DOE To Declare Workers At LGBTQ And Liberal Nonprofits Ineligible For Student Loan Forgiveness

Student loan borrowers who work at nonprofits that don't cooperate with President Donald Trump's immigration agenda won't be eligible for forgiveness under a rule the Education Department announced on Thursday. t.co

The Department of Education (DOE) has announced a new policy that will make employees of LGBTQ+ nonprofits and other organizations deemed misaligned with the Trump administration’s agenda ineligible for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. This follows an executive order signed by President Trump in March 2025 that redefined eligibility for PSLF, targeting nonprofits that support transgender rights, diversity initiatives, or other causes the administration views as contrary to its values.

🔍 Key Details:

• Policy Mechanism: The DOE will publish a rule allowing the Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, to disqualify nonprofit and government employers from PSLF if they are seen as subsidizing activities the administration considers illegal or harmful to national values

• COPILOT

The Education Department will bar nonprofits it deems as "aiding and abetting violations of federal immigration laws" from the program, according to the new rule. The requirement takes effect in July 2026.

If anyone is interested in the non-hysterical, factual side of the issue.....

From your link, and the link to the article,

”The Education Department said nonprofits that advocate for immigrants or represent them in court will still be eligible.”

Sounds reasonable to me. Maybe some people just read headlines and not the full article?

What Jack linked is not the whole story. 

What Jack linked is not the whole story. 

It's the entire story as reported by Reuters, which is a highly reputable source.  There may be additional details they did not mention, but we're at least not taking the word of some dude with an amatuer Wordpress blog.

Is the Washington Post some dude with a wordpress blog?   Trump administration wants to block some public servants from loan forgiveness - The Washington Post

Employees of nonprofit organizations that work with undocumented immigrants, provide gender transition care for minors or engage in public protests would have a hard time getting their federal student loans forgiven under  regulations  advanced Thursday by the Education Department.

-

Under the rule, the Education Department considers illegal activities to include:

• Aiding and abetting violations of federal immigration laws.

• Supporting terrorism or engaging in violence for the purpose of obstructing or influencing federal government policy.

• Engaging in the chemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children in violation of federal or state law.

• Engaging in the trafficking of children to another state for purposes of emancipation from their lawful parents in violation of federal or state law.

• Engaging in a pattern of aiding and abetting illegal discrimination.

Three out of these five examples could be used to discriminate against people who , for example, protest ICE arrests (or any other Trump policy), or engage in so-called DEI practices. Neither of those is illegal. 

What Jack linked is the same exact article you linked. But somehow Jack’s link is inferior? 

“for example, protest ICE arrests (or any other Trump policy), or engage in so-called DEI practices.” 

Break the law during an ice protest, suffer the consequence. Break discrimination laws by implementing dei policies suffer the consequences. Sounds good to me.

Is the Washington Post some dude with a wordpress blog?

You didn't seed one of their articles, though, did you?

But to the topic at hand.... which of those bullet points are you trying to claim the US taxpayer should support? 

Please.  Do tell.  

You are literally, according to your own posts, arguing in favor of student loan forgiveness for human traffickers.  Read that again and stew on it for just a minute.  

The next time you complain about my not validating your hysteria, you may want to remember where it takes you.

In one of my comments there was a link to the Washington Post article.  What you posted was an article that only mentioned the immigration related element. 

-

The people who protest at ICE facilities could be kept from participating in the loan forgiveness program according to these new rules.  It is an authoritarian move. 

The people who protest at ICE facilities could be kept from participating in the loan forgiveness program according to these new rules.

Really?  Are they breaking the law?

Because your list is pretty clear.....

Aiding and abetting violations of federal immigration laws.

Supporting terrorism or engaging in violence for the purpose of obstructing or influencing federal government policy.

Engaging in the chemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children in violation of federal or state law.

Engaging in the trafficking of children to another state for purposes of emancipation from their lawful parents in violation of federal or state law.

Engaging in a pattern of aiding and abetting illegal discrimination.

So are we just admitting that the ICE protesters don't care about the law?  Are we admitting they're violent?  

GROK -

Key Details of the Rule

• Eligibility Criteria: Under PSLF (created in 2007 under President George W. Bush), borrowers working for qualifying 501(c)(3) nonprofits or government entities can have their federal loans forgiven after 120 qualifying payments. The new rule adds a disqualification mechanism for employers that:

  • Fail to align with federal immigration enforcement (e.g., nonprofits assisting undocumented immigrants).
  • Provide or advocate for gender-affirming care, especially for minors, in states where it's restricted.
  • Promote DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programs deemed to violate anti-discrimination laws.
  • Engage in activities like supporting protests or other "disruptive" actions.

• Process and Timeline:

  • Employers receive notice and can appeal, but final decisions may involve state/federal courts or settlements admitting guilt.
  • Exclusions last 10 years or until a "corrective action plan" is approved by the Secretary.
  • Payments made before July 1, 2026, still count toward forgiveness; after that, affected borrowers must switch employers to continue qualifying.
  • The DOE estimates fewer than 10 organizations per year will be impacted, but critics argue it could affect thousands of workers.

• Affected Groups: Explicitly includes LGBTQ+ nonprofits (e.g., those providing transgender support), immigrant aid organizations, and progressive groups like those involved in DEI or protest advocacy. Examples from earlier proposals include groups like GLAD Law (LGBTQ+ legal aid) and Young Invincibles (student advocacy).

• Fail to align with federal immigration enforcement (e.g., nonprofits assisting undocumented immigrants).
• Provide or advocate for gender-affirming care, especially for minors, in states where it's restricted.
• Promote DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programs deemed to violate anti-discrimination laws.
• Engage in activities like supporting protests or other "disruptive" actions.

So if you're actively breaking the law, helping others break the law, or causing a general nuisance... the taxpayers are not going to subsidize that.

And we oppose this why, exactly?

“So if you're actively breaking the law, helping others break the law, or causing a general nuisance... the taxpayers are not going to subsidize that.” 

Basic common sense.

”And we oppose this why, exactly?”

Oh come on Jack, you know why,,,,,,because trump.

Engage in activities like supporting protests

You see no problem with that? Really? What if the protest is against a towns mask mandate? And are we really trying to criminalize support for diversity? Only from the view of disgusting bigoted backwards dickwads is DEI violating anti-discrimination laws. As for the gender affirming care, I don't support that for minors but do what you want as an adult. Why should that make one ineligible for benefits others are taking advantage of? There are lots of reasons why rational people with more than half a brain would oppose this.

You see no problem with that? Really?

Correct.

What if the protest is against a towns mask mandate?

People who oppose mask mandates don't organize protests.  They protest by not wearing a mask.

And are we really trying to criminalize support for diversity? 

Oh FFS the melodrama.  Nobody is criminalizing support for diversity.  Nor are they criminalizing your protests.

We're talking about forgiving student loans based on public service. 

Organizing a protest is not a public service.  Organizing the violation of laws you disagree with is also not a public service.

This program was targeted at people like teachers, firefighters, law enforcement officers, and other public servants.  It was expanded to include non-profit organizations that provide legitimate public service like food banks, YMCAs, clinics, or for organizations like Goodwill, the Salvation Army or the United Way.

It was never supposed to support the advancement of political ideology.  If you want to advance political ideology, pay off your own loan.

People who oppose mask mandates don't organize protests.  They protest by not wearing a mask.

Guess these folk didn't get the memo and should be stripped of their benefits if they work for the government. Can't let them have a voice! /s

It was expanded to include non-profit organizations that provide  legitimate  public service like food banks, YMCAs, clinics, or for organizations like Goodwill, the Salvation Army or the United Way.

So only conservatives get to decide what's "legitimate" and what's not now? Well fuck that right in the fucking ear. This is a constitutional Republic with a representative Democracy and the minority in power may get to decide for the moment what "legitimate" means, but that definition will come screaming back across their faces in backlash soon enough. Funny how that term can change with who is in power, and the rightwing have pushed America too far, this backlash will be brutal and likely fun to watch in the next decade of American politics as rightwing conservative Trump supporters and his MAGA brand get unceremoniously dumped into the already burning dumpster fire Trump lit on America's front lawn. All of the political norms that have been broken, this unlimited power executive, Trump demanding they get rid of the filibuster, all this is going to be so much fun watching it get used like guillotine against these rightwing conservative Christian scum bags. Thanks guys .

In order to fight political 'fire' with political fire. . . perhaps it is time the democrats enlisted significant direct messaging help from cast-off republicans (RINOs).For example: Michael Steele, who does not mind cussing out loud when it is relevant to the moment.

So only conservatives get to decide what's "legitimate" and what's not now?

*eyeroll*

Political activism is not a public service.  

If it were, then the people who organized the Jan 6 protest would be eligible for student loan forgiveness as public servants.  Do you see how that's a shit idea?

This is a constitutional Republic with a representative Democracy and the minority in power may get to decide for the moment what "legitimate" means, but that definition will come screaming back across their faces in backlash soon enough.

Yeah.  That's exactly what happened.  It's how we ended up saying "President Trump". 

Funny how that term can change with who is in power, and the rightwing have pushed America too far,

Funny how that term can change with who is in power, and the rightwing have pushed America too far, this backlash will be brutal

Only for ideologues who spin themselves into hysterics over nothing.

Political activism is not a public service.  

No, but groups that help citizens who happen to be lgtbq navigate the government programs they're eligible for is. Why should that group not be eligible if a group doing the same for seniors is? Gay Americans are Americans, programs for them are to support Americans. Advocacy groups don't just protest, they are providing essential services for those groups that often get left behind or are discriminated against.

You are obviously applying logic to the Constitution,  all men created equal and all of that nonsense 

[✘]

Donald Trump is using access to government programs to punish his political opponents. 

[✘]

He is using access to government programs as a loyalty test. 

Which is what he campaigned on, which is why so many of his voters are puzzled or betrayed, like soybean farmers and cattlemen...

from the AI GPT FACTUALLY -

The Trump Administration’s Education Department has adopted new regulations and proposed rules that empower officials to block certain nonprofits and their employees from Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), explicitly targeting organizations whose activities are characterized as having a  “substantial illegal purpose”  or that provide services such as immigration assistance or gender-affirming care for minors. Reporting and advocacy analyses indicate these changes could  disqualify workers at LGBTQ+ and other liberal nonprofits from federal loan cancellation , disproportionately affecting communities with higher student debt burdens and provoking legal and civil-rights challenges  ^{[1]   [2]   [3]   [4]   [5]   [6]} .

Thank you for proving that AI is (providing) information from tangible sources that one can 'point' to (the links provided), hopefully it will quiet those who do not like what AI brings to the (discussion) table.

On a different note: Ms. Mahon surprises me (though I do not know why I thought I 'knew' her anyway). I watched her entertain us for years in the WWE and got 'familiar' with her and her family of performers. But to see her perform like this is definitely disturbing and worse.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION     34 CFR Part 685      Docket ID ED-2025-OPE-0016]     RIN 1840-AA28

William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Final regulations. 

(Link to PDF below. (Doc ument is too long to post here and its 'relevancy' to discussion flows across many pages.)

public-inspection.federalregister

Question: Why is Trump Administration 'grandfathering in' all these contractual loans (already signed and terms agreed to)? Is that legal? Will the 'grandfathering in' have to be challenged in court?

What the hell does Dept. of Energy (DOE) have to do with student loans?  If you're talking about the Dept. of Education that is abbreviated as ED or DOEd.  

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program is supposed to provide incentives for public service.  But LBGTQ advocacy, DEI nonsense, and transgender transition assistance are special interest services and definitely not public services.  Democrats added LBGTQ non-profits to PSLF eligibility to pander for votes (Dems need all they can get) but that doesn't mean it was appropriate.

Trump doesnt get to define the law.  If he defines access to  government programs so they conform to his personal beliefs he is acting like a dictator. 

Isn’t that what ya’ll said he was going to be? 

People said that based on his 'dictator only on day one' quip.   Personally, I understood that meant he was going to issue a bunch of EOs on day one.

However, it sure looks like Trump has changed his mind and is pursuing authoritarian rule.   Why not?   The SCotUS gave him substantial immunity, Congress is not doing its duty of checking the Executive Branch, and he has successfully surrounded himself with sycophants (and incompetents) who have cast integrity aside and will do his bidding.

Trump is a perfect candidate for someone who would be king — a narcissist with a massive ego and no integrity.

Trump doesnt get to define the law.

Why not?  DACA was defined by a President.  If you don't like the President defining law then don't let your President set the precedent.

If he defines access to  government programs so they conform to his personal beliefs he is acting like a dictator. 

Or he is acting like a Democratic President.  

I’ve seen some on nt make some wild claims. He is not going to be a dictator. He will not destroy the US. He will not end democracy. He will step down in 2028. There will be elections in 2028.

I’ve seen some on nt make some wild claims. He is not going to be a dictator. He will not destroy the US. He will not end democracy. He will step down in 2028. There will be elections in 2028.

Trump may not destroy the United States but he is destroying America.  Trump is a rich, out-of-touch, New York elitist.  What would Trump know about America?

“Trump may not destroy the United States but he is destroying America.”

How so?

”Trump is a rich, out-of-touch,,,,,,”

Yeah, he’s rich, so are most politicians. He was in touch enough to know that most Americans were sick and tired of biden’s border policy, and dei bs, and males in female bathrooms, and males in girls sports. 

In the meantime, you should also have observed Trump engaging in absurd tariffs, trade wars, firing political opponents, abusing the DoJ to go after political opponents, unilaterally demolishing the East Wing, etc.

Trump is doing what he pleases and he does not give one shit about the people ... even his supporters.   That should have been obvious right from the start when instead of working to lower prices, he engages in gratuitous, counter-productive trolling and tariffs.

I’m ok with the tariffs. We’ve never had free trade because of tariffs other countries put on US products. I’d like to see a reversal of that. Let’s see where it goes.   

Every president has fired appointees from a previous president. It’s nothing new.

biden set the precedent when his doj went after trump.

The ballroom, i’ve heard good things about it from pro trump people and bad things about it from anti trump people. The truth about it’s value will be somewhere in the middle.

I’m ok with the tariffs. We’ve never had free trade because of tariffs other countries put on US products. I’d like to see a reversal of that. Let’s see where it goes.   

Wait and see is still the response?   What good do you expect?   Instead of imposing higher prices on consumers, Trump should have engaged select trade partners as a responsible, fair negotiator.   Look up the history of tariffs and how they were used and, in particular, why they were used.  Trump is abusing tariffs …stupidly.

Every president has fired appointees from a previous president. It’s nothing new.

Of course the downplay.   A kid shoplifting a candy bar is the same as a grand larcenist because they both stole.   No consideration of scale, volume, intent, etc.  Just another feeble excuse.

Trump fired people to surround himself with loyalists and to be vindictive.

biden set the precedent when his doj went after trump.

Biden did no such thing.   Again, you ignore the facts and try to excuse Trump.  Trump was indicted for obvious cause and done following prudent, proper processes.   Garland was too cautious, too careful, and in the end gave Trump the ability to run out the clock.

The ballroom, i’ve heard good things about it from pro trump people and bad things about it from anti trump people. The truth about it’s value will be somewhere in the middle.

The unilateral demolition of the East Wing is what I mentioned.   Weigh in on that.

“Wait and see is still the response?”

Yes. I’m not naive enough to think that decades of bad trade deals can be erased in months. On the positive we have seen some countries come back to the table and negotiate trade deals that are more fair to the US. If tariffs are bad to use then they are bad for ALL countries to use, not just the US.

”Of course the downplay.”

Did you expect a double standard from me? Not going to happen. I don’t blame ANY president for firing appointees from a previous admin. Every president, and rightfully so, wants appointees that are onboard with his/her agenda. That’s just common sense.

”Biden did no such thing.” Now you are ignoring the facts. Mar-a-lago raid, jack smith, steele dossier, fani willis. Maybe she acted independently but her boyfriend/special prosecutor made multiple trips to meet with white house council regarding their case against trump.

”The unilateral demolition of the East Wing is what I mentioned.   Weigh in on that.”

i did.

Yes. I’m not naive enough to think that decades of bad trade deals can be erased in months.

But you actually believe that Trump imposing tariffs is going to fix bad deals.  Further, you believe Trump's utter bullshit where he claims we are being ripped off based on trade imbalance.   Trump's claim is utterly naive (and wrong).   A trade imbalance with a nation is neither good nor bad in and of itself.   It is not the imbalance that is the problem it is the reasons behind it.   If we have a trade imbalance because we choose to buy lumber, clothing, etc. from cheaper sources, that is not a bad imbalance.   A bad imbalance is when we are unable to sell to another nation that we need or want to sell to yet are buying from them.   That is when a rational leader engages in sensible negotiation.    A rational leader does not troll the nation and then just impose ridiculous tariffs.  To think that is productive is profoundly naive.

Further, the concept of trade imbalance is more at the aggregate level.   As a whole, every nation want to be exporting more than it imports.   Individual relationships will have (properly) trade deficits and surpluses based on the conditions (e.g. Vietnam cannot buy enough from us to balance what we buy from them, but this is good for us).   But as a whole, we want a net surplus.  And when we do not have that, it is brain-dead stupid to declare that every deficit means a nation is ripping us off and to create across-the-board, ridiculous tariffs on most every trade partner.

Trump is a fool.

I don’t blame ANY president for firing appointees from a previous admin.

You missed the point (and I am sure that it was intentional).   Every administration will make changes, primarily to bring in people who will serve properly for the new agenda.   Here we have a situation where the sitting PotUS surrounds himself with incompetent sycophants rather than qualified, rational individuals who will give the PotUS good advice rather than kiss his feet on a daily basis.   We have a sitting PotUS who vindictively fires people because they worked on his indictments or worked on cases that he disapproves of.   Not fired for cause, but for spite. 

So you comparing the normal changing of the guard to what Trump is doing is an invalid comparison.  It downplays the severity and volume of Trump's actions.   As noted, it is like saying that a grand larcenist and a child stealing candy are the same because they both stole.   It is ridiculous.

Now you are ignoring the facts. Mar-a-lago raid, jack smith, steele dossier, fani willis. Maybe she acted independently but her boyfriend/special prosecutor made multiple trips to meet with white house council regarding their case against trump.

Biden did not direct these actions.   Garland directed the federal actions and did so with great caution and restraint.   Too much so.   In contrast, we have proof of Trump telling the AG to prosecute select people.   Do you not recognize how bad that is?   Do some research on the role of the Attorney General.   That position is supposed to serve the CotUS and the law, not serve the PotUS.   

I did.

No, you did not.   You opined on the ballroom.  The unilateral destruction of the East Wing is different from the building of Trump's ballroom.    Both are worthy of criticism but for entirely different reasons.

You cannot comment on one and then claim you addressed the other.

Do you approve of Trump unilaterally demolishing the East Wing of the White House?

Yes. I’m not naive enough to think that

From what you've written, i'd have to question this. No Democrat(or Republican) has ever went so extreme in making a Nightmare out of the American Dream

The truth about it’s value will be somewhere in the middle.

It will be a value to the world leaders that don't like using a portapotty

Do you approve of Trump unilaterally demolishing the East Wing of the White House?

Did he do anything illegal?

Of course, you deflect.   As always, refusal to answer a direct, relevant question.

Did I use the word ' illegal '?   No, I asked you about his unilateral decision.

Trump unilaterally (i.e. on his own) authorized the demolition of the East Wing.  Unlike every other PotUS, he engaged in a major destructive change to the White House without the consent or consultation of bodies such as:  (compiled by ChatGPT):

Here’s who a responsible president would loop in before even talking about demolishing part of the White House (which sits inside President’s Park and is a protected historic site ):

• National Park Service (NPS) — the White House and President’s Park are stewarded by NPS , so any physical changes start here. ( National Park Service )

• Committee for the Preservation of the White House — created by EO 11145 ; includes the NPS Director, White House Curator, Smithsonian Sec’y, CFA chair, etc., to advise on preservation/alterations. ( National Archives )

• U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) — advisory design review for federal projects in D.C. (including the White House grounds). Even when not strictly binding, its review is the norm. ( cfa.gov )

• National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) — federal planning/review authority for development on federal property in the National Capital Region; typically reviews site/building plans (demolition may be treated differently from “vertical build,” but major projects still go to NCPC). ( ncpc.gov )

• Section 106 review (NHPA) — because the White House is a historic property, the agency must consult under NHPA §106 with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the D.C. State Historic Preservation Officer , consider effects, and take public input. ( Administration for Children and Families )

• NEPA/CEQ — a major federal action (like demolishing a wing) normally triggers environmental review (EA/EIS), including hazards (asbestos, lead) and alternatives analysis; CEQ sets the framework even amid recent rule turbulence. ( federalregister.gov )

• Congress (appropriations/oversight) — large alterations have historically involved congressional funding and oversight (e.g., the Truman-era reconstruction used a dedicated commission by statute). ( trumanlibrary.gov )

• Security & operations — U.S. Secret Service/DHS for protective implications; White House Operations/Curator for collections and continuity (not formal “approvers,” but essential stakeholders). (Operational practice inferred from preservation/operations structure; see EO 11145 membership for curator/NPS roles.) ( National Archives )

Why this matters now

Recent reporting about proposed White House demolition/ballroom work shows how CFA/NCPC roles, preservation law, and NPS stewardship intersect — and the controversy that follows when those norms are bypassed or politicized. A truly responsible process would engage all of the above before demolition begins. ( ABC News )

If you want, I can map out the typical sequence (NPS sponsor → internal preservation committee → §106 consultation → NEPA review → CFA/NCPC design stages → appropriations/contracting → phased work) so it’s clear who weighs in when.

The answer to my question has direct relevancy as to how I would answer yours.

I am going to assume your long winded deflection means he did nothing illegal.  If that is the case I would have no problem with ANY president, past or future of trashing a piece of the building in order to make the room for a formal space to get world dignitaries out of a tent using porta pottys.

Of course you continue to refuse to answer the question and now play the pathetic little projection game of pretending I am the one deflecting.

Sure, so if Biden had unilaterally demolished the entire East Wing you would comment:  " I would have no problem with ANY president, past or future of trashing a piece of the building in order to make the room for a formal space to get world dignitaries out of a tent using porta pottys ".

Of course you continue to refuse to answer the question and now play the pathetic little projection game of pretending I am the one deflection.

Funny you say I did not answer yet quoted my answer in your second sentence.  Yes, you did deflect from my question because you had an idea the legality of the issue might have an impact on my answer.

Sure, so if Biden had unilaterally trashed the entiere East Wing you would comment:  " I would have no problem with ANY president, past or future of trashing a piece of the building in order to make the room for a formal space to get world dignitaries out of a tent using porta pottys ".

yes I would

Of course you would say that, I made it difficult for you to accuse me of being a Trump supporter.

Some seem to forget who and why the east wing was built in the first place. FDR built it so that he had an accessible place to greet visiting dignitaries. Much the same as trump is doing...........only on a much larger scale to keep large gatherings of people inside and not in tents in the yard.

So much misguided angst.................

Of course you would say that, I made it difficult for you to accuse me of being a Trump supporter.

Your posts predominantly illustrate support and defense of Trump.   Denying that is pointless.

I do not buy your answer and I doubt many will.   

Who is going to believe someone who claims that they have no problem with any PotUS unilaterally demolishing the East Wing of the White House?

Especially when that individual has been informed, in detail, of the protocol of review and consent that would proceed an order to demolish.

FDR built it so that he had an accessible place to greet visiting dignitaries.

No, it was primarily built to conceal the underground bunker built due to WWII.   

Further, there is a major difference between building (extending) the White House and demolishing a major portion of it.

Finally, FDR followed protocol.   Trump unilaterally ordered the East Wing demolished.   That is the key difference I have pointed out.

So much misguided angst.................

Pathetic ... defending Trump no matter what.

Your posts predominantly illustrate support and defense of Trump.   Denying that is pointless.

Just because that is what you see does not make it true

I do not buy your answer and I doubt many will.   

That is not my problem

Who is going to believe someone who claims that they have no problem with any PotUS unilaterally demolishing the East Wing of the White House?

Someone with a mind open enough to realize not everyone gets their panties in a bunch over the same thing.

Especially when that individual has been informed, in detail, of the protocol of review and consent that would proceed an order to demolish.

A protocol that seems does not have to be legally followed.

Almost no one cared about the east wing until Trump started tearing it down. Watching the outrage is funny. Of course in a week or two it will all be forgotten as they move on to the next outrage.

Denying that your posts predominantly defend Trump is an act of futility.

@9.1.24 goes right back to defending Trump.

Almost no one cared about the east wing until Trump started tearing it down.

There was no issue until Trump started demolishing the wing.  

Nobody “cares” about the Lincoln memorial either in that sense, but sure as hell would object if some rogue PotUS decided to unilaterally demolish it.

What a stupid argument.

Comparing the Lincoln memorial with the east wing is a stupid argument.

According to chrome Ai

Almost no one cared about the east wing until Trump started tearing it down.

I cared

Cool

Again, you run to legal (your persistent strawman) when all along I am talking about unilateral.

More dishonesty from you.

The point is that there was no reason to raise a concern about the East Wing until it was threatened.   Just as there is no reason to raise a concern about the Lincoln memorial, the West Wing, the Washington Monument, etc. until it is threatened.

See how that works?

Again, you run to legal (your persistent strawman) when all along I am talkingabout unilateral.

Let me break it down as simply as I can for you. If it is legal I have no problem with unilaterally knocking it down. If it is illegal I have a problem unilaterally knocking it down. 

See how that works?

More dishonesty from you.

More lame accusations when you are losing

Your game has become tiresome. Have a nice day.

“But you actually believe that Trump imposing tariffs is going to fix bad deals.”

It already has. We have new trade deals with the eu, uk, japan, and several se asian countries. Deals that are more favorable to the US and US workers than the deals they replaced. And china is ongoing.

no, i didn’t miss the point. Trump has done what every president has done with the exception of washington. The fact that ou consider them to be incompetent sycophants is mere opinion.

biden’s doj was certainly behind the mar-a-lago raid, and the jack smith fiasco that went nowhere fast. And fani willis, who hired her boyfriend to be a special prosecutor in her case against trump, what was behind his numerous trips to meet with white house counsel? Biden, or the puppet masters running the show were definitely behind that. You are right about the steele dossier, that was obama.

finally, yeah, i did. Maybe it’ll be an improvement, maybe it won’t. As to your question, i really don’t care. Taxpayer money is not involved. It doesn’t affect my life one way or the other. 

[✘]

"The Bullshit Is Strong In This Place"

Just because it surrounds you and penetrates you doesn't mean you have to use it for evil...

More lame accusations when you are losing

Now that is some major projection.   

It already has. We have new trade deals with the eu, uk, japan, and several se asian countries. Deals that are more favorable to the US and US workers than the deals they replaced. And china is ongoing.

So you just take Trump's word for it.   

The EU trade deal largely was EU agreeing to do what they have already done and we still are paying more for parts from the EU with Trump.   Same with the most recent China deal.   We got nothing ... a bunch of words, tariffs, and problems in the USA for no net gain.   But you believe Trump and think he actually accomplished something.

On China, the tariffs remain higher than when Trump took office, steel and aluminum higher costs than when Trump took office.   The supply chain is less certain and a rare-Earth crisis is more easily triggered.   Basically Trump has managed to negotiate us to a state that was worse than when he took office.   But this lying con-man is telling everyone his meeting was a 12 on a scale of 1 to 10 and people like you believe it.

On Japan, we have higher across-the-board tariffs from Japan than we had when Trump took office.   We have mineral promises but that remains to be seen.  Ultimately we net lost with the higher tariffs.   Further, Trump could have negotiated without the pointless tariffs.   It is naive as hell to think that being an international prick is a way to negotiate with trade partners.

We would have been in better shape if Trump had done nothing at all.   No tariffs, no negotiation, no trolling.   If he had just focused on cheating at Golf, our trade situation would be better than what we have now.   Trump is an incompetent clown.

Contrary to Trump's bullshit, digging a hole and then partially refilling it is not progress.

Trump has done what every president has done with the exception of washington.

You just keep making a comparison akin to a bank robber and a kid stealing candy are the same because they are both stealing.   You are intentionally ignoring the scope and the scale in a feeble attempt to defend Trump.

As to your question, i really don’t care. Taxpayer money is not involved. It doesn’t affect my life one way or the other. 

Best not to follow Trump's narcissistic lead of not caring about anything unless it affects you personally.

Just keep filing lawsuits-continuously. He won't let us alone. . . don't let the Trump Administration 'rest' either.