It’s Mother’s Day. You can resume your normal behavior tomorrow. Take a break. You deserve one.
The New Lounge
- Thread starter hpnole
- Start date
I'm only being honest with you. Not sure what the strange response is all about.
The awkwardness of emotional bonding between males. I blame the patriarchy.
HMD to Mrs. Ghost
If these were conservatives, they’d be household names. I’d never heard of these gals.
After Jan 6 the msm gave the definite impression that not only had the Cap Bldg never been trespassed before, but that it had certainly never been attacked before. Hmmm.
After Jan 6 the msm gave the definite impression that not only had the Cap Bldg never been trespassed before, but that it had certainly never been attacked before. Hmmm.
Well, since you brought up gender...
I had the opportunity to read this book to a class of 19 kindergarteners this past week. At the end, 14 of them decided they wanted to become trans! (The parents of the other 5 had already decided that for them.)
My understanding of a vaccine means it keeps you from getting the virus. Of course they changed the definition after Covid. I know plenty of people that got the shot and had Covid multiple times and were severely sick each time. They also said if you didn’t get the shot, you could kill your neighbor. How quickly the public forgets. They made up a bunch of BS, but continue to believe them.
The most concerning part about this is how they made the minority, the child bearing man who is portrayed as being submissive towards the dominant, white, cis male.Well, since you brought up gender...
I had the opportunity to read this book to a class of 19 kindergarteners this past week. At the end, 14 of them decided they wanted to become trans! (The parents of the other 5 had already decided that for them.)
Speaking of the Emoluments Clause, we should probably talk about the $400 million luxury jet the Qatari government’s giving to Donald Trump. The claim is that it’ll be outfitted to serve as Air Force One during his second term, and then later transferred to his presidential foundation once he leaves office. So a foreign government’s giving a sitting president a custom jet, and we’re all supposed to pretend that’s normal. Haha
That alone should raise red flags. The Constitution clearly says federal officials aren’t allowed to accept gifts or payments from foreign states without Congress signing off. That hasn’t happened. And Qatar isn’t just some neutral trade partner. They’ve got a long track record of financing groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, both designated terrorist organizations by the United States. Taking a gift of this scale from a regime with those ties isn’t just questionable, it’s a national security concern. Maybe Bibi bet on the wrong horse?
The legal defense? That’s coming from Pam Bondi, now serving as the U.S. Attorney General. What people don’t often mention is she used to get paid $115,000 a month by Qatar to help clean up its image before the 2022 World Cup. She was even registered as a foreign agent on their behalf. Her job included deflecting criticism of the country’s human rights abuses and widespread use of migrant labor. So when she defends this deal, it doesn’t sound like impartial legal judgment, it sounds like more of the same paid PR.
And then there’s the bigger picture. First came the crypto scheme, which now reportedly accounts for up 40 percent of Trump’s personal wealth. Now he’s getting a jet from a foreign monarchy. At some point, you stop asking where the line is and start wondering if anyone’s even pretending to draw one.
There are also practical issues. The plane isn’t even built to serve as Air Force One. It doesn’t have the military communication systems, security upgrades, or defense capabilities that’d make it usable. Experts say even with a full retrofit, it’d take years to meet the standard. That pushes it well past any useful timeline. So despite the official framing, this looks exactly like what it is, a personal luxury jet wrapped in a diplomatic favor.
I get that monarchs sometimes exchange extravagant gifts to build loyalty and signal status. But last I checked, the United States isn’t a monarchy. So this feels… new.
Can one of the true believers explain to me how this is legal and above board?
That alone should raise red flags. The Constitution clearly says federal officials aren’t allowed to accept gifts or payments from foreign states without Congress signing off. That hasn’t happened. And Qatar isn’t just some neutral trade partner. They’ve got a long track record of financing groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, both designated terrorist organizations by the United States. Taking a gift of this scale from a regime with those ties isn’t just questionable, it’s a national security concern. Maybe Bibi bet on the wrong horse?
The legal defense? That’s coming from Pam Bondi, now serving as the U.S. Attorney General. What people don’t often mention is she used to get paid $115,000 a month by Qatar to help clean up its image before the 2022 World Cup. She was even registered as a foreign agent on their behalf. Her job included deflecting criticism of the country’s human rights abuses and widespread use of migrant labor. So when she defends this deal, it doesn’t sound like impartial legal judgment, it sounds like more of the same paid PR.
And then there’s the bigger picture. First came the crypto scheme, which now reportedly accounts for up 40 percent of Trump’s personal wealth. Now he’s getting a jet from a foreign monarchy. At some point, you stop asking where the line is and start wondering if anyone’s even pretending to draw one.
There are also practical issues. The plane isn’t even built to serve as Air Force One. It doesn’t have the military communication systems, security upgrades, or defense capabilities that’d make it usable. Experts say even with a full retrofit, it’d take years to meet the standard. That pushes it well past any useful timeline. So despite the official framing, this looks exactly like what it is, a personal luxury jet wrapped in a diplomatic favor.
I get that monarchs sometimes exchange extravagant gifts to build loyalty and signal status. But last I checked, the United States isn’t a monarchy. So this feels… new.
Can one of the true believers explain to me how this is legal and above board?
Last edited:
Raised eyebrows, for sure. Probably Russian disinformation though, like Hunter's business dealings that Joe had no knowledge of.
I wish there was equal concern. But that would be asking too much.
I wish there was equal concern. But that would be asking too much.
I thought someone might say something like that, so here’s the video of Trump himself discussing it:
Last edited:
Just watched this video of Trump. I really think you're stretching to find much wrong here. He's spot on. What would you prefer our leaders do, just keep things from us while they profit? Oh wait, that's exactly what's been going on for decades.
Don't be the kid on the playground that brought the ball but was picked last, so he got mad, took his ball and went home.
Don't be the kid on the playground that brought the ball but was picked last, so he got mad, took his ball and went home.
Last edited:
So in what way can the money that the Biden's made from foreign deals through Joe's political standings be tied to anything that would benefit the American tax payers?
“No person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States], shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” — U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9
That is the Emoluments Clause. It exists for a reason.
You are tossing out the usual whataboutism, but you have not named a single U.S. president who accepted anything close to a $400 million personal gift from a foreign government while in office.
When George Washington received symbolic gifts from France, he made sure they were publicly reported. Thomas Jefferson turned gifts over to Congress. Martin Van Buren refused horses from the Sultan of Muscat without congressional consent. Barack Obama followed protocol to the letter. Every ceremonial item he received from a foreign government went straight to the National Archives or federal custody. That is not some minor tradition. That is a consistent, bipartisan standard going back over two centuries.
The whatabout argument falls flat here because the level of money flowing directly to Trump and his family through gifts, private deals, and foreign linked projects is something we have never seen before in American politics. This is not a gray area. It is exactly the kind of scenario the Constitution was written to prevent.
Again, I would respect your concern more if it were applied equally. But you're only concerned because it's orange Hitler. At the very least, this could be seen as a benefit to the American Tax payers. Even if it mostly benefits Trump.
If Joe Biden personally profited through illegal foreign deals while in office, then show the evidence. Republicans have spent years investigating him. They controlled committees, held hearings, issued subpoenas, and no charges have been filed. Even House Oversight Chair James Comer, after months of headlines and selective leaks, has not produced hard evidence linking Joe Biden to any illegal foreign payments.
There have been at least five separate Republican-led investigations into Biden’s alleged ties to foreign business deals. Not one has led to a criminal charge. If he broke the law, he should be held accountable like anyone else. But after all that, there is still nothing to show for it. It has become nothing but a talking point for Trump supporters to use in arguments.
Meanwhile, we are looking at a sitting president accepting a $400 million jet from a foreign government with no congressional approval. There is no speculation here. A foreign regime is handing over a luxury asset that will personally benefit the president. That is exactly what the Emoluments Clause was written to prevent.
So if we are holding leaders to the same standard, one case is based on years of unproven allegations. The other involves a direct, documented gift from a foreign government to the president of the United States with no benefit to the American taxpayer. That is not hypothetical. That is a constitutional issue, happening in real time.
I thought I heard it would remain the property of the govt after President Trump leaves office. If so, I don't have a problem with it.
if it's a personal gift to our President and he intends to keep it beyond this term, it is wrong. That anyone here would fail to see that and state that unequivocally is outrageous. If another President did it, it would also be wrong.
if it's a personal gift to our President and he intends to keep it beyond this term, it is wrong. That anyone here would fail to see that and state that unequivocally is outrageous. If another President did it, it would also be wrong.
Right back at you: you jowl-wagged all term about Hunter Biden's business dealings and President Biden's alleged benefitting from them. Now a far more obvious example is presented and you're withholding concern b/c someone else didn't show the same concern for something else?
Right now, the plan is for the jet to be used during Trump’s presidency and then transferred to his presidential foundation after he leaves office. That foundation isn’t part of the federal government. It’s a private entity that Trump controls, unlike presidential libraries overseen by the National Archives.
A $400 million gift from a foreign government ending up in a privately run foundation with no federal oversight raises serious ethical and constitutional concerns.
But, I’m totally sure Trump is going to mothball the jet after his presidency and never use it again.
On the first part, we all know he did, but sadly, nothing ever comes of these things. It's a web of deceit, lies, manipulation... that goes on up there. Again, the system is rigged. For an educated guy, you're not showing much intelligence here.
The second part? Can't disagree with you. But, that's also a big reason Trump was reelected.
If someone breaks the law and there is real evidence, they should be held accountable, no matter their last name or political party. I believe that fully.
But that cuts both ways. If there were actual proof Joe Biden did something illegal, do you really think House Republicans would have let it go? They have had the power, the platform, and every incentive to bring charges. After years of investigations, nothing has stuck. Not one charge.
The fact that is is far more (transparent) tells me that any wrong doings involving it will be handled and exposed. The far less transparent "investigations" into the Bidens was all smoke and mirrors and had the help of the FBI to cover it up. I'm not withholding concern. I'm just not emotional about something that is so public and open that Trump is openly talking about it with the propaganda machines. I acknowledged that it is eyebrow raising. But it really means nothing to me when the people who are all up in arms over it are the same clowns who bought, muh... Russia, very fine people, quid pro quo, suckers and losers, January 6th, admired Hitler and all kinds of other examples. But refuse to even acknowledge sketchiness in the Bidens. I don't say this because he doesn't show the same concern for something else, I say it because he show no concern for something else. He just accepts the predetermined outcome of sham investigations.
So, keep crying.
Most republicans care more about keeping the uniparty together than exposing corruption on the other side. Because it leaves open the likelihood that their own corruption would be exposed. There's no way you truly believe that an actual investigation would not expose wrong doings by the Bidens. Those blanket pardons weren't for nothing.
Meanwhile, underneath all of the liberal tears trying to keep good news from hitting the top story on the evening news. Inflation is down, has decreased every month this year. Energy is down, courts just ruled that we can get rid of criminal aliens. More investments are being announced, more trade deals are being worked out and the tariffs helped increase April's budget surplus to $258billion. If you're super concerned about the markets, they've almost fully recovered to where they were at their highest and are higher than they were 1 year ago. That could all change tomorrow, and if it does, then maybe you chicken littles will talk about it again.
Bu , bu, but the shelves are gonna be empty for the holidays. The Week has predicted it.
Hard to disagree with any of this. Not only did Bondi not recuse herself from a conflict of interest your local high school’s 4H club Pres should be able to sniff out, she babbled the legal equivalent of “ nothing to see here folks”.
Several possibilities:
Option A: probably the least likely. amnesia- she’s forgotten that as recently as 2022 she was paid over 115k a month by Qatar to spread their “version of the truth”. I’d hope lying for a living would play a less significant role working for Trump than the Qataris, but the jury’s still out.
Option B: The Trump Admim clearly thinks the American people are stupid, just too dumb to care. Whataboutism ( which used effectively can point out the other side’s selective outrage) is no good on a scale of this magnitude.
Option C- whatever criticism they get from the Dems they’ll remind their voters of the Russia hoaxes, the laptops, etc.
I’ll go with Options B and C for questions I didn’t want to ask, Alex.
I was originally going to hold off on this for a couple more days, but since the new inflation numbers are already being used as proof that the economic fallout from tariffs was overblown, let’s talk about what’s actually happening.
Yes, the April CPI report showed a slight dip in inflation. The number came in at 2.3 percent for the past 12 months, just under the expected 2.4 percent. That’s good news in isolation, but it doesn’t mean the full impact of the trade war has passed. These tariffs were massive, and the economic shock they caused doesn’t show up overnight. Disruptions take time to move through supply chains. Inventory gets reordered at higher costs, contracts get renegotiated, shipping lanes adjust. Those pressures are still building.
If we’re being consistent, we also have to ask this: if a 0.1 percent beat on inflation is enough to declare victory, then does Biden get the credit? Because this number covers the last year, and most of that policy landscape was his. Or do we only hand out wins when it fits the narrative?
The U.S. and China did agree to a 90 day pause on escalating tariffs. As part of that truce, the U.S. rolled back some tariffs on specific categories of Chinese goods, lowering them from as high as 145 percent to around 30 percent. China, in turn, reduced its tariffs on select U.S. goods from 125 percent to 10 percent. This is not a comprehensive trade agreement. It’s a temporary deescalation, meant to calm markets and buy time for negotiations. No structural reforms. No long term strategy. Just a tactical pause under economic pressure.
This is being framed as strategic decoupling, but what it really looks like is a forced walk back. China didn’t cave. Their exports kept climbing, and they used targeted retaliations like rare earth restrictions to send a message. Meanwhile, our markets took a hit, businesses got squeezed, and the administration blinked. This isn’t a long term win. It’s a sign the U.S. economy wasn’t in a position to absorb this level of disruption without serious consequences.
And even with the rollback, a 30 percent tariff is still massive. That’s not some manageable fee tucked into the margins. It’s a huge cost that filters into everything from electronics to machinery to household goods. The real hit comes when businesses start restocking at new prices, not old inventory. So even if inflation feels calm today, the cost of this policy is still working its way down the line. That’s not a political prediction. That’s just how supply chains work.
About that 258 billion dollar surplus. April always shows a surplus. It’s tax season. Receipts surge as businesses and individuals file. That’s happened under every president. Tariffs may add some revenue, but they’re also a tax on consumers and businesses here. If we’re calling that a win, let’s at least be honest about what actually caused it.
We were told tariffs would pay down the deficit. We were told China would fold. Now the story is shifting again. Every time the goalposts move, we’re expected to forget the last promise.
And this fits the broader trend we’ve seen with Trump. Create a problem, fix the problem you made, then declare victory. The way this policy is built isn’t about long term resilience. It’s about chaos first, credit later.
Also, let’s cool the jets on the stock market. A quick rebound isn’t a policy endorsement. Markets chase headlines, not strategy. They’re not exactly known for long term judgment, and they’re definitely not a stand-in for a stable economy.
The new tax bill, officially titled the One Big Beautiful Bill, includes a projected 4.9 trillion dollar increase to the deficit over the next decade. That’s tough to reconcile with Trump’s promise to eliminate the deficit using tariff revenue. That was the pitch. Tariffs would fund everything. But now we’re scaling those back, and at the same time pushing a tax plan that explodes the deficit? If we’re not collecting the tariffs, how exactly do the numbers work? Haha.
Yes, the April CPI report showed a slight dip in inflation. The number came in at 2.3 percent for the past 12 months, just under the expected 2.4 percent. That’s good news in isolation, but it doesn’t mean the full impact of the trade war has passed. These tariffs were massive, and the economic shock they caused doesn’t show up overnight. Disruptions take time to move through supply chains. Inventory gets reordered at higher costs, contracts get renegotiated, shipping lanes adjust. Those pressures are still building.
If we’re being consistent, we also have to ask this: if a 0.1 percent beat on inflation is enough to declare victory, then does Biden get the credit? Because this number covers the last year, and most of that policy landscape was his. Or do we only hand out wins when it fits the narrative?
The U.S. and China did agree to a 90 day pause on escalating tariffs. As part of that truce, the U.S. rolled back some tariffs on specific categories of Chinese goods, lowering them from as high as 145 percent to around 30 percent. China, in turn, reduced its tariffs on select U.S. goods from 125 percent to 10 percent. This is not a comprehensive trade agreement. It’s a temporary deescalation, meant to calm markets and buy time for negotiations. No structural reforms. No long term strategy. Just a tactical pause under economic pressure.
This is being framed as strategic decoupling, but what it really looks like is a forced walk back. China didn’t cave. Their exports kept climbing, and they used targeted retaliations like rare earth restrictions to send a message. Meanwhile, our markets took a hit, businesses got squeezed, and the administration blinked. This isn’t a long term win. It’s a sign the U.S. economy wasn’t in a position to absorb this level of disruption without serious consequences.
And even with the rollback, a 30 percent tariff is still massive. That’s not some manageable fee tucked into the margins. It’s a huge cost that filters into everything from electronics to machinery to household goods. The real hit comes when businesses start restocking at new prices, not old inventory. So even if inflation feels calm today, the cost of this policy is still working its way down the line. That’s not a political prediction. That’s just how supply chains work.
About that 258 billion dollar surplus. April always shows a surplus. It’s tax season. Receipts surge as businesses and individuals file. That’s happened under every president. Tariffs may add some revenue, but they’re also a tax on consumers and businesses here. If we’re calling that a win, let’s at least be honest about what actually caused it.
We were told tariffs would pay down the deficit. We were told China would fold. Now the story is shifting again. Every time the goalposts move, we’re expected to forget the last promise.
And this fits the broader trend we’ve seen with Trump. Create a problem, fix the problem you made, then declare victory. The way this policy is built isn’t about long term resilience. It’s about chaos first, credit later.
Also, let’s cool the jets on the stock market. A quick rebound isn’t a policy endorsement. Markets chase headlines, not strategy. They’re not exactly known for long term judgment, and they’re definitely not a stand-in for a stable economy.
The new tax bill, officially titled the One Big Beautiful Bill, includes a projected 4.9 trillion dollar increase to the deficit over the next decade. That’s tough to reconcile with Trump’s promise to eliminate the deficit using tariff revenue. That was the pitch. Tariffs would fund everything. But now we’re scaling those back, and at the same time pushing a tax plan that explodes the deficit? If we’re not collecting the tariffs, how exactly do the numbers work? Haha.
You state the slight dip in inflation wasn’t worse because “the economic shock of the tariffs don’t show up overnight” and “disruptions to the supply chain” take time to develop. But if the numbers would have been bad, are you saying Trump wouldn’t have been blamed? Skeptical.
At one point, you even wonder if maybe Biden should get the credit? So if the numbers were bad, would you have also been so quick to question the ownership of the current numbers?
You previously blamed Trump’s economic plan, or lack thereof, on the Market tumble earlier. Now that it’s rebounded to previous levels, you give zero credit to Trump, opining that “Markets chase headlines. Not strategies”.
At one point, you even wonder if maybe Biden should get the credit? So if the numbers were bad, would you have also been so quick to question the ownership of the current numbers?
You previously blamed Trump’s economic plan, or lack thereof, on the Market tumble earlier. Now that it’s rebounded to previous levels, you give zero credit to Trump, opining that “Markets chase headlines. Not strategies”.
Things are okay right now and could be even better. Or things are okay right now but could get worse. Let's just hope for the worst.
I said the tariffs helped increase the surplus. By 23% from last year. And this guy is like, well, yeah. But there's always an increase in April. Yes but the tariffs helped increase the amount.
Like the American hostage hamas released. Yeah, but Trump didn't release him, himself. Such negative people.
Like the American hostage hamas released. Yeah, but Trump didn't release him, himself. Such negative people.
To say Trump creates a problem, fixes it, then declares victory has to be one of the most asinine comments made here.
We had major problems before he got into politics. The man who’s only been in politics since 2016, and you say this?
Ol @Th0r is like a girl you start dating. You think you have a good one at first, but over time you learn she’s as loony as the rest of them.
We had major problems before he got into politics. The man who’s only been in politics since 2016, and you say this?
Ol @Th0r is like a girl you start dating. You think you have a good one at first, but over time you learn she’s as loony as the rest of them.
Last edited:
If inflation had come in higher, I still wouldn’t have blamed Trump, just like I’m not jumping to give him credit now. I’m not rooting for things to go badly. I’m just trying to keep the conversation grounded in reality. The tariffs caused a real shock to the system, and they were rolled out without much of a plan to deal with the impact. Calling that out isn’t negativity. It’s just basic accountability.
I’ll throw you a bone though. I actually liked Trump’s executive order on prescription drug prices. It will probably get struck down in court, but if Congress passed it into law as is, it could genuinely help a lot of people. And, it’s long overdue. It’s not fair that Americans pay more for the exact same drugs than people in other developed countries. That’s the kind of policy move that deserves real support.
I’ll throw you a bone though. I actually liked Trump’s executive order on prescription drug prices. It will probably get struck down in court, but if Congress passed it into law as is, it could genuinely help a lot of people. And, it’s long overdue. It’s not fair that Americans pay more for the exact same drugs than people in other developed countries. That’s the kind of policy move that deserves real support.
Last edited: