Cat

@ewarren Remember when Democrats cared about government accountability? Way back before Democrats became the 'GOVERNMENT' party. Ah, those were the days!

Trump sued his own IRS. Settled with his own government. Secured a $1.8 billion slush fund to siphon toward his allies. Blocked the IRS audits against himself and his family.  This is corruption in plain sight.

No one is above the law. Right? The IRS broke the law. We can't have a rogue IRS that answers to no one and releases stolen financial information for anyone they don't like to try to sway elections. That's what they were found to have done. Regardless of how you feel about Trump, that's not okay. That's creepy Soviet stuff that has no place in a free country. And it's not right to say that the IRS can't be held accountable just because their plan didn't work and Trump is now president. They MUST be held accountable for what they did just like any other business or government agency would. Equal application of the law. It's an invaluable requirement of any free and functional society. And it's not a slush fund. (But you know that. This is just a stupid 'talking point' that's gone out to all you Democrats to post onto X.) It is to be used for people who were legitimately found to have been targets of illegal activity committed by government agencies. It's called accountability. Before Democrats became the 'Government' party, they used to believe in that.

@RepCasar As a publicly traded company, CBS had no choice but to fire Colbert for costing them millions per year without providing a profitable audience. How Trump feels about it doesn’t matter.

Colbert got cancelled because CBS’ owner wanted to suck up to Trump. Over and over, billionaires are auctioning off our 1st Amendment. This isn’t about the rights of a TV host. It’s about all our rights to live in a country where the president doesn’t dictate who says what.

Colbert got cancelled because he wasn’t bringing an audience. He was costing CBS millions instead of making money for the network. No matter what theories you spread, there’s no escaping that simple fact. They HAD to fire him or risk law suits from their stockholders. CBS is a public business. They can’t keep someone on the air who is causing them to lose money without risking legal issues from stock holders. No business can continue hemorrhaging money like that and survive. What do you expect them to do? Go bankrupt and lose the business??? Because you think they are somehow obligated to provide talking points to the DNC?? If Colbert was funny and entertaining enough to bring in a competitive audience, they would not fire him. It’s really that simple. Forcing them to continue to lose money in order to offer a platform for Colbert to lecture people and spread his Trump hatred WOULD be a violation of the first amendment. That’s not their job. They HAVE to air what people want to watch. People weren’t watching Colbert.

He lost his job because he was bad at it. That’s not an opinion, it’s just a fact. The network was hemorrhaging money by keeping him on the air because no one was watching him. It was literally his job to get people to watch. This was purely a business decision. He is no different from anyone else who gets fired for not being able to do their job. The network was losing so much money that paying him was actually, by definition, charity welfare payments. The welfare dried up, and he has to now get a job where he actually contributes something. That’s a good thing. And that would actually help our economy.

In a 1:52am post on Truth Social, Trump said "Colbert is finally finished at CBS," adding, "thank goodness he's finally gone!" That's the president cheering the loss of American jobs, since roughly 200 people are out of work due to the cancellation of "The Late Show."

And Folks, THIS is why Tulsi left the Democrat Party (or more accurately the Democrats left her and went absolutely NUTS)... ...and why everyone else is leaving the Democrat Party too. They are simply terrible people. She literally served as a soldier for 22 years, including voluntarily serving in the Middle East to ensure that people like Adam Schiff can sleep safely at night. But the moment she DARED to question 'the party' (her own party), she was branded 'MAGA' and a 'Trumper' (even though her views have not changed)... ...and now, apparently, her "only positive contribution to our nation's national security is her resignation".

My thoughts go out to Tulsi Gabbard and her family, as her husband battles this serious health problem. I hope and pray that he makes a speedy and full recovery. While the circumstances around her departure are deserving of our sympathy, let’s be clear: Tulsi Gabbard’s only positive contribution to our nation's national security is her resignation. She politicized intelligence. She dismantled critical agencies keeping Americans safe. She weaponized the IC to pursue baseless election fraud claims. And more. We must ensure that her tenure — marked by a devotion to the person of the president and not to the security of the country — represents a terrible exception at DNI and not the new normal.

Um, not true. You obviously don't understand metaphors. As an American citizen, that baby is perfectly eligible for all benefits and social programs paid for by tax payers. The mother can run off tomorrow and leave the child in your house, if she really wanted...and YOU (in this case, you are 'America') are LITERALLY financially responsible for the child. (Even if the mother doesn't run off, you are responsible for the child financially. It just became YOUR child, in this metaphor.) See, that's why it's so stupid: the idea of making anyone who was born in your house suddenly BELONG to you. (Again, 'you' being 'America'.) I can't believe I have to explain this, but...In the metaphor, see, the 'house' is our country. The mother broke in illegally. She didn't knock on the door (in fact, that would be a great example of the equivalent of a "legal" immigrant...which we happily allow to come in by the millions, by the way, because we're friendly that way). No, she decided to just break your window and sneak in, simply because she didn't feel like waiting for you to answer your door (perfect metaphor for ILLEGAL entry). Oh, and she also has her own home, by the way, right across the street (if we're going to make this metaphor even MORE accurate). She just happens to like YOUR home better than hers. (And to be fair, you have a nice home. And that's why, because you're so nice, you totally let people in by the millions...when they knock and ask.) As a caring person, even though she DID break your window instead of waiting for you to answer the door, you'd probably be perfectly willing to help the mother and newborn out, (I know I would), even helping out financially if you are able. (America DOES that, by the way.) And you'd even help her get safely back into her own home, with a pack of diapers and baby formula. However, that's not good enough for Democrats. Democrats (in this metaphor) are saying that YOU now own the child. It's YOUR child. You are responsible for the child financially for life. (Again, you, being America' in this metaphor.) And that newborn baby is not only allowed to stay in your house now (i.e. 'citizenship'), the mother now never has to go back to her own home across the street. But the child is officially part of YOUR family. The child no longer belongs to the family across the street. So no, the mom doesn't have to pay a penny for the child. The child is now 100% entitled to everything you buy for your own children. This is exactly what Democrats are saying.

@CatRM16 @BasedMikeLee Nobody is saying anyone is responsible for these babies but the parents.

If someone walked into your home without your permission and gave birth in your living room, that wouldn’t obligate you to make that baby part of your family. You’d be crazy to agree to such an arrangement. The Fourteenth Amendment wasn’t written by crazy people.

Read the actual document instead of the media's hysteria. The explicit terms of the settlement state that it applies ONLY to previously filed tax returns, meaning the IRS still retains the authority to audit future tax submissions. justice.gov/opa/media/1441… The IRS agreed to the terms because the filed tax returns have already been scrutinized at this point. They were guilty of illegally releasing private financial information in an attempt to sway a political election. We can't have a country where that happens.

If you don't pay your taxes, you can get in trouble. But Donald Trump gets a special Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card. Nope - I have a bill to stop this corruption.

The *corruption* was that Biden's IRS had an agent use his position to illegally steal personal information (simply because he hates Trump) and released it to the public. That is HIGHLY corrupt. As a society, we can't have an IRS running that way. We can't have the government agency we trust with all our financial information using it to play politics and trying to maliciously use it against people they don't like. We need to DETER this kind of corruption. And if you READ the actual ruling, it doesn't ban the IRS from ever auditing Trump. The explicit terms of the Justice Department's settlement addendum state that it applies only to previously filed tax returns, meaning the IRS retains the authority to audit future tax submissions. The IRS agreed to the settlement because 1) they were guilty and financially liable 2) the previously filed returns have already been scrutinized at this point without auditable irregularities--and further auditing would just be harassment at this point, and 3) the previously filed returns are at the issue of the IRS's corruption.

@its_The_Dr It's pretty amazing that she has her hair and makeup done after a 3 mile swim though. There should be some kind of award for that.

lol! This is exactly how freaking insane this Liberal Ideology is. 🤣😂

@mattvanswol To pay fraudsters to run fake day cares and hospices. Don't forget about them! If we don't pay them, how will they buy their expensive cars?

WHY THE HELL AM I PAYING TAXES TO A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT: >CANNOT DEFUND THE TALBAN >CANNOT SECURE OUR ELECTIONS >CANNOT BALANCE A BUDGET >CANNOT READ THE BILLS THEY VOTE ON >CANNOT PASS TERM LIMITS >CANNOT PASS DOGE CUTS WHY ARE WE PAYING TAXES?!!!!!!

You've been governor for 7 years. You've never cared about corruption. So little have you cared, that a 23-year-old was literally able to simply look up all the fraudulent companies you were pouring MILLIONS into...on google and see for himself that they were OBVIOUSLY fake hospices operating by the hundreds out of a few apartment buildings. It's not like it required a crack team of investigators to figure out the fraud. Just one person who cared enough about hard-working American's tax dollars to actually LOOK. And embarrassed, all you did was accuse him of being a liar. Which, of course, he wasn't. I guess you're now acknowledging that? You're now pretending you really care about all the fraud you've allowed to flourish. But not enough to apologize for being the one to throw money at them for years.

We cannot allow corruption to be normalized. We'll lose our country if we do. We NEED to stand up — we HAVE to be as ruthless. For things to change, WE NEED TO CHANGE.

It has nothing to do with human rights. That's just the dramatic way socialists frame everything. It's merely a question of the method of payment. You can either pay-for-use (which is what FREE countries favor), or have the government force you to pre-pay (whether you use it or not) through taxes. Either way, you pay. You are never actually granted a right to 'free' care. You pay MORE if the government becomes the middle-man. The government-forced 'pre-pay' method always causes prices to be higher because it removes free market control, so you pay more than you would if you just paid for the healthcare that you use. And frankly, it takes away your choice. (And, by the way, people who are unable to pay because they don't have enough money are ALREADY covered in the US. That's what Medicaid (and other such programs) exist for. We aren't a 100% socialism-free country. There IS a need for SOME social programs, and we recognize that and make provisions. We are all forced to prepay for a large portion of Americans' care already. We understand and accept that there will always be some people in society who--for whatever reason--are unable to afford to care for themselves. We aren't heartlesss) There's simply no reason to impose Medicaid onto people who don't need it (out of some mistaken idea that taking it out of their taxes is somehow better than letting them budget it themselves).

How do we end the embarrassment of being the only major country not to guarantee healthcare to all as a human right? The answer is not complicated. We must elect candidates who are determined to pass Medicare for All.

That's because American citizens aren't deported. If the child is a citizen, the illegal alien is perfectly free to take their child with them (we don't steal people's kids), OR the child is perfectly free to stay (since they are a citizen) with their other parent since, often, one parent is ALSO a citizen--which, frankly, a lot of these anchor dads (it's usually a dad) choose to do. That's why a large portion of the children 'separated' from their illegal parent are American citizens. But no one is forcing them to separate. Any family is free to accompany each other to the nation home of the parent. There is a legal process for that!! (Believe it or not!) This has ALWAYS been the case! Nothing has changed! Anyone who has ever had a child with a citizen of some other country has to decide which country to live in, as a family, and has to get citizenship or legal residence for the other parent.

A new analysis suggests that more than 100,000 children have been separated from their parents during the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. And roughly three-quarters of those children are likely U.S. citizens. trib.al/ryqXpUa

@BernieSanders 84% of Americans want voters to show ID when they vote, but you don't seem to care about Congress listening to Americans about that.

70% of Americans think AI is moving too fast. 77% think entire industries will be eliminated. 97% say AI safety should be subject to rules. Maybe, just maybe, it’s time Congress listened to the American people — not just the billionaires pushing it — and regulated AI.

None--because it's too late at this point. I don't see any way it can be enacted before November--let alone before all the 'early voting' states. Democrat will appeal and stall. And the coming election will be conducted without any IDs. The SAVE America Act should have been passed ON DAY ONE of Congress being seated. You have already failed us. (Well, not YOU personally, but YOU as a Senate.) So, no. No impact. However, the impact of it not passing at least a YEAR AGO is: 1) Anyone can fill out anyone else's ballot (as usual) 2) Dems will go door-to-door collecting all mailed ballots and fill them out (millions sent to non-voters). 3) Dems will take the House. 4) Dems will take the Senate. 5) Congress will eliminate the filibuster on day one (making all the timid 'bbbbut...Senate rules!' Republicans look like fools--although, I suppose they can self-righteously pat themselves on the back and say, 'well, *I* followed our made-up rules'). 6) Dems will impeach and remove Trump and put him prison for war crimes (and possibly put him to death) 7) All members of the Trump administration (and anyone seen as complicit, Elon Musk, YOU, etc,) will be arrested 8) Our borders will open up for illegal entry again and the entire world will pour in, with working Americans forced to support them again. 9) DC will become a state, Puerto Rico will become a state, both with new Democrat reps added 10) The supreme court will become a panel of 25 justices who believe strongly that it's their job to create laws to fit their own beliefs, transforming the court into a super-legislature with no accountability to voters 11) The electoral college will be eliminated and low-populations states will become slaves to New York and California. 12) The old Soviet Union will look like 1950's America compared to what Democrats will do to our once great nation.

If the Republican Senate doesn’t get the SAVE America Act passed, what impact will that have in November?

@TrustlessState And maybe declare them 'Emperors of the World Whom Must Be Behaved', in order to stave off any pesky hunger for more power? And lower the working days to 0, just to make sure we're encouraging more interest? ...As long as we're 'unironically' spit-balling here.

Unironically, congress members should be paid 600k-800k a year Strong financial compensation is a fundamental deterrent for corruption and alternative interests

True. And I never suggested otherwise. But that makes the culture wrong.

@CatRM16 @elonmusk Culture can affect how well that talent flourishes.

Yes

AMPAS choosing to expand their membership for the purpose of meeting DEI quotas--rather than for merit (which, as I pointed out, WOULD lead to diversity naturally... UNLESS they are racist themselves and refuse to recognize the talent of people of color) has nothing to do with any upcoming film...nor is it because of any 'conversation'. It happened last year. And I stand by my belief that if they ignored skin color and invited people based purely on their talent, they would not only get the best people, it would MEAN a lot more to the people themselves to know that it actually had nothing to do with their skin color. And that's what I find to be 'sad' about DEI. That's all I was saying. And for that, I was bizarrely accused of wanting movies with only white people by someone who obviously didn't even read the original post. 🤷‍♀️ Casting in films, of course, has the added nuance of 'fitting' cast members to the source material according to the vision of the director, but the same principle applies. If the director cast people based on their talent the film would be better than it would be if the director purposely 'cherry-picked' skin colors. As the for the Odyssey, (which is not what I was responding to, and which, honestly, I don't care about), the annoyance over the director's choice to break-away from the source material seems to be that he IS 'cherry-picking' to purposely cast roles of white people as people of color--and that it makes the film 'gimmicky'. I doesn't necessarily mean the people who are tired of that kind of racial 'gimmickiness' are just a bunch of racists who don't want to see Black people in films. It COULD be that they're just sticklers for representing the source material. This type of purposeful miscast, one could argue, sometimes is the entire point of the material. (For example, in 'Hamilton', the whole point of the musical was a sort of 'reimagining' of the founding fathers cast as people of different races. That was the creator's 'vision' for the historical retelling.) But it's getting overdone these days, to the point of getting stupid.

@CatRM16 @elonmusk The casting in the upcoming Odessey film is what got everyone talking about diversity quotas in film currently. This isn't a spontaneous conversation that just happened to break out.