He (Donald) gets it in terms of the cleansing that is needed in this country.
For my part, I want some prison terms for Comey, Clapper, Brennan and company. I don't know if it'll happen. These wicked men and their cohorts should not get off scot-free. There needs to be accountability.
On Friday the WSJ was saying that Iran is trying to kill Trump, and Jews are being hunted down in Amsterdam, so it's pretty clear we need to turn Iran into a parking lot something something.
The JPost had an interesting headline back on Tuesday--election day here--saying that Mossad agents had accompanied the team to Amsterdam. To provoke a "pogrom"? Even MSM has been reporting the violence, the Palestine flag burning, the chants of "Kill the Arabs" etc.
I've already recommended DD and Doug Mac today. It's a kinda slow listen, but they get into a lot of the issues, Trump, appointments, policy, expectations--realistic and unrealistic. Probably more disturbing than the Brian Hook thing--really--is that Howard Lutnick has said he's working with Jared Kushner to staff up Trump 2.0. Lutnick is heading personnel for the transition, so he's above Hook. And everyone knows, personnel is policy.
My reaction is that I hope he does take those actions. What I'd very much like to see is the SCOTUS take on some of the internet cases that are out there. I'm hoping this election will embolden the SCOTUS to look at the tough cases.
We shall see... Trump already made his first mistake nominating deepstater Brian Hook to lead the State Department Transition Team. For someone running The Apprentice he can't hire for shit.
"Wiles is the co-chair for the Florida and Washington, D.C., offices of Mercury Public Affairs, a lobbying firm whose clients include AirBnB, AT&T, eBay, Pfizer, Tesla, and the Embassy of Qatar, although she is not a registered lobbyist for any of those clients."
She has however lobbied for a major tobacco company.
"She lobbied for the tobacco company Swisher International while running the Trump campaign.
"Wiles is a leader of the lobbying giant Mercury, whose clients include SpaceX, AT&T, and the Embassy of Qatar (although Wiles is not registered to lobby for any of these clients).
"Wiles, who has been with Trump’s most recent campaign since 2022, lobbied Congress on “FDA regulations” between 2023 and the beginning of 2024. Mercury was paid $120,000 for its work for Swisher during that time, according to public disclosures. Mercury ended its relationship with Swisher earlier this year."
She really should be well connected, just to do her job well. Mercury is indeed a large firm with many clients, and that was a different job. I don’t see any obvious red flags here myself. Proof is in the pudding.
But I do understand why people are a bit jittery over staffing decisions, given how his first term played out. It will be interesting to watch the appointments.
Term limitation is not the answer because it rids us of good and bad and doesn't stop the corrupting influences; limit campaign contributions to voters only and only to those politicians for whom they can vote; institutions, groups,can fund issues but not individual representatives; this makes the elected beholden to their constituents rather than outside doners. For example Mitch McConnel (sp) received approx $60m from doners outside of Kentucky during his last election. Harry Reid almost as much in his last election $50+m from outside Nevada. This at the heart of our corrupt system.
Dilute their power. In 2024, each congressperson in the House represents ~750k citizens on average, the highest ratio in the world--by far. Reducing the ratio to 1930 levels would grow the house from 435 to ~1.2k members. (Source: Internet)
" ...limit campaign contributions to voters only and only to those politicians for whom they can vote..."
You still have the problem that rich people can donate more than poor people. I think a better idea would be a government fund which qualified candidates can draw from in equal amounts, with anything left over to be returned after the campaign. The amount available would reflect the population in the district where candidates are running, more people, more funds, but everyone gets the same amount. Think of it as the price of true democracy where the only advantage a candidate has is their record and how appealing their platform is to the electorate.
absolutely, but only within the state and district in which they live. Your model stifles individual free speech, if Bill Gates wants to spend $1B of his money ok but only in his state/district of his residency. Your true democracy is the European model and they are worse off than the US. I lived in Germany for 20 years; Government funds the political campaigns and individual politicians end up being totally controlled by the parties and are equally unresponsive to the voters.
Hmmm... trying to see how my idea stifles free speech. If I want to spend my own money independent of someone's campaign I don't see why I shouldn't be able to. I was talking about campaign donations. What an individual does on their own dime is entirely up to them.
I wasn't aware that Germany funds campaigns. Do they also fund independents or just parties? If not independents then I would be against that. If you can acquire the requisite number of signatures you should qualify for funding just the same as someone representing their party.
The German Government relies on the parties to limit who gets the funding which is then channeled through the party. An outsider or independent hasn't a chance. Since each candidate is limited and controlled by the party. Donald Trump could never have gotten on the ballot in Germany.
Even better, if your party doesn't get at least 5% of the vote, you don't even get a seat at the legislative table; in any given election, up to 20% of the votes for small parties are apportioned to the parties that did get over the 5%. During the Weimar Republic, there were 300-350 and it made coalition governing impossible. Hitler put an end to it.
Repeal the provisions of FASAB Rule 56 (accounting rules) that enable our national government to lie about expenditures with impunity simply by claiming national security interests are at stake. It is a license to commit massive fraud and negates any mechanism to discover criminal behavior and fiscal/budget anomalies. This rule allows the US government to legally maintain two sets of books, like a criminal organization. Of course, many of us would argue that the government is a criminal organization, and I support that view.
Impressive wish list. I do hope he manages to implement every single step outlined there, but won't hold my breath. Trying to root out corruption from within an inherently corrupt system is going to be a challenge - especially when every individual in it is fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo.
Same thing happened in Florida. The lobbyists have a much better understanding of how to get things done and end up advising the legislators. Eight years is definitely too short for term limits, either 12 or 16 years would be much better.
Lots of names get "floated" by all sorts of advocacy groups--doesn't mean they're actually under consideration. Obviously you''re right.
If this makes you feel any better, Howard Lutnick, who is in charge of personnel for the transition, has said publicly that he's working closely with Jared Kushner to staff the new regime.
Nah. They gave him this script. He'll pretend to do at least some of it, "conservatives" will cheer him on and pretend that he did at least some of it.
Meanwhile, I wonder what happened to the Iron Dome shield we were promised by the RNC?
He (Donald) gets it in terms of the cleansing that is needed in this country.
For my part, I want some prison terms for Comey, Clapper, Brennan and company. I don't know if it'll happen. These wicked men and their cohorts should not get off scot-free. There needs to be accountability.
On Friday the WSJ was saying that Iran is trying to kill Trump, and Jews are being hunted down in Amsterdam, so it's pretty clear we need to turn Iran into a parking lot something something.
The JPost had an interesting headline back on Tuesday--election day here--saying that Mossad agents had accompanied the team to Amsterdam. To provoke a "pogrom"? Even MSM has been reporting the violence, the Palestine flag burning, the chants of "Kill the Arabs" etc.
I've already recommended DD and Doug Mac today. It's a kinda slow listen, but they get into a lot of the issues, Trump, appointments, policy, expectations--realistic and unrealistic. Probably more disturbing than the Brian Hook thing--really--is that Howard Lutnick has said he's working with Jared Kushner to staff up Trump 2.0. Lutnick is heading personnel for the transition, so he's above Hook. And everyone knows, personnel is policy.
I guess Gaza’s gonna get a face lift and the new Riviera playground will become a realty, next year in Israel.
Trump head on plan to battle censorship. What's your reaction?
https://x.com/LibertyLockPod/status/1854949449518514593?s=19
My reaction is that I hope he does take those actions. What I'd very much like to see is the SCOTUS take on some of the internet cases that are out there. I'm hoping this election will embolden the SCOTUS to look at the tough cases.
We shall see... Trump already made his first mistake nominating deepstater Brian Hook to lead the State Department Transition Team. For someone running The Apprentice he can't hire for shit.
My fave so far: Susie Wiles, Pfizer lobbyist, for Chief of Staff. Check out "Mercury LLC":
https://wholisticnews.substack.com/p/trump-trashes-rkf-jr-over-vaccine-stance
These are not "mistakes".
I agree that we're learning more about Wiles that also sheds a light on Trump. However your statement "Susie Wiles, Pfizer lobbyist" is not accurate:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/who-susie-wiles-trumps-white-house-chief-staff-5-things-know
"Wiles is the co-chair for the Florida and Washington, D.C., offices of Mercury Public Affairs, a lobbying firm whose clients include AirBnB, AT&T, eBay, Pfizer, Tesla, and the Embassy of Qatar, although she is not a registered lobbyist for any of those clients."
She has however lobbied for a major tobacco company.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/07/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-susie-wiles-00188391
"She lobbied for the tobacco company Swisher International while running the Trump campaign.
"Wiles is a leader of the lobbying giant Mercury, whose clients include SpaceX, AT&T, and the Embassy of Qatar (although Wiles is not registered to lobby for any of these clients).
"Wiles, who has been with Trump’s most recent campaign since 2022, lobbied Congress on “FDA regulations” between 2023 and the beginning of 2024. Mercury was paid $120,000 for its work for Swisher during that time, according to public disclosures. Mercury ended its relationship with Swisher earlier this year."
She really should be well connected, just to do her job well. Mercury is indeed a large firm with many clients, and that was a different job. I don’t see any obvious red flags here myself. Proof is in the pudding.
But I do understand why people are a bit jittery over staffing decisions, given how his first term played out. It will be interesting to watch the appointments.
Lutnick is more disturbing.
“I will work to ban federal bureaucrats from taking jobs at the companies they deal with and that they regulate.”
It’s a revolving door, not many options in specialised fields, that’s why sacked sports coaches always land another coaching gig,
"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson
Term limitation is not the answer because it rids us of good and bad and doesn't stop the corrupting influences; limit campaign contributions to voters only and only to those politicians for whom they can vote; institutions, groups,can fund issues but not individual representatives; this makes the elected beholden to their constituents rather than outside doners. For example Mitch McConnel (sp) received approx $60m from doners outside of Kentucky during his last election. Harry Reid almost as much in his last election $50+m from outside Nevada. This at the heart of our corrupt system.
Dilute their power. In 2024, each congressperson in the House represents ~750k citizens on average, the highest ratio in the world--by far. Reducing the ratio to 1930 levels would grow the house from 435 to ~1.2k members. (Source: Internet)
" ...limit campaign contributions to voters only and only to those politicians for whom they can vote..."
You still have the problem that rich people can donate more than poor people. I think a better idea would be a government fund which qualified candidates can draw from in equal amounts, with anything left over to be returned after the campaign. The amount available would reflect the population in the district where candidates are running, more people, more funds, but everyone gets the same amount. Think of it as the price of true democracy where the only advantage a candidate has is their record and how appealing their platform is to the electorate.
absolutely, but only within the state and district in which they live. Your model stifles individual free speech, if Bill Gates wants to spend $1B of his money ok but only in his state/district of his residency. Your true democracy is the European model and they are worse off than the US. I lived in Germany for 20 years; Government funds the political campaigns and individual politicians end up being totally controlled by the parties and are equally unresponsive to the voters.
Hmmm... trying to see how my idea stifles free speech. If I want to spend my own money independent of someone's campaign I don't see why I shouldn't be able to. I was talking about campaign donations. What an individual does on their own dime is entirely up to them.
I wasn't aware that Germany funds campaigns. Do they also fund independents or just parties? If not independents then I would be against that. If you can acquire the requisite number of signatures you should qualify for funding just the same as someone representing their party.
The German Government relies on the parties to limit who gets the funding which is then channeled through the party. An outsider or independent hasn't a chance. Since each candidate is limited and controlled by the party. Donald Trump could never have gotten on the ballot in Germany.
I didn't know that. So much for democracy in Germany I guess.
Even better, if your party doesn't get at least 5% of the vote, you don't even get a seat at the legislative table; in any given election, up to 20% of the votes for small parties are apportioned to the parties that did get over the 5%. During the Weimar Republic, there were 300-350 and it made coalition governing impossible. Hitler put an end to it.
That video came out months ago. It is part of his Agenda 47 plan to take back the government
Thanks. As long as he hasn't renounced any of it, we can work with it.
Campaign promises are cheap. He said a lot of this the first time too. Watch his actions. Watch the appointments.
Repeal the provisions of FASAB Rule 56 (accounting rules) that enable our national government to lie about expenditures with impunity simply by claiming national security interests are at stake. It is a license to commit massive fraud and negates any mechanism to discover criminal behavior and fiscal/budget anomalies. This rule allows the US government to legally maintain two sets of books, like a criminal organization. Of course, many of us would argue that the government is a criminal organization, and I support that view.
Impressive wish list. I do hope he manages to implement every single step outlined there, but won't hold my breath. Trying to root out corruption from within an inherently corrupt system is going to be a challenge - especially when every individual in it is fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo.
Term limits in California just empowered the lobbyists.
Plus I wonder on the constitutionality.
Same thing happened in Florida. The lobbyists have a much better understanding of how to get things done and end up advising the legislators. Eight years is definitely too short for term limits, either 12 or 16 years would be much better.
Maybe as part of the reform package, lobbying should also be outlawed.
I’m also not convinced as to the wisdom of such a move. But a constitutional amendment is, by definition, constitutional.
I’m going to send in a resume
Lots of names get "floated" by all sorts of advocacy groups--doesn't mean they're actually under consideration. Obviously you''re right.
If this makes you feel any better, Howard Lutnick, who is in charge of personnel for the transition, has said publicly that he's working closely with Jared Kushner to staff the new regime.
Nah, didn't really think it would.
This is business as usual, yes?
This is going viral per citizen free press where Pompeo backed stabbed Trump by backing the Jack Smith investigation:
https://x.com/JackPosobiec/status/1854564278046478719
More Bannon, less Hook.
Nah. They gave him this script. He'll pretend to do at least some of it, "conservatives" will cheer him on and pretend that he did at least some of it.
Meanwhile, I wonder what happened to the Iron Dome shield we were promised by the RNC?
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2024/07/can-donald-trump-really-build-iron-dome-over-america/398394/
The Patriot Act still lives.