President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#49,177
#49,177
McDad said:
Nice graphic. You find it accurate?
Click to expand...
Not completely but I think it has AP pegged on anything related to Trump or his admin. Which was my point in this case. AP is fine in reporting none politically charged topics I think. But they turn into mouth foaming morons once Trump is invoked. I think Reuters is a better source for politically neutral reporting.

Are there specific instances you want to cover?
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#49,178
#49,178
McDad said:
Nice graphic. You find it accurate?
Click to expand...
BTW here is an update on the trash piece from AP from the same authors. Due to heavy midol usage apparently they have clarified the policy. Even though the commandant stated clearly the claims were false they issued new wording via memorandum. The release also claims it’s not a revised policy. Of course that is going to get buried in the rest of the misleading trash.

Luther will of course claim this as vindication. Even though it has been stated multiple times the penalties for using the indicated symbols had never changed. Which was the point all along. But he will of course claim his is misunderstood. Again. Just like every other time.

Note the date of this update. Evening of Nov 20. Before this whole latest stupidity from Luther began. And the commandant had already stated the claim was false. His tweet was 1:58PM Nov 20. And what was issued was a clarifying memorandum.

apnews.com

Coast Guard reverses course on policy to call swastikas and nooses 'potentially divisive'

The U.S. Coast Guard has released a new, firmer policy addressing the display of hate symbols like swastikas and nooses just hours after it was publicly revealed that it made plans to describe them as “potentially divisive” — a term that prompted outcry from lawmakers and advocates.
apnews.com apnews.com

What the AP trash labels as the latest policy is linked here. It is a memorandum referencing the original policy COMDTINST 5350.6A




ETA: the policy is linked to here. There is no indication this has been changed that I can see. What the AP trash article claims as an updated policy is a MEMORANDUM


Of note, on page 4. This is exactly what hill claimed and corroborates the commandants tweet

1763825045563.png
 
Last edited:
#49,179
#49,179
luthervol said:
lol...He's simply playing word games to mislead the low IQ.....look at who fell for it ^^^

www.newsweek.com

Coast Guard denies easing ban on swastikas, nooses amid policy backlash

Admiral Kevin Lunday told Newsweek that symbols like swastikas and nooses "remain prohibited" by the USCG.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

“The claims that the U.S. Coast Guard will no longer classify swastikas, nooses or other extremist imagery as prohibited symbols are categorically false,” Lunday said.

The statement came in response to a Washington Post report published earlier Thursday, which first revealed that the Coast Guard's revised civil rights manual reclassifies swastikas, nooses and other historically charged imagery as “potentially divisive,” rather than listing them as examples of “hate incidents,” as had been done in the prior 2023 guidance.

The controversy comes as the Coast Guard published its updated civil rights policy, reclassifying certain hate-related imagery as “potentially divisive.” The move comes amid broader efforts by the Trump administration to roll back military guidance related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

Anyone who takes the word of a trump appointed official as the ultimate truth and "final word" is an IDIOT.

If you actually look at the words, you'll see that the Washington Post clearly stated "would no longer be classified as hate incidents" which is 100% true.

If you continue to read closely, you will see that Lunday in no way denies that claim.

What the Washington Post reported it true. Simple as that!
Click to expand...

lol. Talk about low IQ. 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, UT_Dutchman, JOEY’S ALL VOL !!! and 1 other person
#49,181
#49,181
NorthDallas40 said:
Not completely but I think it has AP pegged on anything related to Trump or his admin. Which was my point in this case. AP is fine in reporting none politically charged topics I think. But they turn into mouth foaming morons once Trump is invoked. I think Reuters is a better source for politically neutral reporting.

Are there specific instances you want to cover?
Click to expand...
No. Just curious on your thoughts.
Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#49,182
#49,182
NorthDallas40 said:
BTW here is an update on the trash piece from AP from the same authors. Due to heavy midol usage apparently they have clarified the policy. Even though the commandant stated clearly the claims were false they issued new wording via memorandum. The release also claims it’s not a revised policy. Of course that is going to get buried in the rest of the misleading trash.

Luther will of course claim this as vindication. Even though it has been stated multiple times the penalties for using the indicated symbols had never changed. Which was the point all along. But he will of course claim his is misunderstood. Again. Just like every other time.

Note the date of this update. Evening of Nov 20. Before this whole latest stupidity from Luther began. And the commandant had already stated the claim was false. His tweet was 1:58PM Nov 20. And what was issued was a clarifying memorandum.

apnews.com

Coast Guard reverses course on policy to call swastikas and nooses 'potentially divisive'

The U.S. Coast Guard has released a new, firmer policy addressing the display of hate symbols like swastikas and nooses just hours after it was publicly revealed that it made plans to describe them as “potentially divisive” — a term that prompted outcry from lawmakers and advocates.
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...
I understand the fight. But I don't care about it.
I don't care what the person believes in their personal life as long as they do the job and apply their efforts equally even with those at odds to their personal beliefs.
 
#49,183
#49,183
McDad said:
I understand the fight. But I don't care about it.
I don't care what the person believes in their personal life as long as they do the job and apply their efforts equally even with those at odds to their personal beliefs.
Click to expand...
I went and did a lengthy edit but botched the formatting so I’ll just link it here. (I fixed the edit but I’ll leave this also)

This is the official policy. I can’t see that it’s changed.


Of note on page 4. This supports what hill stated at the start if this and corroborates the commandants tweet. No new policy was issued. A MEMORANDUM was issued with clarifying wording. However the second trash AP article labels it a new policy. If that’s the case then we should see before and after edits.

1763825314100.png
 
#49,184
#49,184
GordonC said:
Do you really believe that in terms of diagnosed mental illnesses, that any one political "leaning" or "persuasion" is more susceptible than another?
I mean I disagree with ole Monty on a lot (especially on this forum but like his fishing posts), and that's perfectly okay, but to automatically label anyone who disagrees with you as a "leftist" or a "radical" is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
That’s all most people have left. It happens a lot when you identify with a team instead of having a belief system
 
  • Like
Reactions: GordonC
#49,189
#49,189
Majors said:
Which helped with his connection to Monroe’s death. Are you now endorsing a sitting President having affairs? Not very Christian like.
Click to expand...
I didn't indicate that in any manner. But an alleged affair vs known multiple affairs,what moral ground are you claiming?

I only pointed out trump is liar who was able to avoid military service due to wealth, JFK stepped up when his country called.
 
#49,193
#49,193

The Coast Guard planned to change how it described swastikas and nooses. Then came the outcry and an updated policy​

The U.S. Coast Guard has released a new, firmer policy addressing the display of hate symbols like swastikas and nooses just hours after it was publicly revealed that it made plans to describe them as “potentially divisive” — a term that prompted outcry from lawmakers and advocates.

The late-night change came on the same day that media outlets, led by The Washington Post, discovered that the Coast Guard had written a policy earlier this month that called those same symbols “potentially divisive.” The term was a shift from a years-long policy, first rolled out in 2019, that said symbols like swastikas and nooses were “widely identified with oppression or hatred” and called their display “a potential hate incident.”

www.pbs.org

The Coast Guard planned to change how it described swastikas and nooses. Then came the outcry and an updated policy

The U.S. Coast Guard has released a new, firmer policy addressing the display of hate symbols like swastikas and nooses just hours after it was publicly revealed that it made plans to describe them as “potentially divisive" — a term that prompted outcry from lawmakers and advocates.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org


The conclusions SHOULD be obvious.
 
#49,195
#49,195
swampfoxfan said:
I didn't indicate that in any manner. But an alleged affair vs known multiple affairs,what moral ground are you claiming?

I only pointed out trump is liar who was able to avoid military service due to wealth, JFK stepped up when his country called.
Click to expand...
Point is wealth buys you privilege in many ways…bone spurs, asthma or even murder. Him being a skipper in the navy is admirable for sure in 1943, 3 years before Trump was born.
 
#49,196
#49,196
luthervol said:

The Coast Guard planned to change how it described swastikas and nooses. Then came the outcry and an updated policy​

The U.S. Coast Guard has released a new, firmer policy addressing the display of hate symbols like swastikas and nooses just hours after it was publicly revealed that it made plans to describe them as “potentially divisive” — a term that prompted outcry from lawmakers and advocates.

The late-night change came on the same day that media outlets, led by The Washington Post, discovered that the Coast Guard had written a policy earlier this month that called those same symbols “potentially divisive.” The term was a shift from a years-long policy, first rolled out in 2019, that said symbols like swastikas and nooses were “widely identified with oppression or hatred” and called their display “a potential hate incident.”

www.pbs.org

The Coast Guard planned to change how it described swastikas and nooses. Then came the outcry and an updated policy

The U.S. Coast Guard has released a new, firmer policy addressing the display of hate symbols like swastikas and nooses just hours after it was publicly revealed that it made plans to describe them as “potentially divisive" — a term that prompted outcry from lawmakers and advocates.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org


The conclusions SHOULD be obvious.
Click to expand...

You loonies love to find something to be offended about. “He killed somebody and will go to the gas chamber.” “But they didn’t label it a hate crime.”

Hopefully they turn around and make the blm fist a hate symbol and really get you loonies worked up. 🤣😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and whodeycin85
#49,197
#49,197
luthervol said:

The Coast Guard planned to change how it described swastikas and nooses. Then came the outcry and an updated policy​

The U.S. Coast Guard has released a new, firmer policy addressing the display of hate symbols like swastikas and nooses just hours after it was publicly revealed that it made plans to describe them as “potentially divisive” — a term that prompted outcry from lawmakers and advocates.

The late-night change came on the same day that media outlets, led by The Washington Post, discovered that the Coast Guard had written a policy earlier this month that called those same symbols “potentially divisive.” The term was a shift from a years-long policy, first rolled out in 2019, that said symbols like swastikas and nooses were “widely identified with oppression or hatred” and called their display “a potential hate incident.”

www.pbs.org

The Coast Guard planned to change how it described swastikas and nooses. Then came the outcry and an updated policy

The U.S. Coast Guard has released a new, firmer policy addressing the display of hate symbols like swastikas and nooses just hours after it was publicly revealed that it made plans to describe them as “potentially divisive" — a term that prompted outcry from lawmakers and advocates.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org


The conclusions SHOULD be obvious.
Click to expand...
I called it!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

ETA: and it’s more republishing the same AP trash updates! Luther won’t go to the source he has to use different media outlets to try and gain traction with his BS. AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

1763843950411.png
 
Last edited:
#49,200
#49,200
swampfoxfan said:
I didn't indicate that in any manner. But an alleged affair vs known multiple affairs,what moral ground are you claiming?

I only pointed out trump is liar who was able to avoid military service due to wealth, JFK stepped up when his country called.
Click to expand...
JFK wouldn't get out of the primaries in your clown show party. He's a Republican now.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top