UPDATE: Donald Trump Takes Office as the 47th US President
- Thread starter DC_Dude
- Start date
^^^
I think the surprise is how now its BLATANT at f**k?
I know there is a group of people who seem to like there racism raw and uncut?
But this is NOT the solution.
Its going UNCHECKED and being normalized and made acceptable by EVERYONE.
how EXACTLY is that supposed to HELP US in the long run?
I heard some callers call in and speak about these types of tactics on the radio, they mentioned that some CACs would be in line and would act like they got sick of waiting and leave once they got close to the front....and then would get back in line again. it seemed odd
These must be the new voter suppression tactics or a way to force people to give up
or use the drop boxes so they can torch them later
Stupid Mexican white. Should have let her wear it and get stomped out
Ok, my bad...
The billionaire-media complex
Judd Legum
Oct 28
Owner Jeff Bezos spreads his hands after a ceremonial ribbon cutting during dedication ceremonies for the new Washington Post offices on January, 28, 2016 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Jeff Bezos is the second-richest person in the world, with a net worth of approximately $211 billion. Most of Bezos' wealth is derived from his 9% stake in Amazon, the company he founded. Bezos also founded and owns Blue Origin, a private space exploration company worth billions.
Bezos also owns the Washington Post, which he purchased in 2013 for $250 million in cash. Is Bezos now making decisions at the Washington Post to protect and enhance the value of his other enterprises? Many current and former employees of the Washington Post believe so.
The business interests of Amazon and Blue Origin — and, therefore, Bezos — are inextricably linked to the federal government. Consider:
In 2021, Amazon was awarded a $10 billion cloud-computing contract with the National Security Agency. It also has a portion of a $9 billion cloud-computing contract inked in 2022 with the Department of Defense and a multi-billion dollar cloud-computing contract with the CIA.
In 2023, the Federal Trade Commission sued Amazon, alleging "the online retail and technology company is a monopolist that uses a set of interlocking anticompetitive and unfair strategies to illegally maintain its monopoly power." The lawsuit seeks "a permanent injunction in federal court that would prohibit Amazon from engaging in its unlawful conduct and pry loose Amazon’s monopolistic control to restore competition."
In May 2023, Blue Origin was awarded a $3.4 billion contract to build a lunar lander for NASA. Between 2025 and 2029, the company is expected to compete for $5.6 billion in space launch contracts for the Pentagon.
The Washington Post, unlike Amazon and Blue Origin, has been a money loser for Bezos, reportedly running a deficit of $100 million last year. More importantly, Bezos believes that former President Trump's hostility toward the Washington Post, which produced critical coverage of Trump's presidency, cost his companies billions in government contracts. In 2019, Amazon sued the federal government for awarding a $10 billion cloud-computing contract to Microsoft, alleging that Amazon lost out on the contract based on Bezos' ownership of the Washington Post:
President Trump has made no secret of his personal dislike for Mr. Bezos, Amazon, and the Washington Post, or of his express desire to harm them. The seeds of this animus originate with the Washington Post's coverage of him before he even was elected President. That coverage placed Mr. Bezos, Amazon, and the Washington Post directly in the crosshairs of President Trump's wrath.
…After he assumed office, President Trump grew "obsessed" with Mr. Bezos and determined to "f'*** with him." His new powers expanded his ability to punish Mr. Bezos for the Washington Post's coverage of him
…President Trump has frequently referred to the "Amazon Washington Post" as a single entity, and he has frequently hurled invective against Amazon whenever the Washington Post publishes articles that he believes slight him or his Administration. President Trump has also repeatedly claimed the Washington Post is selling "fake news," and he has called it an "[e]nemy of the [p]eople[.]"
In a few months, it is possible that Trump will be president again. This time, Bezos faces an even more acute threat to his business interests. Elon Musk, who owns Blue Origin's chief rival SpaceX, has aligned himself closely with Trump, spending tens of millions in support of Trump's campaign and making appearances in swing states on Trump's behalf.
On Friday, days before the election, Washington Post publisher William Lewis — installed by Bezos earlier this year — announced that "the Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election." The announcement, less than 2 weeks before Election Day, was a break from decades of precedent. Bezos made the decision, according to the New York Times, after the Washington Post "editorial board had already drafted an endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris."
Marty Baron, the former Executive Editor of the Washington Post, slammed Bezos' decision as "cowardice" and linked it to Bezos' desire to appease Trump. Baron said it would backfire, and Trump would "see this as an invitation to further intimidate owner [Bezos]."
Hours after Lewis published the announcement, Trump was seen meeting with Blue Origin CEO David Limp. Steven Cheung, the Trump campaign's chief spokesman, embraced the suggestion that the meeting and the announcement of the non-endorsement were linked.
Robert Kagan, who worked at the Washington Post for two decades and resigned immediately following Lewis' announcement, said the meeting was evidence of a quid pro quo. “Trump waited to make sure that Bezos did what he said he was going to do, and then met with the Blue Origin people,” Kagan told The Daily Beast. “Which tells us that there was an actual deal made, meaning that Bezos communicated, or through his people, communicated directly with Trump, and they set up this quid pro quo.”
According to CNN, "Amazon CEO Andy Jassy also recently reached out to check in" with Trump.
The apparent capitulation to Trump illustrates the danger of billionaires scooping up major media organizations as a side hustle. For nearly everyone, the price Bezos paid for the Washington Post is an unfathomable amount of money. For Bezos, it's less than half the $575 million he paid for his new 417-foot superyacht, Koru, and its 246-foot support yacht, Abeona, which has a helipad, accommodations for staff, and storage for smaller boats and jet skis.
Bezos did not get to the point where he could afford such yachts through his dedication to journalistic integrity. He became the second-wealthiest person in the world by prioritizing the bottom line. And it appears that continues to be his priority.
The Washington Post's incoherent defense
Lewis claims that the decision not to endorse a presidential candidate was based on principle. Specifically, Lewis says the decision was guided by the belief that the Washington Post's mission "is to provide through the newsroom nonpartisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds."
Lewis doesn't explain why, if that was the case, the Washington Post editorial board endorsed candidates for U.S. Senate and House earlier this month. If it is about the principle that readers should "make up their own minds," why does that principle only apply to presidential candidates?
Further, Lewis tried to insulate Bezos from the fallout. The Washington Post reported that the "decision to no longer publish presidential endorsements was made by The Post’s owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, according to four people who were briefed on the decision."
Lewis attempted to undermine his own paper's reporting, claiming that "[r]eporting around the role of The Washington Post owner and the decision not to publish a presidential endorsement has been inaccurate." But Lewis did not directly dispute that it was Bezos' decision. Instead, he said only that Bezos "was not sent, did not read and did not opine on any draft" — a claim that no one actually made.
Washington Post staff was not buying it. 17 members of the paper's opinion staff signed onto a statement calling the decision not to endorse a "terrible mistake." The Washington Post Guild, the union that represents the paper's reporters, said in a statement that the decision "undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers’ trust, not losing it." Legendary Washington Post journalists Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward called the decision "surprising and disappointing, especially this late in the electoral process."
One could legitimately conclude that newspaper endorsements have outlived their usefulness. It is the timing and context of the Washington Post's change that is raising alarm bells.
The billionaire owner of the LA Times
Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owner of the LA Times, also abruptly demanded his publication stay neutral in the presidential election. Soon-Shiong bought the paper for $500 million in 2018.
Soon-Shiong is a healthcare and biotech entrepreneur whose companies rely on the federal government. His companies regularly seek FDA approval for new drugs, vaccines and therapies and federal funding for research.
The editorial board had planned to endorse Kamala Harris and publish a series of columns tentatively titled "The Case Against Trump." But in a post on X, Soon-Shiong said he offered the LA Times editorial board "the opportunity to draft a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate during their tenures at the White House, and how these policies affected the nation." Soon-Shiong said that "nstead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision."
Soon-Shiong did not explain why he did not demand a similar approach for U.S. House and Senate races, state ballot initiatives, and many other contests facing California voters. Beginning in September, the LA Times has endorsed in dozens of races up and down the ballot.
In response to the spiking of the presidential endorsement, 200 LA Times staff members signed an open letter calling on Soon-Shiong to "provide readers with an explanation for not issuing an endorsement, along with clarity about the broader endorsement process."
Three members of the paper's editorial board have resigned. "I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent," Mariel Garza, the LA Times editorials editor, said. "In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up."
The alarming new power Trump will claim in a second term
Judd Legum
Jul 9
Donald Trump says that if he returns to the White House in 2025, he will have the power to effectively cancel any federal program — or even an entire agency — by refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress.
Trump made the extraordinary announcement on the policy section of his presidential campaign website, Agenda47. In a video, Trump says that the president has "the Constitutional power to stop unnecessary spending through what is known as Impoundment."
According to Trump, if Congress appropriates money that he decides is unnecessary, he has the authority to "refuse to waste the extra funds." This is known as "impoundment."
The last president to claim the authority to impound Congressionally-appropriated funds was former President Richard Nixon. In the 1970s, Nixon unilaterally canceled billions in spending "for highways, water pollution, environmental assistance, drug rehabilitation, public housing, and disaster relief." Nixon's impoundment of Congressionally-appropriated funds was challenged frequently — and often successfully — in court.
But, to remove any doubt, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which prohibits the president from impounding funds without Congressional approval. The Impoundment Control Act is consistent with the Justice Department’s views of presidential impoundment under Nixon and former President Ronald Reagan. In 1969, then-Assistant Attorney General (and future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) William Rehnquist wrote that "the suggestion that the President has a constitutional power to decline to spend appropriated funds" is "supported by neither reason nor precedent." In 1988, then-Assistant Attorney General Charles Cooper declared that "[t]here is no textual source in the Constitution for any inherent authority to impound." Cooper noted the president is obligated to "faithfully execute" the law, not ignore it.
Trump, however, has decided that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional and has pledged to challenge it in court. Trump says he will use his self-proclaimed impoundment authority on "Day One" and order "federal agencies to identify portions of their budgets where massive savings are possible through the Impoundment Power." Trump says he will use impeachment to "crush the Deep State."
In his statement, Trump claims that "[l]eading constitutional scholars agree that impoundment is an inherent power of the president." None of those scholars are named.
The implications of Trump's claimed authority are enormous. For example, Trump has said he wants to "abolish the Department of Education." It would be extremely difficult to get Congress, even if it were under full Republican control, to approve such a deeply unpopular plan. Now, Trump is claiming the power to eliminate the Department of Education unilaterally by cutting off its funding.
Trump is also reportedly considering using impoundment to eliminate "green energy subsidies approved by President Biden as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and funding for the World Health Organization."
How Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act in his first term
In 2019, the Trump administration withheld "$214 million appropriated to DOD for security assistance to Ukraine." Trump was impeached for this decision after it was revealed that the delay in distributing funds was part of an effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his family.
In 2020, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act by withholding the appropriate funds. "Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law," the GAO said.
The Project 2025 connection
Reviving presidential impoundment is a priority of Russ Vought, Trump's director of the Office of Management and Budget. The day before Trump left office, Vought wrote a letter to Congress claiming the Impoundment Control Act "is an albatross around a President's neck, disincentivizing the prudent stewardship of taxpayer money and inviting detractors in Congress to second-guess complex program implementation decisions."
Vought is a key author of Project 2025, the radical blueprint for a second Trump administration. He wrote Project 2025's chapter on the Executive Office of the President of the United States. Vought is also spearheading Project 2025's 180-day "playbook" for Trump — a document that will not be released publicly. If Trump wins another term, Vought is considered a top candidate to be the next White House Chief of Staff.
A self-described Christian nationalist, Vought currently leads the Center for Renewing America (CRA). On June 24, CRA produced a lengthy white paper promoting impoundment. The paper claims that laws passed by Congress create "a ceiling on Executive spending, not a floor" and that Congress cannot "compel the President to expend the full amount of an appropriation."
Vought favors circumventing Congress to impose a far-right ideological agenda. "What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them," Vought told the New York Times.
Vought says that Trump is being open about his plans for impoundment and other unilateral executive actions "to later be able to claim a mandate." But, even though Trump first announced his views on impoundment a year ago, it's unlikely many voters know about the issue or its implications. The issue has received scant coverage in major media outlets.
Judd Legum
Jul 9
Donald Trump says that if he returns to the White House in 2025, he will have the power to effectively cancel any federal program — or even an entire agency — by refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress.
Trump made the extraordinary announcement on the policy section of his presidential campaign website, Agenda47. In a video, Trump says that the president has "the Constitutional power to stop unnecessary spending through what is known as Impoundment."
According to Trump, if Congress appropriates money that he decides is unnecessary, he has the authority to "refuse to waste the extra funds." This is known as "impoundment."
The last president to claim the authority to impound Congressionally-appropriated funds was former President Richard Nixon. In the 1970s, Nixon unilaterally canceled billions in spending "for highways, water pollution, environmental assistance, drug rehabilitation, public housing, and disaster relief." Nixon's impoundment of Congressionally-appropriated funds was challenged frequently — and often successfully — in court.
But, to remove any doubt, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which prohibits the president from impounding funds without Congressional approval. The Impoundment Control Act is consistent with the Justice Department’s views of presidential impoundment under Nixon and former President Ronald Reagan. In 1969, then-Assistant Attorney General (and future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) William Rehnquist wrote that "the suggestion that the President has a constitutional power to decline to spend appropriated funds" is "supported by neither reason nor precedent." In 1988, then-Assistant Attorney General Charles Cooper declared that "[t]here is no textual source in the Constitution for any inherent authority to impound." Cooper noted the president is obligated to "faithfully execute" the law, not ignore it.
Trump, however, has decided that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional and has pledged to challenge it in court. Trump says he will use his self-proclaimed impoundment authority on "Day One" and order "federal agencies to identify portions of their budgets where massive savings are possible through the Impoundment Power." Trump says he will use impeachment to "crush the Deep State."
In his statement, Trump claims that "[l]eading constitutional scholars agree that impoundment is an inherent power of the president." None of those scholars are named.
The implications of Trump's claimed authority are enormous. For example, Trump has said he wants to "abolish the Department of Education." It would be extremely difficult to get Congress, even if it were under full Republican control, to approve such a deeply unpopular plan. Now, Trump is claiming the power to eliminate the Department of Education unilaterally by cutting off its funding.
Trump is also reportedly considering using impoundment to eliminate "green energy subsidies approved by President Biden as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and funding for the World Health Organization."
How Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act in his first term
In 2019, the Trump administration withheld "$214 million appropriated to DOD for security assistance to Ukraine." Trump was impeached for this decision after it was revealed that the delay in distributing funds was part of an effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his family.
In 2020, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act by withholding the appropriate funds. "Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law," the GAO said.
The Project 2025 connection
Reviving presidential impoundment is a priority of Russ Vought, Trump's director of the Office of Management and Budget. The day before Trump left office, Vought wrote a letter to Congress claiming the Impoundment Control Act "is an albatross around a President's neck, disincentivizing the prudent stewardship of taxpayer money and inviting detractors in Congress to second-guess complex program implementation decisions."
Vought is a key author of Project 2025, the radical blueprint for a second Trump administration. He wrote Project 2025's chapter on the Executive Office of the President of the United States. Vought is also spearheading Project 2025's 180-day "playbook" for Trump — a document that will not be released publicly. If Trump wins another term, Vought is considered a top candidate to be the next White House Chief of Staff.
A self-described Christian nationalist, Vought currently leads the Center for Renewing America (CRA). On June 24, CRA produced a lengthy white paper promoting impoundment. The paper claims that laws passed by Congress create "a ceiling on Executive spending, not a floor" and that Congress cannot "compel the President to expend the full amount of an appropriation."
Vought favors circumventing Congress to impose a far-right ideological agenda. "What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them," Vought told the New York Times.
Vought says that Trump is being open about his plans for impoundment and other unilateral executive actions "to later be able to claim a mandate." But, even though Trump first announced his views on impoundment a year ago, it's unlikely many voters know about the issue or its implications. The issue has received scant coverage in major media outlets.
Yep, went on X not so long ago and it's nothing but right wing shit. based on my viewing and search habits there is no way the algorithm should be showing me all that maga shit.
This interesting because I stay on Twitter and all I get is: sports, VP Harris information, bad bitches, and HBCU stuff lol
I agree, my only issue is that I be trying to get the recent shit, trying to change settings so that all the new shit is at the top and old shit is at the bottom.
Have you change anything on your Twitter to make sure to get all the recent stuff first at the top?
He’s not losing Florida or Texas.
However, it will be a real surprise if GA goes blue three straight election cycles.
Outside of Atlanta isn't GA nothing but inbred rednecks?
I think it’s because I like posts related to the stuff I’m interested in which is usually sports related cause 70% of what appears on my feed is football, basketball, and baseball stuff.
I’ve blocked anything I don’t like and I guess that’s helped, but I never see MAGA. It got to the point where i was thinking damn do they even post stuff on Twitter?
You won't see MAGA on the initial post, but if you watch a video, the next video that autoplays will almost always be MAGA.
I think Savannah and Augusta are blue areas too. But ATL metro area has put them over the top the last two elections. It’s been too close though.
Thanks, I'm gonna do that, because for whatever reason, I get shit that's old that we're already posted a few days ago, or an hour ago. The recent stuff usually pop up on my Twitter later. Never understood that.
Yep. The southeast corner is fairly blue, but not fully saturated. There's more level-headed/reasonably minded people here than there are "inbred hicks" (man said that with his whole chest, I mean, damn...), but there's also plenty of red hats/signs to be had, too. Or enough, as I like to say. One is too many.
Probably isn’t even an alum.
I’ve heard some wild shit about Michigan State so I don’t know lol
Different school but still
You know, I have a strong feeling that she is going to win very easily but people keep an eye on Trump supporters because you may have to knock a few of them on their ass.