Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[gondrin]

I hereby rename the Board of Peace to the Bored of Peace. Because that is what Trump seems like he is. Bored of peace with as much antagonism he puts out there daily.

[zorkuus]

He literally sounds like a child.

It's like sending a breakup message to your ex who already broke up with you. This dude isn't alright in the head.

[Joszef Kiprich]

If I may suggest a city for the first meeting: The Hague.
Some members can get a permanent seat over there.

[zorkuus]

Embrace the penguin.



The White House posted this.

[Ghostile]

The White House posted this.

Being totally unaware of where penguins live is in line with the current white house.

[alach]

Embrace the penguin.



The White House posted this.

To me it says, trumps spirit animal, the penguin, is leading him off into the ever lasting sunset of life. Or the icy doom of Northrend.
It gives me hope.

[Breccia]

Trump threatens Canada with 100% tariffs over its new trade deal with China

Remember, Trump is using tariffs under the pretense of National Security Lol. Trump is saying that Canada, trading with China, is a threat to the United States.

Um, we trade with China.

Simply put, Trump is trying to force everyone to do business with us, and only us. There is only one reaction to this: everyone needs to cut us off. Choke us out. Remind us that there's 97% of the world that isn't the USA.

[Captain N]

There may not be penguins in Greenland...but there are polar bears.



Just sayin'

[btlcryct]

There may not be penguins in Greenland...but there are polar bears.



Just sayin'

That's just cruel. For the bears, you're going to give them clogged arteries from eating him.

[En Sabah Nur]

Now do it for the other countries, too.

[Edge-]

Now do it for the other countries, too.

this fuckin dipshit retard, man

[Nightmare Queen]

There may not be penguins in Greenland...but there are polar bears.



Just sayin'

Remember Snowpeircer's ending? Yeah.

[Breccia]

Trump admits you're not getting $2,000 rebate check.

Yes yes, everyone knew it was the fantastical ravings of an unsound mind. The fact that Trump admitted it is also pretty unusual.

Trump has said he believes his administration can issue $2,000 “dividend” rebate checks funded by tariff revenue without needing congressional approval.

“I don't think we would have to go to Congress now, but, you know, we'll find out,” Trump said at a press conference on Tuesday, when a reporter asked about White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett saying the payments would “depend on what happens with Congress.”

"That's not an admission!"

Yes it is. The fact that he's flat-out saying he'll ask Congress is him setting them up to take the fall, when of course, he's the one who created this fantasy money out of thin air.

As a reminder, $2,000 to 80 million Americans would be, yes I know you can all do the math but still, $160,000,000,000 which, yes, is less than the reported 2025 tariff income. But as a reminder, Trump said that tariff income was going to a bunch of other places. He was never going to pay that. And Team Trump knows it.

Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, said in December that any checks would require a proposal to Congress and would ultimately depend on appropriations, emphasizing Congress’ power of the purse.

"I would expect that in the new year, the president will bring forth a proposal to Congress to make that happen," he told CBS News’ Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.

Hassett said in his interview with CBS News that the payments may not come exclusively from tariff revenue.

“It could come from tariff revenue, but in the end, you know, we get taxes, we get tariffs, we get revenue from lots of places, and then Congress decides how to spend those monies,” he said. “That's an appropriation. And so this would have to be money that would be an appropriation.”

Incidentally, this same Hassett in an ABC News interview said, no, there was no plans to spend the tariff money this way. You should read that transcript. Hassett gets owned and it's humiliating. They call out the WalMart Thanksgiving thing as objectively false.

And everyone else knows it, too.

An analysis by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that the idea could carry a price tag of about $600 billion, while increasing deficits by "$6 trillion over 10 years." Meanwhile, the Tax Foundation's Erica York previously told Newsweek this "would cost in the order of $300 billion or more."

And Congress seems unlikely to pay.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget published an analysis the following day, stating that there would not be enough tariff revenue to support the idea.

"With our national debt quickly approaching an all-time high and annual budget deficits approaching $2 trillion per year, it is imperative that policymakers focus on actually reducing deficits and putting debt on a downward path," the committee wrote.

"We're facing a deficit this year around $2 trillion," Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, told reporters. "I think whatever revenue we get, from whatever source, ought to go to try and bring down those deficits."

"I mean, everybody's got their own idea," said Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona. "I would prefer we reduce the overall tax rate, and make that permanent."

"You know, my focus would clearly be paying down the $38 trillion of the debt," said Sen. Rick Scott of Florida. "But I have to see what he proposes."

"I think we should pay down the deficit," Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio told Business Insider.

Again, the goal is to promise this magical money out of thin air, mean ol' Congress to say "no, this doesn't exist" and for Trump to shrug while The Price Is Right Sad Trombone plays.

Let me make this clear: Trump, according to Trump, could have done this already. He had $160 billion in September that was not in the federal budget and therefore could be spent wherever. He didn't. It's late January.

"There could be another reason."

You again!

"Trump's administration surely knows the Supreme Court is not looking favorably on his use of the tariffs. Not only is the delay in a ruling itself pointing in that direction, but the only cited quotes coming out of the Supreme Courtroom are critical. If Trump tries to send out those checks, and the ruling comes back that he has to return the tariff money, Trump would be forced to ask Congress for more money, which in turn, would be an open public statement of lack of faith in the federal government's coffers. That lack of faith would further push countries already looking to divest to instead dump. Or, worse, the checks could bounce. Very little would drive a confirmed Trump voter away from supporting him then the rebate check being worthless."

"It could also be destructive for Trump's own agenda. Handing everyone a check, especially at a time when everyone's expenses have risen for more than the check is worth, will not lead to saving. It will lead to spending, which in turn, will lead to inflation. Powell will not just stop lowering the rates, but might raise them, pointing to objective evidence and saying, correctly, the Fed has no choice."

If that sounds familiar, it should.

But the bottom line is, if you want to control inflation, you got to not spend like a drunken sailor. We're -- if you want the macroeconomics of it, we're reducing the deficit this year.

Hassett said that, in the same ABC News interview. I did say you should read it.

All of this led to Trump punting.

Trump's proposed timeline for the tariff checks has also shifted. In November, he floated mid-2026 for the checks. But in an interview with the New York Times in January, he said it could come "toward the end of the year."

Pushing it back has the obvious merits, namely continuing to promise what you know you'll never provide. It also gives SCOTUS a chance to be the Bad Cop by saying "No, these tariffs were illegal" and Trump can pretend he's Good Cop by saying "hey America, I tried" while everyone reasonable remembers Trump never pays anyone what he promises. And it means if he can somehow squeak out even a partial victory, it happens in 2026, where he hopes giving people $500 of the $5,000 he stole from them in two years is enough to stop a blue wave. Considering the attention span of his own voters, that timing has to be very tight, plus a lot of them will have gone broke or been fired by them. Not even a Trump supporter will take $500 in exchange for being unemployed and homeless.

The bottom line is, even Trump knows Trump isn't signing those checks. He's too busy raping children.

[Mayhem]

As a reminder, $2,000 to 80 million Americans would be, yes I know you can all do the math but still, $160,000,000,000 which, yes, is less than the reported 2025 tariff income.

And here I thought more than 80 million Americans were living in the US.

[Breccia]

And here I thought more than 80 million Americans were living in the US.

It keeps getting cited as the number of taxpaying households.

[Mayhem]

It keeps getting cited as the number of taxpaying households.

Ooooh, so it's $2000 per household, not per taxpaying American, huh, I didn't catch Trump saying that, like at all.

[Breccia]

FOX News and the Chamber of Commerce report *ding* that small businesses paid $200 billion in tariffs in 2025.

[Dontrike]

So for some god forsaken reason not only did Melania's movie cost $40 MILLION to make, but for some forsaken god reason its marketing budget is $35 MILLION. What's even more idiotic is that $35M is the MINIMUM. On top of all of that is there are now less theaters willing to carry it. Almost like this is grifting Trump some money or something. AND at the Kennedy Center? They're really trying their damnedest to make that place lose money and audiences.

The upcoming Melania Trump documentary already had reports of potentially performing poorly at the box office, and a new report suggests that Amazon MGM Studios’ marketing budget for the film has reached shocking levels.

According to a new report from Puck’s Matthew Belloni, the movie (which Amazon MGM Studios paid $40 million for) is getting a surprisingly high marketing budget for its push. Belloni notes that Mike Hopkins, Amazon’s top content executive, has approved of at least $35 million to go to the P&A spending on the movie (the total cost comprised of marketing and releasing the movie in theaters).

The number is fairly high, especially for a documentary film. To compare, Belloni noted that Amazon spent “far less” on P&A costs for Taylor Swift’s concert documentary, a movie that almost certainly had significantly more popularity behind it. However, Belloni notes that the cost put behind the Melania movie may have more to do with the company’s relationship with President Donald Trump, mentioning that Amazon paying $40 million for the film was “widely perceived as a barely veiled payoff” to keep him happy.

Outside of its marketing budget, Melania seems to be having some trouble garnering any potential profit at the box office. According to recent reports, the film has faced fairly small ticket turnout. The social media account EmpireCity Box Office also chimed in on Belloni’s report, noting that “almost nobody wants to play” the movie, and that the theatrical release cotninues to shrink.

Melania is set to have its premiere on January 30, 2026, and will premiere at the Kennedy Center before having a theatrical release. The film will also be streaming on Prime Video following its release as well, although no official streaming release has been set for the movie.

“Melania offers unprecedented access to the 20 days leading up to the 2025 Presidential Inauguration — through the eyes of the First Lady herself,” the official synopsis reads. “Step inside Melania Trump’s world as she orchestrates inauguration plans, navigates the complexities of the White House transition, and moves her family back to the Nation’s Capital.”

Melania is directed by Brett Ratner, a controversial director who was accused of sexual assault years ago. Melania is Ratner’s first directed movie since 2014’s Hercules.

[Teriz]

So for some god forsaken reason not only did Melania's movie cost $40 MILLION to make, but for some forsaken god reason its marketing budget is $35 MILLION. What's even more idiotic is that $35M is the MINIMUM. On top of all of that is there are now less theaters willing to carry it. Almost like this is grifting Trump some money or something. AND at the Kennedy Center? They're really trying their damnedest to make that place lose money and audiences.

I saw a trailer for that, and it just looked so vapid and out of touch with reality. I simply had to ask "Who is this for?" It's like some wine mom who videos herself and thinks anyone else gives a shit.

[DarkTZeratul]

So for some god forsaken reason not only did Melania's movie cost $40 MILLION to make, but for some forsaken god reason its marketing budget is $35 MILLION. What's even more idiotic is that $35M is the MINIMUM. On top of all of that is there are now less theaters willing to carry it. Almost like this is grifting Trump some money or something. AND at the Kennedy Center? They're really trying their damnedest to make that place lose money and audiences.

Honestly, it's generally assumed that most movies have a marketing budget roughly equal to the cost of the movie itself.

- - - Updated - - -

I saw a trailer for that, and it just looked so vapid and out of touch with reality. I simply had to ask "Who is this for?" It's like some wine mom who videos herself and thinks anyone else gives a shit.

On the other hand, so much this.