47

Our commander in chief returned from an Asia trip just in time to fly to Mar a Lago for a Great Gatsby themed party. How nice for him. Millions losing SNAP benefits, insurance premiums shooting up, let's party!

And he took time to post on Social Media a threat to wage war on Nigeria. How many threats is that now, since January? Canada, Greenland, Panama, actually bombing Yemen and  Iran, provoking a war with Venezuela and insulting Colombia. And this "America First "dude thinks he deserves a peace prize? All this in-between umpteen rounds of golf. 

https://www.pbump.net/o/in-less-than-five-years-trump-has-played-as-much-golf-as-obama-did-in-eight/

Quote

In a recent NBC News poll, respondents vented frustration with President Donald Trump's handling of the economy.

In a poll taken in late October, 66% of respondents said Trump had fallen short of expectations regarding inflation and the cost of living.

Overall, 63% said the administration had also fallen short of expectations on handling the economy.

It's an NBC poll so it's probably fake or biased, and many of the people voting no confidence in Trump are Trump haters.  So really nothing to see here.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/02/trump-economy-nbc-news-poll.html

Beerman said:

SNAP funding isn't something they're fighting over.  If the Democrats agree to the Republicans bill, and SNAP is funded.

And, BTW, Republicans seem to be near proposing legislation to fund SNAP  throughout the shutdown.  It'll be interesting to see if the Dems go along with that.

Come on Beerman. We all know that even if the Republicans were providing more money to SNAP then automatically it would be bad. Like suggesting that giving more snap money is racist because inner city children will be eating too much junk food.... or something ridiculous like that. 

Ignoring the made up possible scenarios from Crusades above (Republicans increases SNAP benefits?  Please...), no SNAP was not on the table as part of the budget of what the Democrats are arguing about.  

I will say that Democrats are taking advantage of it running out to give them more of a talking point.  I also believe it's also being weaponized by republicans who hold it over Democrats head "if you only agree to the bill, then SNAP is funded...it's your fault it's running out".

My criticism is that it didn't have to get this way, that there are contingencies that would allow this program to be partially funded during a government shutdown and it wouldn't have been as big a deal as it is.  Why did it take a court order?

Quote

The USDA has a $5 billion contingency fund for the program, but the Trump administration reversed an earlier agency plan to use that money to keep SNAP running. Democratic officials argue that the administration could also use a separate fund of about $23 billion.

U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell in Providence, Rhode Island, said SNAP must be funded using at least contingency funds, and he asked for an update on progress by Monday.

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/03/g-s1-96296/trump-deadline-contingency-funds-snap

Did any one watch the Trump 60 Minutes interview last night? Is he lying or does he actually believe all of the mis- and dis-information that he spewed out? 

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/03/politics/fact-check-trump-cbs-interview

He keeps saying the price of groceries is down, except for beef. Can anyone here corroborate that? I sure can't. 

Trump is rolling back tariffs on some food items to help with inflation, oh wait didn't he say inflation didn't exist?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdjr4xw83eko

GrumpyRN said:

Are you kidding? Trump is supposed to be the most powerful person on Earth and he is telling over 100 lies in just this year so far? If you accept that from "any politician" then your country is in trouble. It's worrying that you don't think these things are important to know.

As for TDS, I have never liked Trump as I found him arrogant, lazy, bullying, selfish, narcissistic and stupid. And he has not changed over the years, just gained more power. I am  more concerned that you are willing to ignore the lies rather than find out about your "hero".

 

It is called trustworthy news channels, watching people being snatched by faceless ICE agents with no paperwork.

Don't bother asking because as soon as I say BBC, ITV, Channel 4, SKY etc. the first thing you are going to say is "fake news" because that is easier than having your worldview turned over to the truth as you would rather hide behind TDS.

One of your "trustworty" sources is busy kissing Trump's backside in hopes he doesn't sue them.  A formal written apology and the program taken off the air.  Not to mention two execs, including the CEO of BBC News, resigning in disgrace.

Grumpy, what are your thoughts on money you pay out of your pocket for the TV license fee being used to settle with Trump?

Or, maybe the BBC will become the TBC...

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/14/nx-s1-5608004/bbc-apology-trump-speech

GrumpyRN said:

I have deliberately been avoiding writing on this forum for a while because I got fed up dealing with people who are so blinded by Trump that they call legitimate criticism of him Trump Derangement Syndrome. 

 

Did you even read the source you referenced? Allow me to share the middle bit with you...

"In a letter to the White House released late Thursday, BBC Chair Samir Shah said he and the corporation were "sorry for the edit of the President's speech," acknowledging that the way the footage was spliced created "the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action."

But despite the apology, the letter made clear it does not concede the defamation claim. "While the BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited, we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim," the corporation said."

He has to show that there was harm done. This took place years ago and yes it was an error, can't deny that, but it hasn't done him any harm and certainly hasn't cost him any money (which is all he seems to care about). 

This was started by The Telegraph which wants GB News to be the national broadcaster, helped by Nigel Farage who despite being an MP is employed by GB News. For clarity, GB News is the FOX news of the UK. Right wing and totally biased with some total loons as presenters.

As you would imagine, this has been a fairly wide talking point over the past few days, but the consensus seems to be that Trump can take a running jump at himself. If he tries to sue in America then no American laws have been broken and no damage has been done, so nothing - unless he gets his tame judge in Florida to try the case. But she has been overturned more than once. If he tries to sue in UK then proving that there has been damage done is not going to work.

Youre right in that proving defamation may be difficult.  That doesnt excuse what they did.  And what they did wasnt simply an innocent mistake.  It was either purposeful or gross negligence.

GrumpyRN said:

As far as your little swipe at "trustworthy" sources go, if the BBC is getting stick from the left for being too right wing and from the right for being too left wing then it is pretty much doing it's job.

 

PS

Did you ever get a chance to look at the programme I mentioned about Trumps lies? Probably not, because you don't want evidence of the dear leaders, sorry, Trumps lies.

 

PPS

"Trump, amid Epstein furor(sic), directs Bondi to investigate Democrats"

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/14/trump-epstein-investigation-department-of-justice-00651851

Now this is the very definition of deflection, see posts passim.

They have proven their anti Trump bias,  however.   So, my "swipe" is well founded.

And, you can add that to the reasons I have not watched the programme on Trump's real and perceived lies.

Nice deflection, though.

Regarding the BBC incident, I  am much more concerned when a news outlet shows a pattern of bias and allows that bias to consistently shape its reporting.

That is not the BBC. It is respected as a fair and reliable news source. 

If there can be more examples shown that slant it one way or the other I'm willing to criticize but I have no reason to,  based on this one incident. 

Far far far more concerning are news outlets on the far left and far right that report everything through a political viewpoint, "taking sides" rather than just delivering the news as it happens. 

The BBC is consistently in the middle, accused by liberals of being too conservative and conservatives of being too liberal. I think that's a good place to be. 

mtmkjr said:

Regarding the BBC incident, I  am much more concerned when a news outlet shows a pattern of bias and allows that bias to consistently shape its reporting.

That is not the BBC. It is respected as a fair and reliable news source. 

If there can be more examples shown that slant it one way or the other I'm willing to criticize but I have no reason to,  based on this one incident. 

Far far far more concerning are news outlets on the far left and far right that report everything through a political viewpoint, "taking sides" rather than just delivering the news as it happens. 

The BBC is consistently in the middle, accused by liberals of being too conservative and conservatives of being too liberal. I think that's a good place to be. 

I am also concerned about our "news" organizations on both sides. This however was not a slant by the BBC, they spliced together different sentences from hours apart in an effort to fit the Dem narrative of Trump causing/propagating the "insurrection" when he in fact called for peaceful protest . It was not just bias but downright purposefully wrong information given for a distinct reason:  to further the Dem agenda with a false narrative.