Trump does NOT love or like anyone. 

He is a NARCISSTIC THREAT, similar to murdering, raging Roman Emperor, Galigua!

Wake Up America before TRUMP destroys everyone in America to feed his greedy, selfish, disturbed mind of a SPOILED RICH CHILD!

I am 84 years old and have followed Trump's descent since the book, "The Art of the Deal," that he did not write, was published.

Anyone with an IQ above 60 should have read how self-serving this dangerous criminal really is.

maga = molesters are getting anonymity

Ain't that the "TOOTH", DEVANGELICAL?

Donald J. Trump may be WORSE than Satan. That is the position Donnie should focus on, not shredding the United States and the World to get a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE.

The world would be a better place without Trump.

GOP = guardians of pedophiles

maga = molesters 

Yeah right, the Biden Administration lost 300,000 unaccompanied minors and maga is the problem.  

How many CHILDREN do you think were KILLED by Epstein, or "Dirty Diaper Donnie"?

Twenty-six women came forth to expose Donald J. Trump's sexual attacks on them. But nothing happened.

Did all of these professional women make "SHAT UP", like "Dirty Diaper Donnie" does every time he opens his Pie Hole?

Asking for people who do not live in T-Diddy Rump's demented mind.

Heads up, Goose:  BIDEN is not the President.

The adjudicated RAPIST, convicted FELON, CAREER CON ARTIST, 5 times BANKRUPT, so-called Businessman, Donald J. Trump.

Trump, with Putin's schooling, is DESTROYING America, for the ORANGE PIG to become "The ORANGE KING."

were KILLED by Epstein,

I haven't seen any, maybe you can enlighten me.  Epstein is a horrible person and a criminal but, I have never seen a murder charge against him. What's the Dirty Diaper stuff?    

Did all of these professional women make "SHAT UP"

I don't know that's for the courts, there has been plenty made up about Trump which makes it hard to figure out what is true. 

Trump, with Putin's schooling, is DESTROYING America, for the ORANGE PIG to become "The ORANGE KING.

Hmm, interesting way of looking at it.  Guess I disagree, keeping boys and men out of women's sports, bathrooms and locker rooms I don't feel destroys anything, removing illegal criminal aliens along with all other illegal aliens from our country, I don't feel destroys our country, having to show a picture ID to vote in federal elections doesn't destroy the country, trying to bring down inflation, reduce cost of goods and increase pay, I don't think destroys our country.  

Guess I disagree, keeping boys and men out of women's sports, bathrooms and locker rooms I don't feel destroys anything, removing illegal criminal aliens along with all other illegal aliens from our country, I don't feel destroys our country, having to show a picture ID to vote in federal elections doesn't destroy the country, trying to bring down inflation, reduce cost of goods and increase pay, I don't think destroys our country.  

Because you have morals and ethics.

What's the Dirty Diaper stuff?    

It is yet another childish name aimed at Trump. At least it isn't nazi, Hitler, dictator, etc.

the Biden Administration lost 300,000 unaccompanied minors and maga is the problem .

Did the Biden administration lose 300,000 children

Researched on  February 13, 2026

1. The headline number and who is using it

The “300,000” figure has been repeated by prominent Republicans, campaign surrogates and congressional statements — including Rep. Grothman’s newsletter and comments quoted by party officials — and was cited directly in debate rhetoric and media appearances [5][6][7]. Those statements typically refer to HHS/Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) records showing hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied minors processed and many released to sponsors, and congressional releases present those counts as evidence hundreds of thousands are “unaccounted for” [4][8].

2. What the public records and watchdogs actually show

HHS data and an Inspector General review reveal lapses: thousands of children were released to sponsors without completed home studies or background checks, ORR follow-up calls went unanswered at times, and recordkeeping was inconsistent — problems the inspector general and senators like Chuck Grassley highlighted as failures to adequately protect children [3][4]. News organizations that fact-checked the political claims concluded that the underlying situation is one of incomplete paperwork and spotty tracking rather than evidence that hundreds of thousands of children are physically missing [1][2].

3. Why experts say “missing” is misleading

Child welfare researchers and refugee specialists quoted by fact-checkers emphasize that “missing” implies abduction or unknown fate, while the evidence better supports a characterization as “missing paperwork” — phone calls not returned, incomplete files, and releases to sponsors whose status was not fully verified — and that large portions of the timeframe predate or overlap administrations, complicating attribution to any single White House [1][2]. AP and CBS explain that many of the contacts occurred during both Trump and Biden periods and that the ORR follow-up protocol historically has gaps that are not unique to the current administration [1][2].

4. The opposing interpretation and political use

Republican lawmakers and some advocacy voices present the situation as a failure of the Biden-Harris team to protect children and as evidence of deliberate policy negligence, citing HHS numbers and hearings to argue the administration “lost track” of children and placed some with unvetted sponsors — a framing used to press for oversight and political accountability [4][3]. That narrative’s aim is both policy critique and electoral messaging, and independent fact-checkers caution that while the oversight failures are real, equating them with 300,000 “missing” children inflates the public impression and omits nuance [9][1].

5. What is known and what remains uncertain

Public reporting documents serious recordkeeping shortcomings, specific instances of unvetted placements and unanswered follow-up attempts, and congressional concern that hundreds of thousands processed by ORR were not consistently tracked in the files provided to oversight [3][4]. What the available sources do not prove — and what journalists and watchdogs warn against asserting — is that 300,000 children vanished or were abducted; the limits of reporting mean the precise status of every child counted in aggregate ORR tallies remains unresolved without case‑by‑case verification [1][2].

6. Bottom line and accountability questions

The headline claim that the Biden administration “lost 300,000 children” overstates the evidence: significant administrative failures and risky placements are documented and demand remedy and oversight, but the situation is best described as systemic tracking and vetting lapses spanning years and administrations rather than a single deliberate or literal disappearance of 300,000 minors [3][1]. Policymakers and investigators retain an obligation to produce clearer records, to follow up on vulnerable children, and to distinguish legitimate oversight findings from political hyperbole when shaping public policy and voter decisions [4][2].

factually.co

Well, there you have a "Factually" perspective. . . what say you (now)?

FACT FOCUS: Claims that more than 300,000 migrant children are missing lack context

See the link for PROPER CONTEXT: apnews

Since you mention morals. . . what is you all's moral authority?

Goose is back:  But, not UPFRONT!

1. My "sauces", Ghouliani & Stephen Miller, WHISPERED to me in me sleep, what the world is now learning:

Jeffrey Epstein purchased 300 gallons of SULPHURIC ACID for his New Mexico, 7500-acre ranch. It is a compound that dissolves bones.

2. "Dirty Diaper Donnie" is a nickname that I crowned Donald J. Trump with, and it stuck.

A man who cannot control his bowels should not try to control his country!

Donnie has a fleet of "WIPERS" ON HAND for the occasions.

3. Trump is an "Adjudicated Rapist", a "Convicted FELON", a RACIST, a 5 times Bankrupt so-called businessman.

No bank in America or Europe would loan Trump money, because his technique to screw banks was simple.  Trump made payments at first, then slowly stopped payments, until he could get out of having to pay by filing for BANKRUPTCY.

The only person willing to assist Trump with his financial woes is Putin. Putin, a multi-trillionaire, was, and may still be, the largest customer of Deutsche Bank in Germany.

Putin threaten the Board of Directors that if they didnot loan Trump $341,000,000.00, that he would close all of his accounts and find another bank.

Donald (aka "Dirty Diaper Donnie") has a 25 year association with PUTIN.

It is yet another childish name aimed at Trump.

It's still legal. It's called free speech

And the TDS'rs still haven't figured out the Biden's daughter was abused by her father in the shower - as stated in her diary.

Trump wasn't the abuser - Joey was.

The crisis we are facing is the "SHREDDING OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION" by a man who cannot read.

PS:
"Dirty Diaper Donnie" has been accused of impregnating his daughter, Ivanka. It seems like that is what Uber-rich men seem to do.

Elon Musk's Father

Donnie J. Trump,

and many others.

TDS

Poor, spoiled RICH BRAT Donald J. Trump is in decline. STAND UP & CHEER this twisted, queer, orange make-CHILD RAPIST, er, I mean "boo" that perverted BASTARDO.

And, "Dementia", if one has seen any of his raging rants.

The QUESTION we should be asking is, what does "Dirty Diaper Donnie" have on members of the Supreme Court?

I do not know what Trump has on the SCOTUS members, though Trump loves holding leverage over individuals (and groups). . . and. . . SCOTUS is heavily leveraged conservative!

republican, and trump appointed Justices vote against the trump administration all the time. They are much less predictably partisan than their liberal counterparts who are essentially rubber stamps on progressive issues. 

Many demcorats believe a lot, and I mean a lot, of crazy irrational shit that has zero basis in reality. The idea that republican  appointed justices are stooges for trump may be the among the dumbest. It’s a bright red flag of irrational partisanship. 

You might wish to 'start' by defining: ". . . all the time." Because "all the time" is not something any of us do given that each circumstance may require difference rather than sameness.

As to the rest of the rhetoric supplied: I got nothing.

ish to 'start' by defining: ". . . all the time."

Frequently.  I don't know how anyone who has paid any attention to the court would dispute that on "political" cases, it's the "conservative" justices who's votes are up for grabs. By all means, find a single politically significant case, just one, where a progressive judge split from the left and provided a meaningful vote to the "conservative " side. Just one to show even the slightest bit of independence.  

Heres' reality. In close cases Jackson and Kagan voted together 100% of the time. Trump appointees Barrett and Gorsuch voted together 50% of the time.  

Heres' (sic) reality. In close cases Jackson and Kagan voted together 100% of the time.

Before we move forward. . . let's clear the air on a point of order : Where did you get your fact above? We have been asked time and time again to link to reference materials accordingly!

Please honor this NT rule!

Scotusblog. They provide a chart after every term.    But why I should I bother?  We've all seen how this plays out.  Facts get provided, the get ignored and the conspiracies come back stronger than ever tomorrow.  Experience has shown how little facts matter.

As I said, you could just  " find a single politically significant case, just one, where a progressive judge split from the left and provided a meaningful vote to the "conservative " side. Just one to show even the slightest bit of independence.  " You don't need anything from me.  If your beliefs are correct, you could do that no problem. Why don't you?. 

Let's be clear. . .You got it from SCOTUSBLOG. OKAY. Clearly you are NOT one of those MAGA supporters who alleges to 'free-think' to the point of absurdity that s/he claims to not need 'anybody else facts, blogs, articles, or opinions. Just. To. Highlight. This. Fact. Scotusblog it is. 

It may be too much to ask for you to provide a link-so I ought not bother you with such a request. (I will not.)

_

I don't need to perform here. I am not an entertainer. 

As for the facts:

Kagan agreed with Sotomayor in 92% of the cases resolved with opinions from the court in the 2024-25 term and with Jackson in 89% of those cases. Those percentages are even higher if you look only at closely divided (6-3 or 5-4) cases , where there was 95% agreement between Kagan and Sotomayor and 100% agreement between Kagan and Jackson .

Kagan was on the same side as Sotomayor and Jackson in high-profile battles over nationwide injunctions, a state-level ban on certain medical treatments for transgender children and teens, an age-verification law affecting porn sites, and faith-based opt-outs from public school lessons involving LGBTQ themes. That alignment helps explain why Kagan doesn’t stand out from the other liberal justices if you look only at closely divided cases. Indeed, she was in the majority only 45% of the time in 6-3 or 5-4 decisions, less often than any other justice besides Jackson.

Just one pair of conservative justices – Thomas and Alito – agreed in 100% of the term’s closely divided cases .

SCOTUSBLOG:

scotusblog

It is never interesting, yet always disappointing and saddening to have to catch the SLANTING that is MAGA supporter 'reporting.' This is what you wrote: 

5.1.2 "Heres' reality. In close cases Jackson and Kagan voted together 100% of the time. Trump appointees Barrett and Gorsuch voted together 50% of the time."

Do you see the glaring incongruency in what you shared? It's the use of the word, " close cases " and the missing " close cases " wording with Barrett and Gorsuch. Here is why it sucks that you did that: Because as you can see SCOTUSBLOG (in red) congruently states that Thomas and Alito votes in close cases at least) are not up for 'grabs'. . . they are known for voting in a 100% close case bloc.

se cases " and the missing " close cases " wording with Barrett and Gorsuch

You are spreading a batshit crazy conspiracy that Trump has blackmail on his judges that he uses to get what he wants, so I chose two justices  that HE APPOINTED to show how absurd  your theory is.  50% agreement between them, 100 percent between Kagan and Jackson and 95% agreement with Sotomayor. 

Those are facts. Uncontestable. 

All those words and to prove that I was correct and you've provided no evidence in support of your claim that Trump has some sort of power over the Judges. No evidence that I was wrong about progressives voting as a block. 

The question is now that you know you were wrong, will you stop spreading the lies about the conservative judges being controlled by Trump? 

I do not know what Trump has on the SCOTUS members, though Trump loves holding leverage over individuals (and groups). . . and. . . SCOTUS is heavily leveraged conservative!

There may be something in the oxygen between us, because above this paragraph is the statement I wrote. Please produce for me how you derived this to mean what you are aggressively derailing discussion to 'conclude': 

The words, "I do not know" is not an assertion. It appears to me you may have made a hasty supposition and are now pushing rhetoric to cover it up. 

Sean:  "You are spreading a batshit crazy conspiracy that Trump has blackmail on his judges that he uses to get what he wants, so I chose two justices that HE APPOINTED to show how absurd  your theory is. 

It is irrelevant the two justices you CHOSE, as you made an INEQUAL comparison. . . and I CORRECTED the blunder on your part. 

Though as is routine for MAGA supporters. . . it seems many of you like to pat yourselves on the head, neck, and shoulders as some form of promotion or self-praise, so let me be clear YOU HAVE 'OWNED' nothing here. You analysis was UNFAIR and UNEQUAL and the error shown to you. 

Do accept the correction. 

The wording at 5 is clear. SCOTUS is heavily leveraged conservative - 6 so-called conservative members.

Sean:

Have you forgotten that two of the sitting  Justices were accused by several people as RAPISTS, sexual predators that took money from corruptible sources.

FOCUS:

On the 1000 underage girls that were RAPED, some tied up, and others were missing, to Protest Donald J. Trump and his Best Friend for over 15 years, from prosecution for their heinous deeds.

SEAN:  The major issues are:

CHILD RAPES by Uber Rich Billionaire, including "Dirty Diaper Donnie, Jeffrey Epstein, and 1000 others whose names are slipping out of the Epstein files.

Sean:

We are NOT in a WAR with Republicans vs Democrats!

Our country is under siege by a so-called President, Donald J. Trump, who is systematically attempting to overthrow our government to prevent him from going to PRISON for RAPING underage girls for over 15 years with his "BEST BUDDY", Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump has created his own ARMY of "NEO-NAZI" Thugs, aka, ICE, to attack American Citizens in Democratic states.

This is the technique that PUTIN used, and to this day, still does.

Trump is enamored of Putin!

Democrats?

Or, are you referring to a new group of underground "disrupters", the
"demo-rats", that you reference in your above statement?

TRUMP is not who you think he is!

Friend ETPDNRI: We need a proper link to those figures you state.

Two of the SUPREME COURT JUSTICES are accused of RAPE.

However, Chief Justice John Roberts doesn't seem concerned about these allegations from credible people.

What does "Dirty Diaper Donnie" have on the CHIEF JUSTICE?

Currently, the Supreme Court still has two Justices accused of RAPE, yet the Chief Justice, John Roberts, has not taken any action to reject them. 

Why?

Not sure why I am being asked twice about specifically this (rape). Since I am let's see if we can move this forward. First, what are the names of the two justices accused of rape?

Exactly. They will declare their loyalty as devotion not blind. . .and yet they take a vociferous LIAR at his every word (99.99 percent of the time). We all know: Liars must lie!

they take a vociferous LIAR at his every word (99.99 percent of the time).

They're so fucking stupid they claim to believe him 100% of the time, unless he's 'owning the libs' by lying and taking things out of context, exaggerating or blatantly claiming he can do things that are patently unconstitutional like running for a third term. It's basically saying "I don't care what Trump says or does, he pisses you off so I support him. That makes me a great American". 

Trump must go!

I agree. I don't know how it can happen that he goes, even if it is after the completion of his second term. . . he must go!

That man finally became anathema to me after his comments about the three so-called, conservative justices being an embarrassment to their respective families. I can not pinpoint what it is about that "invoking" of family OFFENDED me-it did, nevertheless. 

Now, I have zero use for Trump the president and the man. He is done as far as any kind of acceptance some day. Simply put, he is attempting to 'speak' past the Court. . . and get the families to 'bash' their partner and blood-relations. That is a no-no/no-go for me!

The justices should show him what the real power of the judiciary is and can be. . . since he dared to 'sic' their loved ones on them. It is morally wrong to try to pit (divide) family against one another. Just imagine what those justices home life will be if they have to come home to a 'fight' with family caused by Trump!

Let's encourage everyone we know to CONDEMN TRUMP and seek "IMPEACHMENT" by contacting our Senators and Congressional Representatives, and DEMAND that they SAVE AMERICA from this INSANE LOONEY TUNE, Trump! 

In my heart I wish democrats would stop discussing impeachment (preemptive or even aspirational) as it increases the probability of taunts on the Right and gives the Right cause to make 'protest' votes!  Let such processes play out in real time when the time comes. . . that is my major thought on impeachment of Trump. (Not 'telegraph' it.)