Trump voters, are you happy now?

doubtingmerle · Sunday at 5:36 AM

Lukaris said:
Re the money used by the Taliban: I quoted from an AP article dated April 9th.

You quoted an article that stated one accusation and did not give the other views. I quoted an article showing different opinions on this and said I didn't know.

Simply ignoring one side of the issue is not a good technique for discovering truth.

Jermayn · Sunday at 5:40 AM

GoldenBoy89 said:
View attachment 363540

There’s the hate.

View attachment 363541

And there’s the destruction.

I'm going to respond directly to your post, but I want to make it clear that my comments are meant more broadly, for anyone who tends to use these kinds of examples to generalize about conservatives.

First, I genuinely understand why some people have the perception that conservatives celebrate hate or destruction. It’s not an irrational concern, especially given the emotionally charged environment we live in. But I’d like to clarify a few things from a Christian conservative perspective, not to argue, but to offer context.

Most conservatives I know didn’t vote for Donald Trump because of his personality. We were presented with two major-party candidates: one whose policies we largely agreed with but whose character was questionable, and another whose policies we found deeply concerning, and whose character was also questionable. Third-party voting is a valid option in principle, but many people felt it wasn't viable in terms of actual outcomes.

As for the Christians on TV who seem to worship Trump, I’d ask that you view them the same way you'd view extremists on the left, like those shown rioting or attacking people with bike locks. The media often selects the most outrageous representatives of each side to generate attention and outrage. That’s not an accurate reflection of most everyday conservatives or liberals.

Now, regarding the tweet about Taylor Swift and the brief stock market dip:
Yes, the tweet was immature. But to use that moment to paint all conservatives as hateful or malicious is a big leap. Likewise, short-term stock market fluctuations happen under every president. When the market dips, it makes headlines. When it rebounds or reaches new highs, like it is right now, those headlines tend to go quiet. Two- or three-month snapshots don’t tell the whole story and can be misleading if used to support sweeping claims.

doubtingmerle · Sunday at 5:59 AM

Lukaris said:
As far as the food distribution abroad, it appears nothing rotted despite a temporary delay as Republican Senator Jerry Moran helped get the ball rolling.

Moran talks to Vaden about Food for Peace, agencies in Kansas City

Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., told Stephen Vaden, President Trump’s nominee for Agriculture deputy secretary, that “food aid is important” and that he would like to have Vaden’s “voice” on a bill that he and Senate...

www.tsln.com

I don't see where your source specifically addresses the $500 million dollars in food that had been destined to starving children but was at risk of spoilage due to Trump's dismantling of USAID. (Almost $500 million in food is at risk of spoilage after USAID pause, report says)

Your article quotes Senator Jerry Moran as saying, "When the Trump administration began to dismantle USAID, international food aid shipments were caught up in the crossfire, but Moran said he worked to get the food aid disbursed and the companies paid for the food aid."

So, all we have here is one person's word that "he worked to get the food aid disbursed." Was he successful? I certainly hope so. But I haven't been able to find a single source verifying that the $500 million dollars of food that was at risk of spoilage actually got to needy people.

And, if I search the web for "Jerry Moran food," all I find is that he sponsored a bill moving aid organizations from one government department to another. I don't see that it was passed. And even if it was passed, DOGE has been ignoring congress's allocation of money, so I don't know if it would even make a difference.

USAID did many things to help the world: United States Agency for International Development - Wikipedia

Trump's virtual dismantling of the department put many people at risk.

USAID Cuts Are Putting Millions of Lives at Risk 

On 20 January 2025, the U.S. government announced a 90-day suspension of foreign aid, disrupting humanitarian programs that provide education, protection and mental health support for millions of children in conflict zones.

www.warchild.org.uk

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)00490-8/fulltext

"2 million dead by the end of the year": Ex-USAID chief says aid cuts will kill starving children

Former USAID chief Andrew Natsios told Salon that the Trump-Musk cuts will directly and immediately cost lives

www.salon.com

See How Many Children’s and Women’s Lives Have Been Saved by USAID Funding

USAID investments significantly reduced deaths among children under age five and women of reproductive age, studies show

www.scientificamerican.com

doubtingmerle · Sunday at 6:08 AM

Jermayn said:
the brief stock market dip:

LOL!

It was a major, record-setting dip of over 10% in 2 days. And it was the direct result of one ill-conceived decision on tariffs. When most of the tariffs were paused, much of the losses were restored.

The vast majority of investors decided that the total value of US companies dipped by 10% due to the effect that this one decision would have on the companys. Do you agree with this vast majority of investors that the total value of US companies dipped substantially due to this one stupid decision? If so, do you have no regrets about voting for the one who made this decision?

doubtingmerle · Sunday at 7:56 AM

rjs330 said:
Why would i be against generosity.

I may have misunderstood.

I was responding more to memes I receive on Facebook about how bad it is that America is spending money to help other countries with humanitarian aid. If you are for the US government continuing humanitarian aid functions such as that previously performed by USAID, then we agree on that.

But Trump and Musk, unfortunately, dismantled most of American aid to the needy abroad. Yes, they may be trying to piece some of it back together, but that is not the way government is supposed to work. Congress funded USAID. If the President decides that we ought to change the funding, that is a decision congress should make in an informed debate. The President is then required by law to faithfully execute those laws as passed by congress.

Instead of faithfully executing the humanitarian aid authorized by congress, Trump and Musk did a full-scale dismantling of the organization. They may now be trying to put some of it back together again, but that is not how it works. The correct order of engagement is not, "Ready! Fire! Aim!" The damage has already been done.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world sees that we are willing to suddenly drop needed aid packages without warning; that we are willing to abandon support of allies like Ukraine; that we threaten to annex foreign lands; and that we suddenly place unreasonable tariffs across the world that collapse much of global commerce. And the rest of the world no longer trusts us. They see us as the bad guys.

If I had voted for a man that does what Trump does, I would regret that I had voted that way. Just saying.

BTW, I removed the picture of the man throwing away the hamburger. That probably doesn't belong in this context.

Always in His Presence · Sunday at 9:43 AM

Even Happier with yet another victory with the courts - Trump can indeed deport the terrorist mouthpiece. Congratulations Mr. President - Promises made - Promises Kept!

Akita Suggagaki · Sunday at 9:57 AM

There will always be people who cling to him. But it will not be long before the majority begin to see through him.

RileyG · Sunday at 10:16 AM

BCP1928 said:
They were following the rules. Now the rules have changed.

Collectively, Trump won. He's just doing what he promised. It is what it is.

RileyG · Sunday at 10:16 AM

Akita Suggagaki said:
There will always be people who cling to him. But it will not be long before the majority begin to see through him.

Only time will tell.

rjs330 · Sunday at 10:53 AM

doubtingmerle said:
I may have misunderstood.

Yes you did.

doubtingmerle said:
I was responding more to memes I receive on Facebook about how bad it is that America is spending money to help other countries with humanitarian aid. If you are for the US government continuing humanitarian aid functions such as that previously performed by USAID, then we agree on that.

That's what happens when you pay attention to memes. They aren't reality.

We do agree. I am all for helping hungry children and starving people. I am all for helping them with needed medical care. I am not for giving away money for trans surgeries, foreign sesame Street, circumcisions fir particular country, or cultural issues etc.

I want spend the money on helping people farm, dig wells, build hospitals, give them medicines, provide food.

doubtingmerle said:
But Trump and Musk, unfortunately, dismantled most of American aid to the needy abroad. Yes, they may be trying to piece some of it back together, but that is not the way government is supposed to work. Congress funded USAID. If the President decides that we ought to change the funding, that is a decision congress should make in an informed debate. The President is then required by law to faithfully execute those laws as passed by congress.

Congress provides the money and the executive decides how and when it's spent. Thats how it's always worked. The money for foreign aid will be spent because they are required to spend it. But where it goes, how much goes there, what it's for and when it's spent is up to the executive. Congress dies not determine to whom, how much or when the money must be spent. Thats the executives job. It's their job to see our money gets spent wisely.

doubtingmerle said:
Instead of faithfully executing the humanitarian aid authorized by congress, Trump and Musk did a full-scale dismantling of the organization. They may now be trying to put some of it back together again, but that is not how it works. The correct order of engagement is not, "Ready! Fire! Aim!" The damage has already been done.

Sometimes you have to tear down a rotting agency and build a new one. I'm okay with that. It's never pretty when it happens but sometimes it needs to happen.

doubtingmerle said:
Meanwhile, the rest of the world sees that we are willing to suddenly drop needed aid packages without warning; that we are willing to abandon support of allies like Ukraine; that we threaten to annex foreign lands; and that we suddenly place unreasonable tariffs across the world that collapse much of global commerce. And the rest of the world no longer trusts us. They see us as the bad guys.

I can't say I agree with everything Trump does or says. Never have. But he was pretty successful his first term first the majority of it. And I voted for him based upon the things he said he was going to do. He's talked about tariffs for many years. I just heard an interview he did with Opra many many years ago and he was talking about them then.

The truth is we don't know if tariffs will work or won't right now. It's all speculation. I dont care about the stock market. It will come back. It always does.

What I do know is Trump is trying to make America Great Again instead of the world's checkbook. And after 90 days it's way too early to tell.

BCP1928 · Sunday at 11:06 AM

RileyG said:
Collectively, Trump won. He's just doing what he promised. It is what it is.

Yes, he is ruling by decree instead of law.

DaisyDay · Sunday at 11:21 AM

Oompa Loompa said:
Worst case scenario, it will be back up this time next year.

Um, that's not the worst case scenario; that's an okay case scenario.

jacks said:
I don't think you'd even have to be that tricky. Just buy broad based mutual funds. There's really no reason to think the market won't recover.

Yeah, that's true. Even the Great Depression only lasted a bit more than a decade. The market recovered.

RileyG · Sunday at 12:16 PM

BCP1928 said:
Yes, he is ruling by decree instead of law.

Ok?

Oompa Loompa · Sunday at 12:23 PM

doubtingmerle said:
You have a problem with generosity?

I happen to be for generosity.

The USAID budget was less than 1% of the government budget and did immense good. It was terrible to demolish it.

It was also ripe with fraud and waste. There is a difference between generosity, and just being stupid other people's money.

doubtingmerle · Sunday at 12:45 PM

rjs330 said:
Yes you did.

That's what happens when you pay attention to memes. They aren't reality.

We do agree. I am all for helping hungry children and starving people. I am all for helping them with needed medical care. I am not for giving away money for trans surgeries, foreign sesame Street, circumcisions fir particular country, or cultural issues etc.

I want spend the money on helping people farm, dig wells, build hospitals, give them medicines, provide food.

Ok, but previously you had written:

rjs330 said:
Being good doesn't mean we just pay whatever other countries want us to pay. We don't NEED USAID. We never did. What we need is an agency who is smart with our money and not stupid with it.

It's time for other countries to help pay for their own stuff and give a little back for all we've provided to our own detriment.

Uh, its always time for other countries to help pay for their own stuff. And that is what they have been doing. In no case has USAID been supporting 100% of the needs of a country without expecting them to do anything they could do to help themselves.

What did you mean when you asked poor countries to "give a little back"? The poorest countries that were receiving USAID couldn't give a lot back. And I wouldn't expect them to.

Oompa Loompa · Sunday at 12:48 PM

doubtingmerle said:
Ok, but previously you had written:

Uh, its always time for other countries to help pay for their own stuff. And that is what they have been doing. In no case has USAID been supporting 100% of the needs of a country without expecting them to do anything they could do to help themselves.

What did you mean when you asked poor countries to "give a little back"? The poorest countries that were receiving USAID couldn't give a lot back. And I wouldn't expect them to.

What did Ireland have to do for USAID to pay for their gay plays?

doubtingmerle · Sunday at 12:50 PM

rjs330 said:
Congress provides the money and the executive decides how and when it's spent. Thats how it's always worked.

Uh, no congress does not write a blank check and say, "Here is your allowance. Spend it on anything you want."

The President needs to follow the law. When congress authorizes spending, it writes laws about what it is for and how it is to be spent. And the President cannot take money out of one bucket he does not like and put it into any bucket he chooses.

Sure, the President has freedom in determining how to spend the money that congress puts in each bucket, but only to the extent that the law allows.

It is my understanding that the dismantling of USAID was a complete refusal to faithful execute the laws that congress had put in that bucket for spending on USAID.

The President does not have a line-item veto. He cannot say that we will follow this, this and this, but ignore that other part of the bill.

Hans Blaster · Sunday at 12:53 PM

RileyG said:
Ok?

No, not OK. That's the point. US Presidents don't rule by decree. They don't even "rule". US Presidents oversee the operation of the US government as implemented into law by Congress and the Constitution.

doubtingmerle · Sunday at 12:55 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
What did Ireland have to do for USAID to pay for their gay plays?

Do you have any evidence that USAID paid for gay plays in Ireland?

If you are referring to the claimed USAID payments for a DEI musical in Ireland, that had no funding from USAID. See Sorting Out the Facts on 'Waste and Abuse' at USAID - FactCheck.org .

doubtingmerle · Sunday at 1:07 PM

rjs330 said:
Congress provides the money and the executive decides how and when it's spent.

By way of example, I found this copy of the bill that congress passed to establish USAID. GovInfo

And this bill to amend it: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/9719/text/ih?format=txt. I don't know if this bill passed.

The point is that these are the type of things that congress writes when they make laws. They tell the President specifically what the agency is to be doing with the money congress gives it.

So, no, the President cannot simply take this money and do what he wants with it.

Trump voters, are you happy now?

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Jesus is the only Way

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Veteran

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

One nation indivisible

I'll think about it.

​

I'll think about it.

Similar threads