BREAKING: Dr. Oz looked at President Trump’s records and said he has the highest testosterone he has seen for someone over 70, per RFK Jr.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 14, 2026

nein51 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

nein51 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Q: "Would you pull the U.S. out of NATO?"

Trump: "Maybe. NATO would be upset if I did it…I just wonder whether or not if we needed NATO, would they be there for us? I'm not sure they would."
pic.twitter.com/O6Pliq37eD

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) January 12, 2026

---

NATO should have been disbanded 30 years ago.
US troops should have been removed from South Korea 20 years ago.

US strategic interests should be focused on central and South America.

---

There are 0 military threats to our South. We could take all of South and Central America in a matter of days.

South Korea/Japan act as a check on China/Russia.

---

Respectfully disagree.

The single biggest threat to the people of United States are the drug cartels in Columbia, Venezuela, Guatemala, Nicaragua and especially……MEXICO.

If Europe and South Korea cannot defend themselves after over SEVENTY years of US aid and protection…..that is their problem .

---

Those are not military threats and, with all due respect, if drug addicts can't stop themselves after 70 years of warnings that is their problem.

But seriously none of those countries have the ability to start a world war. China does.

The minute you leave South Korea and Japan China will take Taiwan regardless of the costs to them (which would be insanely high and incredibly difficult).

Our main disagreement is probably the mission of military. Stopping the inflow of drugs is not a military problem to me. It's a problem for the alphabet agencies.

---

Here's the problem with your analysis: It presumes that armed invasion by a peer competitor is our only risk.

Not so......

---

Never did I say that. I said drugs and prostitution are not the job of the military. And for all of recorded time that has been true.

Personally, neither of those pose a risk to me.

---

Whoosh again.

It does become a military threat when hookers and drug dealers are running entire countries as a base of operations for unconventional warfare against us in concert with peer competitors. US courts can't fix that. Constrictive diplomacy rarely works in such situations. That leaves us with no option but to either endure the situation or use the military to persuade a "Hookers & Drugs" regime to change policy.

Queue the adage - "warfare is the continuation of policy by other means."

cowboycwr said:

---

nein51 said:

---

This is the dumbest **** ever. Both parties.

1 billion dollars is 0.013% of the FY2025 budget.

That is $.13 on $1,000. It is literal pocket change. And don't hit me with "a billion here and a billion there" because not one person in here if they had $1,000 would give 1 nanosecond of thought to how they spent $10 nevermind $.10

---

Yeah no but you are wrong.

You have to start somewhere. Every time Congress votes to spend money it adds up. Each time they pass a new spending bill of "just a billion" here and "just a billion" there it eventually snowballs.

Your example is stupid.

No one can answer it because what costs $.13?? Like seriously?

The last time I paid for something with cash was just this week when it was a $.97 item and the cashier closed the drawer without giving me my change. When I said something she seemed upset but you can be damn sure I was getting my $.3 of MY money back.

So yeah I think about how I spend every $10 I have out of every thousand. And every 13 cents like you claim.

---

"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."
-Sen. Everett Dirksen

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

nein51 said:

---

This is the dumbest **** ever. Both parties.

1 billion dollars is 0.013% of the FY2025 budget.

That is $.13 on $1,000. It is literal pocket change. And don't hit me with "a billion here and a billion there" because not one person in here if they had $1,000 would give 1 nanosecond of thought to how they spent $10 nevermind $.10

---

Yeah no but you are wrong.

You have to start somewhere. Every time Congress votes to spend money it adds up. Each time they pass a new spending bill of "just a billion" here and "just a billion" there it eventually snowballs.

Your example is stupid.

No one can answer it because what costs $.13?? Like seriously?

The last time I paid for something with cash was just this week when it was a $.97 item and the cashier closed the drawer without giving me my change. When I said something she seemed upset but you can be damn sure I was getting my $.3 of MY money back.

So yeah I think about how I spend every $10 I have out of every thousand. And every 13 cents like you claim.

---

"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."
-Sen. Everett Dirksen

---

Except you're not.

This is why all government spending should be forced to be in $1000s. I know regular morons can't figure out billions on trillions. I just assumed people with a college degree could.

A billion is to a trillion what 1 is to 1,000. So, again, if you had $1,000 you would never question for even one second what you spent $1 on. And you wouldn't say "a dollar here and a dollar there and then you're talking real money".

Millionaires don't concern themselves with where $1,000 went. I'm not a millionaire and I spent $800 last Friday alone.

Make the argument we should spend $0 on foreign aide. I could probably be right behind that. Don't make the argument a billion dollars is some unfathomable amount of money for the government to spend because it isnt.

Median household income in the US in 2024 was $81,600. I promise you with certainty there's not one household in this country that can account for every $81.60 they spent or that didn't spend $81.60 on completely frivolous crap. Hell that's less than a Netflix account.

nein51 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Q: "Would you pull the U.S. out of NATO?"

Trump: "Maybe. NATO would be upset if I did it…I just wonder whether or not if we needed NATO, would they be there for us? I'm not sure they would."
pic.twitter.com/O6Pliq37eD

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) January 12, 2026

---

NATO should have been disbanded 30 years ago.
US troops should have been removed from South Korea 20 years ago.

US strategic interests should be focused on central and South America.

---

There are 0 military threats to our South. We could take all of South and Central America in a matter of days.

South Korea/Japan act as a check on China/Russia.

---

Respectfully disagree.

The single biggest threat to the people of United States are the drug cartels in Columbia, Venezuela, Guatemala, Nicaragua and especially……MEXICO.

If Europe and South Korea cannot defend themselves after over SEVENTY years of US aid and protection…..that is their problem .

---

Those are not military threats and, with all due respect, if drug addicts can't stop themselves after 70 years of warnings that is their problem.

But seriously none of those countries have the ability to start a world war. China does.

The minute you leave South Korea and Japan China will take Taiwan regardless of the costs to them (which would be insanely high and incredibly difficult).

Our main disagreement is probably the mission of military. Stopping the inflow of drugs is not a military problem to me. It's a problem for the alphabet agencies.

---

If those alphabet agencies had any competition e.g. nice. Almost daily, govt bureaucracies reveal why they should not exist: incompetence, fraud, abuse of power, etc. Generally, they harm Americans more than they help. The $38 trillion debt is a major factor.

KaiBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Q: "Would you pull the U.S. out of NATO?"

Trump: "Maybe. NATO would be upset if I did it…I just wonder whether or not if we needed NATO, would they be there for us? I'm not sure they would."
pic.twitter.com/O6Pliq37eD

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) January 12, 2026

---

NATO should have been disbanded 30 years ago.
US troops should have been removed from South Korea 20 years ago.

US strategic interests should be focused on central and South America.

---

Can a president pull us out of NATO? Does it require Congress too?

---

If congress formally approved a treaty to join NATO …..I would suspect congressional approval would be required to terminate the treaty.

---

I think it only requires senate approval just like treaties only require senate approval once a president signs them.

---

My bad

You are completely correct…..senate vote only

---

As Commanded in Chief & Chief Diplomat, the president could probably do it on his own but senate approval would make more sense. All of Congress would have to approve budget changes such as cutting off funds, at least according to the constitution.

Assuming half of the run up in the Debt since Bush 43 started pissing away $$$$ (after Clinton / Gingrich balanced the budget and actually generated a surplus for 4 years) has been given to questionable groups and foreign entities ....

.... then approx $120,000 per tax paying household has been looted - much of it going overseas to God knows who and for what - some of used to fund our destruction.

So many higher income folks on here have been fleeced for $200k - and up.

The definition of stupidity and corruption*.

- el UF

D!

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating muffin }

Go Bears!!

* and that assumes the other half ($17T) has been spent wisely - given our over generous Entitlements - that is likely money largely squandered......

Your argument would hold water if we cut that money completely from the budget but that never happens. It goes from someone's pet project overseas to someone's pet project here.

Now I'm more than willing to listen to the argument that someone's domestic pet project is better spending.

But when you're handing out money to day cares that might not actually have any participants that may be a hard argument to make. Which goes to your last sentence.

Again, not opposed to cutting the spending. Let's cut the **** out of spending, like budget down from 7.3 to 5.0 then to 3.5…all in.

I'm opposed to the pearl clutching "omg can you believe the other party spent $1B dollars" as if both parties don't do exactly that and the notion that 1B is some insane amount of money when it's a literal 1/10 of 1% of federal spending.

boognish_bear said:

---

The White House is responding to the TMZ video of Trump flipping someone off at the Ford plant today, saying in a statement to @Sam_Waldenberg, "A lunatic was wildly screaming expletives in a complete fit of rage, and the President gave an appropriate and unambiguous response.”…

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) January 13, 2026

---

He said "Look I'll buy a Ford as long as you f*** off"

nein51 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

nein51 said:

---

This is the dumbest **** ever. Both parties.

1 billion dollars is 0.013% of the FY2025 budget.

That is $.13 on $1,000. It is literal pocket change. And don't hit me with "a billion here and a billion there" because not one person in here if they had $1,000 would give 1 nanosecond of thought to how they spent $10 nevermind $.10

---

Yeah no but you are wrong.

You have to start somewhere. Every time Congress votes to spend money it adds up. Each time they pass a new spending bill of "just a billion" here and "just a billion" there it eventually snowballs.

Your example is stupid.

No one can answer it because what costs $.13?? Like seriously?

The last time I paid for something with cash was just this week when it was a $.97 item and the cashier closed the drawer without giving me my change. When I said something she seemed upset but you can be damn sure I was getting my $.3 of MY money back.

So yeah I think about how I spend every $10 I have out of every thousand. And every 13 cents like you claim.

---

"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."
-Sen. Everett Dirksen

---

Except you're not.

This is why all government spending should be forced to be in $1000s. I know regular morons can't figure out billions on trillions. I just assumed people with a college degree could.

A billion is to a trillion what 1 is to 1,000. So, again, if you had $1,000 you would never question for even one second what you spent $1 on. And you wouldn't say "a dollar here and a dollar there and then you're talking real money".

Millionaires don't concern themselves with where $1,000 went. I'm not a millionaire and I spent $800 last Friday alone.

Make the argument we should spend $0 on foreign aide. I could probably be right behind that. Don't make the argument a billion dollars is some unfathomable amount of money for the government to spend because it isnt.

Median household income in the US in 2024 was $81,600. I promise you with certainty there's not one household in this country that can account for every $81.60 they spent or that didn't spend $81.60 on completely frivolous crap. Hell that's less than a Netflix account.

---

Sorry but I think you are again wrong.

Look at Warren Buffet. He pinches pennies. He doesn't just throw money around.

Many millionaires became millionaires because they closely tracked where they spent their money. They may not do so anymore but they did.

Heck even in my house we know where we spend money. We can account for every purchase. Some of them might be frivolous like a meal out, a few extra items at the store we didn't need, etc. but we know where we spent every dollar.

I would bet there are tons of households in the country that also can account for where they spend their money and at least know where their frivolous expenditures are.

But those are also two different arguments. 1. Is saying not knowing where they spend their money and 2. Is saying "well maybe they do but they have frivolous expenditures"

cowboycwr said:

---

nein51 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

nein51 said:

---

This is the dumbest **** ever. Both parties.

1 billion dollars is 0.013% of the FY2025 budget.

That is $.13 on $1,000. It is literal pocket change. And don't hit me with "a billion here and a billion there" because not one person in here if they had $1,000 would give 1 nanosecond of thought to how they spent $10 nevermind $.10

---

Yeah no but you are wrong.

You have to start somewhere. Every time Congress votes to spend money it adds up. Each time they pass a new spending bill of "just a billion" here and "just a billion" there it eventually snowballs.

Your example is stupid.

No one can answer it because what costs $.13?? Like seriously?

The last time I paid for something with cash was just this week when it was a $.97 item and the cashier closed the drawer without giving me my change. When I said something she seemed upset but you can be damn sure I was getting my $.3 of MY money back.

So yeah I think about how I spend every $10 I have out of every thousand. And every 13 cents like you claim.

---

"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."
-Sen. Everett Dirksen

---

Except you're not.

This is why all government spending should be forced to be in $1000s. I know regular morons can't figure out billions on trillions. I just assumed people with a college degree could.

A billion is to a trillion what 1 is to 1,000. So, again, if you had $1,000 you would never question for even one second what you spent $1 on. And you wouldn't say "a dollar here and a dollar there and then you're talking real money".

Millionaires don't concern themselves with where $1,000 went. I'm not a millionaire and I spent $800 last Friday alone.

Make the argument we should spend $0 on foreign aide. I could probably be right behind that. Don't make the argument a billion dollars is some unfathomable amount of money for the government to spend because it isnt.

Median household income in the US in 2024 was $81,600. I promise you with certainty there's not one household in this country that can account for every $81.60 they spent or that didn't spend $81.60 on completely frivolous crap. Hell that's less than a Netflix account.

---

Sorry but I think you are again wrong.

Look at Warren Buffet. He pinches pennies. He doesn't just throw money around.

Many millionaires became millionaires because they closely tracked where they spent their money. They may not do so anymore but they did.

Heck even in my house we know where we spend money. We can account for every purchase. Some of them might be frivolous like a meal out, a few extra items at the store we didn't need, etc. but we know where we spent every dollar.

I would bet there are tons of households in the country that also can account for where they spend their money and at least know where their frivolous expenditures are.

But those are also two different arguments. 1. Is saying not knowing where they spend their money and 2. Is saying "well maybe they do but they have frivolous expenditures"

---

For the sake of argument, let's say $1 billion, about 0.014% of a $7 trillion federal budget, is a one-off. Our national debt is over $38 trillion. Spread across roughly 130 million US households, that's around $290,000 per household. Against a typical household income in the $70k$85k range, that's roughly a 340% debt-to-income ratio. If my personal household had a debt-to-income ratio like that, every penny would matter. The problem is, it's not a one off. Waste and fraud add up, and nobody knows how many 0.014% boondoggles we tolerate year after year. And regardless of percentages, $1 billion is a massive amount of money. Especially if it's being wasted or used against the taxpayers funding it.

cowboycwr: " Look at Warren Buffet. He pinches pennies. He doesn't just throw money around."

Buffet is willing to spend millions to fund political stunts:

Warren Buffett-Funded Foundation Secretly Paid For Protest To Stop Construction Of A Highly Contentious Pipeline | The Daily Caller

'No Kings 2.0 Over 100 Partners Received Money From Liberal Networks Including George Soros' Groups AGUAYO NEWS

Is Warren Buffett Funding Black Lives Matter? - Tablet Magazine

Oldbear83 said:

---

cowboycwr: " Look at Warren Buffet. He pinches pennies. He doesn't just throw money around."

Buffet is willing to spend millions to fund political stunts:

Warren Buffett-Funded Foundation Secretly Paid For Protest To Stop Construction Of A Highly Contentious Pipeline | The Daily Caller

'No Kings 2.0 Over 100 Partners Received Money From Liberal Networks Including George Soros' Groups AGUAYO NEWS

Is Warren Buffett Funding Black Lives Matter? - Tablet Magazine

---

My dad loved Buffett. He is rolling over in his grave

Think 'Broken Windows' applied to Govt spending.........

Letting the 'little' things slide only breeds bigger corruption / swindling / pork.

- UF

D!

Go Bears!!

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It's amazing how autocracy always follows populism.

---

it's amazing how much money the Fed can waste on vanity projects and play the victim when called out on it.

---

We'll spend more changing stationary, documentation, and building signage to the Department of War, speaking of pet projects.

But hey, let's ignore abuse of power and executive overreach and feign spending concerns.

---

that DOD stuff is what, maybe 1% of the cost overruns at the Fed?

Isn't it funny how every time we try to hold someone accountable for (fraud, waste, neglect, abuse) there's always a faction who squeals about rising fascism?

---

If fraud and abuse was of any concern, you'd be looking hard at your guy and his crypto and Middle East real estate projects.

whiterock said:

---

nein51 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

nein51 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Q: "Would you pull the U.S. out of NATO?"

Trump: "Maybe. NATO would be upset if I did it…I just wonder whether or not if we needed NATO, would they be there for us? I'm not sure they would."
pic.twitter.com/O6Pliq37eD

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) January 12, 2026

---

NATO should have been disbanded 30 years ago.
US troops should have been removed from South Korea 20 years ago.

US strategic interests should be focused on central and South America.

---

There are 0 military threats to our South. We could take all of South and Central America in a matter of days.

South Korea/Japan act as a check on China/Russia.

---

Respectfully disagree.

The single biggest threat to the people of United States are the drug cartels in Columbia, Venezuela, Guatemala, Nicaragua and especially……MEXICO.

If Europe and South Korea cannot defend themselves after over SEVENTY years of US aid and protection…..that is their problem .

---

Those are not military threats and, with all due respect, if drug addicts can't stop themselves after 70 years of warnings that is their problem.

But seriously none of those countries have the ability to start a world war. China does.

The minute you leave South Korea and Japan China will take Taiwan regardless of the costs to them (which would be insanely high and incredibly difficult).

Our main disagreement is probably the mission of military. Stopping the inflow of drugs is not a military problem to me. It's a problem for the alphabet agencies.

---

Here's the problem with your analysis: It presumes that armed invasion by a peer competitor is our only risk.

Not so......

---

Never did I say that. I said drugs and prostitution are not the job of the military. And for all of recorded time that has been true.

Personally, neither of those pose a risk to me.

---

Whoosh again.

It does become a military threat when hookers and drug dealers are running entire countries as a base of operations for unconventional warfare against us in concert with peer competitors. US courts can't fix that. Constrictive diplomacy rarely works in such situations. That leaves us with no option but to either endure the situation or use the military to persuade a "Hookers & Drugs" regime to change policy.

Queue the adage - "warfare is the continuation of policy by other means."

---

This spin is insane. Venezuela isn't even the world's worst culprit in this. Drugs and the sex trade are the result of insatiable vices of Americans. When is the war on demand going to happen?

nein51 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

nein51 said:

---

This is the dumbest **** ever. Both parties.

1 billion dollars is 0.013% of the FY2025 budget.

That is $.13 on $1,000. It is literal pocket change. And don't hit me with "a billion here and a billion there" because not one person in here if they had $1,000 would give 1 nanosecond of thought to how they spent $10 nevermind $.10

---

Yeah no but you are wrong.

You have to start somewhere. Every time Congress votes to spend money it adds up. Each time they pass a new spending bill of "just a billion" here and "just a billion" there it eventually snowballs.

Your example is stupid.

No one can answer it because what costs $.13?? Like seriously?

The last time I paid for something with cash was just this week when it was a $.97 item and the cashier closed the drawer without giving me my change. When I said something she seemed upset but you can be damn sure I was getting my $.3 of MY money back.

So yeah I think about how I spend every $10 I have out of every thousand. And every 13 cents like you claim.

---

"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."
-Sen. Everett Dirksen

---

Except you're not.

This is why all government spending should be forced to be in $1000s. I know regular morons can't figure out billions on trillions. I just assumed people with a college degree could.

A billion is to a trillion what 1 is to 1,000. So, again, if you had $1,000 you would never question for even one second what you spent $1 on. And you wouldn't say "a dollar here and a dollar there and then you're talking real money".

Millionaires don't concern themselves with where $1,000 went. I'm not a millionaire and I spent $800 last Friday alone.

Make the argument we should spend $0 on foreign aide. I could probably be right behind that. Don't make the argument a billion dollars is some unfathomable amount of money for the government to spend because it isnt.

Median household income in the US in 2024 was $81,600. I promise you with certainty there's not one household in this country that can account for every $81.60 they spent or that didn't spend $81.60 on completely frivolous crap. Hell that's less than a Netflix account.

---

you have apparently never heard the old adage about how to eat an elephant = "one bite at a time."

in most organizations, private or public, the big number is payroll. Everything is nibbling.

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

nein51 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

nein51 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Q: "Would you pull the U.S. out of NATO?"

Trump: "Maybe. NATO would be upset if I did it…I just wonder whether or not if we needed NATO, would they be there for us? I'm not sure they would."
pic.twitter.com/O6Pliq37eD

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) January 12, 2026

---

NATO should have been disbanded 30 years ago.
US troops should have been removed from South Korea 20 years ago.

US strategic interests should be focused on central and South America.

---

There are 0 military threats to our South. We could take all of South and Central America in a matter of days.

South Korea/Japan act as a check on China/Russia.

---

Respectfully disagree.

The single biggest threat to the people of United States are the drug cartels in Columbia, Venezuela, Guatemala, Nicaragua and especially……MEXICO.

If Europe and South Korea cannot defend themselves after over SEVENTY years of US aid and protection…..that is their problem .

---

Those are not military threats and, with all due respect, if drug addicts can't stop themselves after 70 years of warnings that is their problem.

But seriously none of those countries have the ability to start a world war. China does.

The minute you leave South Korea and Japan China will take Taiwan regardless of the costs to them (which would be insanely high and incredibly difficult).

Our main disagreement is probably the mission of military. Stopping the inflow of drugs is not a military problem to me. It's a problem for the alphabet agencies.

---

Here's the problem with your analysis: It presumes that armed invasion by a peer competitor is our only risk.

Not so......

---

Never did I say that. I said drugs and prostitution are not the job of the military. And for all of recorded time that has been true.

Personally, neither of those pose a risk to me.

---

Whoosh again.

It does become a military threat when hookers and drug dealers are running entire countries as a base of operations for unconventional warfare against us in concert with peer competitors. US courts can't fix that. Constrictive diplomacy rarely works in such situations. That leaves us with no option but to either endure the situation or use the military to persuade a "Hookers & Drugs" regime to change policy.

Queue the adage - "warfare is the continuation of policy by other means."

---

This spin is insane. Venezuela isn't even the world's worst culprit in this. Drugs and the sex trade are the result of insatiable vices of Americans. When is the war on demand going to happen?

---

the obtusity is outrageous.

It's one thing to have cartels south of our border smuggling drugs into the country. It's quite another for those cartels to influence/control a government and gain statehood status with ability to conduct diplomatic relationships. That's how you end up with Iranian drones being smuggled inside a Venezuelan tanker headed for Russia.....Iranian drones made with the acquiesance of the Venezuelan government, which of course puts the Panama canal under the umbrella of hostile powers. (and that's just one of tentacles of this particular octopus.)

Frigging amazing that you would reduce what's happening in Venezuela to law enforcement overreach.
TDS has fried your brain, friend.

https://t.co/FMEvbVGiEF

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) January 12, 2026

Rule #1

Politicians don't give a **** about you.

Kamala Harris buys $8M mansion in Malibu’s celeb-packed Pt. Dume https://t.co/tfeSatcTIK pic.twitter.com/IjysNvCarB

— New York Post (@nypost) January 14, 2026

Now the Trump admin is funding Planned Parenthood? https://t.co/3DC8XY9ccM

— Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸 (@mtgreenee) January 14, 2026

“I’m not mayor anymore. Go f*** yourself” - Former NYC mayor Eric Adams to masked woman harassing him on a plane pic.twitter.com/KvPZR89HJZ

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) January 14, 2026

Oldbear83 said:

---

cowboycwr: " Look at Warren Buffet. He pinches pennies. He doesn't just throw money around."

Buffet is willing to spend millions to fund political stunts:

Warren Buffett-Funded Foundation Secretly Paid For Protest To Stop Construction Of A Highly Contentious Pipeline | The Daily Caller

'No Kings 2.0 Over 100 Partners Received Money From Liberal Networks Including George Soros' Groups AGUAYO NEWS

Is Warren Buffett Funding Black Lives Matter? - Tablet Magazine

---

And that is very out of character for him. He usually only donates money for tax breaks, funds some education stuff, arts, etc.

But even this he knows exactly what he is doing with his money. Like the pipeline money one was because without the pipeline it was going to be sent by rail….. that he either owns, co owns or has massive stock in so it was a business decision.

This is what an honest man looks like. By contrast, the rest of Congress is doing almost nothing for you and doesn't have the courage to speak honestly about who runs this country. The donors do. Everything else is theater. https://t.co/M3iW9afrJG

— Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) January 14, 2026

Jack Bauer said:

---

“I’m not mayor anymore. Go f*** yourself” - Former NYC mayor Eric Adams to masked woman harassing him on a plane pic.twitter.com/KvPZR89HJZ

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) January 14, 2026

---

The mask always tells you all you need to know.

I don't like his views on a lot of things but I don't live in NYC so it doesn't really bother me. Then again I probably wouldn't even really recognize him if I saw him but I would not approach him like this if I did.

I don't get why people do stuff like this. Does it make them feel good for saying their bit to a former mayor? About whatever it was, the video is too short and her voice to muffled to even hear what she was confronting him about.

In a display of how out of touch she is with everyday Americans, Trump’s Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said a healthy meal of “a piece of chicken, a piece of broccoli, a corn tortilla, and one other thing” costs around $3.
pic.twitter.com/csh8MSpv7S

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) January 14, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

In a display of how out of touch she is with everyday Americans, Trump’s Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said a healthy meal of “a piece of chicken, a piece of broccoli, a corn tortilla, and one other thing” costs around $3.
pic.twitter.com/csh8MSpv7S

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) January 14, 2026

---

That sounds like a gross meal.

But maybe she is right though…. One chicken nugget, one piece of broccoli, one tortilla and something else all taken out of their larger bag would equal $3 worth of food…….

Ted Cruz, 2016: “We’re liable to wake up one morning and Donald, if he were president, would have nuked Denmark.” pic.twitter.com/EtjvMuDzFk

— Daractenus (@Daractenus) January 14, 2026

Most Americans are normies who want some sort of 1990s-style liberalism or conservatism.

Both parties have been captured by insane extremist staffers who have been brain poisoned by online memes. https://t.co/ES87hNDfJk

— Noah Smith 🐇🇺🇸🇺🇦🇹🇼 (@Noahpinion) January 14, 2026

It’s shameful that senators in safe seats can’t stand up to the political pressure of this President and his henchmen, even when they know what’s in the best interests of the United States and what their oath to the Constitution requires of them. Ambition is their downfall. https://t.co/VLXzxF6p90

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) January 15, 2026

THE GREAT HEALTHCARE PLAN.

President Donald J. Trump unveils the Great Healthcare Plan to lower costs and deliver money directly to the American people. 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/VWtNZzNbQC

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 15, 2026

U.S. overdose deaths fell through most of last year, suggesting a lasting improvement in an epidemic that had been worsening for decades. https://t.co/Y6unwEPYrn

— ABC News (@ABC) January 15, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

THE GREAT HEALTHCARE PLAN.

President Donald J. Trump unveils the Great Healthcare Plan to lower costs and deliver money directly to the American people. 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/VWtNZzNbQC

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 15, 2026

---

Let's see how far the price transparency goes. It needs to go very far in the case of hospitals and surgery centers.

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

nein51 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

nein51 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Q: "Would you pull the U.S. out of NATO?"

Trump: "Maybe. NATO would be upset if I did it…I just wonder whether or not if we needed NATO, would they be there for us? I'm not sure they would."
pic.twitter.com/O6Pliq37eD

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) January 12, 2026

---

NATO should have been disbanded 30 years ago.
US troops should have been removed from South Korea 20 years ago.

US strategic interests should be focused on central and South America..........itary to persuade a "Hookers & Drugs" regime to change policy.

---

---

---

---

---

---

Queue the adage - "warfare is the continuation of policy by other means."

---

This spin is insane. Venezuela isn't even the world's worst culprit in this. Drugs and the sex trade are the result of insatiable vices of Americans. When is the war on demand going to happen?

---

less supply will cure some of that........

- UF

... at a price*.

D!

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating myooffin }

* of Death.

RIP Scott Adams.

:bow:

Go Bears!!