Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse



Sebastian Gorka, President Trump’s top counter-terrorism adviser, is a formal member of a Hungarian far-right group that is listed by the U.S. State Department as having been “under the direction of the Nazi Government of Germany” during World War II, leaders of the organization have told the Forward.

The elite order, known as the Vitézi Rend, was established as a loyalist group by Admiral Miklos Horthy, who ruled Hungary as a staunch nationalist from 1920 to October 1944. A self-confessed anti-Semite, Horthy imposed restrictive Jewish laws prior to World War II and collaborated with Hitler during the conflict. His cooperation with the Nazi regime included the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Jews into Nazi hands.

Gorka’s membership in the organization — if these Vitézi Rend leaders are correct, and if Gorka did not disclose this when he entered the United States as an immigrant — could have implications for his immigration status. The State Department’s https://fam.state.gov/searchapps/viewer?format=html&query=vitezi&links=VITEZI&url=/FAM/09FAM/09FAM030207.html (Foreign Affairs Manual specifies) that members of the Vitézi Rend “are presumed to be inadmissible” to the country under the Immigration and Nationality Act.


It says something when it is even too far for Greenwald ...

 
Last edited:
xy5jn0 said:
Yeah although I don't think Easy D is worried about a dope smoking over the hill rapper. Just another way to send more tweets and get more press.
Talk about ironic though said Twitter will fuck Trump and Trump will work his angles as Prez to benefit financially(business) . Both subjects have come too light less then 3 wks later brother lol ;):D
 


Mr Trump’s budget only makes sense as a political statement. Opinion polls show that American voters dramatically overstate the share of the US budget that goes on foreign aid. They estimate it at roughly a quarter of overall spending, when in fact it is less than one per cent. Mr Trump has chosen to side with this popular misconception.

If his plans were put into effect, they would create a lot of pain for barely any fiscal gain. The same applies to the effects of his domestic cuts. At $385m, the legal aid budget is barely a statistical rounding error. Yet millions of Americans rely on it. Meanwhile, the proposed defence increase amounts to less than a tenth of the Pentagon’s spending yet it is larger than the entire annual budget for US diplomacy. As a result, Mr Trump’s plan is opposed as strongly by fiscal conservatives as it is by liberals.

The big question is what Mr Trump hopes to gain from submitting a stillborn plan. It only stacks up as a signal to Mr Trump’s support base. Those who believed Mr Trump would pivot to seriousness after a few weeks in the White House are rapidly losing faith. Mr Trump promised to overhaul US politics by cutting smarter deals. So far, however, he is continuing to pander to the lowest information voter.
 


In a recent speech titled “After Trump and Pussy Hats” delivered in Vancouver, British Columbia, Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges tells the audience that “resistance must also be accompanied by an alternative vision of a socialist, anti-capitalist society.”

After a fierce indictment of what he calls the kleptocracy that rules the United States, Hedges urges organizing “with lightning speed” because this is our “last chance” to do so.

“This resistance must also be accompanied by an alternative vision of a socialist, anti-capitalist society. Because the enemy in the end is not Trump or Bannon—it is corporate power,” Hedges says. “And if we do not stop corporate power, we will never dismantle fascism’s seduction of the white working class and unemployed.”

“Hope comes from the numerous protests that have been mounted in the streets, in town halls,” he continues. “We must engage in these battles on a local and on a national level ... we will have to build new radical movements and most importantly, new parallel institutions that challenge the hegemony of corporate power. It will not be easy; it will take time.”
 


Mr Trump’s budget only makes sense as a political statement. Opinion polls show that American voters dramatically overstate the share of the US budget that goes on foreign aid. They estimate it at roughly a quarter of overall spending, when in fact it is less than one per cent. Mr Trump has chosen to side with this popular misconception.

If his plans were put into effect, they would create a lot of pain for barely any fiscal gain. The same applies to the effects of his domestic cuts. At $385m, the legal aid budget is barely a statistical rounding error. Yet millions of Americans rely on it. Meanwhile, the proposed defence increase amounts to less than a tenth of the Pentagon’s spending yet it is larger than the entire annual budget for US diplomacy. As a result, Mr Trump’s plan is opposed as strongly by fiscal conservatives as it is by liberals.

The big question is what Mr Trump hopes to gain from submitting a stillborn plan. It only stacks up as a signal to Mr Trump’s support base. Those who believed Mr Trump would pivot to seriousness after a few weeks in the White House are rapidly losing faith. Mr Trump promised to overhaul US politics by cutting smarter deals. So far, however, he is continuing to pander to the lowest information voter.

This is the rhetoric both sides use to keep the bloated government spending at an outrageous rate.
 


If the Republican plan to replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) becomes law, it could not only affect people’s health insurance but possibly their marriages as well.

It all depends on what happens with Medicaid, the federal health plan for low-income Americans ages 65 and younger. Under the ACA, Medicaid was expanded in 31 states and the District of Columbia to cover individuals and families making 138 percent of the poverty line ($34,000 for a family of four), regardless of their assets.

The Medicaid expansion helped all kinds of adults gain or retain health-care coverage. It particularly helped couples where one spouse was well and the other sick, so that the sick person’s health-care costs would not bankrupt the couple of all their assets or make it difficult to maintain health insurance. Before the Medicaid expansion, to qualify for Medicaid, the sick person had to show no assets or income.

In these situations, some couples were faced with a difficult choice: They could slowly draw down assets such as retirement accounts or home equity to pay their medical bills; or they could go through what’s called a “medical divorce,” splitting up legally so that the sick partner could enroll in Medicaid and the other person could retain their assets. Typically, these couples remained “together” and continued to care for one another; the divorce was merely on paper.
 
Back
Top