronavirus diagnosis shook Republicans like an earthquake. Then came the troubling aftershocks.
There was the positive test result for a prominent conservative GOP senator, Mike Lee of Utah. Then another for Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Then the same news from Trump’s campaign manager, the chairwoman of the Republican Party and his former White House counselor.
And then on Saturday, as the president remained hospitalized, came word of two more high-profile Republicans close to the president testing positive for the virus — Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who had helped Trump prepare for last week’s debate.
After months in which Trump and others in his party questioned the danger of the virus and refused to take precautions such as wearing masks, the Republican Party is now coming face to face with the scientific realities of the pandemic.
The drip-drip-drip of positive tests, coupled with the specter of a president who as of Saturday was “not on a clear path to a full recovery,” as White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows put it, has prompted some Republicans to question whether the party is responsible for its own potential undoing.
And it has left them wondering how to wage a strong closing campaign when the judgment, actions and competence of its leaders were so squarely at issue just as voting is getting underway across the country.
60% of the country does not buy into anything trump says anyway...this is just proof
Trump’s Covid News Meets a Landscape Primed for Mistrust
Was it a hoax? Was it a lie? Was the president sicker than he claimed — or not sick at all? (What does “mild” mean, and how is it different from “moderate”?) Was there any way this alarming news was an ultra-cynical con?
Waking up on Friday to the stunning development that the president of the United States had tested positive for Covid-19 after months of downplaying the virus, some Americans had a similar reaction: Maybe it’s not true.
“I don’t believe it,” said Anthony Collier, a truck driver from Atlanta. “It’s like he’s trying to get sympathy.”
There is no evidence, of course, to support the view that Mr. Trump and his wife, Melania, are anything but ill. As updates on the president’s condition came in, followed by the news that he would be hospitalized, the chatter turned from skepticism that the president was sick to doubts that the White House was being forthright about his condition.
Across social media, in interviews, in conversations, the questions poured in all day from people who have heard so many contradictory things over the last four years — a warp-speed whiplash of conflicting realities — that they no longer know what is true.
Trump’s Covid News Meets a Landscape Primed for Mistrust
Was it a hoax? Was it a lie? Was the president sicker than he claimed — or not sick at all? (What does “mild” mean, and how is it different from “moderate”?) Was there any way this alarming news was an ultra-cynical con?
Waking up on Friday to the stunning development that the president of the United States had tested positive for Covid-19 after months of downplaying the virus, some Americans had a similar reaction: Maybe it’s not true.
“I don’t believe it,” said Anthony Collier, a truck driver from Atlanta. “It’s like he’s trying to get sympathy.”
There is no evidence, of course, to support the view that Mr. Trump and his wife, Melania, are anything but ill. As updates on the president’s condition came in, followed by the news that he would be hospitalized, the chatter turned from skepticism that the president was sick to doubts that the White House was being forthright about his condition.
Across social media, in interviews, in conversations, the questions poured in all day from people who have heard so many contradictory things over the last four years — a warp-speed whiplash of conflicting realities — that they no longer know what is true.
COVID is making it tough to govern and all three federal branches are feeling the pain
WASHINGTON – A president in the hospital. Key advisors in quarantine. Lawmakers working remotely. COVID-19 has struck the highest levels of federal government.
So far, the wheels of government churn forward. But what if the virus keeps spreading throughout the top layers of the Trump administration and Congress on the eve of a national election, during a contentious fight to fill a Supreme Court seat that could help decide that election, and as the economy desperately awaits a lifeline from Congress?
Trump's hospitalization due to COVID-19 has amplified deep questions about the federal government's ability to function fully with its chief executive battling a potentially fatal virus at a crucial time for a politically fractured country.
[URL='https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http%3a%2f%2fa.msn.com%2f01%2fen-us%2fBB19FLLF%3focid%3dsl&title=COVID+is+making+it+tough+to+govern+and+all+three+federal+branches+are+feeling+the+pain&source=http%3a%2f%2fa.msn.com%2f01%2fen-us%2fBB19FLLF%3focid%3dsl']
http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/BB19FLLF?ocid=sf
https://twitter.com/share?url=http:...er=http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/BB19FLLF?ocid=st
That's been compounded by positive COVID tests from his key advisors, his campaign manager and from three senators in the past two days – Republicans Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Lee of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina – whose diagnoses have worried other lawmakers they may be next.
Nils Gilman, vice president of programs at the Berggruen Institute, a Los Angeles-based think tank, doesn't fret that the day-to-day activities of the federal government will be compromised. Social Security checks will keep getting mailed. National parks will still accept visitors. The nation's borders will continue being patrolled.
[/URL]
WASHINGTON – A president in the hospital. Key advisors in quarantine. Lawmakers working remotely. COVID-19 has struck the highest levels of federal government.
So far, the wheels of government churn forward. But what if the virus keeps spreading throughout the top layers of the Trump administration and Congress on the eve of a national election, during a contentious fight to fill a Supreme Court seat that could help decide that election, and as the economy desperately awaits a lifeline from Congress?
Trump's hospitalization due to COVID-19 has amplified deep questions about the federal government's ability to function fully with its chief executive battling a potentially fatal virus at a crucial time for a politically fractured country.
[URL='https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http%3a%2f%2fa.msn.com%2f01%2fen-us%2fBB19FLLF%3focid%3dsl&title=COVID+is+making+it+tough+to+govern+and+all+three+federal+branches+are+feeling+the+pain&source=http%3a%2f%2fa.msn.com%2f01%2fen-us%2fBB19FLLF%3focid%3dsl']
http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/BB19FLLF?ocid=sf
https://twitter.com/share?url=http:...er=http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/BB19FLLF?ocid=st
That's been compounded by positive COVID tests from his key advisors, his campaign manager and from three senators in the past two days – Republicans Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Lee of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina – whose diagnoses have worried other lawmakers they may be next.
Nils Gilman, vice president of programs at the Berggruen Institute, a Los Angeles-based think tank, doesn't fret that the day-to-day activities of the federal government will be compromised. Social Security checks will keep getting mailed. National parks will still accept visitors. The nation's borders will continue being patrolled.
[/URL]
Three House panels launch joint investigation into Pentagon’s coronavirus relief spending
House Democrats are opening an investigation into the Department of Defense’s decision to divert hundreds of millions of dollars in funds meant to build up the country’s medical supplies to defense contractors instead.
The investigation comes after the Washington Post reported last week that the Pentagon began funneling the funds to private companies building military supplies shortly after Congress set aside the money in the $2 trillion Cares Act in March.
Pentagon used taxpayer money meant for masks and swabs to make jet engine parts and body armor
Reps. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) wrote to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper on Friday and said they were investigating whether his agency “inappropriately used hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars appropriated by Congress.” The investigation will be carried out by the House Oversight and Reform Committee, the Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis, and the Financial Services Committee.
Congress provided the Pentagon with $1 billion in March to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus" under the Defense Production Act, which allows the government to compel U.S. companies to manufacture products in the nation’s interest. Although the Pentagon did spend some of the money on masks and swabs, $688 million was ultimately allocated towards the defense industrial base, mostly for projects that have little to do with the coronavirus response.
The administration has defended its spending decisions, saying the Cares Act did not limit how it could spend DPA-related funds, that it had been fully transparent with Congress, and that it had spent the money “to support vital national security industries that were devastated by COVID.”
But the Post’s reporting prompted sharp criticism from Democrats and calls for investigations.
House Democrats are opening an investigation into the Department of Defense’s decision to divert hundreds of millions of dollars in funds meant to build up the country’s medical supplies to defense contractors instead.
The investigation comes after the Washington Post reported last week that the Pentagon began funneling the funds to private companies building military supplies shortly after Congress set aside the money in the $2 trillion Cares Act in March.
Pentagon used taxpayer money meant for masks and swabs to make jet engine parts and body armor
Reps. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) wrote to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper on Friday and said they were investigating whether his agency “inappropriately used hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars appropriated by Congress.” The investigation will be carried out by the House Oversight and Reform Committee, the Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis, and the Financial Services Committee.
Congress provided the Pentagon with $1 billion in March to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus" under the Defense Production Act, which allows the government to compel U.S. companies to manufacture products in the nation’s interest. Although the Pentagon did spend some of the money on masks and swabs, $688 million was ultimately allocated towards the defense industrial base, mostly for projects that have little to do with the coronavirus response.
The administration has defended its spending decisions, saying the Cares Act did not limit how it could spend DPA-related funds, that it had been fully transparent with Congress, and that it had spent the money “to support vital national security industries that were devastated by COVID.”
But the Post’s reporting prompted sharp criticism from Democrats and calls for investigations.
Truth and Justice each share one major common denominator -
"You mess with them and they'll come right back and bite you in the ass!" NO EXCEPTIONS!
His history of "never" telling the truth - or as KellyAnn Conway likes to put it - he has "Alternative Facts" - why the hell shouldn't everyone be skeptical of whats being said and/or, released to the media! In the real world when the "time of day" is announced from the White House I immediately look at my watch!
Trump supporters believe these 10 incredibly fake facts ...
Trump supporters believe these 10 incredibly fake facts are true
Americans, divided and polarized as they are, live in two distinct worlds. In one world, the earth is not flat, climate change is real and Bill and Hillary aren’t pimping ******* out in the basement of a pizza restaurant. The other world is devoid of reason, evidence and pretty much any type of...
www.rawstory.com
- Trump is a devoted Christian.
- The economy is improving because of Trump. If there’s anything Trump does better than filing for …
- Millions voted illegally’ (without a single shred of proof). Not too long ago, a poll found that 55 …
- Immigration is off the rails and illegal immigrants are all violent criminals.
Hopefully the Proud Boys, will be met with a line of State Troopers.
Or, the FBI waits until the night before Election day, and raid the homes of Proud Boys organizers and make multiple arrests. The FBI tend to do it's own thing not, the work of the AG or President.
Either way, the governors now know, as do the mayors. Direct orders and riot formations can make this very surprising for the White Supremacists.
People are just tired of the President and his supporters bullshit.
- Status
