Trump's first 100 days

1,262,596 Views | 18527 Replies | Last: 26 min ago by cowboycwr
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:



I'm old enough to remember when conservatives believed that.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:

Assassin said:




About 49% of the state will lose their voice. Disgusting.








EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

boognish_bear said:



I'm old enough to remember when conservatives believed that.


Conservatives do. They just don't want the illegal version of immigration.

You, on the other hand, posted in favor of counting illegals in the census.
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
why is getting a compassionate reasonable immigration policy that is followed and suits our needs. No Birthright Citizenship. Shouldn't be that hard. Put ICE out of business as they are not trained well and get poor direction. Shouldn't be that hard.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"I" ?

He thinks he is a dictator.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam Lowry said:

boognish_bear said:



I'm old enough to remember when conservatives believed that.


Conservatives do. They just don't want the illegal version of immigration.

I remember when that was true too.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

"I" ?

He thinks he is a dictator.

??????
BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Save us, Donny! I'm being fr
Sic 'em Bears and Go Birds
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JJjlllp I've p*fallen and I'm ........

- tbp*

..... p*eating p*roast.

p*D!

Go Bears!!!

pro ecclesia, pro javelina
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hello again, BUDOS. Thanks for your post, which I now will address:


BUDOS: "Now, speaking of semantics, please explain to me how I am so damn intellectually dishonest if I did not know about the sources you present?"

The chief problem in many issues regarding Trump, is the polarization of opinion and expressed emotion. It's obvious that many people have strong hatred against the President, and this colors how they think and speak, including posts here. I certainly understand people have the right to their opinion, but in many posts here these people treat their assumptions as established fact.

That is the problem with much of the J6 events. Many who hate Trump assume without evidence that he deliberately encouraged violence and criminal behavior.

There is no proof that this happened, and definitely evidence exists that demonstrates the opposite. A key piece is the claim that Trump offered to send National Guard troops.

People who hate Trump often believe Pelosi's denial that the offer happened, and ignore anything else. Those more objective look at the people making statements, and consider whether the statement is biased on its face or could be objective.

That the Capitol police chief at that time says the offer was made and he forwarded the request is strong evidence, as this man neither worked for Trump personally nor had anything to gain by confirming the matter. Everyone claiming the offer was not made had an interest in denying the offer.

I am disappointed in you here, BUDOS, because I would expect you to do more than a cursory look at the claims, and to observe the apparent motives to avoid bias.


BUDOS: "Yes, as I was watching this all day on different live TV stations, heard Trump did ask his supporters to march "peacefully and patriotically" during his speech on January 6, 2021.

In researching your above comment, whether this was "often deleted" by mainstream media is a matter of significant debate, especially since some recent findings indicate specific editing by major broadcasters which add credibility to your claim."


Thank you. I want to be clear that I dislike Trump's style of debate on this day, and especially believe that he did not think through what might happen. But poor judgment does not rise to criminal conduct in this case, and frankly a lot of people exercised poor judgement regarding that day, including many who attack Trump and ignore everything else.


BUDOS: "I compare his "peacefully" remark as a secondary detail compared to his broader rhetoric"

There is that bias I was concerned about.

BUDOS: "Something which I took special notice is that while watching the riot at the Capitol on television, Trump ignored requests to call off the crowd for 187 minutes."

I have seen that claim before. Usually from people unaware that those who rioted started while Trump was still making his speech.

Timeline reveals Capitol Hill riot began 20 mins before end of Trump's speech | The Post Millennial | thepostmillennial.com

Even CNN, whose version of events was painted in a tone meant to attack Trump, concedes this.

The January 6 insurrection: Minute-by-minute | CNN Politics

This timeline matters, because no one seriously believes that President Trump finished his speech then immediately started watching TV about a riot he knew nothing about. Especially because as President, Trump already had other scheduled meetings and tasks that day.

The reasonable perspective would be that Trump made his speech, took care of various matters, became aware of the riots and then asked people to go home.

The thing is, treating Trump as a reasonable person does not fit the image his enemies want to have used. It's why the J6 committee destroyed so much of the evidence they had - they only wanted the narrative known, not the facts.

I certainly understand that someone committed to hate will refuse to grant that President Trump was guilty only of anger and a belief that he was the victim of a stolen election (not going into that here - it's a different topic). But anyone claiming to be an objective judge should recognize that Trump's enemies were far from honest themselves, and many claims made against Trump amounted to nothing more than smear attempts which conveniently ignores their own shameful behavior.

Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

boognish_bear said:



I'm old enough to remember when conservatives believed that.

If you were a conservative, or even a Republican, you would think differently
"A day without sunshine is like, you know, night." — Steve Martin
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:



Save us, Donny! I'm being fr


Trump's perception of reality is deluded
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:



Save us, Donny! I'm being fr

yeah, there is a problem, even if it's only one of perception = mail in voting decided the election. By improbable margins......


boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:



Thats interesting. Start banning all these college students yellling "Kill Israel", "I love Palestine" and so on (think barBearEin) and ban them from everything you can think of
"A day without sunshine is like, you know, night." — Steve Martin
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They better get a lawyer...

"A day without sunshine is like, you know, night." — Steve Martin
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

boognish_bear said:



I'm old enough to remember when conservatives believed that.

If you were a conservative, or even a Republican, you would think differently
No, it's true. They really did.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
{ sipping War coffee }

- UF

{ eating Victory donut }

D!

Go Bears!!
pro ecclesia, pro javelina
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:



Sec of the Navy ..........

- UF

.... You're Fired!

D!!!

>>
Pete Hegseth fires Navy Secretary John Phelan

Story by Lara Seligman, Marcus Weisgerber, Alexander Ward

John Phelan has been fired as Navy secretary after months of simmering tension with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to U.S. officials.

His departure was revealed in a social-media post by Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell. In the post, Parnell said Hegseth and Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg were "grateful to Secretary Phelan for his service to the Department and the United States Navy."

Hung Cao, a Navy veteran who is the current undersecretary, will become the acting Navy secretary, Parnell said. Cao lost a bid for a Virginia Senate seat to Democrat Tim Kaine in 2024.
The shake-up comes as the U.S. military is enforcing a massive naval blockade of Iranian ports in the Middle East. There are more than 15 warships already in the region to support operations against Iran.

Hegseth dismissed Phelan in a phone call just minutes before Parnell's statement was posted, according to a person with knowledge of the discussions. Phelan had spent the day on Capitol Hill talking to lawmakers about the Navy's budget request, the person said.

Pentagon officials told congressional aides on Wednesday that Hegseth fired Phelan because he and Feinberg felt the Navy secretary wasn't moving quickly enough on President Trump's shipbuilding priorities, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions.
<<
pro ecclesia, pro javelina
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
WAR!

>>

MAJOR WIN for international law enforcement!

U.S. and Panamanian authorities just secured the extradition of Reza Dindarwanted for conspiring to illegally export sensitive U.S. technology to Iran.

This operation brought together the Diplomatic Security Service along with our federal partners from HSI, CBP, DEA, USMS, and Commerce's BIS in a textbook example of interagency teamwork.

The message is clear: We will pursue those who threaten our national securityno matter where they hide.

Law enforcement partnerships work. Our technology stays protected. Justice prevails. Tags:
@DHSgov
,
@CBP
,
@DEAHQ
,
@BISgov
,
@ICEgov
,
@USMarshalsHQ
<<

- UF
pro ecclesia, pro javelina
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
>>
Justice Department reaches $1.25 million settlement with Trump 2016 campaign aide over Russia probe

WASHINGTON (AP) The Justice Department has settled for $1.25 million a lawsuit from an aide to President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign who was the target of secret surveillance during the FBI's Russia investigation.

Carter Page asserted in a 2020 lawsuit that he was the victim of "unlawful spying" by an FBI agency that was investigating whether Trump's 2016 campaign had conspired with Russia to affect the outcome of the election. The lawsuit alleged a series of omissions and errors made by FBI and Justice Department officials in applications they submitted in 2016 and 2017 to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to eavesdrop on Page on suspicion that he was an agent of Russia.

Page vigorously denied any claim of improper ties to Russia and was never charged with any wrongdoing.

Page appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts tossed out his suit, with appellate judges saying last year that he had waited too long to file his complaint. But as the appeal was pending, the Trump administration informed the Supreme Court on Wednesday that it had reached a settlement with Page on his claims against the federal government. The settlement does not cover claims Page had made against former FBI officials he had also sued.

The court filing to the Supreme Court did not reveal a dollar figure, but a person familiar with the matter who insisted on anonymity to discuss non-public information said the amount of the deal was $1.25 million.

Page's lawsuit followed a harshly critical Justice Department inspector general report that found significant problems with the four surveillance applications. Former FBI and Justice Department leaders who were involved in signing off on the surveillance have since said they wouldn't have done so had they known of the extent of the issues, and the FBI has said it had initiated more than 40 corrective steps aimed at improving the accuracy and thoroughness of applications.

Despite the problems with the warrant applications, the scrutiny of Page accounted for only a narrow portion of the overall investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

An investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller concluded that Russia had interfered on Trump's behalf during the 2016 campaign and that the campaign welcomed the assistance. Mueller's team said it did not find sufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between the campaign and Russia.

The Justice Department in March settled a separate lawsuit with another figure from the Trump-Russia probe, reaching a roughly $1.2 million settlement with Michael Flynn, the former Trump national security adviser who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with a top Russian diplomat and was later pardoned.
<<
pro ecclesia, pro javelina
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:



https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-saving-democracy-requires-one-party-to-seize-total-power-and-rule-forever
Democrats: Saving Democracy Requires One Party To Seize Total Power And Rule Forever
POLITICS Apr 23, 2026 BabylonBee.com
WASHINGTON, D.C. Washington Democrats defended their unquenchable thirst for unlimited power on Thursday, confirming that saving democracy requires one party to seize total power and rule forever.
According to long-held American values, true freedom is only possible with the consent of the governed. A government by the people, and for the people, naturally disrupts authoritarianism and leads to lasting contentment. Democrats, however, disagree.
"The only way to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as our founders envisioned is to wrest control of the government from the people and mandate love through unassailable government regulation," explained House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. "It's the only way to keep democracy alive."
The consensus among lawmakers is that American democracy struggles under the weight of totalitarian ideals. Democrats, in particular, have warned that an increase in differences of opinion conflicts with their goals goals which are obviously democratic in nature because it's the name of their party.
"I know what you're thinking, what if we accidentally give control to Hitler?" laughed Jeffries. "Just don't think about it. Give us unlimited power. UNLIMITED POWER!"
"Let democracy die. Kill it if you have to," added Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. "It's the only way to save it."
Voters expressed doubt that giving unlimited power to Democrats would save democracy, but admitted that Trump must be really bad because Jimmy Kimmel said so.
At publishing time, Democratic lawmakers clarified that the only way to preserve the free exchange of ideas was to completely eliminate anyone who has an opinion different from theirs.
canoso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

boognish_bear said:



https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-saving-democracy-requires-one-party-to-seize-total-power-and-rule-forever
Democrats: Saving Democracy Requires One Party To Seize Total Power And Rule Forever
POLITICS Apr 23, 2026 BabylonBee.com
WASHINGTON, D.C. Washington Democrats defended their unquenchable thirst for unlimited power on Thursday, confirming that saving democracy requires one party to seize total power and rule forever.
According to long-held American values, true freedom is only possible with the consent of the governed. A government by the people, and for the people, naturally disrupts authoritarianism and leads to lasting contentment. Democrats, however, disagree.
"The only way to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as our founders envisioned is to wrest control of the government from the people and mandate love through unassailable government regulation," explained House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. "It's the only way to keep democracy alive."
The consensus among lawmakers is that American democracy struggles under the weight of totalitarian ideals. Democrats, in particular, have warned that an increase in differences of opinion conflicts with their goals goals which are obviously democratic in nature because it's the name of their party.
"I know what you're thinking, what if we accidentally give control to Hitler?" laughed Jeffries. "Just don't think about it. Give us unlimited power. UNLIMITED POWER!"
"Let democracy die. Kill it if you have to," added Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. "It's the only way to save it."
Voters expressed doubt that giving unlimited power to Democrats would save democracy, but admitted that Trump must be really bad because Jimmy Kimmel said so.
At publishing time, Democratic lawmakers clarified that the only way to preserve the free exchange of ideas was to completely eliminate anyone who has an opinion different from theirs.

More corroboration for the saying that truth is stranger than fiction.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is so much shadiness with these new emerging prediction markets

boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This sht has got to get regulated

boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"A day without sunshine is like, you know, night." — Steve Martin
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"A day without sunshine is like, you know, night." — Steve Martin
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:

This sht has got to get regulated




And yet, I could not work at HEB with my teenage child because of "conflict of interest"...
Danielsjackson114
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The left is so nasty

But Trump posts a big meanie tweet or bombs our worst enemy, and the lefties on here can't stand it
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Danielsjackson114 said:

The left is so nasty

But Trump posts a big meanie tweet or bombs our worst enemy, and the lefties on here can't stand it

The left is cutthroat. Literally. Look what they have done to Europe. In one generation, they've reduced it to a shadow of what it was. Their goal is to do that to America. Then the super oligarchs like Soros and Rothchild will come in and divvy up what is left
First Page Last Page
Page 450 of 530
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.