The Second Term of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States of America

Shiftless2 said:
You have to remember that Ford was appointed VP after Agnew stepped down and the speculation was that he was given that role because he agreed to let Nixon walk.
Click to expand...
{...
Spiro Agnew served as the 39th Vice President of the United States from 1969 until his resignation in 1973. His resignation was a result of a scandal involving allegations of tax evasion and corruption during his tenure as Governor of Maryland. Agnew faced investigations into bribery and extortion, leading to a plea deal where he pleaded no contest to a single felony charge of tax evasion. He resigned in October 1973 to avoid further legal repercussions and to restore public trust in the Vice Presidency. Following his resignation, Agnew spent the remainder of his life largely out of the public eye, rarely making public appearances and often blaming others for his downfall.
...}
{...
President Richard Nixon resigned from office on August 9, 1974
...}
So offhand they seem to not be related?
 
Shiftless2 said:
Oooops ....

www.facebook.com

16K views · 1.9K reactions | The Trump administration wants to cut off federal student loans for college programs whose graduates don’t earn enough money after graduation. Conservatives thought this would target “woke” liberal arts majors… but it wi

The Trump administration wants to cut off federal student loans for college programs whose graduates don’t earn enough money after graduation. Conservatives thought this would target “woke” liberal...
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
Click to expand...

Personally I would like to see free college tuition.
I think it would boost the economy by making our workforce more competitive.
But the effect on Christian colleges I had not even thought of.
 
Shiftless2 said:
"FDA withdraws publication of COVID and shingles vaccine research findings" #3,244
Click to expand...
S2,
Have they shown their hand here?
It's one thing to curtail funding on basis that it's wasted, because everybody knows vaccine never worked.

But "research findings" means the expenditure is already made.
If the findings corroborated legitimacy of their position, what harm in informing the public? Subjecting the findings to further corroboration / peer review?

Suppression of findings for research already conducted? Is there any explanation more plausible than "cover-up"?
What else could they be hiding, other than the efficacy of vax?
On whose agenda?
They're doing RFKj's bidding. I get that.
Whose bidding is RFKj doing?
 
1779275445229.png

BREAKING: CBS Evening News collapses in ratings as MAGA-coded anchor drives viewers away

CBS Evening News has now fallen below four million nightly viewers for six straight weeks, cementing what is shaping up as one of the most dramatic self-inflicted disasters in network news history. Last week the show averaged just 3.81 million viewers while NBC pulled 5.97 million and ABC dominated with 7.89 million. The gap is not close. CBS is getting lapped by its competitors while its parent company quietly begins to reconsider whether handing editorial control of a century-old news institution to an opinion blogger with zero broadcast experience was a good idea.

That blogger is Bari Weiss, who was installed as CBS News editor-in-chief by billionaire David Ellison despite never having worked in television or run a major news organization. She then installed Tony Dokoupil as anchor, a hire that immediately set off a staff revolt. Dokoupil complained about "legacy media" before his first broadcast, gave a both-sides treatment of the January 6 anniversary on his second day, and delivered what colleagues described as fawning coverage of Marco Rubio. A senior producer has since been fired and several others took buyouts on the way out the door.

Now Paramount executives are reportedly having informal discussions about pulling back Weiss's mandate and bringing in a more experienced executive to actually run the newsroom. CBS's official response was that Weiss has "full support." That statement landed the same week Puck reported she was given "too broad a mandate" and the negative press has been "ceaseless." Both things can be true.
 
NBC00.JPG
Justice Department

Jan. 6 officers sue over $1.8B pot they call ‘slush fund’ for ‘insurrectionists’​

The lawsuit seeks to block the Justice Department’s new “anti-weaponization” fund created as part of a settlement with President Donald Trump.
May 20, 2026, 9:58 AM GMT-5 / By Ryan J. Reilly
Two officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot sued Tuesday to block the Trump administration’s $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” money pool, describing it as a “taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups” that they say committed violence in President Donald Trump’s name.
The lawsuit — filed by former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Department Officer Daniel Hodges — argues the fund is illegal and the settlement on which it is premised “a corrupt sham.”
www.nbcnews.com

Jan. 6 officers sue over $1.8B pot they call ‘slush fund’ for ‘insurrectionists’

The lawsuit seeks to block the Justice Department’s new “anti-weaponization” fund created as part of a settlement with President Donald Trump.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
 
sear said:
S2,
Have they shown their hand here?
It's one thing to curtail funding on basis that it's wasted, because everybody knows vaccine never worked.

But "research findings" means the expenditure is already made.
If the findings corroborated legitimacy of their position, what harm in informing the public? Subjecting the findings to further corroboration / peer review?

Suppression of findings for research already conducted? Is there any explanation more plausible than "cover-up"?
What else could they be hiding, other than the efficacy of vax?
On whose agenda?
They're doing RFKj's bidding. I get that.
Whose bidding is RFKj doing?
Click to expand...

The reason the findings should not be published is because they were not balanced and accurate.
The only told that the mRNA cut the hospital time in half with serious covid cases.
But that is not a factual cause and effect since it could be that those with more serious covid symptoms would not have been improved if they had taken the mRNA.
What is more likely is that the older patient were warned not to take the mRNA since it had such a reputation for itself being fatal to elderly.
The report also failed to mention that the mRNA had absolutely no positive effect beyond 2 months after injection.
And also the high rate of death or amputations from the mRNA injection were not included in the report.
 
Rigby5 said:
R5 #3,251
Click to expand...
Science is not about proving the Protestants are better than the Catholics, or
the way to Jehovah is through Christ, or ...

It's about legitimacy. When there's error in science, as there may have been in Sir Isaac Newton's 3 Laws of Motion,
science develops clarifications, which is how we've:
- preserved Newton's 3 laws, while adding
- quantum physics, equally legitimate science, but without adherence to Newton's laws, &
- relativity, which adheres to neither the laws of quantum physics, nor the laws of Newton.

Rigby5 said:
"The reason the findings should not be published is because they were not balanced and accurate." R5 #3,251
Click to expand...
Superb!
Then the methodological deficiencies can be:
a) peer reviewed, a rock-bottom fundamental practice within science as a whole, as a discipline
b) deficiencies specifically enumerated, exposed

That's what they did with Pons & Fleischmann.

But instead of exposing the ostensible inaccuracy & imbalance, they suppress it?
That's not pure science. That's dirty politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top