So, are you suggesting that former Trump attorneyMichael Cohen did not state that Donald Trump's LA crackdown is "theater", a distraction from his feud with Elon Musk?
I would suggest the "LA" crack down is more due to Sanctuary Cities and States challenging the Feds and the Feds responding. Just my opinion on why certain places are seeing more enforcement. IOWs, don't start no crap and there won't be any crap.
Originally posted by Patrick: Six days after posting the video...
So, are you suggesting that former Trump attorneyMichael Cohen did not state that Donald Trump's LA crackdown is "theater", a distraction from his feud with Elon Musk?
Michael Cohen, heh, he is a disgruntled ex lawyer. Who violated attorney client privacy in an effort to harm Trump. There is more to / about Michael Cohen than you seem not to know.
Perseveration is the tendency to repeat an action, thought, or behavior, even when it's no longer appropriate or helpful. It can manifest as difficulty shifting between tasks, repeating words or phrases, or getting stuck on a particular idea or emotion. Perseveration is often associated with brain injuries or other organic disorders but can also be seen in conditions like ADHD, autism, and dementia.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Core Characteristics:
Repetition: Perseveration involves the repeated performance of an action, expression of a thought, or display of a behavior.
Inappropriateness: The repetition continues past the point where it is useful or relevant, indicating a lack of flexibility and adaptability.
Difficulty Shifting: Perseveration makes it hard to transition to new tasks, ideas, or emotional states.
Causes and Conditions:
Brain Injury: Damage to specific brain regions can impair the ability to inhibit or stop behaviors or thoughts.
Neurodevelopmental Disorders: Conditions like autism and ADHD can involve perseverative behaviors and thoughts.
Dementia: Individuals with dementia may exhibit perseveration as part of the disease's progression.
Anxiety: In some cases, perseveration can be a response to anxiety or feeling overwhelmed.
Examples:
Repeating a phrase or question multiple times: A person might ask the same question repeatedly, even after receiving an answer.
Difficulty switching between tasks: Getting stuck on one activity and struggling to move on to another.
Inability to stop a repetitive action: Continuing to perform a physical action, such as tapping or fidgeting, even when it's no longer needed.
Dwelling on negative thoughts: Being unable to stop thinking about past negative experiences or future worries.
Impact:
Perseveration can be frustrating for both the individual experiencing it and those around them. It can interfere with daily activities, social interactions, and overall well-being.
Management:
Environmental Modifications: Creating a structured and predictable environment can help reduce anxiety and promote smoother transitions.
Therapy: Various therapies, such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and speech therapy, can help individuals develop coping strategies for perseveration.
Medication: In some cases, medication may be used to address underlying conditions that contribute to perseveration.
Patience and Support: It's important for caregivers and others to respond with patience and understanding, avoiding frustration that can exacerbate the situation.
Based on your apparent familiarity with this, I have to assume there's a reason. Nope, no treatment required here. Be careful to not under or over medicate.
Elon Musk on Saturday said he had launched a new US political party to challenge what the tech billionaire described as the country's "one-party system".
Issued on: 05/07/2025 - 22:34
A day after asking his followers on X whether a new US political party should be created, Elon Musk said on Saturday that the "America Party is formed."
Musk, the world's richest person and President Donald Trump's biggest political donor in the 2024 election, had a bitter falling out with the president after leading the Republican's effort to slash spending and cut federal jobs as head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.
"When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy," the Space X and Tesla boss posted on X, the social media platform that he owns.
Musk cited a poll – posted on X on Friday, US Independence Day – in which he asked whether respondents "want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system" that has dominated US politics for some two centuries.
The yes-or-no survey earned more than 1.2 million responses.
"By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!" he posted on Saturday.
Musk spent hundreds of millions on Trump's re-election and led the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Trump administration aimed at slashing government spending, but the two have since fallen out over disagreements about the bill.
The Trump-Musk feud reignited in dramatic fashion late last month as Trump pushed Republicans in Congress to ram through his massive domestic agenda in the form of the One Big Beautiful Bill.
Musk had previously threatened to start a new political party and spend money to unseat lawmakers who supported the bill.
The billionaire businessman first floated the idea in early June, shortly after resigning from his DOGE position. He took it up again on Tuesday, shortly before the US Senate voted on the massive spending bill.
Trump responded by threatening to cut off the billions of dollars in subsidies that Musk's companies receive from the federal government.
Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said he would “take a look” at measures to consider deporting the South African-born Musk, who has held US citizenship since 2002.
"We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon," Trump said.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 07-05-2025).]
Hard to say how Mr. Musk's new adventure will end but, I suspect even more Dems may join thusly reducing the Dem affect on elections in a couple of years. Honestly, only time will tell. That and a few billion dollars.
I suspect even more Dems may join thusly reducing the Dem affect on elections in a couple of years.
That sounds like wishful thinking of the right. Musk is the polar opposite of a Democrat. Why would the left wish to support a guy who financed the re-election of Donald Trump, and then served as his right hand man... until the inevitable falling out? I suspect Trump is furious about this, and well he should be. I see trouble in paradise!
Hard to say how Mr. Musk's new adventure will end but, I suspect even more Dems may join thusly reducing the Dem affect on elections in a couple of years. Honestly, only time will tell. That and a few billion dollars.
Rams
Really? I think Elon's new party will hurt the Republican party more than the Democrat party. I suspect Republicans that have been MAGA'd into supporting Trump and his minions are more likely to flee the fold. Who knows, Rams, you and Todd may be first in line.
Nevertheless, it will be interesting to watch.
(edited for spelling)
[This message has been edited by Mike in Sydney (edited 07-07-2025).]
Really? I think Elon's new party will hurt the Republican party more than the Democrat party. I suspect Republicans that have been MAGA'd into supporting Trump and his minions are more likely to flee the fold. Who knows, Rams, you and Todd may be first in line.
Nevertheless, it will be interesting to watch.
(edited for spelling)
Can't speak for Todd. All I can really say is that I respect Conservative candidates, especially those who try to keep their campaign promises. Will also admit that I do agree with Elon on a few things he's said about waste in the BBB. One example is moving the Space Shuttle from DC to TX. If, Texas wants the Shuttle, then TX should pay for it. $85m from the US coffers to pay for a tourist attraction is ridiculous IMHO. While I don't care where the Shuttle is, this project should have either been privately funded or by Texas. Would say the same thing if the Shuttle was being moved to TN.
President Donald Trump took aim at Elon Musk after his former adviser announced the creation of a new political party following staunch opposition to the president's signature legislation.
"I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely “off the rails,” essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks," Trump wrote on social media July 6. "He even wants to start a Third Political Party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States."
Musk announced the formation of the "America Party" on July 5, the day after Trump signed his megabill. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects the legislation will increase the national debt by $3.4 trillion, which Musk has lambasted.
"When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy," Musk wrote on his social media platform X on July 5. "Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom."
Trump criticized third parties in his July 6 post.
"The one thing Third Parties are good for is the creation of Complete and Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS, and we have enough of that with the Radical Left Democrats," Trump wrote.
Musk − the world's richest person with a worth of $405 billion, according to Forbes − spent nearly $290 million to help Trump and other Republicans get elected. In the opening months of Trump's presidency, Musk led the effort to slash federal agencies through the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
The two have feuded in recent weeks as Musk strongly criticized Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," which includes tax cuts, increased spending on immigration enforcement and the military and deep spending cuts in Medicaid. The bill increases the debt ceiling by $5 trillion.
Musk has threatened to boost primary challengers against those who supported the bill, which included all but two Republicans in the House and three in the Senate.
"Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame!" Musk wrote before Trump signed the legislation. "And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth."
Musk had taken steps to repair his strained relationship with the president ‒ including personally apologizing for insults he made during his combative exit from the Trump administration last month ‒ before the new round of sparring.
Musk's announcement of a new political party comes after he suggested in May that he would cease his political spending as he shifts his attention back to his companies, Tesla and SpaceX.
Some of Donald Trump’s favorite MAGA influencers are turning against him.
(MAGA personalities Rogan O’Handley, aka DC Draino, TikToker Chaya Raichik, Liz Wheeler, and Scott Presler carry binders bearing the seal of the U.S. Justice Department reading “The Epstein Files: Phase 1” as they walk out of the West Wing of the White House in Washington, D.C., on February 27, 2025.)
The MAGA influencers who victoriously walked out of the White House in February holding white binders titled “THE EPSTEIN FILES: PHASE 1” are now enraged at the Trump administration’s announcement that there is no damning client list, and that disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein did indeed commit suicide in 2019.
Conservative commentator Liz Wheeler, who received one of those binders from Attorney General Pam Bondi in February, is now calling for her head, as the MAGA right is scapegoating Bondi for whatever actions Trump has yet to take on their white whale of a case.
“Going back to that day at the White House in February … Pam Bondi bragged to us about making that cover sheet on the binder, the one that read ‘the most transparent administration in history.’ She said she had made it, she had printed it, she was proud of it.… To call that a severe lack of judgment would be the understatement of the year,” Wheeler said on the Glenn Beck Show on Monday. Wheeler then insisted that Bondi told her in February that the binder didn’t contain all of the juicy, incriminating details MAGA wanted because someone from the “deep state” had infiltrated the FBI to block the notorious client list from being released.
“Contextualizing all of this, this seems like unforgivable behavior. How could she give the American people those ‘phase 1” binders that contained nothing? While at the same time bragging about the cover sheet that she made … and tell us that the SDNY had the real goods, that the binders were just proof of a deep state cover-up, only now to say, ‘Sorry, there’s actually nothing,’” Wheeler continued. “I think the administration is probably just now coming to the realization of how much goodwill this whole debacle has cost them with their voters, and Pam Bondi is not worth it.” Wheeler later called for Bondi’s outright firing.
Wheeler does unfortunately have a point. Bondi went on Fox News two separate times to promote the release of the Epstein files, saying in February that “they’re on my desk right now” and claiming the next month that she had a “truckload of documents” about Epstein coming to her. People like Rogan O’Handley (DC_Draino) and Chaya Raichik (LibsofTikTok) celebrated these announcements at the time but are now publicly seething, feeling betrayed and confused.
“2 truths: Epstein didn’t kill himself & Epstein didn’t sex traffick to himself,” Handley wrote on Monday. “I understand the rage people have for demanding the Epstein client list and arrests. Every influencer there that day feels the same anger watching pedo elites get away with the most heinous crimes. We want justice and almost all of us have called for the client list and arrests for years,” he continued.
“I want answers on Epstein. As many as possible. Not press releases. Answers,” said Jack Posobiec, another binder receiver. “We were all told more was coming. That answers were out there and would be provided. Incredible how utterly mismanaged this Epstein mess has been. And it didn’t have to be,” he opined.
The most hardcore of the MAGA conspiracy theorists seem to be taking this pretty hard. Not only are they unable to acquit their president, who has his own Epstein connections, but they have also been shown yet again that the Trump administration will only deliver lip service to their most important fantasies. Whether it’s releasing the client list or ending endless wars, Trump has skewed more neocon than MAGA, and this time angered his base once again.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 07-08-2025).]
Really? I think Elon's new party will hurt the Republican party more than the Democrat party. I suspect Republicans that have been MAGA'd into supporting Trump and his minions are more likely to flee the fold. Who knows, Rams, you and Todd may be first in line.
Nevertheless, it will be interesting to watch.
(edited for spelling)
I find it interesting that you called me out by name. Respectfully... I tend to think the most "ardent" (I'll say) of left-leaning people seem to have almost no opinions on policy, more so... they're just concerned about loss or gain from a political perspective. I don't want to be mean, but I hope you gain some insight from what I'm about to say... it seems to me that for the radical left, they view an attack on liberal ideology as an attack on them personally. This is in stark contrast to, I'd say... people like BlackRams and myself. I was a Democrat before I was a registered Republican. I was still voting for Democrat politicians up through 2012... at least locally at that point. The Republican party is not part of my identity. It's not who I am, and the party brand doesn't really mean anything to me. I'd happily vote for the new America party if the politicians aligned with it had a realistic platform that was winnable. To that point, the only reason why I'd vote Republican at that point, is because I might fear that a Democrat win would be worse than a Republican win (which has generally been the case in my opinion for the past ~20 years).
Anyway, you mention my name because it's obvious to me that I struck a chord with you. (Patrick, rush in and defend!!!) You should ask yourself what politics means to you... is your ideology "who you are" as a person, or is it much more about actual policy? This article from Axios kind of defines a lot of what I've come to recognize about the left:
Democrats Are Telling Their Reps They Want Blood in the Streets
(Axios): Many lawmakers said these voters tend to be white, well-educated and live in upscale suburban or urban neighborhoods. “What I have seen is a demand that we get ourselves arrested intentionally or allow ourselves to be victims of violence, and … a lot of times that’s coming from economically very secure white people,” said an eighth House Democrat. “Not only would that be a gift to Donald Trump, not only would it make the job of Republicans in Congress easier if we were all mired in legal troubles … [we are] a group that is disproportionately people of color, women, LGBTQ people — people who do not fare very well in prison.” The bottom line: “The expectations aren’t just unreal. They’re dangerous,” the eighth House Democrat said. (Axios)
I find the make-up of the constituency kind of interesting. I also find it interesting that mostly affluent white people tend to most commonly be the people who are insane. It seems that premeditated murders are predominantly white, while a heat of the moment / domestic violence are predominantly black and / or Hispanic. I only bring it up because I don’t think “politics” at its core is really what this is about… and that these constituents who are going to these meetings with the representatives… it’s more about them viewing things personally, than what the actual politics mean for the country or society. I again say, the way that you respond to things (it's perceived as if you are worked up and angry), makes it seem like none of this is about policy at all, and much more about a feeling of being attacked personally.
With this mindset, I've come to realize that largely, other than some basic discussion amongst peers here... there's very little point in discussing things with some people because there is nothing that could ever be said that would make you go "hmm..." because, quite literally, the politics is your religion.
This is in stark contrast to, I'd say... people like BlackRams and myself. I was a Democrat before I was a registered Republican. I was still voting for Democrat politicians up through 2012... at least locally at that point. The Republican party is not part of my identity. It's not who I am, and the party brand doesn't really mean anything to me. I'd happily vote for the new America party if the politicians aligned with it had a realistic platform that was winnable. To that point, the only reason why I'd vote Republican at that point, is because I might fear that a Democrat win would be worse than a Republican win (which has generally been the case in my opinion for the past ~20 years).
The irony here is, I was a registered Democrat from my first registration until Bill Clinton's second term. That doesn't mean I voted for Clinton. Additionally, I ended up throwing away a valid vote for Ross Perot. A Conservative candidate with a Conservate platform will get my vote and there's not much chance a Democrat will go down that path.
Originally posted by blackrams: The irony here is, I was a registered Democrat from my first registration until Bill Clinton's second term. That doesn't mean I voted for Clinton. Additionally, I ended up throwing away a valid vote for Ross Perot. A Conservative candidate with a Conservate platform will get my vote and there's not much chance a Democrat will go down that path.
I honestly think the worst part of Clinton's presidency was Hillary. She's outright an absolutely horrible person. I can't be hypocritical and say Trump is amazing, while saying Clinton is bad, when they're both guilty of infidelity... which in my opinion shows a lack of character. I will say though... to an extent, the charisma that both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump have... that makes them successful in what they do. They're both very intelligent. Some could say they're both driven by narcissism... but I'm not qualified to make that determination because I don't have a psychology degree. I do know that narcissism has two sides... there's an insidious side, and a positive side. It depends on what kind a person has... there's the kind where everyone else becomes part of their problem, yet still driven, and then there are those who are driven by the feedback they get from their peers and audience (if you will). Maybe... again, I don't know... they are driven just a little bit by that. I will say that Trump wasn't against abortion until he suddenly was against it. We all change... I used to be anti-Gay and pro abortion, but later changed my stance as I got older. I fully support the right for gay people to marry... and after my wife gave birth to our daughter, I thought... who could ever abort a child?
Anyway, I know I'm rambling (procrastinating). But Bill Clinton, when you take Hillary out of the equation (her push for Bill to try to enact socialized medicine, the constant theft in the White House, all the people who worked for her that hated her, etc.), Bill Clinton is basically the same as Trump when it comes to policies of then and today. I voted for Bill in his second term (my first time voting), and I'd probably have still done it again. The biggest issue that I think exists today that Bill Clinton largely didn't have during his time... is the massive lobbying efforts that exist against both parties. This largely drives a lot of what goes on.
You look at Obama... I think he has a very different idea of what he wanted to see in America than me... he was very much the kind of person, give until it hurts... all about welfare, don't ask questions. His policies were very much domestic, and he largely failed at foreign policy in almost everything he did.
Trump's first term, he was completely unprepared for how corrupt Government had become, particularly under Obama and from Bush's second term with the huge expanse and growth of government. Trump got rail-roaded, and many of the bad policies we're upset about... we have Trump to blame for having approved them, even if he believed he was doing right by them.
Biden... the dude was never really present, as we're seeing in these hearings (and witnessed ourselves personally). Biden barely knew what was going on, and almost totally uninvolved in most decisions that were made. It's quite bad... but that literally allowed the government's corrupt cliques to grow proportionally.
Trump's second term though... he had 4 years of opportunity and planning. It's a point of reflection that few of us get in life. Honestly... it was the best thing that could have happened to him... his drive and ability to get things done this term, is unprecedented. Compare his first term to this term... he was railroaded by his own FBI, his own DOJ, his own Census Bureau (which unconstitutionally refused to release the information to him, and instead held on to it until the incoming Biden administration). Do you think Trump would allow any of those organizations to disobey him? Constitutionally, they are all under his direct command and purview. If the Census was up again, and they refused to release the information, he'd probably send in the military to force them to release the information on time. This is the kind of leadership that I like. I was a Federal employee for a decade, and I saw how these organizations believed themselves to be what we refer to as a "4th branch" of government... and there is nothing in the Constitution that grants that authority.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
Ha! Mike is more than capable of rebutting anything you might have to say without my assistance.
Obviously, you know me long enough, and know what I've done for a living, to know that my response was intentional. Putting that in there would effectively set inadvertent guard rails for how you'd likely respond, putting you on the defense. Damned if you do respond, damned if you don't. If you rush to defend, you're essentially proving me right. To not respond would be the one that would show me you didn't care... but of course, we all care a little... so you responded in a way that tried to buck my false narrative, but still reluctantly within the box I kind of put you in. The fact that I'm stating all of this is my ADHD overshare, haha. But you know I love you Patrick...
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I find it interesting that you called me out by name. Respectfully... I tend to think the most "ardent" (I'll say) of left-leaning people seem to have almost no opinions on policy, more so... they're just concerned about loss or gain from a political perspective. I don't want to be mean, but I hope you gain some insight from what I'm about to say... it seems to me that for the radical left, they view an attack on liberal ideology as an attack on them personally. This is in stark contrast to, I'd say... people like BlackRams and myself. I was a Democrat before I was a registered Republican. I was still voting for Democrat politicians up through 2012... at least locally at that point. The Republican party is not part of my identity. It's not who I am, and the party brand doesn't really mean anything to me. I'd happily vote for the new America party if the politicians aligned with it had a realistic platform that was winnable. To that point, the only reason why I'd vote Republican at that point, is because I might fear that a Democrat win would be worse than a Republican win (which has generally been the case in my opinion for the past ~20 years).
Gotcha, Todd. You went for it hook, line, and sinker.
One thing I don't understand is why you keep reiterating that you were a Democrat and now you're a Republican. Who cares? You say that "The Republican party is not part of my identity. It's not who I am, and the party brand doesn't really mean anything to me." I believe you. I don't think you care about the ideals of the real Republican party. Respectfully, I think you have imbibed too much of the Jim Jones juice that the MAGA folks put out.
[This message has been edited by Mike in Sydney (edited 07-08-2025).]
Originally posted by Mike in Sydney: Gotcha, Todd. You went for it hook, line, and sinker.
One thing I don't understand is why you keep reiterating that you were a Democrat and now you're a Republican. Who cares? You say that "The Republican party is not part of my identity. It's not who I am, and the party brand doesn't really mean anything to me." I believe you. I don't think you care about the ideals of the real Republican party. Respectfully, I think you have imbibed too much of the Jim Jones juice that the MAGA folks put out.
Can't speak for Todd. All I can really say is that I respect Conservative candidates, especially those who try to keep their campaign promises. Will also admit that I do agree with Elon on a few things he's said about waste in the BBB. One example is moving the Space Shuttle from DC to TX. If, Texas wants the Shuttle, then TX should pay for it. $85m from the US coffers to pay for a tourist attraction is ridiculous IMHO. While I don't care where the Shuttle is, this project should have either been privately funded or by Texas. Would say the same thing if the Shuttle was being moved to TN.
Rams
I totally missed this. Yeah, I completely agree with this (as well as a few other things). The idea that they're trying to move Discovery to the Johnson Space Center is totally outrageous. I get that it's easy for me to say... Kennedy Space Center here in Florida (just an hour or so away) already has one, and it's a huge highlight of the park... but having lived a lot of my life as a kid going to the Air & Space Museum... constantly... I always viewed the Smithsonian as the pinnacle of museums. Now that the Smithsonian has the Annex, it just makes sense that they should be allowed to keep the Space Shuttle so that everyone can see. Sure, Texas likely believes that it will become a tourist attraction for them... but if we're being honest, the national mall and people visiting D.C. is also a tourist attraction. People come from all over the world to enjoy the Smithsonian and the best of the best of what we have to offer should be there as a showcase for American innovation where all states are represented.
From what I understand, it would require an executive order by the President, or something specifically stating in the bill that there would be a transfer of ownership. The Smithsonian currently owns outright Discovery... as with most of the shuttles except the Atlantis, which is located at Kennedy and still owned by NASA. They may have gotten the money, but they don't yet actually have the Space Shuttle. I'm hoping Trump wouldn't make the decision to move it... but he may as a result of his spite for Washington.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Jim Jones was a Democrat.
What does that have to do with the topic ? Jim Jones was a mass murdering, narcissistic nut case. His personality was similar to the narcissist that currently lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
What does that have to do with the topic ? Jim Jones was a mass murdering, narcissistic nut case. His personality was similar to the narcissist that currently lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Well, this is the Forum: Politics & Religion, and you brought up Jim Jones... I just think it's important you understand the names you throw out, they don't always convey the message you think they do.
