deleted by creator

Since you don’t believe that, I suppose you won’t believe the article where he’s changed his mind.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5291877-trump-tax-increase-rich/

" to raise the tax rate on the highest earners and the other to close the so-called carried interest loophole, according to a Republican leadership source, as well as two other GOP sources familiar with the call."

To try to get Democrats on board? Or if the Dems vote against it, to use as campaign fodder?

The reason I think this is mildly interesting is that the article’s main revelation is to just make the data a “this or that” presentation. They aren’t changing the information, they’re merely changing the presentation of how the data is displayed to get people to see what the scientists are seeing. It’s literally a “Keep It Simple, Stupid” approach.

A clear example of NPR’s biased journalism /sarcasm.

According to Politico

Trump sends a scorched-earth budget plan. GOP lawmakers hate it already. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/02/trumps-budget-asks-congress-00323256

Maybe someday they’ll stand up to Trump. Or maybe the blue wave will fester up for the midterms.

Congressional Republicans aired some of their grievances about public broadcasting to Kerger and Maher at a public hearing in March. Such complaints have been common over the years, but the broadcasters have avoided funding cuts, in large part because members of Congress don’t want to be seen as responsible if a station in their district shuts down. Who wants to be the public official who killed “Sesame Street”?

https://apnews.com/article/trump-pbs-npr-media-funding-8b51113b8edd932aa850235318b73e53

Apparently, DJT wants to be the public official who killed “Sesame Street”

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

That’s what I thought, too, But according to that law firm’s (https://cornerstonelaw.us/22nd-amendment-doesnt-say-think-says/) article,

While the Amendment’s drafters spilled extra ink ensuring that someone who is elevated to the Presidency for more than two years of another President’s term due to that other President’s death or removal from office, it does nothing to clarify that one who is elected twice cannot rise to the Presidency again. In short, if the 22nd Amendment’s purpose was to ensure that there was a 10 year maximum on service for anyone regardless of how they became President, it could have said so.

and with our Supreme Court in his pocket…

https://cornerstonelaw.us/22nd-amendment-doesnt-say-think-says/