#47 - Musk/trump/Vance

Get_Right · January 22

mickeyrat said:

Get_Right said:

mickeyrat said:

Get_Right said:

mrussel1 said:

Get_Right said:

mrussel1 said:

Get_Right said:

Gern Blansten said:

Get_Right said:

Well Trump just threw a number of Executive Orders against the wall on day one. They do not have the power of law, but they set in motion a number of potential tariffs and actions. He is well counseled. Most of his actions in the past have withstood judicial scrutiny. The USTR will be busy this year. You may agree or disagree with his actions, but my objective point of view is that he knows what he is doing.

Your point of view is messed up then. You can't EO away a constitutional right.

Not at all. The EOs set in motion fact finding that results in rulemaking. Which constitutional right do you speak of? I am still digesting all of the language.

Er what? EO's don't lead to legislation. They never do. EO's always seem to be the end, not the means to an end.

The problem with EO's has always been that it circumvents the balance of power between the Branches.

And if you are asking about Constitutional right, well just look at his current attempt to slash what most scholars and historical precedent consider settled and clear law, that of the 14th A and birthright citizenship. How did he just EO away part of an Amendment?

EOs do lead to governmental action, perhaps not formal law, but administrative action that has an impact. Ask anyone that imports goods from China. He is going through the fact finding process and is well advised by his lawyers, at least on the trade matters. These EOs lay out his short term agenda. Some those initiatives will result in action, some may not. 14th amendment right to due process has always been the subject much debate. I am not aware of the impact on birthright citizenship but I am still digesting the content of the EOs. Can you send a link to the content? I keep an open mind and am not a Trump fan, as I know he is a deplorable human being. But I acknowledge that he has hit the ground running and may have a way to accomplish his goals without the pork of congress slowing him down.

Well of course they lead to gov't action, they are EO's. But they are operating outside the bounds of the Founder's Intent, and part and parcel of the continuing growth of the executive branch while the Legislative and Judicial abdicate their roles in gov't.

Here is the link, and yeah it's easy to "hit the ground running" when you are not encumbered by the Constitution or other barriers to you being the sole decision maker in the country.

https://www.axios.com/2025/01/21/trump-birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment

Right. This is just an agenda, the checks and balances, special interest groups, and the media will decide which initiatives move forward. Do you think it is right that someone illegally enters the US, has a child on US soil, and then the entire family is eligible for all rights conferred on a US citizen? I am not sure where I stand on that in a vacuum. Emigrating from a military state or a war torn country? That makes sense to protect them. But I am not so sure that is the majority. It is a delicate topic, one that I am undecided on.

You are dealing with an NYC landlord that knows how to work the system and he is well counseled. Like I said, I am not a fan of Trump as a human being, but he knows how to work the system. The founders are 250 years removed from our current state. They never could have imagined our digital age or the judicial expansion of our constitutional amendments. I have said it before, but the prospect of factions in Madison's Federalist paper No. 10 is happening. The government, at almost all levels, is ruled by special interest. Everybody knows somebody that can solve your problem or push your agenda, if you donate enough money. Do not hate the player, hate the game.

ANY non citizen found within the borders of the US or a protectorate are granted the rights as outlined in the constitution . documented or not. its as simple as due process. citizens have gotten caught up in hamfisted actions by the government. due process helps sort out those errors.

If you come here without a visa or you are not a US citizen, then you may not be entitled to be here. Due process operates outside of the US.

do show me in the founding document where it says this.

It's not a founding document. That was 250 years ago. It is part of our code of federal regulations. 8 CFR. Promulgated by lawmakers in furtherance of existing federal laws, otherwise known as the USC. Look up unlawful admission. There is a process to detain and deport. And that has nothing to do with the Constitution or due process. Do you think that every person that simply crosses our borders can stay here? They cannot and it has been that way for some time.

mickeyrat · January 22

Get_Right said:

mickeyrat said:

Get_Right said:

mickeyrat said:

Get_Right said:

mrussel1 said:

Get_Right said:

mrussel1 said:

Get_Right said:

Gern Blansten said:

Get_Right said:

Well Trump just threw a number of Executive Orders against the wall on day one. They do not have the power of law, but they set in motion a number of potential tariffs and actions. He is well counseled. Most of his actions in the past have withstood judicial scrutiny. The USTR will be busy this year. You may agree or disagree with his actions, but my objective point of view is that he knows what he is doing.

Your point of view is messed up then. You can't EO away a constitutional right.

Not at all. The EOs set in motion fact finding that results in rulemaking. Which constitutional right do you speak of? I am still digesting all of the language.

Er what? EO's don't lead to legislation. They never do. EO's always seem to be the end, not the means to an end.

The problem with EO's has always been that it circumvents the balance of power between the Branches.

And if you are asking about Constitutional right, well just look at his current attempt to slash what most scholars and historical precedent consider settled and clear law, that of the 14th A and birthright citizenship. How did he just EO away part of an Amendment?

EOs do lead to governmental action, perhaps not formal law, but administrative action that has an impact. Ask anyone that imports goods from China. He is going through the fact finding process and is well advised by his lawyers, at least on the trade matters. These EOs lay out his short term agenda. Some those initiatives will result in action, some may not. 14th amendment right to due process has always been the subject much debate. I am not aware of the impact on birthright citizenship but I am still digesting the content of the EOs. Can you send a link to the content? I keep an open mind and am not a Trump fan, as I know he is a deplorable human being. But I acknowledge that he has hit the ground running and may have a way to accomplish his goals without the pork of congress slowing him down.

Well of course they lead to gov't action, they are EO's. But they are operating outside the bounds of the Founder's Intent, and part and parcel of the continuing growth of the executive branch while the Legislative and Judicial abdicate their roles in gov't.

Here is the link, and yeah it's easy to "hit the ground running" when you are not encumbered by the Constitution or other barriers to you being the sole decision maker in the country.

https://www.axios.com/2025/01/21/trump-birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment

Right. This is just an agenda, the checks and balances, special interest groups, and the media will decide which initiatives move forward. Do you think it is right that someone illegally enters the US, has a child on US soil, and then the entire family is eligible for all rights conferred on a US citizen? I am not sure where I stand on that in a vacuum. Emigrating from a military state or a war torn country? That makes sense to protect them. But I am not so sure that is the majority. It is a delicate topic, one that I am undecided on.

You are dealing with an NYC landlord that knows how to work the system and he is well counseled. Like I said, I am not a fan of Trump as a human being, but he knows how to work the system. The founders are 250 years removed from our current state. They never could have imagined our digital age or the judicial expansion of our constitutional amendments. I have said it before, but the prospect of factions in Madison's Federalist paper No. 10 is happening. The government, at almost all levels, is ruled by special interest. Everybody knows somebody that can solve your problem or push your agenda, if you donate enough money. Do not hate the player, hate the game.

ANY non citizen found within the borders of the US or a protectorate are granted the rights as outlined in the constitution . documented or not. its as simple as due process. citizens have gotten caught up in hamfisted actions by the government. due process helps sort out those errors.

If you come here without a visa or you are not a US citizen, then you may not be entitled to be here. Due process operates outside of the US.

do show me in the founding document where it says this.

It's not a founding document. That was 250 years ago. It is part of our code of federal regulations. 8 CFR. Promulgated by lawmakers in furtherance of existing federal laws, otherwise known as the USC. Look up unlawful admission. There is a process to detain and deport. And that has nothing to do with the Constitution or due process. Do you think that every person that simply crosses our borders can stay here? They cannot and it has been that way for some time.

and the code was derived based on the constitution. its says one thing in one area. and says something else in another.

scotus says noncitizens have legal protections.

mrussel1 · January 22

Get_Right said:

mrussel1 said:

Get_Right said:

mrussel1 said:

Get_Right said:

Gern Blansten said:

Get_Right said:

Well Trump just threw a number of Executive Orders against the wall on day one. They do not have the power of law, but they set in motion a number of potential tariffs and actions. He is well counseled. Most of his actions in the past have withstood judicial scrutiny. The USTR will be busy this year. You may agree or disagree with his actions, but my objective point of view is that he knows what he is doing.

Your point of view is messed up then. You can't EO away a constitutional right.

Not at all. The EOs set in motion fact finding that results in rulemaking. Which constitutional right do you speak of? I am still digesting all of the language.

Er what? EO's don't lead to legislation. They never do. EO's always seem to be the end, not the means to an end.

The problem with EO's has always been that it circumvents the balance of power between the Branches.

And if you are asking about Constitutional right, well just look at his current attempt to slash what most scholars and historical precedent consider settled and clear law, that of the 14th A and birthright citizenship. How did he just EO away part of an Amendment?

EOs do lead to governmental action, perhaps not formal law, but administrative action that has an impact. Ask anyone that imports goods from China. He is going through the fact finding process and is well advised by his lawyers, at least on the trade matters. These EOs lay out his short term agenda. Some those initiatives will result in action, some may not. 14th amendment right to due process has always been the subject much debate. I am not aware of the impact on birthright citizenship but I am still digesting the content of the EOs. Can you send a link to the content? I keep an open mind and am not a Trump fan, as I know he is a deplorable human being. But I acknowledge that he has hit the ground running and may have a way to accomplish his goals without the pork of congress slowing him down.

Well of course they lead to gov't action, they are EO's. But they are operating outside the bounds of the Founder's Intent, and part and parcel of the continuing growth of the executive branch while the Legislative and Judicial abdicate their roles in gov't.

Here is the link, and yeah it's easy to "hit the ground running" when you are not encumbered by the Constitution or other barriers to you being the sole decision maker in the country.

https://www.axios.com/2025/01/21/trump-birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment

Right. This is just an agenda, the checks and balances, special interest groups, and the media will decide which initiatives move forward. Do you think it is right that someone illegally enters the US, has a child on US soil, and then the entire family is eligible for all rights conferred on a US citizen? I am not sure where I stand on that in a vacuum. Emigrating from a military state or a war torn country? That makes sense to protect them. But I am not so sure that is the majority. It is a delicate topic, one that I am undecided on.

You are dealing with an NYC landlord that knows how to work the system and he is well counseled. Like I said, I am not a fan of Trump as a human being, but he knows how to work the system. The founders are 250 years removed from our current state. They never could have imagined our digital age or the judicial expansion of our constitutional amendments. I have said it before, but the prospect of factions in Madison's Federalist paper No. 10 is happening. The government, at almost all levels, is ruled by special interest. Everybody knows somebody that can solve your problem or push your agenda, if you donate enough money. Do not hate the player, hate the game.

Right vs wrong isn't the issue. It's a question of Constitutionality, the law and whether one person gets to supersede a process that takes 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of states to change. Or one guy named Trump, evidently. Didn't you say you were an attorney? Surely an attorney understands that agreement with the issue has nothing to do with the law.

And you say he knows how to "work the system"? I don't even know what that means. I mean Obama or Biden could have written an EO banning guns, running afoul of the 2A. They didn't. It's not because they didn't know about EOs, it's because they respected the system. You call that working the system, others might call it dictatorial behavior.

Halifax2TheMax · January 22

Anyone still doubting whether Project 2025 is for realz?

mickeyrat · January 22

https://www.threads.net/@occupydemocrats/post/DFGLwNSSap8?xmt=AQGzCwBk-v5MuvVWS9VohME3ZZ6CP5ekKCJ6WPx2v5FqyA

Get_Right · January 22

mickeyrat said:

Get_Right said:

mickeyrat said:

Get_Right said:

mickeyrat said:

Get_Right said:

mrussel1 said:

Get_Right said:

mrussel1 said:

Get_Right said:

Gern Blansten said:

Get_Right said:

Well Trump just threw a number of Executive Orders against the wall on day one. They do not have the power of law, but they set in motion a number of potential tariffs and actions. He is well counseled. Most of his actions in the past have withstood judicial scrutiny. The USTR will be busy this year. You may agree or disagree with his actions, but my objective point of view is that he knows what he is doing.

Your point of view is messed up then. You can't EO away a constitutional right.

Not at all. The EOs set in motion fact finding that results in rulemaking. Which constitutional right do you speak of? I am still digesting all of the language.

Er what? EO's don't lead to legislation. They never do. EO's always seem to be the end, not the means to an end.

The problem with EO's has always been that it circumvents the balance of power between the Branches.

And if you are asking about Constitutional right, well just look at his current attempt to slash what most scholars and historical precedent consider settled and clear law, that of the 14th A and birthright citizenship. How did he just EO away part of an Amendment?

EOs do lead to governmental action, perhaps not formal law, but administrative action that has an impact. Ask anyone that imports goods from China. He is going through the fact finding process and is well advised by his lawyers, at least on the trade matters. These EOs lay out his short term agenda. Some those initiatives will result in action, some may not. 14th amendment right to due process has always been the subject much debate. I am not aware of the impact on birthright citizenship but I am still digesting the content of the EOs. Can you send a link to the content? I keep an open mind and am not a Trump fan, as I know he is a deplorable human being. But I acknowledge that he has hit the ground running and may have a way to accomplish his goals without the pork of congress slowing him down.

Well of course they lead to gov't action, they are EO's. But they are operating outside the bounds of the Founder's Intent, and part and parcel of the continuing growth of the executive branch while the Legislative and Judicial abdicate their roles in gov't.

Here is the link, and yeah it's easy to "hit the ground running" when you are not encumbered by the Constitution or other barriers to you being the sole decision maker in the country.

https://www.axios.com/2025/01/21/trump-birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment

Right. This is just an agenda, the checks and balances, special interest groups, and the media will decide which initiatives move forward. Do you think it is right that someone illegally enters the US, has a child on US soil, and then the entire family is eligible for all rights conferred on a US citizen? I am not sure where I stand on that in a vacuum. Emigrating from a military state or a war torn country? That makes sense to protect them. But I am not so sure that is the majority. It is a delicate topic, one that I am undecided on.

You are dealing with an NYC landlord that knows how to work the system and he is well counseled. Like I said, I am not a fan of Trump as a human being, but he knows how to work the system. The founders are 250 years removed from our current state. They never could have imagined our digital age or the judicial expansion of our constitutional amendments. I have said it before, but the prospect of factions in Madison's Federalist paper No. 10 is happening. The government, at almost all levels, is ruled by special interest. Everybody knows somebody that can solve your problem or push your agenda, if you donate enough money. Do not hate the player, hate the game.

ANY non citizen found within the borders of the US or a protectorate are granted the rights as outlined in the constitution . documented or not. its as simple as due process. citizens have gotten caught up in hamfisted actions by the government. due process helps sort out those errors.

If you come here without a visa or you are not a US citizen, then you may not be entitled to be here. Due process operates outside of the US.

do show me in the founding document where it says this.

It's not a founding document. That was 250 years ago. It is part of our code of federal regulations. 8 CFR. Promulgated by lawmakers in furtherance of existing federal laws, otherwise known as the USC. Look up unlawful admission. There is a process to detain and deport. And that has nothing to do with the Constitution or due process. Do you think that every person that simply crosses our borders can stay here? They cannot and it has been that way for some time.

and the code was derived based on the constitution.

Actually not 100% true. The USC comes first, under which governmental agencies are granted power and discretion to prepare an enforce rules to achieve stated objectives. The agencies are granted a huge amount of discretion to complete their objectives. The CFR are promulgated under notice and comment rulemaking requirements, and published in the Federal Register thereby putting both citizens and politicians on notice. I read it every day. And both the CFR and the USC are subject to judicial scrutiny. To allege a constitutional violation thereof is a huge jump from day to day administrative process. You have at least two to three layers of judicial scrutiny before you even get a chance to have a constitutional argument heard. Overall point being is that the government can promulgate a regulation based on budgetary, managerial, or administrative burden that may not correlate to a document created 250 years ago.

brianlux · January 22

Halifax2TheMax said:

Anyone still doubting whether Project 2025 is for realz?

Don't ask me. :shrug:

But I'm only saying that because we watched "Wag the Dog" very recently.

The Juggler · January 22

Clearly the ratings for Biden were rigged. Donald Trump should do something about that.

https://deadline.com/2025/01/trump-inauguration-ratings-1236262953/

Donald Trump’s Inauguration TV Viewership Falls From 2021 And 2017; Fox News Wallops Competition

By Ted Johnson Ted JohnsonPolitical Editor@tedstewMore Stories By TedDonald Trump Touts Tech Investment Of Up To $500 Billion In AI Infrastructure Donald Trump’s Inauguration TV Viewership Falls From 2021 And 2017; Fox News Wallops Competition Sean Hannity To Sit Down With Donald Trump For First Interview Following His Return To White House VIEW ALL

January 21, 2025 3:19pm

26COMMENTS

Services to share this page.

President Donald Trump is sworn in on Monday January 20 2025

Donald Trump is sworn in on MondayRicky Carioti - Pool/Getty Images

UPDATED with final numbers: Donald Trump drew fewer viewers to his second inauguration than to his first, as well as to Joe Biden’s four years ago.

According to Nielsen on Tuesday, the inauguration drew 24.59 million viewers, compared to 33.76 million for Biden’s 2021 inauguration and 30.64 million for Trump’s first in 2021. The figures are across 15 networks and are an average from the 10:30 a.m.-7 p.m. ET time frame.

Watch on Deadline

The video player is currently playing an ad.

During the Trump swearing-in ceremony and inaugural address, about 27.12 million viewers tuned in during the noon-12:45 p.m. ET time frame across the three major cable news networks and the three major broadcast networks, according to early data.

Nearly 40 million watched Biden’s swearing in and inaugural address four years ago on those six networks. In 2017, about 38.3 million watched Trump’s first inauguration.

Fox News walloped the competition for Monday’s coverage, drawing 10.67 million, followed by ABC News with 4.85 million, NBC News with 4.58 million, CBS News with 4.35 million, CNN with 1.80 million and MSNBC with 880,000. In the 25-54 demo, Fox News drew 2.09 million, followed by NBC News with 1.22 million, ABC News with 1.12 million, CBS News with 966,000, CNN with 563,000 and MSNBC with 106,000.

The rankings were a predictable reflection of partisanship: Four years ago, when Biden was entering office, Fox News drew the smallest of the major networks, albeit that was 2.74 million. CNN drew the largest viewership — almost 10 million, while MSNBC garnered 6.53 million.

The figures are from Nielsen via Fox News.

Second presidential inaugurations traditionally draw far fewer viewers than the first. Barack Obama’s first inaugural in 2009 drew an average of about 37.8 million throughout the day; his second in 2013 captured about 20.6 million.

brianlux · January 22

The Juggler said:

Clearly the ratings for Biden were rigged. Donald Trump should do something about that.

https://deadline.com/2025/01/trump-inauguration-ratings-1236262953/

Donald Trump’s Inauguration TV Viewership Falls From 2021 And 2017; Fox News Wallops Competition
By Ted Johnson Ted JohnsonPolitical Editor@tedstewMore Stories By TedDonald Trump Touts Tech Investment Of Up To $500 Billion In AI Infrastructure Donald Trump’s Inauguration TV Viewership Falls From 2021 And 2017; Fox News Wallops Competition Sean Hannity To Sit Down With Donald Trump For First Interview Following His Return To White House VIEW ALL
January 21, 2025 3:19pm
26COMMENTS
Services to share this page.
Share on Facebook
Post
Share to Flipboard
Email
Show more sharing options
Donald Trump is sworn in on MondayRicky Carioti - Pool/Getty Images
UPDATED with final numbers: Donald Trump drew fewer viewers to his second inauguration than to his first, as well as to Joe Biden’s four years ago.
According to Nielsen on Tuesday, the inauguration drew 24.59 million viewers, compared to 33.76 million for Biden’s 2021 inauguration and 30.64 million for Trump’s first in 2021. The figures are across 15 networks and are an average from the 10:30 a.m.-7 p.m. ET time frame.
Related Stories

Viewership peaked in the 12:15 quarter hour, as Trump was giving his inaugural address.
According to Nielsen, 17.4 million viewers were aged 55 and above, 4.67 million were 35-54 and 1.43 million were 18-34.
Watch on Deadline
The video player is currently playing an ad.
During the Trump swearing-in ceremony and inaugural address, about 27.12 million viewers tuned in during the noon-12:45 p.m. ET time frame across the three major cable news networks and the three major broadcast networks, according to early data.
Nearly 40 million watched Biden’s swearing in and inaugural address four years ago on those six networks. In 2017, about 38.3 million watched Trump’s first inauguration.
Fox News walloped the competition for Monday’s coverage, drawing 10.67 million, followed by ABC News with 4.85 million, NBC News with 4.58 million, CBS News with 4.35 million, CNN with 1.80 million and MSNBC with 880,000. In the 25-54 demo, Fox News drew 2.09 million, followed by NBC News with 1.22 million, ABC News with 1.12 million, CBS News with 966,000, CNN with 563,000 and MSNBC with 106,000.
The rankings were a predictable reflection of partisanship: Four years ago, when Biden was entering office, Fox News drew the smallest of the major networks, albeit that was 2.74 million. CNN drew the largest viewership — almost 10 million, while MSNBC garnered 6.53 million.
The figures are from Nielsen via Fox News.
Second presidential inaugurations traditionally draw far fewer viewers than the first. Barack Obama’s first inaugural in 2009 drew an average of about 37.8 million throughout the day; his second in 2013 captured about 20.6 million.

And yet supposedly the MAGA fans are elated. But which ones? The hard core maybe, but these figures speak for themselves. Thanks for posting it.

Gern Blansten · January 22

I can't wait to see the Sunday shows this weekend and watch the GOP get grilled

Q: You previously stated that you opposed the pardons for those involved in assaulting and vandalizing the capitol....what do you say now that trump has pardoned them?

A: donald trump won the election in a massive landslide, he has a mandate to secure our border, make america great, and strengthen our miltary

Q: yeah but please answer my question....what do you think now that trump has pardoned these criminals?

A: what we should really be talking about is why Biden let criminals across our border

Q: thank you for coming

Repeated across 3-4 shows by 3-4 hosts

josevolution · January 22

Gern Blansten said:

I can't wait to see the Sunday shows this weekend and watch the GOP get grilled

Q: You previously stated that you opposed the pardons for those involved in assaulting and vandalizing the capitol....what do you say now that trump has pardoned them?

A: donald trump won the election in a massive landslide, he has a mandate to secure our border, make america great, and strengthen our miltary

Q: yeah but please answer my question....what do you think now that trump has pardoned these criminals?

A: what we should really be talking about is why Biden let criminals across our border

Q: thank you for coming

Repeated across 3-4 shows by 3-4 hosts

Right on point! I won’t watch any of it but we know how they will spin it! They’ve learned from the master weaver

josevolution · January 22

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn0y51z7wedt

Purging is right on track! Do these folks get to collect their pensions or collect unemployment?

josevolution · January 22

https://news.usni.org/2025/01/21/adm-linda-fagan-removed-as-coast-guard-commandant

He fired her does she get to collect her pension?

mrussel1 · January 22

josevolution said:

https://news.usni.org/2025/01/21/adm-linda-fagan-removed-as-coast-guard-commandant
He fired her does she get to collect her pension?

Employment law would generally say "yes" unless it was for cause.

Halifax2TheMax · January 22

Such a gracious COOTWH. Is this what he does after having sex with Melmeania?

President Donald Trump took to Truth Social early Wednesday to slam the Right Rev. Mariann Budde, the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, for her plea during Tuesday’s inaugural prayer service that he “have mercy” on communities in fear.

“She brought her church into the World of politics in a very ungracious way. She was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart,” wrote Trump, who also called her a “Radical Left hard line Trump hater.”

mickeyrat · January 22

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

https://news.usni.org/2025/01/21/adm-linda-fagan-removed-as-coast-guard-commandant
He fired her does she get to collect her pension?

Employment law would generally say "yes" unless it was for cause.

20 yrs service nets you 50% of the average of your top 3 yrs pay. 30 yrs I believe gets you to 75% with 40 being 100%. would need to confirm this.

you must reach 20 yrs service to collect. without looking at her wiki page would assume minimum 30 yrs service. she wont be denied pension. its the huge slap in the face for what would have to be a distinguished career to reach that rank alone and position.

being relieved of command is one thing, unless her commission is revoked she is still on active duty. Commissions are acts of the Senate I believe.

HughFreakingDillon · January 22

Oh look, it’s the average GOP voter, voting against their own self interest and common sense. AGAIN.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DDHv8v_Ragu/?igsh=MTFnenN3dHVya2ZvOA==

mickeyrat · January 22

Halifax2TheMax said:

Such a gracious COOTWH. Is this what he does after having sex with Melmeania?

President Donald Trump took to Truth Social early Wednesday to slam the Right Rev. Mariann Budde, the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, for her plea during Tuesday’s inaugural prayer service that he “have mercy” on communities in fear.
“She brought her church into the World of politics in a very ungracious way. She was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart,” wrote Trump, who also called her a “Radical Left hard line Trump hater.”

but its ok for evangelical pastors to do the same.

mickeyrat · January 22

Alt Nat Park Service page on adbook

Why did Trump declare a national energy emergency? Simply put, Trump’s declaration aims to accelerate fossil fuel projects on public lands and roll back environmental protections. But was this declaration truly necessary? Under President Biden in 2024, America reached its highest energy production levels in history, marking seven years of dominance in global fossil fuel markets.

The declaration is less about necessity and more about politics, pointing to Trump’s “remarkably blunt and transactional pitch” to fossil fuel CEOs for campaign cash. The move grants Trump powers to bypass community and climate protections and fast-track fossil fuel project approvals.

A national emergency allows the government to take actions beyond its usual authority. The 1976 National Emergencies Act established legal guidelines for such declarations by the President of the United States.

Let’s check the facts:
- Record Production: In 2024, the U.S. reached its highest energy production levels, including oil, natural gas, and renewables.
- Energy Independence: Since 2019, the U.S. has produced more energy than it consumes, becoming a net exporter.
- Global Dominance: The U.S. has led global fossil fuel markets for seven years, exporting large volumes to Europe and Asia.
- Stable Supplies: Energy supplies remain steady with no major disruptions.
- No Price Spikes: Gas and electricity prices are stable, reflecting normal market trends.
- Renewable Growth: Renewable energy capacity is growing, reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

In short: Leave our public lands alone!

mickeyrat · January 22

#47 - Musk/trump/Vance

Comments

Donald Trump’s Inauguration TV Viewership Falls From 2021 And 2017; Fox News Wallops Competition

Services to share this page.

Related Stories

Watch on Deadline

Donald Trump’s Inauguration TV Viewership Falls From 2021 And 2017; Fox News Wallops Competition

Services to share this page.

Related Stories

Watch on Deadline

Categories