my job is not to criticize every politician who fucks up..i would be posting all day...but if you post a defense of what trump is doing you open up to attack. If I have post supporting Biden in the last 2 years of kamala..by all.means attack me..but you won't find it. (laughing at your digging though). But some of you find trump's actions infallible and that proves you got the knee pads out a long time ago
First, I'm not sure who you're talking about here, but you're posting this in a thread I created, so if you don't mean me, stop reading. You do this a lot, you know. You'll claim you're just going after "everyone" on both sides of the aisle equally, but then when someone points out how you're pretty much going after stuff on the right, you say something like you just did "go find me supporting Biden and Kamala", etc. But what you fail to accept is that remaining quiet and not attacking corruption on one side of the equation and only going after it on the other side is essentially the same partisan crap. Just sayin'. I don't like Trump. I've said it numerous times her. I can't stand the guy. I was given a choice between Kamala and Trump. I chose the guy that would disrupt the system, and I'm getting that. I only care about exorcising the corruption and bad spending, and I'm getting that. All you guys want to focus on is how you hate Trump, yeah well get in the car, buddy, cause we're goin' hatin. So what. If he's cutting wasteful spending (he is) and rooting out deep state corruption (he is) then he can do whatever the fuck he wants from my perspective. Cry all you want about the Constitution, or the Fascist behavior, I really don't care. The truth is that the Constitution has been trampled the last 40 or more years and it's been done silently, but you're ok when your guy is doing it. The fascist behavior was there all along, but it's ok when its your guy doing it. Lockdowns, firing people because they wouldn't get an experimental vaccine, attacking free speech on social media platforms, using the Justice Department to target political enemies, double standards in law - NONE of this is in dispute. But Trump! But Trump! Who cares. Not I.
When someone gets severance during the course of a budget year, it's not planned for. Where do the funds come from? The department that pays the severance, right? I mean, when Congress was planning the budget (assuming they did, which is a real stretch since they don't actually do that anymore like they're supposed to) they didn't plan on severance of employees at the government during the normal course of business. This is no different, other than the notable amount that we're talking about. Government agencies overspend their budget - without reprecussion - ALL the time.
And if you take Trump literally, you'd be correct. But if you listen to Trump speak, you also hear him say "It's too early" quite clearly. And he's correct. How can he endorse the guy he's been officially working with for 3 weeks? He can't.
But we're gonna get Greenland, and Denmark is saying they'll take California (which would be a win-win in my opinion). Then there will never be a democrat President in the next 100 years if that happens! (joke)
Yeah, but not because they think the second person is necessarily going to be the successor of the first. They're primarily voting on the lead candidate - the one running for President. It's not even close. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Trump clearly said "it's too early".
When voters elect a president, they are also electing the vice president as part of a single ticket. The VP isn’t just an afterthought, they are the constitutional successor if anything happens to the president and often play a key role in shaping policy. By publicly downplaying JD Vance’s status as a potential successor, Trump is treating the vice presidency as a minor, provisional role rather than an integral part of the administration. That weakens the perception of the VP's authority and undermines the idea that the ticket represents a unified leadership team.
You're technically correct, but once again you're being overly pedantic to drive a narrative. Trump is Trump, and you can waste all the time in the world (and you do) trying to create scandals on him. But Bret asked him whether he sees Vance as his successor and he said "no" followed by "its too early" followed by "there are a lot of smart people out there". All he's saying is that he doesn't know who he would endorse in 3 years or so. And since he feels he was burned by Pence, he is correct to say it that way.