Trump Picks Fox News Host For Secretary Of Defense
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday named Pete Hegseth, a combat veteran and Fox News host who has called for a more muscular approach to running the U.S. military, as his nominee for defense secretary.
“With Pete at the helm, America’s enemies are on notice,” the former and future president said in a statement. “Our Military will be Great Again, and America will Never Back Down.”
The Princeton- and Harvard-educated Hegseth, who served as an Army infantryman in Iraq and Afghanistan as a member of the Minnesota National Guard, has criticized the Biden administration’s approach to national security as weak and wrote a book describing the military’s leadership as more focused on diversity than confronting global threats.
Hegseth played a leading role in convincing Trump in 2019 to intervene in the war-crimes cases of three U.S. service members, leading to the president pardoning Army Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn and Army Maj. Clint Lorance in murder cases and intervening to reinstate the rank of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who had been acquitted of murder but found guilty of posing for a photograph with a corpse in Iraq.
Hegseth lobbied the president directly from his perch at Fox News, featuring the cases frequently and casting them as the malicious prosecution of war heroes. Trump called Hegseth several times about the issue, officials familiar with the discussion said at the time. While some Trump administration officials celebrated the decisions at the time, others worried they would set a bad precedent and damage U.S. relationships abroad.
In his statement, Trump cited Hegseth’s book and its treatment of what the president-elect said was a “leftwing betrayal of our Warriors, and how we must return our Military to meritocracy, lethality, accountability, and excellence.”
“Pete will be a courageous and patriotic champion of our ‘Peace through Strength’ policy,” Trump added.
Tags
Who is online
491 visitors
I't seems like the current military leaders haven't had a very good track record.
And Pete Buttigieg was qualified to be Secretary of Transportation? Oh please!
Liz Warren Gets Wrecked Trying to Attack Trump's Secretary of Defense Pick
Scott Jennings Torches Critics of Pete Hegseth, Tears Into Current Pentagon Leadership – RedState
Here's Trump's Plan to Purge the Pentagon of the Woke Brass
Yes apparently he was. Buttigieg was an excellent Secretary of Transportation. He was always on top of the facts and could articulate what he has done and his methods for dealing with the situations in his purview.
Being gay does not make one incompetent or unqualified to step into a new role.
He did alot to take care of those racist roads. That qualifies as brilliant in the current administration.
Tell me how many charging stations were built.
It didn't look that way when he was appointed.
So it might be fair to say that those who rushed to judgment back then did so erroneously.
Hmm.....
C'mon, Jack. A Fox News sputterer? Who never attained any higher rank than major? You have military experience don't you?
He's bound to be better than the current idiot.
thats private
The target is 500,000 by 2030. It is 2024. They are on target if not ahead of schedule. And large scale initiatives like this start off slowly due to fixed overhead and establishing processes. The latter stages tend to go quicker because the standards, practices, supply-chains, systems, etc. are in place.
What do you have against Buttigieg?
Do you see a difference between an administrative cabinet position such as the Secretary of Transportation that requires mostly general executive management skills versus the Secretary of Defense which requires not only executive management skills but vast knowledge of global military operations and international political factors of military concern?
Seems to me, a retired Major who has been working as a reporter is not even remotely close to having the experience and skill set that one would seek to head the DoD.
Yeah, the Four Star General we have now went AWOL, so the bar is set pretty low.
Ok, Sarge
oh, i meant he was possibly a private, airplane instructor to the public, but, i won't s;peak for he, nlot my country tis of thee, is all wrong, as is the 'right' , but hey, pretty fancy new a\dministration deforming, no ?
“What do you have against Buttigieg?”
An eloquent, thoughtful, and empathetic leader? Oh, we know the answer…
Nearly 100,000. The number of chargers in the country has doubled during the Biden administration and stands at 192,000 as of this past summer.
I think a lot of Americans would not have guessed that - as a small town mayor - he was an appropriate choice, but he had a lot of bipartisan support. He was confirmed 86-13. It seems he was pretty interested in infrastructure as mayor.
7.5 billion of the 2021 infrastructure act was allocated to building 500,000 charging stations. As of june this year a grand total of 7 had been built. That’s efficiency for ya.
they're doing a thousand a week according the US Department of Transportation
Do more than simply buy Trump's bullshit:
Having been a major means he outranks a large number of his predecessors, many of whom never served at all.
If anything, the concern about this guy should be inexperience overseeing large organizations. But Barak Obama never ran so much as a lemonade stand before becoming president, and that worked out OK, didn't it?
I'm just saying we've had unlikely people in cabinet before and the world didn't end.
Is it your opinion given all the options available to Trump, that Hegseth is a good choice (for the nation, not for Trump) to be Secretary of Defense?
He probably would not have been in my top 20, no. Or 200, for that matter.
But I wouldn't have appointed Rachel Levine, either.
Presidents make strange appointments sometimes.
I just think it's ridiculous that some people are calling this a disaster before the man even files his W4.
Ridiculous is most of Trum;ps proposed choices
Ridiculous is having the choice between a dickhead real estate investor and a woman who thinks 2/3 of us died from COVID as our choices for President of the United States.
We've fallen through the looking glass. Seems a bit strange to expect normalcy.
You really think Kamala believed this? That's... not a good image for you...
You clearly recognize that Hegseth is a poor choice for Secretary of Defense so your concern is the exact words used to characterize this choice? I have not seen anyone use the word 'disaster', but apparently that does not work for you. How about 'absurd'?
Given you see Hegseth as a poor choice, why are you spending time trying to defend Trump's choice?:
Hegseth is an obvious poor choice for such a critical position. What value comes from offering feeble defenses like the above?
Publicly available and built by the federal government are two different.
$7.5 Billion in Biden Funds Yield Only 8 EV Charging Stations
Nothing, I don't feel he has accomplished much if anything, hasn't addressed problems with transportation since he's been appointed.
Trump's bullshit:
WTF are you talking about, this is "AUTOWEEK"! Your own fact check states the money hasn't been spent. The administration is over what the fuck are they waiting for, hell I could devise a plan in a day and start acquiring properties in 6 months.
But it has been allocated.
It has a couple of months to go yet.
Try again, your confusing Public/Private with Federal. Last count I believe is 8 back in May.
Ok.......they've built 8 in 3 1/2 years with 7.9 Billion to spend. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say 10. People want to tell me how great Buttigieg is, he has done shit, except talk.
Well, he does know how to take 3 months off during a supply chain crisis for "paternity" leave.
I didn't confuse anything. You didn't say anything about public versus private, so why should I? You asked how many had been built. I told you. You just don't like the number.
Are they private? I would expect them to be. I don't need the government to be in the business of physically building charging stations. What the government does is issue grants that fund the construction by others.
Yeah, well that's the difference between us. I go with actual official data and you go with what you believe.
I see. I thought conservatives were pro-family? I guess not.
By the way, it was actually only about two months, and it wasn't exactly a vacation. His two babies were born premature and were hospitalized with RSV. I guess you think he should have should just ignored all that. In the meantime, it's not like he was unreachable. He still communicated with his staff and was able to delegate certain responsibilities.
But yeah, fuck family, I guess.
You know, they estimate that Trump played over 260 rounds of golf while he was president. Gotta have your priorities!
Do they really cost a quarter million a piece? Is that money paying for something else, too?
Oh. That's cool then. Two months off in a crisis. That's leadership.
I can assure you that if this were a Republican administration, and the head of a department that was going through a crisis disappeared for 2 or 3 months, you (collective you) would be screaming at the top of your lungs that action is dereliction of duty and that person should step down for such.
And to compare Trump in a discussion he had nothing to do with is a cop out because there is no other rebuttal that the left can bring.
From what I can tell, the cost per station is $100,000 to $300,000. The balance of the funds are for infrastructure upgrades, operations, maintenance, network connectivity, and administration.
I assume this is still not the kind of effective use of funds that one would expect from a profit-driven private sector entity that cannot print money.
Do more than simply attributing everything negative about the dems is from of trump. I never heard trump say that, i read it on an article from American Energy Alliance. There are many more articles on this, google is your friend.
Well, today is your lucky day. Now you can hear him say it:
Now you know.
Yes, Goose, only a portion of the money has been spent. So, obviously, (do the math now), clearly the notion of $7.5 billion to build only 8 stations is bullshit.
And who is the primary lying sack of shit spreading this nonsense?
Trump.
The $7.5 billion is to cover all sorts of infrastructure and operations as well as building 30,000 stations by 2030.
Now, what is your next question?
Do you imagine he was unreachable?
Do you give a shit about his family?
I would be pleased if Trump were to spend every day of his presidency playing golf ... or, really, doing anything other than be PotUS.
100% wrong with respect to me personally. I know it would be a lot of work, but if you search any story here for Obama, Trump, or Biden taking time off, I always comment in support of it.
First, you just insisted I’d respond differently based on party, so you’re doing what you accuse me of.
More importantly, it wasn’t my only point. I gave details both about his children and his professional status. I also challenged on whether the complainers value family. To claim that all I talked about was Trump is a blatant lie.
If trump is saying that then Trump is right, according to many online articles.
Same here.
Grip it and rip it Mr. President!
Un-fucking-believable. Just amazing.
Sure is, there are many articles online that say the same thing trump said, and for those articles to be tossed aside,,,,,,,,because trump,,,,,,is unfuckingbelievable.
Yep, reality is a bitch.
Was Trump correct in this claim?:
Politics. I won’t bother laying out all the half truths and lies plied by Biden, Harris and their minions because I know it falls on deaf ears
A non-answer and the usual deflection.
I suspect you do realize that Trump was absolutely full of shit but cannot bring yourself to admit it since you voted for him.
A real answer. That you don’t agree is pure deflection.
I wasn’t talking about the COST of the charging stations, i was talking about how many have been built in the 3 -3.5 years since the funding became available.
Wow. That's surprising.
Although I don't know why. I'm not sure what I expected they would cost. I don't know what it cost to install a gas pump, either, for that matter.
Anyway, wow. Learn something new every day.
Are you aware that this initiative involves both the public and private sectors and has set 2030 as its deadline? Are you aware that such an initiative involves a lot of upfront time and cost in securing resources, detailed plans, regulations, establishing processes and systems and ... in effect ... working out the kinks?
Your expectations seem to be out of whack with what is required to get large initiatives like this done.
Now, that said, I expect Trump to kill this.
He's a Democrat?
'I see. I thought conservatives were pro-family? I guess not.
By the way, it was actually only about two months, and it wasn't exactly a vacation. His two babies were born premature and were hospitalized with RSV. I guess you think he should have should just ignored all that. In the meantime, it's not like he was unreachable. He still communicated with his staff and was able to delegate certain responsibilities.
But yeah, fuck family, I guess.'
You know, they estimate that Trump played over 260 rounds of golf while he was president. Gotta have your priorities!'
Exactly.
AWESOME.
Next up
I know there is a ton of bureaucratic bs involved in construction between permits and local and state regulations and engineering outfits these days are pretty pathetic but these aren’t large scale projects. These aren’t power plants, or water treatment plants. 8 in 3-3.5 years is extremely inefficient.
i would think he will too. The ev push seems to be over (good, let it evolve at a natural pace) and i expect reasonable cafe standards to be put in place.
This is nuts.
For those that didnt look, in the video he is selling "American made" AK47 ammunition to Americans.
"Elections have consequences!"
Lara Trump for attorney general.
Steve Bannon to be Director of the Bureau of Prison Affairs.
Hmmmm
Exactly Vic. It is the consequences of Trump getting elected that have driven the criticism of supporting / defending Trump. Now we are all stuck with an irresponsible, vindictive scoundrel who has been handed the most power on the planet.
Go ahead: Defend this choice. Defend FoxNewsBoy over the available three or four star generals, admirals, etc.
My opinion doesn't count.
Come out in the open.
I wanted that job!
What specifically do you mean by that utterly vague quip?
sounds like he wants u to take your close off....
Here comes the circus! You can tell by the parade of clowns.
'Peace through Strength'?
That's fucking nuts.
No it isn’t. If you have the strongest military and economy, who is dumb enough to start something with you?
On this I agree with you 100%. However, I'm very concerned that Trump's presidency is going to weaken us internationally, both militarily and economically.
What this really means is that Trump will be the actual Secretary of Defense. Hegseth will be a yes man.
And yet you’ve spent four years watching just that? And wanted more? Russia, norks, china, Iran and hamas didn’t start doing what they are because Biden and the administration is so strong and respected? Gitottahere.
Give me a break. Biden put together the strongest international coalition in decades to aid Ukraine against the Russian invasion. He honored our commitments to Taiwan and South Korea. The economy came roaring back under his watch. He helped preserve and strengthen our democracy.
Your Dear Leader Trump is going to hand Ukraine to Putin on a silver platter. He's going to abandon Taiwan to China and gift wrap South Korea for his lover Kim Jung Un. He's going to take a wrecking ball to our economy and democratic institutions in furtherance of his authoritarian agenda. And you know full well he's going to do absolutely nothing about Iran, except maybe try to make a personal deal with them to get a cut of their oil profits.
That was the motto of the Strategic Air Command
I guess I have a knee jerk reaction to some things. At first thought, it sounds like an oxymoron.
Pardoning murders certainly leaves one to consider WTF is this guy thinking.
Vivek Ramaswamy was also announced today as an official member of the Trump administration. Remember him , the guy the nation was laughing at during the Republican debates ?
I heard he will be co leader with Musk of the new dept of Gov’t efficiency. Which bears the question why do you need two people to run one department, that doesn’t sound efficient at all. I smell a boondoggle about to take place.
You're expecting coherence, maybe?
Isn't there a joke about the military and efficiency?
…FUBAR?…
I can tell you're a veteran
don't forget SNAFU
That's what both of the traitor trump's 'presidencies' are turning out to be
SNAFU FUBAR after a Democratic President and presidency.
This will be a constant for the Trump administration. Killing will be legal for all official positions.
No doubt. If you leave your house without a MAGA hat on you will be harvested for food. It's true.
Everytime you think the hysteria has peaked...
From George Zimmerman to Kyle Rittenhouse....
I don’t think Pete will take it. Why would he leave the cushy job now to take this on. It is nuts. You are correct JR.
He's a patriot.
Very true. One of the biggest but I don’t see this in his life plan. I could be wrong.
I hope he takes it
And? Lots of people are patriots. That doesn’t qualify them to run the Department of Defense.
I don't think it gets publicly offered if its not already accepted.
Well he must think he’s ready so I trust his moxy.
It's gonna make shaking hands on the job kinda awkward if anyone knows about his hygiene phobia.
I saw a bit about him about how he doesn't wash his hands and why - what a freak - what a fucking laughingstock of a cabinet.
JFC
The pony tail balances it out.....
Who said that? A quick Google search doesn't find a single criticism of Austin as being a DEI pick during his nomination process. He was confirmed 93-2.
The only issue I can see people taking with him were the necessity of a waiver because of his service and the fact that he cashed in and worked for companies like Raytheon who he now had to oversee.
Austin said he had no regrets over the afghanistan withdrawal. He should’ve been fired two seconds after saying that.
Does that make him a elitist?
I thought y'all said that makes 'em smart?....
It potentially makes him well-educated, which I like, but from y'alls point of view he certainly has elitist credentials, right?. Smarts is something you're born with.
GOP Senator Bill Cassidy says he has never heard of Hegseth.
Cassidy is one of the few Republicans in politics who isn't totally out of his mind.
Bill needs to get out more.
He might not watch Fox News as much as you guys do.
I don’t watch fox news, NEXT!
What it makes him is someone who is intelligent and passionate about the health and welfare of veterans and the security of our nation, Secretary of Defense.
He is there to go on some sort of anti-"woke" tantrum and to do what Trump tells him to do, period.
That remains to be seen, doesn't it? Given that he will be working for Trump, he already starts out in retrograde.
It’s hard for me to see how Hegseth is qualified for the job.
You could not see why people were so concerned about Trump...
It was not going to be nearly as bad as liberals thought it would!
Right?
He works for Trump’s favorite TV network. That’s all the qualification he needs.
I hope the Senate disagrees.
Why did you think that?
Somebody here seems to think that an Ivy League education makes one an elitist....
I sure as hell never met someone that makes a living with their hands that I would consider an elitist...
Ummmm........
I wasn't talking about you.
Don't know who he is so I don't really have an opinion. I do like that he's not a board member from a contractor. An outside voice is necessary if the mother lode of all governmental waste is going to be cleaned up.
He is a Fox News Trump ass kisser lackey.
I guess because he was a major in the Army that makes everything ok.
Only a major? Yeah...he saw combat but it's not like he commanded an entire command
After all, what qualifies one to be the Secretary of Defense?
Going to Princeton and Harvard?
I think the answer lies with wanting to improve the national defense.
Substantial experience with global issues which do or would likely involve the military.
Press secretary, on the other hand, is well suited to someone with great communication skills (for the average person) and is knowledgeable about politics and politicians.
And that usually happens when a general with at least 2 stars takes over a military command...A MAJOR COMMAND....an army major may have led a platoon? (I don't know the Army units), in the Air Force, a major would probably only have the command of a flight** (very small unit). So majors don't have much experience with global issues except for what they read in the newspapers or what they may get briefed on.
**A squadron not a flight. I was part of the Flight Surgeon's squadron and our commander was a major
It is like promoting a project leader to be the CEO of an enterprise.
Any senator who voices objection to Hegseth will be threatened into submission by Trump. Thats that.
That is clearly the way Trump will operate. This is evidenced by his recess appointment threats right off the bat as president-elect.
This is going to be an ugly part of US history thanks to the irrational, irresponsible, and unpatriotic votes of the electorate.
But, hey, the good news is that prison stocks went up this week.
Most stocks are up over the last week.
The stock market has been breaking new highs for quite some time now.
True.
Especially true in the first few days after the election.
We'll have to wait and see if the rally has more to run still.
Hey now, you know the rules. When Democrats are in power, the stock market highs don't matter and the stock market numbers shouldn't ever be used as a measure of American financial success or how well an administration is doing on the economy. Of course, if Republicans aren't even in power yet but we see any increase in the stock market after a Republican wins an election, then we should attribute any and all financial successes to the Republicans because, you know, fair is fair. Now say it with me, Republicans good for the economy, Democrats bad. That's all you need to know. /s
And when Republicans are in power, stock market highs are merely a sign of the rich getting richer and an example of how they don't care about working people.
Given the election is over, a major uncertainty has been resolved. Reduced uncertainty usually results in investment.
And even though a PotUS has little to do with the economy in general (and the stock market), it should be recognized that the GDP has been great, oil production and exports has been great, inflation rate has returned to normal levels, unemployment is healthy and normal, and interest rates are starting to lower as well.
Prices remain higher than we would like (IMO the key factor in Harris' loss) and they will likely continue to fall, but I do not expect us to ever get back to 2019 prices (which seems to be what the electorate expected ... and probably believes Trump will deliver). (And if Trump were to actually implement his gratuitous, extreme tariffs, prices would reverse course and rise.)
In all, if one were objectively assessing the economy right now, one would say that we are in good shape and the future looks bright for a continued decline in interest rates and prices.
Where is this fact established?
A higher stock market directly impacts retirement savings, tuition savings, medical savings, etc. as well as normal investments made by 'non-rich' individuals (e.g. investing in mutual funds).
I'm don't think that anybody realistically thinks that prices will roll back significantly. I do think that alot of people believe wages will rise as they did during his first term, providing some equalization.
Then is your hypothesis that they feared that prices would start rising under Harris? Because prices were clearly a major factor in this election.
Wages are subject to market forces (just like prices). You can see the effects of the pandemic above. Wipe that out and we are continuing in a consistent trend.
I find it sad that people actually believe that Trump gives one shit about them. That Trump is going to magically increase their wages. That Trump is not going to favor benefits to people at his financial level (and above).
True. I think the anticipation of reduced regulation is probably a current driver, as well.
Combined with her inability to answer policy questions or do basic math, yeah, I would agree.
Why do you think they're falling? Inflation is still positive.
I'm not sure I'd be too optimistic about prices declining.
It's not asserted as a fact. It's an example of the common rhetoric used by that particular variety of Democrat who cannot ever admit anything good can happen while a Republican is president, given in response to such an example of common rhetoric used by Republicans who cannot ever admit anything good can happen while a Democrat is president.
Because I do not believe the spike as a consequence of the pandemic has reset to normal market dynamics. I suspect there remain numerous suppliers charging higher prices and those will eventually give way to competition.
I am not suggesting prices will fall back to pre-pandemic days (I stated that explicitly) but the clear dissatisfaction of the people illustrates competitive opportunity and the remaining artificially elevated prices will give way to that.
Okay.
They're not falling. Inflation is still positive. In fact, inflation still exceeds the Fed's long term targets.
Of course, those things are demonstrably true, but you'll only hear Trumpublicans admit it once Trump is back in office and then they'll take credit for all the good things Democrats have done over the last four years and act as if Trump magically brought inflation down from 8% to 2.4% overnight. While it's exceedingly dishonest, we have to remember that's who the new Trumpublican party are. Either monumentally dishonest or so mind-numbingly stupid that they don't actually know what the GDP is and have no clue as to how to measure the strength of an economy and prefer to just regurgitate bullshit talking points from Fox News.
I think there is a log in your eye.
Yes Jack, the prices that are artificially elevated are likely to continue to fall due to market forces.
There is a 'log' in every patriotic Americans eye. A massive turd that was forced upon us that rational intelligent Americans will have to try to see past for the next four years all because some pissed off bitter bigots and low IQ gullible morons decided it would be hilarious to elect the most unqualified pile of dogshit President.
LOL...
In order for them to "continue" to fall, they must already be falling. Inflation is still positive. Why do you think prices are already falling?
The reference escaped you, I see.
There are plenty of similar reports.
Again, it makes sense (to me) that we have not flushed out all the artificial price inflation resulting from the pandemic. What is left will eventually be removed by market forces.
And of course prices in general will continue to rise because inflation is not 0% (apparently I need to state this obvious fact explicitly).
Far too benevolent a description of the infliction known as Trump that has been cast iron upon us, so some could say they told those lefty liberals a thing ore too much, about the irony of a rust belt that doesn't hold up Trumps heavy tariff rantz, or his heavy pants, asz he grabs pussy's with ease, and leads them down the path that gives Democracy Disease, and all shall be subject to this wrath of confusion, cause watt we heard from he, was not an illusion, cause plane to see he has hijacked the power seekers, the religious, and the arrogantly ignorant, for far too many a dogshit pile do idolize, asz sycophants gravel for his attention for administrative and cabinet positions, and Trump will pick loyalty over knowledge, cause it is like Kinder college, with sorriteasing the serious with just plane high flyin delirious, choices, taken away, but he states given the choice to choose her decision, cause he cuts the deals that we all will feels like de ja vue, but worse, cause the a dolt will leave out the adults that were key in keeping him in check, but hey, what the heck, lets elect the guy who tried to overthrow the last election, cause what ever could happen when another term for this steamin pile of dogshit causes our country to slip, stink, fall, and definitely not think, cause we know around the corner is every brink not many and know ones thought we'd be taken to, cause b leave we all do, ore and at least should have known, but thanx to the Supremes', someday, we will all be together facing a mentally deficient detriment to our community, a quart appointed dereliction of duty with immunity liter, the brazen with impunity cheater of volume control,that the Repubs aloud, so probably Death be not proud, of the life they have again given, to one who should be livin, behind the barz he has lowered, which makes me thirsty, i gotta go get some beer, and like Trump should have been, iiii'z outta here !
Anyone who knows anything about economics will tell you that you should WANT inflation to be positive. Deflation is FAR more destructive than inflation. Think "Great Depression".
Exactly how high it should be is open to debate. Two percent is the current target because it gives a little wiggle room before dropping into deflation.
Obviously.
However the point remains that positive inflation means that prices are not in fact falling, and therefore cannot "continue" to do so.
Or merely admit you misstated it originally.
I see that you are back to the same game of over-simplifying coupled with exaggerating what one writes and then arguing the resultant strawman.
You are pretending that all prices operate in unison. So if the inflation rate is positive that, in your absurd reasoning, means that all prices must rise. Why you would want to portray that level of economic naivety is odd, but it at least proves that there is no thoughtful intent on your part. Noted.
No, you're just executing your regular strategy of misrepresenting comments when they demonstrate you are mistaken.
Like so.
And again. It's quite predictable.
As we all know, inflation represents the rate of increase of prices on the aggregate. There are several inflation measures, including CPI, core inflation, and PCE, all of which are still positive. As a whole, prices are still rising.
Now, they may at some point in the future begin to decline as you forecast. That would be very helpful for many working class American families. Personally, I'm not optimistic, but I hope you're right. We'll have to see.
As we all know (or should know) inflation deals with all prices in the aggregate. And we should also know that there are prices that remain higher than they should be per inflation as a result of the pandemic. These are prices that I have labeled 'artificially inflated'. You should understand that in a market economy, artificially inflated prices are vulnerable to competitive forces which typically (over time) bring those prices back to the norm.
There are plenty of reports about how the market forces are indeed causing artificially inflated prices to fall. As I noted upfront, I do not see these artificially inflated prices returning to pre-pandemic levels. The reason is obvious for anyone who recognizes that inflation is a continuous operation and that even without the pandemic, prices would naturally be higher. At best, the artificially inflated prices will drop to levels that would be normal given inflation.
I want to be sure I understand you. How are you measuring that?
How are we defining "norm"?
To clarify, are you including prices that were inflated by temporary issues like supply chain disruption to be in the "artificial" category?
It's possible. Again, I'm not optimistic. I think it's more likely we'll see a recession.
Has someone said prices are falling?
Lots of people have said inflation is falling. Going from 6.5% to 2.5% is a fall. At 2.5% inflation, prices are rising, but hopefully wages are rising faster, giving consumers a net increase in purchasing power. This was the situation during the second half of the Biden administration.
Of course, MAGA media only reported the inflation, not the wage increases.
Yes. I'll let you read the whole conversation.
I think both sides have a fair complaint about media bias.
A total misrepresentation of what I wrote and have continued to spell out to you.
Nowhere did I claim that prices across the board are falling. I wrote that there are still prices that are artificially inflated from the pandemic.
Artificially inflated prices are subject to market forces.
Artificially inflated prices enable competitors to offer lower prices while making a profit.
The dynamics of the market puts downward pressure on artificially inflated prices.
To wit, over time, the artificial element of the prices disappears.
This is especially true with the public is continually voicing complaints about prices.
I am very sure you are willing to twist in the wind for days over this.
You misspoke. It happens. It's not the end of the world. Admit it and go on.
Your assertions that prices may fall in the future could make for an interesting conversation. Stick to that idea.
A demonstrated (repeatedly) lie. As I noted, you are yet again using your dishonest technique of oversimplifying a point and then exaggerating the result. In this case, you take my point that we still have artificial prices from the pandemic that are recovering (lowering) and oversimplify it into: "prices are falling" and then exaggerate it into "all prices across the board are falling". I have been quite clear in this thread and have offered supporting links yet no matter the details you continue with your blatant misrepresentation.
Don't pretend to have an interest in an interesting conversation given your behavior in this thread.
Man, they are pissed, aren't they?
Went up to 2.6 year over year in October. Inflation has been climbing again over the past few months.
Yeah, jobs have flatlined, inflation is climbing. Biden is handing over an economy tipping into stagflation.
You misspoke. Then you had to scrounge like crazy to find one example of 10bp reduction on a single obscure segment of the economy from an unofficial source so you could pretend you didn't misspeak.
You have an eminently more defensible position discussing your belief that competition will eventually tighten prices back toward their historic trends. You could probably even find some respected economists or investment analysts who agree with that.
I note that artificially inflated prices (lingering from the pandemic) are likely to drop given market forces (which is obvious) and you absurdly translate that into 'all prices will drop'.
Even after being very specific and including supporting links regarding dropping prices, you continue with this obnoxious, blatantly dishonest behavior.
Awesome
All some have.
Including the lies about honorable service members like Tim Walz
While I like the outside voice, I'm not convinced he's the best choice. He's not wrapped up in the mess that the DOD currently is which is a real problem for putting a 4-star General in that position. But from what I can see he has no experience in running a very large organization with a very large budget. I would think that would be some necessary experience to have coming into that position. I'm concerned that he could be a YES man rather than a strong leader to guide the DOD. I agree with the desire to strengthen the military but some of his statements IMO are just wrong. He's against women in combat positions saying they weaken the unit, but if you've ever fought against a woman you already know not to underestimate what a woman brings to the fight. I do agree with removing DEI from the military, we need to ensure that our fighting members are the strongest and best lead rather than worrying about do we have enough minorities in leadership positions.
We shall see if the Senate confirms.
I agree with everything in your post but this:
Rather than eliminate DEI we should be focused on how it's used. Not for some quota system but to use divese experiances to strengthen the military. The military mission is to respond to crises world wide. Diverity makes that mission more efficent. Unless we just want to change it all to break things and fuck people's shit up.
No, we're gonna have to disagree on that. I don't believe that anybody's experience from their race or gender makes a difference when it comes to leadership of a military unit. I want the person to lead who can bring maximum damage to enemy units while safeguarding their troops.
the mess that the DOD currently is
How so?
Currently the military is around 45% minorities, wouldn’t be interesting if the the attack on DEI also attacked minorities. Old Heggie would have to get a heck of a lot more whites to join or reinstate draft if they feel that they are being fucked over.
“…or reinstate draft…”
It may occur, putting those young, white males who broke for trump in a position of put up or shut up.
The draft is a bad idea. Training takes much longer now than in the 60’s.
It’s also not necessary. We have a perfectly satisfactory all-volunteer military. Unless Trump plans on starting something - like maybe waging actual war on his political opponents at home. He did mention that a few times.
“The draft is a bad idea.”
Again, agreed.
But how many bad ideas, if only looking at the proposed appointments, have been floated in just a matter of daze?
Time will tell. Pete is a smart man (maybe not smart enough to stay away from DC). While some of Trump picks aren’t who I would prefer, I do like that he’s choosing quite a few who are younger and who can articulate what needs to be done. Whether or not it can be done, given the political leviathan they’re entering, would take more optimism than I have for that viper-infested arena.
Gotta start somewhere...
Actually, Taos we do not have a satisfactory situation in the military branches. All of the services except the Marines are falling short of their enlistment goals and have been for some time. This is a large problem and when the majority of young people that are eligible cannot pass the physical test since they are so out of shape, many more have drug problems and criminal records and cannot join the military. I just read a few weeks ago that the military (army I believe) is dropping the high school grad requirement.
Hey, I’m totally fine with a conversation about reaching enlistment goals. But that’s a long way from needing a draft when we aren’t at war.
oh my
Okay.
You don't think being a women leader wouldn't offer a unique perspective when dealing with other women?
Except creating maximum damage isn't the only mission the military has.
Wasn't it democrats and the Harris campaign that said we needed to vote for a younger generation?
I think Trump took her advice....and it will be it is the first and only thing she said was true.
A woman leader could offer a different perspective but the more important question is would it be an important difference in a military unit?
That's the mission that matters.
I think so. I had an airman who had a massive amount of hair. We were doing gas mask training and after I yelled gas gas gas, she took the time to unpin that ungodly mess and "died". I read her the riot act. Regulations state that if you can't get a cover or a gas mask to fit properly you need to cut your hair. That's one woman's perspective. And I was the NCOIC so I had a leadership perspective too
The mission that matters? Keeping your troops alive
Which is why I've stated :
To be fair, from your description I don't think it would have made much difference if a male or a female read that airman the riot act. As you said, the regs are clear and it is obvious that this airman had too much hair to be able to wear a gas mask.
CNN reports Hegseth was asked yesterday if he would be interested, flew to Maralago this morning to interview for the position, and was announced as the nominee a couple hours later.
He must have said something really nice on Fox about Trump in the last few days while Trump was watching.
Nothing like a little hyperbole to start the day with
wow, an election denier fan, that blows, Trump kisses, as he kisses Trumps' ass,
what a shit show this is gonna be
You have to at least be a 2020 election "skeptic" to even be considered to be in the new administration . Full blown denier is preferable. Hegseth is on video being pretty enthusiastic about Trump giving a speech where he said the election was stolen from him.
[deleted][✘]
[✘]
[✘]
Choices, choices! Let’s see now…ideal candidates for Secretary of Defense…Four star generals? Or Fox News hosts? Hmmm
Four Star generals? Nah! Just kidding. Fox News hosts for sure!
Trump makes smarter decisions than anyone has seen with his bigliest brain.
That's hysterical coming from someone who voted for Kamala.
Now bless his heart!
Trump has talked about using the military against American citizens. Here is a DoD secretary who will follow that order.
Bullshit.
Oh thanks. You’ve convinced me. I feel so much better about the whole thing.
When you make an absolute ignorant comment with no basis in fact what do you expect? your comment actually got more of a response than it deserved.
Well, tell you what Tacos, if Trump manages to do that, despite all the built in protections to stop such things, I’ll be right next to you fighting it. We’ll bring along our own NTer Rambo, who will single-handedly save the day.
Just like Underdog.
who will play Sweet Poly Pure Bred ? T G ?
Dealers choice …. Plenty to choose from ….
No “basis in fact,” George? Are you serious? Do not ever imagine you will catch me saying something I cannot support.
We all saw and heard him say it. More than once . He confirmed it. Don’t try to gaslight me.
Trump suggests using military against ‘enemy from within’ on Election Day
If you naively think “the enemy from within” is same vague spiritual or ideological challenges, and not real Americans, he made it very clear.
Trump suggests he’ll use the military on ‘the enemy from within’ the U.S. if he’s reelected
Truth Be Told: Trump's threat to use military against 'enemy from within'
Trump repeats ‘enemy from within’ comment, targeting Pelosi and Schiff
I’m glad you think it’s funny that the president-elect thinks it’s ok to use the US Military against his domestic political opponents.
You mean like having a Secretary of Defense who may be more loyal to the president than he is to the law?
[✘]
Stop lying. I quoted Trump and I never insulted the military. It’s not “ramblings” when he repeats it. And yes, he’s an idiot, but he will also be Commander in Chief.
BTW, what you think is obvious is clearly not reliable or relevant.
That's funny.
If you think the military will carry out that order no matter who gives it you are absolutely insulting the military. Own it!
But accurate.
Pretty sure in this instance he was talking about left wing radicals BLM, ANTIFA and the antisemites who take over campuses and attack Jewish students, He never said he would use the military against any individual left winger.
The hyperbole from the left is nauseating to say the least.
Maybe put your ego away. It’s hurting you on all fronts. First, you don’t speak for the whole military. It’s not monolithic. People who serve do not all believe the same, vote the same, or react to questionable orders the same.
Second, for someone who is wearing their service on their sleeve so strongly today, maybe you could be a little tougher than to conclude that just because someone expresses a concern, that does not mean they are insulting the whole military, or even you personally. I expect a little more spine from those who serve. Did the military teach you the whine about being insulted like that? I doubt it. I think it comes from Trump, because that’s what that fool does every day.
The way you react to this - that a disagreement is some kind of attack on the whole military - is exactly the kind of mindset that could lead to people following an order to attack civilians.
You are 100% wrong and I cited evidence up in 14.1.6. He named specific people.
Apparently then you agree with Tacos!' assessment of how absurd it is for Trump to even suggest using the military against political opponents. Now, do you also recognize that Trump's pick for Secretary of Defense is likely based on his fealty to Trump ... his willingness to use his power as Trump commands?
The military will of course buck unpatriotic orders. And if it came to this, Trump would likely try to relieve generals of their commands until he finds those willing to work with him. This would be quite an accomplishment given protocols, but it is certainly possible.
The USA has never dealt with a loose-cannon narcissist like Trump in his second term empowered with clear support from the electorate coupled with SCotUS invented legal immunity. It is a fundamental failure of the electorate to give such power to this scoundrel and unfortunately we will be seeing very unusual reaches from Trump that will test the safeguards of our system.
To wit, do not defend this vindictive asshole, be critical of his abuse of power.
You misunderstood Tacos assertion, try again..
Deflection and a false claim:
Tacos!' assessment of how absurd it is for Trump to even suggest using the military against political opponents ⇡.
Do you think this is Tacos! approving of Trump's notion of using the military against American citizens?
Do you think it is NOT absurd for Trump to talk about using the military against American citizens?
The USA has never dealt with a loose-cannon narcissist like Trump in his second term empowered with clear support from the electorate coupled with SCotUS invented legal immunity. It is a fundamental failure of the electorate to give such power to this scoundrel and unfortunately we will be seeing very unusual reaches from Trump that will test the safeguards of our system.
To wit, do not defend this vindictive asshole, be critical of his abuse of power.
You missed the mark again, worse this time.
No I'm not and no you did not.
Show where he specifically said he would use the military on specific people, as you claim.
Calling them the enemy from within is hyperbole. The left looks at conservatives as the enemy, but they don't have to say it. Thay just put the judicial system on anyone they look at as a threat.
[…][✘]
…
…
…
Seriously, what more do you need? What is it about this that you don’t understand?
Why should we dismiss any of this as hyperbole? Would you dismiss it as hyperbole if Biden said it?
Yeah, the national guard is often called in to handle riots that get out of control.
No one disputes that. The military is not called in.
Ever see Nancy Pelosi at a riot? Adam Schiff? Why would they be included specifically?
Of course not, they would take it and run with it. The problem here is it's their Dear Leader with the rhetoric and it scares them that they really could be wrong. But he was THE MAN and Harris was a weak woman. They're understand when it all comes crashing down
If your messiah Biden said it we would just assume it was the ramblings of a senile old fool.
So you can't point out where he said he would call the Guard on SPECIFIC people.
The man is still two months away from getting into office and you (collective you) leftists are losing your shit.
Get a hold of your damn selves
It's not healthy.
sigh
You didn’t ask about the Guard. You asked about the military. But either will do here, I suppose.
I gave you quotes from Trump saying the Guard or the Military should be called in to fight the enemy within. He then named Pelosi and Schiff as part of the enemy within. That is exactly what you asked for. Why do you keep pretending this didn’t happen?
Sure it has been. Take the Detroit riots in 68 for instance.
? Why would they be included specifically?
They weren't of course. Did you read your own links? The context of what he's talking about is clear when he's talked about possibly deploying the national guard, or if necessary the military.
This is readily available and has been posted multiple times on this site by me alone.
Actually watch this and get up to date.
Go to 0:55 in this video.
Trump has repeated this numerous times starting with the Fox interview with Maria Bartiromo ( ). The Fox News interview with Kurz is one of the places where Trump doubled down on his idiocy:
Go to 7:39 in this source:
There are plenty of channels reporting Trump saying this various times. The link above is Trump doubling down on what he said earlier on Fox.
If Trump's own words do not sink in then there is some deep-rooted, serious denial going on.
They have been supplied with multiple sources of the man, himself, saying, in very plain language what he wants, and who - by name - he is talking about, and they still deny it. At this point, I feel like I could point at a blue sky, and they’d say, “so you can’t show me where there is a blue sky.”
They were, of course. If you disagree with me, then kindly explain why he said their names.
Point to me where he said "I will use the military against Adam Schiff"
Context matters.
Examples.................
I have posted it. I even bolded, italicized, and underlined the relevant parts. TiG posted video. You guys never address any of it. You just keep repeating that there’s no evidence or it’s just “hyperbole.” You just keep repeating “show me where…” You show no interest in actually addressing the facts, just dismissing them.
I have supplied them multiple times. Scroll up and read the thread. Try 14.1.6, for starters.
Because that is what trolls do.
You pick and choose statements from different days and then cobble them together to mean something completely different from what each statement meant in context.
Do you not see how disingenuous that is? Context matters.
I meant examples of the type of people..................you know, examples of the enemy within
If only we had some sort of established set of rules to keep something like that from happening. Y'know.....something to provide checks and balances, limiting the power of the presidency.
The problem with rules, laws, protocols, etc. is that they are only as good as the agents who enforce them. While I (as I stated in this thread) hold that it would be quite difficult for Trump to successfully use the military against political opponents, it is not impossible. Given the USA has empowered a loose-cannon, vindictive narcissistic scoundrel with the powers of the presidency, our system is very likely to be tested over the next four years.
It is troubling that we are in this situation and one should worry about the future health of our nation given an electorate who would elect to the presidency an irresponsible man-child with such abysmal character who has demonstrated he will violate the CotUS and our laws to satisfy his personal desires.
Full disclosure, I have never voted for Donald Trump. Most recently, I voted for a gay libertarian.
That said, if we're concerned about use of governmental power against political opponents, history does not particularly smile upon the Democrats.
Worry is a choice. If you choose to worry about something you acknowledge is unlikely to happen, that's your decision.
I hope you won't worry. As a nation, we've survived much worse than a blustering, obnoxious orange real estate mogul. We'll survive this. Four years from now, you will probably be wiser and wealthier than you are now, just like you're probably wiser and wealthier today than you were four years ago.
Yes, you established that last year.
I really do not care about which party does what. I am focused on what Trump is going to do.
Our nation just elected the worst nominee of our lifetimes (probably in our history) so use whatever words you wish to express the fact that we should all be concerned about an irresponsible man-child with abysmal character who has demonstrated he will violate the CotUS and our laws to satisfy his personal desires.
Shall we all just sit back and watch? I would think it would be far more responsible to remain engaged and focus on something of consequence such as helping the Ds ramp up to secure at least the House in the midterms to give some check to Trump's power.
We've had another election since then. I wanted to make it clear that my "never Trump" record remains intact.
It seems oddly short-sighted to only look for a threat from one direction when they have a history of coming from the other.
Clearly not. A nominee has one job: to get elected. Which means Trump was by definition a better nominee than either Clinton or Harris, and probably better than Biden in 2024.
Even if we expand the definition of "worst" to describe his obvious lack of character, he's arguably not even the worst president in my lifetime. I was born during the LBJ administration and I actually remember Nixon. My daughter would joke that I knew Andrew Johnson and my son would joke that I knew Andrew Jackson. (I didn't)
I guess you could always organize a riot. Or you could take over a neighborhood in your town and repeat the whole Seattle insurrection from 2020. Or maybe get some friends together, put on those pink cat-lady hats and go shout at the moon. Personally, I intend to squeeze as much out of this bull market as I can.
Sure. Why not? If it makes you feel better. History suggests that will probably happen on its own, but if that's something you enjoy then go for it.
Who says that I care only about the threat from Trump? Trump was the subject of my comment. Trump is, however, the major threat of concern.
Starting to no longer take you seriously.
Learn to stop taking Trump so seriously.
You remember Nixon from when you were 10 years old, or younger?
Yeah. It was a big deal.
There were only three networks back then, and all of them showed Watergate hearings all day. Which sucked when you were trying to watch Adam West kick the shit of of The Penguin.
Point being... people went apeshit over Trump's dodgy phone call, despite Biden bragging about a similar one.
Nixon. Hired. Burglars. And then erased the evidence about it.
You are free to pretend the election of Trump does not bode well for this nation and that his presidency and actions should not be taken seriously, but I find that to be naive.
No worries.
Personally, I find the reverent fear of him like he's Lord Voldemort, Darth Vader and Sauron all rolled into one to be naive.
Those of us with some worldly experience have run into people before who talk a lot of shit and then can't do anything. That's what this is. The saying in Texas is "all hat and no cattle".
The part I find hilarious at this point is how the same people who howl about how he will never be able to do any of the things he has said simultaneously howl about the things he has said.
You’re the one being disingenuous. We have multiple conversations of him saying this shit because people were alarmed and gave him the opportunity to clarify or walk back his remarks. Instead, he doubled down on it.
I confess, it gives me a smidgen of hope to hear you deniers desperately claim that he was taken out of context, or it was hyperbole. That tells me you know in your heart that what he said was a bad thing. Now if only people would vote the same as that small voice inside.
I believe him. I was 8 and 9 years old when Watergate was happening. It was pretty much the only thing on the radio or TV news. I didn’t understand it all, but I sure as hell remember it.
I even remember the 72 election. Being a little kid, I remember I thought it was rude for George McGovern to try to take the president’s job from him.
Again, read the thread. I gave examples. I quoted Trump. I cited to news stories. It’s all there.
Rules are only as good as the people enforcing them. All you have to do to see how people will abandon their principles is look at how millions of self-proclaimed and proudly “moral” people voted for the most immoral man to ever run for president.
Honestly, left to his own devices, I wouldn’t worry about Trump. I worry more about the true believers who will be doing the work. They will be the ones to trample on civil rights and invent schemes to circumvent the rule of law.
Then I suggest you not leap to such ridiculous exaggerations of what people write.
Like censorship?..
Perhaps they'll find some archaic law to prosecute their political rivals???....
Trump is the force that enables the true believers. Without Trump they have no power.
Which brings back the point that Trump, himself, is not the problem but rather the people in the electorate who believe him and voted for him. They are the ones who gave him his power.
If Trump's popularity drops that will have a check effect (albeit not enough) on his abuse of power.
Like no. No one has even alluded to such a thing. Just felt like inventing a new topic?
If it’s a law - even an old one - it can’t be “circumventing the rule of law,” now, can it?
At least Trump has enjoyed the best defense counsel his money can buy and managed to delay things for so long that now he won’t be prosecuted, and maybe not even sentenced for his convictions. Not because he’s not guilty, but because he managed to get himself elected again.
You're the one that mentioned trampling on civil rights.
Agreed and in a rather convincing way....
He didn't say it once. No fair minded person can look at any of his statements in context and walk away thinking he just promised to use the military against Adam Schiff. In order to get there you have to resort to playing mix and match and conflating discussions on completely different topics.
If he said in "multiple conversations" why can't you point to a single one where he's clearly using Pelosi or Schiff as the subject and saying he will use the military against them?
Trump is guilty ?, because the election was not
No. It means more voters wanted him to win. It doesn't mean he was "better" in any way.
Trump appealed to America's basest characteristics... and Americans responded "present".
“Trump appealed to America's basest characteristics...”
Agreed, with an emphasis on ‘base’.
He is a buffoon, but acutely aware of where his bread is buttered, spreading his brand ad infinitum…only confirming the hunger his acolytes are so willing to sate. Indigestion is only a symptom of a much more serious affliction.
They may try. In the end, the Constitution generally prevails.
That was the point of being a candidate.
He was better at getting elected.
Trump has no intention of submitting to me Constitution. He has told his flunkies in the Senate to allow him to make "recess" appointments.
Kinda circular,no?
That is explicitly constitutional.
Ask Justice Breyer.
I don't care what he intends. Kamala Harris intended to become president. People intend things all the time. What matters is what they can actually do.
Which is explicitly constitutional.
If you say so.
I just think it's a bit silly to claim someone is the "worst" at something when they succeed at it more often than not.
He was a far better liar. The Republican Party is an embarrassmeant for those who placed their party above our country. The far right,Fox propaganda, Newsmax, Rightwing Bloggers, all sprtead countless lies repeated hundreds of times claiming the sky was falling due to some unknown drastic policies from Biden and Harris. These suspicious policies caused drastic inflation we were told. Yet, these specific policies were not specified. The GOP and Trump lied their asses off, in an attempt to confuse voters, and it worked, rather well. All those illegals that Trump and the Repubs claimed were here committing non stop crimes, after they were released from their own countries mental hospitals and prisons, are somehow a tad difficult to find now. All this as our crime statistics tell another story. Trump should be in prison with the rest of his clan from Jan 6th. The now activated Supreme court is compromised , and has granted unneeded (Definitely needed in Trumps' case) immunity for one who
should be behind so many bars, as he lowers so many others.
Since this relates back to my comment that Trump was the worst nominee in our lifetimes and likely in our history, I am going to step in.
Obviously I was talking about his character, behavior, etc., not his ability to get elected.
Can't answer, Sean. TPTB are ticketing.
OK, Jack... We're at a decision point, here.
If you want to play semantics, that's your choice, but I won't go along. You know what a "recess appointment" is supposed to be. If you're going to talk as though it's something else, you won't have me as a conversation partner.
Yes you have and now it's just trolling
God I'm old! I was 10 in 1972. I've read a lot of stuff about Watergate during that time between 1972 and 2024 and Nixon was indeed a wicked, wicked man
I didnt mean he literally didnt remember it, I meant he didnt remember it in any useful way.
But violates the intent. Recess appointments are for urgent situations when the Senate is not in session, not as a means to grease the skids for all appointments.
They weren't unknown or suspicious. They spent too much money. We had already spent several trillion dollars to recover from the pandemic. We didn't need several trillion more.
I think it's fascinating how we repeat this cycle. We pretend that the Democratic candidate wasn't miserably awful at running for president. Then we blame absolutely anyone and everyone else in the world for the loss. It must be the conservative media that hardly anybody watches or an uneducated electorate or misogyny or racism or some other sort of bullshit excuse
She engendered zero confidence that she had any idea what to do about the economy, immigration, foreign policy, or anything else. She repeatedly failed in front of incredibly softball interviews. She couldn't even do basic math.
I agree, she should have walked away with this election. It should not have been close. But she repeatedly and consistently fucked it up. She has nobody to blame but herself.
Trump was running for president for two full years prior to last week. It borders on absurdity to say the election was entirely about Kamala Harris' "incompetency". The sad truth is Trump has a cult following, and he would have got between 40-45 percent of the vote if he had shot that person on 5th avenue on their birthday.
The biggest takeaway from this election is that 50.2 % of Americans dont care if their president is a worthless human being only in it for himself. In fact, many of them live vicariously through him.
50.2% of the electorate.
To wit, another problem is all those people who do not vote.
Our decision point here is whether or not we're going to spend the next 4 years inventing hysterical nonsense about which we can claim that the sky is falling and our democracy is somehow in peril.
Recess appointments are explicitly constitutional. They've gone on for decades. This isn't a trump thing, this is a long-standing loophole in the Constitution that many presidents have either exploited or attempted to exploit. It was so common that the Senate actually invented procedural shenanigans to keep it from happening.
But suddenly, it's a constitutional crisis when Trump mentions it. He hasn't done it, mind you, he's just mentioned it. A week ago we all would have been surprised to learn that he knew what a recess appointment was. I'll still be moderately surprised to learn he can spell it.
Now, if we're going to say he intends to subvert the Constitution, we should probably make sure that what he's talking about isn't actually specifically permitted by the Constitution. Otherwise, we just look hysterical.
She was leading in the polls before she started talking.
The biggest takeaway from the election is that the majority of Americans would rather not vote for Trump, but they're not going to automatically vote against Trump if the other candidate is completely inept.
The real question is whether or not any Democrat anywhere is going acknowledge that they had all of the last three presidential elections in the bag and threw two of them away through their own arrogant incompetence.
Your whole schtick has always been that Trump is a harmless buffoon without any power or mental ability to do anything.
So why did anyone vote for him? Three times.
You claim that Trump is completely inept, and have been doing so for years here. That is your defense of him. So why wouldnt voters vote for Harris on the basis that Trump has been an inept buffoon politician for a decade now?
And just why do you think that is? Perhaps those who wanted to had a reason for doing so as it turns out
Run a better opinion and I’ll vote for it. Running shitty candidates and spouting triggered nonsenses will get you nowhere.
One would think libs would have made the connection by now.
Trump was in charge four of those years. The other six it was your buffoons
The point of recess appointments is not to have the president encourage the Senate to leave town so he can appoint anyone he wants.
If you put 100 people in a room with a line drawn down the middle and told Trump voters to go to one side of the line and Harris voters to go to the other, the two groups would by all appearances be the same size. The idea that "the American people" want Trump is silly.
He was an inept buffoon both in and out of office. Essentially, he never stopped campaigning.
Do any of them?
The election decided otherwise. Learn to deal with it
Nah, it was the triggered that kept him front and center for all to see.
Not Trump
There are clearly all sorts of mixed reasons for why people voted for Trump.
In the end, the electorate has turned over the power of the presidency to a vindictive narcissistic scoundrel with abysmal character. A traitor who violated his oath of office as the only PotUS in US history to use fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement in an attempt to thwart the peaceful transfer of power and disenfranchise the electorate.
Electing this buffoon shows that we have a very serious problem with the electorate.
No John, I'm just unwilling to participate in your barnyard parade where you try to convince everyone the sky is falling.
The same reason anyone votes for anyone....because they thought he was better than the alternative.
Obviously repeating this again and again and again has not worked for the anti Trumpers and the media saying it hourly.
What do you think the dems should do about it since what they did failed miserably?
Bye, Jack. I have better things to do with my time.
You have just described the success of right wing media propaganda. Trump isnt better than anyone. He's a traitor, and it isnt even difficult to show.
Fair.
But that's how it's been used for generations. This is not Trump's idea.
Ronald Reagan made 232 recess appointments.
Bill Clinton made 139
Barack Obama made 32
How about Harry Truman:
So this has been going on since the 1700s, but Trump mentions the phrase and suddenly the Constitution is in peril? C'mon. That ridiculous.
You really think the 75 million people were all bamboozled by the right wing media? I mean I would say only 20 million were bamboozled by MSMNC, DNC and CNN propaganda machines combined
I'm very sure you will hold that view until your dying breath.
Question: Why is left wing media propaganda so much less effective?
I am not sure why the rule is in place but I think I would rather see them go through the process (unless I am missing something).
e the 1700s, but Trump mentions the phrase and suddenly the Constitution is in peril? C'mon. That ridiculous.
The Supreme Court just addressed the issue with regards to Obama's recess appointments and ruled that Presidents can appoint nominees even during breaks during a session, so he clearly has the power to do it. Of course, if the Supreme Court had listened to Scalia in 2014, recess appointments would only be allowed in breaks between congressional sessions, not breaks during sessions of Congress.
I think we would all rather see them go through the process, but it's certainly not the end of democracy if they don't.
I'm guessing the rule is in place because when the Constitution was drafted, it might take months to get Congress together on a special session to confirm an appointment. You don't want your Secretary of Defense to keel over from a heart attack and then not be able to replace him for a year.
Somewhere along the line... long, long, ago... it became a way to circumvent political opposition.
Somehow, that was not a Constitutional crisis when Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or Harry Truman or even Ronald Reagan was doing it, but Trump merely using the phrase is absolutely definitely the first step in his nefarious plan to implement the Handwife's Tale as the model for American society. Or build a Death Star. Or forge Rings of Power. Or enslave the muggles. Or all of those.
Makes sense, thanks
We saw how that worked with the racist, misogynist, fascist, nazi schtick they tried for the last month of the campaign. Oh, hell, who am I kidding. For the past 9 years.
Well, maybe Hegseth won’t pull a disappearing act like our current SecDef did.
Or quit like a whiny bitch when the president stops another conflict and pulls troops out of harm's way.
Pete Hegseth defending the J6 insurrectionists
Fox News host defends the Jan. 6 insurrectionists: “They love freedom” | Media Matters for America
freedom for themselves maybe...
MAGA woman says God picked Pete Hegseth
God's not here
Should intelligent life visit us from elsewhere in the universe someday, it will be an interesting conversation how humans have settled for making the weapon Jesus was killed with their most coveted symbol for goodness and morality. It’s like Sandy Hook parents tattooing a machine gun on themself in remembrance of their innocent, murdered kids.
Are we really debating this position. I'd say after years of this beta male any change is a great change.
Marjorie Taylor Greene will be named Secretary of Hybrid Intelligence Technology. She will be referred to by the acronym SHIT.
"Its an emergency, get SHIT on the phone."
MTG should be Secretary of Commerce given this includes the National Weather Service. She is the perfect person to direct tornados and other natural forces to damage the property and lives of political opponents.
She can borrow Trumps sharpie.
I'm not sure she knows which is the business end of a sharpie
Hold on I have her husband, Jack Shit on the phone and he said she is in a lotta shit.
At least as qualified as Obama was for President