President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

The information comes from an anonymous source that the AP can't independently verify so of course it's real.
Did it?

The database, which was confirmed by U.S. officials and published by AP, includes more than 26,000 images that have been flagged for removal across every military branch. But the eventual total could be much higher.
 
That's crazy.

I guess just because it is flagged for removal doesn't mean it will be removed.

I wouldn't doubt that there are 26K images flagged for removal, I'm betting that the individual stuff mentioned in the article like the Enola Gay is complete horse chit.
 
I read that as the database and 26,000 images flagged for removal has been confirmed. Nothing in regards to the Enola Gay or any of the other crap they mentioned in the article.
It's one of the images in the database. Not like this is new


From another article
A Marine Corps official stated that all flagged images within their database had either been removed or would be removed soon.
However, the process has been slow because of limited personnel numbers. The Marine Corps has only one civilian employee handling the removals, and an estimated 1,600 military-related social media accounts remain under review.
They're just hitting everything with a hammer
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
It's one of the images in the database. Not like this is new


From another article


They're just hitting everything with a hammer
That's dumb...both on the tuskegee point and the "all flagged images will be removed" point.
 
If the Trump administration gets this done it will be a huge win for all Americans. No more CA emissions, CA tires and all the other crap CA requires that gets passed on to consumers around the country.

EPA Moves to Overturn California’s Motor Vehicle Emission Standards

And before some of our resident mouth-breathers start claiming hypocrisy about states rights, this is an interstate commerce issue where the Nixon administration granted CA a waiver.
 
That's dumb...both on the tuskegee point and the "all flagged images will be removed" point.
There's the concept in gov't bureaucracy akin to "Malicious Implementation". If you have to do it, and you hate the one asking you to do it, do it in the most asinine, bludgeoning, counter-productive way, interpreting the letter of the law so that you can say, "I did it", but doing it in such a way that it defeats the purpose or makes the mandate look stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad and hog88
There's the concept in gov't bureaucracy akin to "Malicious Implementation". If you have to do it, and you hate the one asking you to do it, do it in the most asinine, bludgeoning, counter-productive way, interpreting the letter of the law so that you can say, "I did it", but doing it in such a way that it defeats the purpose or makes the mandate look stupid.

Acting like children are what govt employees are good at.
 
There's the concept in gov't bureaucracy akin to "Malicious Implementation". If you have to do it, and you hate the one asking you to do it, do it in the most asinine, bludgeoning, counter-productive way, interpreting the letter of the law so that you can say, "I did it", but doing it in such a way that it defeats the purpose or makes the mandate look stupid.
I've seen this play out in private sector bureaucracy too.
 
When have I been against the middle class? I'm all for taxing millionaires and billionaires more; but that's not the middle class.
Is that people making $1M or more each year or those that have accumulated more than $1M over their years of employment? If it’s the latter, then you’re talking a wealth tax, which would dumb at that level. If it’s the former, then you should get familiar with the marginal tax rates. What would be an acceptable top marginal tax rate to you and what would those income limits be? Would you have a higher rate, but starting at a higher income threshold (e.g. 40-42% above $1M as the next bracket)?

IMG_5063.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens
Grateful for that, too. Recently fired my property manager after 90 days of no results.

Over the years I've fired a few people for acting like an ass. "Hey, clean up all of that junk in the tool room" <throws away almost everything in the tool room including a bunch of tools> "you didn't specify what was junk and what wasn't".
 
Then why would an EO be necessary?



I don't see where that requires a monetary sum. Also unsure how the executive is making rules about how the judicial needs to operate.
It’s been a rule but DOJ hasn’t consistently made motions to enforce it (because most of them would be denied).

The XO orders DOJ to ask courts to require a bond.
 
Is that people making $1M or more each year or those that have accumulated more than $1M over their years of employment? If it’s the latter, then you’re talking a wealth tax, which would dumb at that level. If it’s the former, then you should get familiar with the marginal tax rates. What would be an acceptable top marginal tax rate to you and what would those income limits be? Would you have a higher rate, but starting at a higher income threshold (e.g. 40-42% above $1M as the next bracket)?

View attachment 726393
Lefty can't steal enough of your money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens
Oh yeah that was a truly great time to be black in America. They had their own schools, bathrooms, seats on the bus, etc.
I don't know how their spines contort without breaking as they try to ignore the civil and human rights abuses. When people say MAGA, they don't mean it in an "All lives matter" way...well, maybe as the dogwhistle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
No gotcha to it. It's the perfect plan.
Do any of you feel as if the defense is not grotesquely bloated?

Who do you believe is actually more interested in reducing the size of government?
The right or the left?
Conservatives or liberals?

Avoid the copout, impossibility of an answer "they are EXACTLY the same".
if you want to argue they are exactly the same why aren't you treating them the same? especially if you are wanting to argue the Constitutional basis for it.

if you wanted weighted cuts it seems like it would be the reverse. Things mentioned in the Constitution would receive the smaller cuts, while those programs not mentioned in the Constitution receive the bigger cuts.

the military isn't the single largest item in our budget. Medicare is the single biggest. After SS which is supposed to be paid by its own taxes, so I won't touch it here, but I have my own thoughts on SS reforms.

FWIW debt interest payments will pass our military spending in the 2025 budget.

I would start with flat cuts across the board, 10%, then I would further remove any funds any agency can't account for from previous years. that second bit would hit the military the hardest. but would be hitting waste directly across the board. then I would cut any/all foreign aid, including military aid to Israel *looking at you Trump*, after those, I would start picking and choosing; maybe having a weighted system on cuts but based on the Constitution.
 
Advertisement

Back
Top