Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Paranoid Android]

Trump’s administration told the Supreme Court that the fast-acting states were “trying to seize what they could of the agency’s finite set of remaining funds, before any appeal could even be filed, and to the detriment of other States’ allotments.”

https://apnews.com/article/snap-food...07-SNAP+update

Gotta love their argument is states made a grab for finite resources since trump is making this finite.

It seems they are trying to block by saying let us or give other states an opportunity to the few SNAP funds available.

Fuck em

[PACOX]

https://bsky.app/profile/ericmgarcia.../3m53lgn23l223

Fuck this court

An emergency ruling on feeding people huh? Pieces of Shit.

Idk what the authority or ruling besides trump is king I guess l.

Jesus Christ. This is what Dems need to lead with all weekend and blasting it Monday.

From another article on the story

"Defendants' bald assertion that they will face irreparable injury is entirely unsupported, and they callously disregard the grave harm that will befall Plaintiffs and millions of Americans if they succeed," they wrote, saying the $23 billion in remaining funds is more than enough to cover both WIC, which requires $3 billion a month to operate, and SNAP, which normally requires around $8.5 billion.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-admi...y?id=127294307

So it's not even like the money isn't there and they needed to finance WIC first. They are lying out their crusty asses.

[Breccia]

Trump said he distributed Snap benef...

Lie could not keep people hopes up for the weekend.

Yep. Let the record show Trump specifically went out of his way to do this, he specifically went out of his way to tell SCOTUS "all the other courts have said I have to obey the law that lets hungry American taxpayers get food they need to survive, but I don't want to". Whether they end up siding with him is not the only issue. Trump was told he was illegally blocking food stamps and pressed even harder to keep doing it.

- - - Updated - - -

FOX News desperately tries to think of a way to make the shutdown Democrats' fault *ding*

And they fail horribly.

The article tells a story based on two bills that didn't get Democrat support. One, a month ago, yes FOX News is that desperate, points to a GOP bill to pay government workers during a shutdown.

"Does it include furloughed workers?" Democrats asked.

"No," Republicans replied.

"Then we're not signing it," Democrats answered.

Fast forward to this second version, which did include furloughed workers.

"All of them?" Democrats asked hopefully.

"No," the GOP replied, "just the ones Trump decides to pay."

"Then we're not signing that either," Democrats said as they voted it down.

FOX News is trying to paint this as the Democrat's fault, while still posting

Schumer’s offer included attaching a one-year extension onto expiring Obamacare subsidies — the main sticking point of the shutdown — in exchange for the Democratic votes to reopen the government.

But the offer, which a source told Fox News Digital had been made in private to Senate Republicans last week and was summarily rejected, was again not going over well with Republicans.

Funny, when that last part happened, FOX News did not have a headline "GOP block Democrat offer to keep more Americans with affordable healthcare". In fact, I don't think they posted an article on that at all.

[Fugus]

Well, they did get several hundred gigs of video.


https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1391271/dl?inline
This is the evidence list, lots of computers and tablets listed.

I stopped after the first 3 or 4 lines when I read the 5 LTO6 tapes.

Those are 2.5TB uncompressed or 6.25TB compressed tapes.

[Gestopft]

Dems really need to hit Ctrl-S on Trump's "I Don’t Want To Hear About the Affordability" comments. This is one that needs to come up repeatedly and tied to the GOP as a whole.

[Paranoid Android]

A little cleanup of SCOTUS stay or ruling in favor of Trump on SNAP

A very quick explainer on why Justice Jackson issued an "administrative stay" in the SNAP case late on Friday night, and on what's likely to happen next

This is a Georgetown Law Professor, so take it as you want.

It may surprise folks that Justice Jackson, who has been one of the most vocal critics of the Court’s behavior on emergency applications from the Trump administration, acquiesced in even a temporary pause of the district court’s ruling in this case. But as I read the order, which says a lot more than a typical “administrative stay” from the Court, Jackson was stuck between a rock and a hard place—given the incredibly compressed timing that was created by the circumstances of the case.

So this is a description and backlash of why Jackson ruled in favor and fast in favor of Trump.

In a world in which Justice Jackson either knew or suspected that at least five of the justices would grant temporary relief to the Trump administration if she didn’t, the way she structured the stay means that she was able to try to control the timing of the Supreme Court’s (forthcoming) review—and to create pressure for it to happen faster than it otherwise might have. In other words, it’s a compromise—one with which not everyone will agree, but which strikes me as eminently defensible under these unique (and, let’s be clear, maddening and entirely f-ing avoidable) circumstances

.

So he is saying that Jackson is going to try to "rush" or get a ruling fast, but odds are still stacked.

In the article of why Jackson made the ruling was as the Circuit Justice of the ruling in Boston she was the administrative.

[Breccia]

Trump announces USA will boycott G20.

"What reason did he give?"

The host country, South Africa, is being unfair to white people.

"...he knows about apartheid, right?"

Unlikely, because he's lying about the reaason.

The Trump administration has long accused the South African government of allowing minority white Afrikaner farmers to be persecuted and attacked. As it restricted the number of refugees admitted annually to the U.S. to 7,500, the administration indicated that most will be white South Africans who it claimed faced discrimination and violence at home.

But the government of South Africa has said it is surprised by the accusations of discrimination, because white people in the country generally have a much higher standard of living than its Black residents, more than three decades after the end of the apartheid system of white minority rule.

The country’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, has said he’s told Trump that information about the alleged discrimination and persecution of Afrikaners is “completely false.”

Nonetheless, the administration has kept up its criticisms of the South African government. Earlier this week during an economic speech in Miami, Trump said South Africa should be thrown out of the Group of 20.

Earlier this year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio boycotted a G20 meeting for foreign ministers because its agenda focused on diversity, inclusion and climate change efforts.

So as you can see, the listed reason keeps changing, which happens when you lie. If the real reason had been climate change, he would have said that. If the real reason was that white Christians were being trodden on, Rubio would have said that.

"Wait, so, Rubio didn't go because of diversity and inclusion?"

That was the listed reason, yes.

"And Trump isn't going because he says a minority group is being treated unfairly and not being helped?"

That was the listed reason, yes.

"...he doesn't see the contradiction?"

Again, lying.

To be fair, this is probably a relief for the rest of G20. Trump is an untrustworthy menace who has done nothing but damage political alliances. This is an easy way to meet without him, without uninviting him. If they like the way this turns out, expect the next meeting to be in Mexico.

[PenguinChan]

Well, the only one who dared to defend this shit of an administration while criticizing them all the 5 times this year was apparently perma-banned.

And I can't stop grinning ever since.

If they got perma'd that's all on them. I was even trying to give them a way out to own up to their past and improve, to see if they'd actually try a good faith turn-about but they just ended up bypassing all chances given (Apparently they were given this chance MANY times over the years). So I guess uh. Oh well.

[Gorsameth]

Trump announces USA will boycott G20.

"What reason did he give?"

The host country, South Africa, is being unfair to white people.

"...he knows about apartheid, right?"

Unlikely, because he's lying about the reaason.



So as you can see, the listed reason keeps changing, which happens when you lie. If the real reason had been climate change, he would have said that. If the real reason was that white Christians were being trodden on, Rubio would have said that.

"Wait, so, Rubio didn't go because of diversity and inclusion?"

That was the listed reason, yes.

"And Trump isn't going because he says a minority group is being treated unfairly and not being helped?"

That was the listed reason, yes.

"...he doesn't see the contradiction?"

Again, lying.

To be fair, this is probably a relief for the rest of G20. Trump is an untrustworthy menace who has done nothing but damage political alliances. This is an easy way to meet without him, without uninviting him. If they like the way this turns out, expect the next meeting to be in Mexico.

I can just about hear the actual sigh of relief from 19 other delegations that the US won't be there and they might be able to get something done.

[david0925]

Well, the only one who dared to defend this shit of an administration while criticizing them all the 5 times this year was apparently perma-banned.

And I can't stop grinning ever since.

I thought it was a bit quiet. Did we finally both of the worst bad faith posters on this forum?

[Breccia]

Hey @Flarelaine how do you feel about conspiracy theories?

Trump announces investigation into US meat packing industry. Like, all of it.

In a Truth Social post, Trump said, without evidence, that the companies “are driving up the price of Beef, through Illicit Collusion, Price Fixing, and Price Manipulation.”

Minutes later, Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on X that a Justice Department investigation was “underway,” with the department’s antitrust chief, Abigail Slater, taking the lead in partnership with the Department of Agriculture.

This really feels like Trump is just flat-out paranoid, a common symptom of dementia. Trump says prices are low, prices are not low, so instead of admitting he is wrong, it's a conspiracy to make him wrong.

There is plenty of ECON 101 evidence that beef prices are high for a reason.

In the same post, Trump did call out "Majority Foreign Owned Meat Packers, who artificially inflate prices" which is a threat to National Security Lol.

"Does he know how tariffs work?"

No.

By the way, I love this response.

In a statement, the president of the Meat Institute, the meat packing industry's chief lobbying group, said meat packers were not to blame for beef price increases and would "welcome a fact-based discussion" about affordability issues.

“Despite high consumer prices for beef, beef packers have been losing money because the price of cattle is at record highs,” Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts said. “For more than a year, beef packers have been operating at a loss due to a tight cattle supply and strong demand."

She continued: “The beef industry is heavily regulated, and market transactions are transparent. The government’s own data from USDA confirms that the beef packing sector is experiencing catastrophic losses and experts predict this will continue into 2026."

Not only is that an outright accusation that Trump is lying, shocker I know, they flat-out remind Trump in public that Trump has a USDA whose job is to regulate them. And that's even before the shutdown, when Trump willingly told the USDA not to do their job, which has been a while, true, but prices got high well before that.

This isn't an investigation, not really. Yes the DOJ will go through the motions, but nobody expects to find anything other than standard market forces, plus Trump's actions, forcing the prices up 50%.

So I have two questions.

1) Flarelaine, if I had come to these forums and announced, with no evidence, that the beef packing industry was artificially inflating prices to hurt the US and damage its National Security Lol, would I be infracted for spreading conspiracy theories?

EDIT: Actually @Endus you're a former mod and @Edge- you're a current one. What do you think?

2) Bondi said there was already an investigation. Do you think she's telling the truth? If you knew that there was no conspiracy, would you run one anyhow, or would you just tell Trump "there is an investigation" and do nothing, knowing there's nothing to find?

Normally I call out specific posters, but, well, I grow tired of the sound of crickets chirping. So I'm throwing that second one open to everyone.

Is Pam Bondi lying about an investigation into the meat packing industry?

[gondrin]

So, according to Trump, the US is bringing in "hundreds of trillions of dollars". Not hundreds of billions or even in the low trillions. Hundreds of trillions of dollars. Why did he bring this up?

Because he was pressed on what Walmart put out there as their Thanksgiving dinner and how Trump's version of it are 2 different things(yes, Walmart's dinner is cheaper than last year BUT there is now less going into it) and he cannot handle being contradicted with the truth along with the fact that the US public are paying more for groceries due to his tariffs.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...0e36e3fa2&ei=6

At another point, Trump made the absurd assertion, “We’re taking in hundreds of trillions of dollars,” even though the entire U.S. economy is only about $30 trillion a year.

Remember, the entire world economy is about $110 trillion.

[Breccia]

US judge rules Trump illegally ordered National Guard to Portland, Oregon

Trump unlawfully ordered National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, a federal judge ruled Friday in a legal setback to the administration's use of the military in American cities.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut is the first to permanently block Trump's use of military force to quell protests against immigration authorities. Trump is also attempting to do that in Democratic-led Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington, D.C. It replaces her interim order that had prevented the Portland deployment.

Immergut, a Trump appointee, said the administration had no lawful basis to claim that there was a rebellion in Portland or that the government was unable to enforce federal law due to the protests.

"The occasional interference to federal officers has been minimal, and there is no evidence that these small-scale protests have significantly impeded the execution of any immigration laws," she said in her 106-page opinion and order.

Justice Department lawyers described a violent siege overwhelming federal agents, echoing Trump's description of the city as "war-ravaged." Lawyers for Oregon and Portland said violence has been rare, isolated and contained by local police.

Immergut concluded in her order that the violence was small-scale, isolated, disorganized and had largely subsided by the time Trump ordered in the National Guard in late September.

Immergut blocked Trump from deploying troops to Portland with an interim order on October 5.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering the Trump administration's appeal of that decision.

Three judges, including Immergut, have issued preliminary rulings that Trump's National Guard deployments are not allowed under the emergency legal authority cited by his administration.

One of the biggest risks right now is Trump acting like a dictator, which causes protests, and Trump using military force to quell the protests he himself caused. It sounds like he's struggling to get that part working. He's starting the Reichstag Fire with wet kindling.

"What if he does it anyhow?"

US troops have no obligation to follow illegal orders, and are in fact encouraged to disobey them. As of now, Trump ordering troops into cities to quell nonexistent riots is illegal. If he orders is, the military could just flat-out refuse. Based on the silence from Trump addressing the generals (the one where he called them all fat and lazy, then got McDonalds and went golfing) that may yet happen.

- - - Updated - - -

Because he was pressed on what Walmart put out there as their Thanksgiving dinner and how Trump's version of it are 2 different things(yes, Walmart's dinner is cheaper than last year BUT there is now less going into it) and he cannot handle being contradicted with the truth along with the fact that the US public are paying more for groceries due to his tariffs.

For anyone looking for the details, I spelled them out and linked them in this post. It is cheaper, it is less, calling it out as a lie by Trump remains the correct call.

- - - Updated - - -

The NYTimes reports that Team Trump made a blunder in court.

"You have to be way the hell more specific."

The SCOTUS tariff case.

There is a history of courts ignoring what is said in public vs. what is said under oath. The mantra "it is not a crime to lie to the American people" comes to mind. It's deplorable that Trump can routinely lie, lie, mislead, lie, and make shit up, and even make policy based on those lies, and nothing happens.

But.

One of Trump's lawyers entered Trump quotes as evidence.

“One year ago,” the brief said, quoting Mr. Trump, “the United States was a dead country, and now, because of the trillions of dollars being paid by countries that have so badly abused us, America is a strong, financially viable and respected country.”

The brief added, again quoting Mr. Trump, that “the economic consequences would be ruinous” were the court to require the administration to unwind its tariffs deals.

This means the rest are fair game. And this is where Obama steps in.

"As a lawyer?"

No. Obama publicly said the ACA was not a tax, the courts ruled it was, because it raised revenue for the American government. Well, the tariffs are doing that, and Trump is bragging about that several times a week in public on purpose. And SCOTUS knows this.

“It’s been suggested that the tariffs are responsible for significant reduction in our deficit,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said. “I would say that’s raising revenue domestically.”

Solicitor General Sauer responded: “There certainly is incidental and collateral effect of the tariffs that they do raise revenue, but it’s very important that they are regulatory tariffs, not revenue-raising tariffs.”

While, yes, the overall opinion seems to be "SCOTUS will let Trump do whatever he wants and find a justification later" the fact that Roberts called it out is telling. Roberts was part of the ACA case as well, you can find his opinion here.

And I don't think anyone believes that...how did he put it?

So, according to Trump, the US is bringing in "hundreds of trillions of dollars". Not hundreds of billions or even in the low trillions. Hundreds of trillions of dollars.

Thanks. I don't think that anyone believes "hundreds of trillions" is incidental. Trump has repeatedly, in public, on purpose, said how much tariffs were helping America. Yes, he's lying, he's lying by multiple orders of magnitude. But with all the things he said they could pay for, this walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. SCOTUS has every right to remain consistent with its own opinion and grab a shotgun.

[Gorsameth]

Well Trump is right about one thing, the economic consequences of declaring the tariffs as illegal would be ruinous.

Companies staring lawsuits demanding a reimbursement for the 100+ billion they illegally had to pay would put somewhat of a dent in the government budget...

[Breccia]

Uhhh Thoughts and prayers. And maybe a metaphor for the US economy.

It's the portrait of his tenure, as this full-length video goes into detail. Specifically, Trump illegally cutting SNAP punctuated by ignoring someone physically in need six feet away.

He looked and then turned away. And then Donald Trump, a person without a single sympathetic instinct, stood staring straight ahead, as if pretending that whatever suffering the man behind him was experiencing wasn’t happening.

A portrait of Donald Trump standing mindlessly staring, head straight ahead, wondering when he will next get to play golf, maybe, while a man’s feet are in the air behind him, being picked up by other people who have the capacity to care about another human being in distress.

- - - Updated - - -

Well Trump is right about one thing, the economic consequences of declaring the tariffs as illegal would be ruinous.

Companies staring lawsuits demanding a reimbursement for the 100+ billion they illegally had to pay would put somewhat of a dent in the government budget...

I mentioned this before, it bears repeating: someone saying "I would be ruined if I had to return the money I stole" is not a reason to let them keep the money they stole. At best, it's a guilty plea for a reduced sentence.

Also, just a reminder: technically, these tariffs aren't in the budget. They were never voted on. They were never approved. Their designated recipients are not specified. You cannot make a budget based on random tariffs applied and removed at the whim of a senile retard. If the budget is in trouble without tariffs, that's on the GOP for passing a budget and getting Trump to sign it that was in trouble, but that's not the tariff's fault.

[alach]

For a man so utterly obsessed with his image, I feel a certain satisfaction knowing this one is going to be around awhile and really going to bite him in the ass.
There is also that clip from a few seconds earlier where he was just staring at the collapsed mam really weirdly.

[Breccia]

There is also that clip from a few seconds earlier where he was just staring at the collapsed mam really weirdly.

The term you are looking for is "sociopath". You probably knew that, but I'd rather be sure and help than risk you be in trouble and not do anything,

(grins)

[alach]

The term you are looking for is "sociopath". You probably knew that, but I'd rather be sure and help than risk you be in trouble and not do anything,

(grins)

Yep, that would it, that's America's president, cheers!

[Breccia]

Trump claims Democrats aren't doing their jobs while literally on the golf course.

I believe I have the quote here:

While our wonderful president was out playing golf all day, the TSA is falling apart, just like our government! Airports a total disaster!

Wait, no, that's from 2016. Hold on.

If I win I may never see my property – I may never see these places again. But because I’m going to be working for you, I’m not going to have time to go golfing, believe me. Believe me. Believe me, folks.

Wait, no, that's also from 2016. Hold on, it's here somewhere I swear.

Donald Trump has golfed 70 days out of 293 days since returning to office (23.9% of the presidency spent golfing)

Silly me, that's the Trump golf tracker. Right under where it says "Until further notice, golf days will not be updated unless a confirmed sighting of Trump on the golf course occurs. The Trump administration is actively narrrative crafting information to hide Trump's declining health including his published schedule to discourage media questions." meaning that percent could be even higher.

"But you just said he was golfing today!"

No, I said he was on the golf course, he posted from inside a car. The WH confirmed he's at his own golf course. Now, I implied he was golfing and I suspect he was relaxing in some way. But let's say he's just hanging out, in the gold course he owns, hiding from his job and the press. Does the lack of swinging a metal stick at a small plastic-wrapped sphere change anything? It would have been just as lack of self aware if he was in a bar pounding whiskey or playing Battlefield 6. And of course, "Democrats should help people!" is a highly, well, sociopathic thing to say while hiding at a multimillion resort while you illegally withhold food so he can legally withhold medical care.

I'm starting to legit wonder if "Trump raped children" is worth using anymore. He's murdering people then teeing off.

- - - Updated - - -

Team Trump declares, under oath, on purpose, that paying SNAP benefits will harm the country more than it will help starving people.

There is a paragraph on page 22 of the Trump administration's appeal of a federal judge's requirement that it make full November SNAP payments that has to be seen to be believed.

The opening sentence asserts that "the district court's order threatens significant and irreparable harm to the government which outweighs any claimed injury to plaintiffs."

In a 40-page filing to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, the administration insisted that being forced to spend money Congress has already appropriated is a graver injury than the hunger and disruption that would follow from withholding it. Friday night, the administration filed a nearly identical emergency stay request with the Supreme Court, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a temporary pause that will remain in effect until the circuit court issues a judgment on the matter.

As a reminder, Trump is fighting spending funds he is required by law to spend helping hungry people. And he is saying that the government, helping hungry people, as law demands, hurts the government.

"Surely this is because the government is shut down and funds are tight."

That's why there's a reserve, so fuck that argument up the flabby orange ass.

I'll remind everyone that the most obvious "claimed injury" for a starving person denied food, is starving to death. Past that, any state required to spend their own money because Trump refused to pay that which he's required to by law, is just apples-to-apples money and therefore the argument is moot anyhow.

But Trump is claiming, under oath mind you, that the government is hurt by feeding starving people. Let this never be forgotten.

[postman1782]

I stopped after the first 3 or 4 lines when I read the 5 LTO6 tapes.

Those are 2.5TB uncompressed or 6.25TB compressed tapes.

I had no idea what those were, but the computers and tablets piqued my interest.

- - - Updated - - -

It's the portrait of his tenure, as this full-length video goes into detail. Specifically, Trump illegally cutting SNAP punctuated by ignoring someone physically in need six feet away.



- - - Updated - - -



I mentioned this before, it bears repeating: someone saying "I would be ruined if I had to return the money I stole" is not a reason to let them keep the money they stole. At best, it's a guilty plea for a reduced sentence.

Also, just a reminder: technically, these tariffs aren't in the budget. They were never voted on. They were never approved. Their designated recipients are not specified. You cannot make a budget based on random tariffs applied and removed at the whim of a senile retard. If the budget is in trouble without tariffs, that's on the GOP for passing a budget and getting Trump to sign it that was in trouble, but that's not the tariff's fault.

Don't forget the picture of him literally sleeping.