John, what will be your first thought as you pull a freshly minted Trump $250 dollar bill from your wallet? This idea might have legs and enough support to make it a reality!
Will it fondly be known as a Big Don? The quarter K with cheese, or something else?
It's pretty clear the President is looking to make an enduring mark on history with vanity projects, so I expect it to be unveiled at the top of Mt. Trump, or in the Gulf of Trump or at the Trump Line (the new name for the Southern Border).
John & Bernie, I just watched the complete and total meltdown of Trump on live TV, ranting and raving about "Russia, Russia, Russia". That was, without a doubt, the most embarrassing display of a POTUS in the history of our country.
It was a national embarrassment for the United States. This has huge international implications — a nightmare for Ukraine, NATO, and our Western allies. A wet dream for Vladmir Putin.
I can't help but think the tirade was premeditated by Trump and Vance. It seems like they had zero interest in listening to a word Zelensky had to say. They brought him to DC to bully and embarrass him, as a way to show off to the maga base what tough guys they are, and of course to please the object of their undying affection, Vladimir Putin.
I used to write off people saying that Putin had something on Trump. I just thought that Trump like strongmen who rules their countries with an iron fist. Now I am not so sure. I don't get how he can say that Zelenskyy is a dictator or Ukraine is responsible for the war or that Russia isn't the aggressor unless Putin has something on him. I don't get it. Worse yet everyone in his administration is getting behind these ludicrous statements.
I heard from a lot of people at the Principles First event who have the same suspicions you do, Eric, but I'm still inclined to believe it's the strong-man crush thing.
Trump loves Putin. He loves the power he has over the Russian people. In many ways, Trump wants to BE Putin — he wants to be a strong-man dictator (though our system is standing in the way of that). And he desperately wants Putin to like him.
A former Australian prime minister recently said, "When you see Trump with Putin, as I have on a few occasions, he’s like the 12-year-old boy who goes to high school and meets the captain of the football team. ‘My hero.' It’s really creepy.”
I think that mindset explains a lot Trump's rhetoric regarding Russia/Ukraine.
I also have a theory that some of this land-grab talk from Trump about Greenland, the Panama Canal, Canada, and even the Gaza stuff (to an extent) is supposed to impress Putin. Kind of a, "Look, I can expand our borders too!" type message.
Trump is now backtracking a bit on his vilification of Zelensky (hopefully someone got through to him a little), but I still think the betting odds are on Trump throwing Ukraine under the bus.
"I heard from a lot of people at the Principles First event who have the same suspicions you do, Eric, but I'm still inclined to believe it's the strong-man crush thing.
"Trump loves Putin. He loves the power he has over the Russian people. In many ways, Trump wants to BE Putin — he wants to be a strong-man dictator (though our system is standing in the way of that). And he desperately wants Putin to like him."
Then how do you explain Pres. Trump during his first term, getting into a viscous war of words with Kim Jong Un? Un has more control over his country than Putin has over Russia. Of course that was prior to Pres. Trump saying of Un "then we fell in love."
Pres. Trump obviously admires dictators. He's almost said it explicitly. But I think there's something else afoot.
Based on what Ben Shapiro says: Trump feels the war has been at a stalemate between the two nations and that it could have ended up being another Vietnam conflict that Trump knows could drag on for years with more dead bodies on both sides and America continuing to finance endlessly. Shapiro says that it was right for Biden to support Ukraine but wrong to never seek any type of off-ramp for Putin to end the war “with dignity” so that the war would eventually end. While Shapiro disapproves of Trump’s foolish rhetoric on the matter, Shapiro seems to think that this is the only way to get Putin to the bargaining table and end the war once and for all. Whether or not this is a wise (or the correct) strategy remains to be seen
That may be the case but nonetheless I would really enjoy it if you and Sir Bernie got Ben Shapiro to join you both in the NO BS Zone. It’s been quite some time since you had a guest on with the two of you; I would love to see that exchange. Although if that doesn’t work out then you could always invite the Tate Brothers on for some interesting banter
Shapiro wouldn't come on our modest little show, Emperor. Plus, Bernie's not as into the interviews as I am, which is one of the reasons I started the Daly Express.
I think it's obvious that we should either keep supplying Zelenski with military aid in a timely and liberal manner in the hope of Russia being defeated or urge Zelenski to cede the territory Russia has already taken, at least temporarily until that area can be rehabed and internationally supervised elections can take place allowing the voters in those areas decide on rulership AND with us giving the Ukraine security guarantees.
Neither option is good and Zelenski or Putin might not agree to the second. One option is worse than the other, but which one is worse?
I like the idea of the U. S. entering into a joint partnership deal with the Ukraine to produce minerals.
But the way (sorry Billo'), the way Pres. Trump is going about this is beyond horrible.
Chuck Shumer is the highest ranking Jewish politician in Congress. And a State Senator in New York. Why isn’t he over at Columbia, or at least publicly, adamantly advocating on behalf of Jewish students, and condemning antisemitism. These are his people. I think it’s appalling, and an insult to all Jewish Americans. NYC also has the highest Jewish population in the country.
John: I recently read a book and a couple of thoughtful articles looking back on COVID policy decisions, which varied wildly by state and nation. In your opinion, what did we in the U.S. do right (vaccines?) and wrong (lockdowns, school closings?)?
John and Bernie, now that President Trump has signed an executive order making English the official language of the USA, How do you see that impacting on your day to day life?
What ramifications will it have for those who don't speak it as a first language or even at all?
When you next order a quesadilla from Taco Bell, will you need to say "little cheese" in English?
Someone named Logan Hall put this out on X last night:
"America is not an idea or a country of immigrants or a melting pot for every culture and religion in the world. We are a nation and a people. And we cannot allow the status quo to continue if we want to survive."
Am I wrong or does that sound like a reimagining of our country's origins? For some reason that really pissed me off.
Our national debt is in a state that building an economy alone cannot overcome the deficits. If the tariffs bring in additional revenue and our government reduces spending, I am all for tariffs. Tax increases are necessary if it's done on the front side, or the back side and make no difference to me. Our citizens got us into this situation, and we need to get ourselves out of it. This debt is our own fault and it's time to pay up.
Our government isn't reducing spending, and taxes in the form of tariffs just make everything more expensive.
If we've abandoned spending reduction, and taxes are all that remain to fight deficits, there are less painful forms of taxation than trade wars that drive the price of everything through the roof, and increase federal subsidies.
The only reasonable solution is something along the line of the Fair Tax that will never ever be passed. I don't see any internal tax solution that would be acceptable to the American people. We know that the top income earners pay the vast share of the taxes. Congress has continued to provide tax credits and lowered rates for the rest. In Europe, everyone pays, and their economies are in the tank with stagnant growth. Of the top 12 companies in the world that have a market capitalization of one trillion dollars or more not one is in the EU. Nine are in the USA.
We still have the economy and we overwhelm the rest of the world; for now. Many US companies manufacturing is regionalized meaning they produce in the market the sell into. TMSC with a market cap of over a trillion is building plants here in the USA.
Until someone comes up with a tax plan that doesn't hurt the American consumer and economy, I'm all ears. but until someone does Tariffs are not bad. Americans' familiar international business understand that we face trade barriers. Perhaps there isn't a tariff but obtaining leases, licenses, contracts, and other factors are a major hidden barrier that countries use against.
Our national debt is so large, and is the result of decades of reckless spending by both parties, that any practical solution would need to be a "bend the curve" type of solution that resolves itself over decades. A "shock and awe" solution that tries to fix the whole problem in one shot will tank the economy and trigger a world wide depression.
And that's the problem. People who actually understand complex issues and present complex solution are viewed as boring TV, and are voting out in favor of the performance artists we now have in charge.
Paul Ryan's plan couldn't stand the scrutiny of Chris Wallace. Under the plan he admitted that the deficit and, accordingly, the debt would continue to rise for several years. He said then eventually there'd be surpluses. His plan was based on the belief that deep tax cuts would eventually pay for themselves and then (more than) some.
I think the Simpson/Bowels (sp?) plan was more realistic. I think it should be used as a starting point. It was the product of a bipartisan investigation into the national debt. They concluded that we can't tax our way out of the debt and we can't cut our way out either. The plan was a combination.
In our current political climate this just ain't going to happen. Heck, if even a moderate conservative like Bernie (yes, our Bernie) opposes tax increases for the wealthy EVEN if they are effective in reducing the deficit or balancing the budget and paying down the debt, the plan will not see daylight in the foreseeable future.
John, what will be your first thought as you pull a freshly minted Trump $250 dollar bill from your wallet? This idea might have legs and enough support to make it a reality!
Will it fondly be known as a Big Don? The quarter K with cheese, or something else?
It's pretty clear the President is looking to make an enduring mark on history with vanity projects, so I expect it to be unveiled at the top of Mt. Trump, or in the Gulf of Trump or at the Trump Line (the new name for the Southern Border).
The possibilities are endless!
Vanity always comes first with Trump.
John & Bernie, I just watched the complete and total meltdown of Trump on live TV, ranting and raving about "Russia, Russia, Russia". That was, without a doubt, the most embarrassing display of a POTUS in the history of our country.
It was a national embarrassment for the United States. This has huge international implications — a nightmare for Ukraine, NATO, and our Western allies. A wet dream for Vladmir Putin.
I can't help but think the tirade was premeditated by Trump and Vance. It seems like they had zero interest in listening to a word Zelensky had to say. They brought him to DC to bully and embarrass him, as a way to show off to the maga base what tough guys they are, and of course to please the object of their undying affection, Vladimir Putin.
I used to write off people saying that Putin had something on Trump. I just thought that Trump like strongmen who rules their countries with an iron fist. Now I am not so sure. I don't get how he can say that Zelenskyy is a dictator or Ukraine is responsible for the war or that Russia isn't the aggressor unless Putin has something on him. I don't get it. Worse yet everyone in his administration is getting behind these ludicrous statements.
I heard from a lot of people at the Principles First event who have the same suspicions you do, Eric, but I'm still inclined to believe it's the strong-man crush thing.
Trump loves Putin. He loves the power he has over the Russian people. In many ways, Trump wants to BE Putin — he wants to be a strong-man dictator (though our system is standing in the way of that). And he desperately wants Putin to like him.
A former Australian prime minister recently said, "When you see Trump with Putin, as I have on a few occasions, he’s like the 12-year-old boy who goes to high school and meets the captain of the football team. ‘My hero.' It’s really creepy.”
I think that mindset explains a lot Trump's rhetoric regarding Russia/Ukraine.
I also have a theory that some of this land-grab talk from Trump about Greenland, the Panama Canal, Canada, and even the Gaza stuff (to an extent) is supposed to impress Putin. Kind of a, "Look, I can expand our borders too!" type message.
Trump is now backtracking a bit on his vilification of Zelensky (hopefully someone got through to him a little), but I still think the betting odds are on Trump throwing Ukraine under the bus.
"I heard from a lot of people at the Principles First event who have the same suspicions you do, Eric, but I'm still inclined to believe it's the strong-man crush thing.
"Trump loves Putin. He loves the power he has over the Russian people. In many ways, Trump wants to BE Putin — he wants to be a strong-man dictator (though our system is standing in the way of that). And he desperately wants Putin to like him."
Then how do you explain Pres. Trump during his first term, getting into a viscous war of words with Kim Jong Un? Un has more control over his country than Putin has over Russia. Of course that was prior to Pres. Trump saying of Un "then we fell in love."
Pres. Trump obviously admires dictators. He's almost said it explicitly. But I think there's something else afoot.
Based on what Ben Shapiro says: Trump feels the war has been at a stalemate between the two nations and that it could have ended up being another Vietnam conflict that Trump knows could drag on for years with more dead bodies on both sides and America continuing to finance endlessly. Shapiro says that it was right for Biden to support Ukraine but wrong to never seek any type of off-ramp for Putin to end the war “with dignity” so that the war would eventually end. While Shapiro disapproves of Trump’s foolish rhetoric on the matter, Shapiro seems to think that this is the only way to get Putin to the bargaining table and end the war once and for all. Whether or not this is a wise (or the correct) strategy remains to be seen
Shapiro lost his way a while ago on Trump.
That may be the case but nonetheless I would really enjoy it if you and Sir Bernie got Ben Shapiro to join you both in the NO BS Zone. It’s been quite some time since you had a guest on with the two of you; I would love to see that exchange. Although if that doesn’t work out then you could always invite the Tate Brothers on for some interesting banter
Shapiro wouldn't come on our modest little show, Emperor. Plus, Bernie's not as into the interviews as I am, which is one of the reasons I started the Daly Express.
I think it's obvious that we should either keep supplying Zelenski with military aid in a timely and liberal manner in the hope of Russia being defeated or urge Zelenski to cede the territory Russia has already taken, at least temporarily until that area can be rehabed and internationally supervised elections can take place allowing the voters in those areas decide on rulership AND with us giving the Ukraine security guarantees.
Neither option is good and Zelenski or Putin might not agree to the second. One option is worse than the other, but which one is worse?
I like the idea of the U. S. entering into a joint partnership deal with the Ukraine to produce minerals.
But the way (sorry Billo'), the way Pres. Trump is going about this is beyond horrible.
John,
Chuck Shumer is the highest ranking Jewish politician in Congress. And a State Senator in New York. Why isn’t he over at Columbia, or at least publicly, adamantly advocating on behalf of Jewish students, and condemning antisemitism. These are his people. I think it’s appalling, and an insult to all Jewish Americans. NYC also has the highest Jewish population in the country.
John: I recently read a book and a couple of thoughtful articles looking back on COVID policy decisions, which varied wildly by state and nation. In your opinion, what did we in the U.S. do right (vaccines?) and wrong (lockdowns, school closings?)?
John and Bernie, now that President Trump has signed an executive order making English the official language of the USA, How do you see that impacting on your day to day life?
What ramifications will it have for those who don't speak it as a first language or even at all?
When you next order a quesadilla from Taco Bell, will you need to say "little cheese" in English?
Someone named Logan Hall put this out on X last night:
"America is not an idea or a country of immigrants or a melting pot for every culture and religion in the world. We are a nation and a people. And we cannot allow the status quo to continue if we want to survive."
Am I wrong or does that sound like a reimagining of our country's origins? For some reason that really pissed me off.
Sounds like a typical white nationalist statement without knowing the context.
Our national debt is in a state that building an economy alone cannot overcome the deficits. If the tariffs bring in additional revenue and our government reduces spending, I am all for tariffs. Tax increases are necessary if it's done on the front side, or the back side and make no difference to me. Our citizens got us into this situation, and we need to get ourselves out of it. This debt is our own fault and it's time to pay up.
Our government isn't reducing spending, and taxes in the form of tariffs just make everything more expensive.
If we've abandoned spending reduction, and taxes are all that remain to fight deficits, there are less painful forms of taxation than trade wars that drive the price of everything through the roof, and increase federal subsidies.
The only reasonable solution is something along the line of the Fair Tax that will never ever be passed. I don't see any internal tax solution that would be acceptable to the American people. We know that the top income earners pay the vast share of the taxes. Congress has continued to provide tax credits and lowered rates for the rest. In Europe, everyone pays, and their economies are in the tank with stagnant growth. Of the top 12 companies in the world that have a market capitalization of one trillion dollars or more not one is in the EU. Nine are in the USA.
We still have the economy and we overwhelm the rest of the world; for now. Many US companies manufacturing is regionalized meaning they produce in the market the sell into. TMSC with a market cap of over a trillion is building plants here in the USA.
Until someone comes up with a tax plan that doesn't hurt the American consumer and economy, I'm all ears. but until someone does Tariffs are not bad. Americans' familiar international business understand that we face trade barriers. Perhaps there isn't a tariff but obtaining leases, licenses, contracts, and other factors are a major hidden barrier that countries use against.
Our national debt is so large, and is the result of decades of reckless spending by both parties, that any practical solution would need to be a "bend the curve" type of solution that resolves itself over decades. A "shock and awe" solution that tries to fix the whole problem in one shot will tank the economy and trigger a world wide depression.
I'm for Shock and Awe. Paul Ryan presented the "bend and curve" proposal and he was driven out of Washington.
And that's the problem. People who actually understand complex issues and present complex solution are viewed as boring TV, and are voting out in favor of the performance artists we now have in charge.
Paul Ryan's plan couldn't stand the scrutiny of Chris Wallace. Under the plan he admitted that the deficit and, accordingly, the debt would continue to rise for several years. He said then eventually there'd be surpluses. His plan was based on the belief that deep tax cuts would eventually pay for themselves and then (more than) some.
I think the Simpson/Bowels (sp?) plan was more realistic. I think it should be used as a starting point. It was the product of a bipartisan investigation into the national debt. They concluded that we can't tax our way out of the debt and we can't cut our way out either. The plan was a combination.
In our current political climate this just ain't going to happen. Heck, if even a moderate conservative like Bernie (yes, our Bernie) opposes tax increases for the wealthy EVEN if they are effective in reducing the deficit or balancing the budget and paying down the debt, the plan will not see daylight in the foreseeable future.