Trump made more than $1bn from crypto in first year back in office
LMAO - Apparently according to randos online the Biden's were a crime family making bank off the WH. That was a big deal.
But Trump using the office to drop investigations into Crypto businesses - pardoning crypto billionaires, using the presidential seal and other highly questionable/potentially/probably illegal actions around his crypto business ... all to make $$$ ... that's just MURICA !!
His money is blind and semi-blind invested while he is in office.
Trump directed his endorsement at Dell founder Michael Dell and his wife, Susan Dell, who have pledged more than $6 billion to the Trump Accounts program. "Michael and Susan Dell, they are truly incredible," Trump said. "We're going to get him that money back one way or the other — and then I'll ask for another $6 billion."
So, he is telling people to buy Dell because they pledged 6b towards the Trump Accounts and he is saying he would go back and ask for another 6b when Dell gets their 6b back?
We don't want communists running these institutions. It's a good job King Trump will remove them. They should count themselves lucky if they are allowed to stay in the county5
Yeah, 26 women were lying and watson is the beacon of truth.
When is the last time you made a post on this board that didn't pertain to me? That's right, I'm your obsession every time you come to this place.
So let me guess, you didn't notice the slow down in traffic on this board once it began encountering so many difficulties? Of course you didn't.
So you just posted your little rant about me without reading the thread? Because if you had bothered reading it you would have known that I've been saying Myles speeding infractions were nowhere near as bad in "the grand scheme of things" as violent offenses and domestic violence. That's what the discussion has been about for days now. Now you blame me because I pointed out you took the side that's been arguing against that? Poor little arch. Everyone should feel sorry for you because Pit is picking on you again.
Seek help arch. Surely I'm not the only one who has identified your mental health condition. I know you don't like me but at least listen to the ones that love you.
What the hell are you talking about? Tantrum?????? I think speeding is as bad as domestic violence? Who has been accused of domestic violence? Violent felonies??? Grow up yourself.
Maybe even change your sig, cause it didn't happen.
Typical you, though. Make crap up, attribute it to others, then play your word games.
As I said, YOU are the reason this board gets little posting. When you don't have an "enemy" to attack, you attack your allies. It's humorous, really. Carry on, Larry.
The report comes as Trump wages an aggressive campaign to overhaul some of Washington’s most sacred cultural and historic institutions.
A White House report brands the leadership of the Smithsonian Institution, especially at the National Museum of American History, as radical activists who cannot be trusted, indicating that President Donald Trump may be preparing to install his own team.
The report released late on Independence Day by the White House Domestic Policy Council comes in the midst of Trump’s aggressive campaign to overhaul some of Washington’s most sacred cultural and historic institutions. Trump in March revealed his intention to force changes at the Smithsonian Institution with an executive order that targeted funding for programs that advanced “divisive narratives” and “improper ideology,” as he continued a broadside against culture he deems too liberal.
“The Smithsonian Institution, and the National Museum of American History in particular, under its current leadership and current interpretive ideology, cannot be trusted to tell America’s story honestly and in a way that is inspiring, unifying, and worthy of our great republic,” according to the report by the council, which is led by a former top Trump speechwriter.
The authors added: “As this report shows, confirmed in the words of Museum leadership, this ideological capture has moved the Museum’s mission away from straightforward historical education and scholarship toward an extreme political activism that seeks to transform our country.”
The Smithsonian did not immediately respond to requests for comment Sunday.
Historian Lonnie Bunch, the Smithsonian’s current secretary, is the first African American to lead the institution. In an unrelated interview that aired Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Bunch said “the notion of being a more perfect union, not the perfect union, is really what motivates me.”
“I think what I want people to understand is that there is a responsibility to continue to make those aspirations available, accessible, meaningful to a whole range of people,” Bunch said. “And that, in essence, America’s greatest strength, it’s not running away from its history, but it’s understanding how that history shaped us and continues to shape us.”
Historian Anthea M. Hartig is the first woman to serve as director of the National Museum of American History.
Trump’s escalating effort to force changes at the Smithsonian marks the Republican president’s latest move to transform cultural pillars of society, such as universities and art, that he considers out of step with conservative sensibilities. Trump had himself installed as chairman of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts with the aim of overhauling programming, and his handpicked board voted to add his name to the building, only to have a federal judge later order the signage to be removed.
The administration also forced Columbia University to make a series of policy changes by threatening the Ivy League school with the loss of several hundred million dollars in federal funding.
Trump has also imposed changes on historical sites beyond Washington, including in Philadelphia, where the administration won a court ruling last week allowing it to reinstall interpretive panels that critics say whitewash the history of slavery at the site of President George Washington’s home. Advocates, academics and officials have been concerned for months that the version that complies with Trump’s order could give a history that plays down the pain in the nation’s past in favor of a more triumphant view.
Gov. Josh Shapiro, D-Pa., accused Trump and his allies of trying to “rewrite history.”
“There’s not one individual narrative that a president gets about our history,” Shapiro, a potential presidential prospect, said in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “And any president should want to make sure that that full history is shared, that the American people are able to draw their own conclusions.”
Shapiro added, “If we understand where we came from, we’re going to have a better path forward.”
Trump’s Domestic Policy Council does not necessarily agree.
The National Museum of American History “confronts visitors with materials intended to undermine faith in American institutions and the longstanding shared ideals of the American people,” the council’s report said. “We must be committed to restoring truth and sanity in how American history is presented and taught.”
In seeking to fulfill Trump’s order, which he called “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” the review concluded by finding that the museum “by the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”
Rewriting and omitting the parts of history that aren't flattering is not history. It's whitewashing history to selectively tell the parts of it you want known while erasing the parts you wish to keep hidden.
Aw.... Poor arch and his typical tantrum. You never post about anything except when it's an attack on me. Seek help. I see it appears you think speeding is as bad as domestic violence and other violent felonies too. At least that's the side you're taking here. Grow up arch. Maybe start posting about the Browns or something.
What Donovan Mitchell's $273M contract extension means for Cavs future, LeBron pursuit - CBS Sports https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/donovan-mitchell-contract-extension-cavaliers-lebron-pusuit/ The Cleveland Cavaliers and Donovan Mitchell agreed to a four-year, $273 million contract extension on Tuesday that includes a player option for the 2030-31 season and a trade kicker that would ensure he remains at 35% of the cap if dealt.
It's a massive commitment from the Cavs, but one they felt they had to get done to remain a top contender in the East. Despite another disappointing postseason exit, this time getting swept in the Eastern Conference Finals by the eventual champion New York Knicks, the Cavaliers have shown no desire to want to blow things up. Mitchell made clear after that series that he wanted to be back in Cleveland, saying he had "unfinished business" with the Cavaliers, and one day into the official start of the league year, he made clear that he meant it by putting pen to paper on a massive new extension.
Mitchell's extension is the first domino to fall in what the Cavaliers hope is an offseason that finally pushes them over the top -- with LeBron James' return looming as the potential final piece to the puzzle. The last three Eastern Conference champions (two of whom won the Finals) did so a year after losing in the conference finals. Cleveland is hoping its patience is rewarded as the Celtics, Pacers and Knicks were to extend that streak to four in a row in 2026-27. There's still more work to do, but with Mitchell locked up the Cavs can start fully planning for the future.
What Mitchell's extension means for LeBron's possible return The entire league is awaiting word of what LeBron James will do as he changes teams for a fourth time. The Sixers are in the hunt after trading for Jaylen Brown last week, and there are intriguing options in Golden State and Miami. But the expectation has been growing that LeBron will be coming home for a third and final stint in Cleveland.
So, what does the Mitchell signing mean for James' potential return? Financially, nothing.
Mitchell's new deal won't kick in until 2027-28 and has no impact on the Cavs' cap situation for the 2026-27 season. Should James Harden sign a new deal before LeBron's decision is announced, that would signal The King is going elsewhere, but Mitchell's new contract will have no bearing on James' ability to sign in Cleveland.
That said, Mitchell inking his extension now takes away any concern James may have had that his farewell season back home could be hijacked in any way by a contract dispute or potential trade saga involving Mitchell. Mitchell would've been able to become a free agent next summer, and had he not signed an extension, there could've been some real drama about the Cavs' future that would distract from LeBron's return.
Now the path is cleared for James to come to Cleveland without any concern that he wouldn't be the main topic of conversation or that this Cavs team will look different in late February than it does now due to a Mitchell trade.
I get it, you want the last word, but when that last word is nonsense, it deserves a response. When I'm bored... I respond, because it's just too damn easy.
I see you haven't improved in the comprehension area. You admitted that the issue you keep harping about isn't nearly as serious and yet you keep harping. That is what makes this "just too damn easy".
Maybe the issue is that you're having trouble looking at your own responses?
Obviously by your comment you have no mirrors at your residence.
I mean if you wish to omit context as it unfolded throughout the thread that's your business. But don't be surprised when you get smacked in the face with it. That's a you problem.
See, that's what context means. You're welcome.
Even when you admitted you agree with me that in the grand scheme of things speeding is trivial compared to violent issues you still drone on. But dogs have been known to chase their own tail.
I made it very clear all along that his speeding wasn't nearly as bad as many more severe issues with discipline in the league. After droning on and trying to argue that for days by sidestepping it, you finally manned up and admitted that was true. Yet still, after all that here you are.
Context IS everything, you omit in every single post you follow up on. The context isn't speeding, it's EXCESSIVE speeding. If he had 5 tickets in 12 months, all under 10 MPH over the posted limit, no one would bring it up. No one in this thread, including me, has argued speeding is worse than other issues, that was you comparing it to other issues. THEN we/I tried to explain "THE CONTEXT" in which Myles Garrett's "speeding" lands... you either can't comprehend or ignore that part and move on to some irrelevant new piece to change your argument.
The "droning on" is in response to you.. I am not writing several trivial posts one after the other, which is what "droning on" means. A response isn't in the category of droning on.
I get it, you want the last word, but when that last word is nonsense, it deserves a response. When I'm bored... I respond, because it's just too damn easy.
Lebron informed the Lakers that he is moving on and will play somewhere else.
It would be very cool for him to come back. He will do as he pleases.
But if he comes back. I am watching them play.
I am not a huge basketball fan. It comes and goes with me. Sometimes I get into it. Other times I lose interest.
I will say when the Cavs won it all with Lebron. I lost my mind. I could believe they won.
I saw the old Bird vs Magic games and of course Michael.
But I have never seen a player play like Lebron played in that championship series.
That was something to see.
It was FANTASTIC. I never was much into basketball, but when my parents were still alive they both told me to watch the Cavs because of Lebron. Man, it was a lotta fun! We all thought a championship just might be possible. Cleveland was so darn proud when we won it all. Yes!
Obviously by your comment you have no mirrors at your residence.
I mean if you wish to omit context as it unfolded throughout the thread that's your business. But don't be surprised when you get smacked in the face with it. That's a you problem.
See, that's what context means. You're welcome.
Even when you admitted you agree with me that in the grand scheme of things speeding is trivial compared to violent issues you still drone on. But dogs have been known to chase their own tail.
I made it very clear all along that his speeding wasn't nearly as bad as many more severe issues with discipline in the league. After droning on and trying to argue that for days by sidestepping it, you finally manned up and admitted that was true. Yet still, after all that here you are.
For those who scream about socialism even while calling it communism...........................
Since taking office, the Trump administration has taken direct ownership stakes or governance control in at least 28 private and public companies. These targeted interventions represent a major break from traditional U.S. policy, utilizing taxpayer funds to secure equity in industries deemed critical to national security, supply chains, and technology.
Key Equity Investments & StakesThe U.S. government has acquired stakes in major corporations, including:
Intel Corp. (INTC): The U.S. government secured a 10% equity stake in the semiconductor manufacturer.
MP Materials Corp. (MP): The government became the largest single shareholder in this rare earth mining and processing firm with a 15% equity holding.
Lithium Americas Corp. (LAC): A 10% stake was taken in the mining company, which includes a share in its Thacker Pass joint venture.
Trilogy Metals Inc. (TMQ): The U.S. acquired a 10% stake for the development of critical minerals in Alaska.
U.S. Steel Corporation: The administration acquired a "golden share" in exchange for approving its acquisition, providing the president with extensive governance and operational control rather than direct economic interest.
Additional and Proposed InvestmentsEnergy & Technology: The government acquired a profit-sharing deal with the owners of Westinghouse with an option to convert it into a 20% ownership stake. The administration has also explored or negotiated similar investments in smaller AI and quantum firms (e.g., IonQ, Rigetti) and debated a 5% public equity stake proposed by OpenAI.
Tracking the PortfolioThe ongoing deals are facilitated across multiple federal departments, heavily spearheaded by the Commerce Department. You can explore deeper details on the specific breakdown of these equity actions using the Council on Foreign Relations' U.S. Government Deal Tracker or examine the wider implications of federal corporate ownership via The Fulcrum.
Washington’s Growing Portfolio: Tracking U.S. Government Investments
Lawyers for the SPLC have already argued that law enforcement agencies have long known that the nonprofit paid informants to report on the movements of hate groups. They have also said acting Attorney General Todd Blanche made a false statement at a news conference and in interviews when he said the organization had not shared with law enforcement information it had learned from informants. Blanche later appeared to walk back that claim in a television interview, saying it was true that the SPLC had "selectively" shared information with law enforcement over the years.
I understand how badly you must hate crimes of racist hate groups being uncovered and reported. Is that because it involves some of your friends? Would you prefer their crimes remain uncovered and never reported? Sure sounds like it.
“I have seen the public comments regarding the decision of the independent FIFA Disciplinary Committee related to the suspension of Folarin Balogun, and I would like to reiterate a fundamental principle of FIFA’s governance.
“FIFA’s judicial bodies are independent. They operate autonomously, apply the FIFA Disciplinary Code, and decide cases based on the applicable regulations and the specific facts before them. Their independence is essential to the credibility and integrity of football, and this must always be respected.
“Yes, I regularly discuss matters related to the FIFA World Cup with the President of the United States, and on this matter, I did receive a call from President Donald Trump, just as I receive calls from heads of state, government officials, football stakeholders and business executives from around the world on many different issues. During our conversation, I explained that there was an ongoing legal process involving FIFA’s independent judicial bodies and that the case would be decided in due course by the competent bodies. That is how FIFA’s system works, and it is a principle that I will always uphold.
“I read the decisions of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee when they are issued. Sometimes I am surprised by them. Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I disagree.
“What I always do, however, is respect those decisions and the autonomy of the bodies that make them. Whether we personally like a decision or not is irrelevant. Respect for independent institutions and the rule of law is what protects the integrity of our competitions and the credibility of FIFA at all times.”
Infantino can say what he wants. The bottom line is that what happened is an outlier. It happened once before - for Christiano Ronaldo and it was met with the same fervor. The red card was not overturned or rescinded - it the punishment for the red card was "suspended" allowing him to play in the game vs Belgium. At the end of the day the decision seems to have provided motivation for Belgium and disrupted the US team's mojo.
Other football bodies have spoken out in no uncertain terms against what Infantino (or if you want to say what FIFA) did -
The Swiss Football Association (SFA) have also criticised FIFA over the Folarin Balogun case:
"The decision in the Balogun case is incomprehensible to the Swiss Football Association (SFA), regardless of how it came about. Until now, the principle has been clear: any player sent off is automatically suspended for the next match. This rule applied equally to everyone and provided clarity and consistency. This decision raises questions and creates uncertainty, particularly regarding the authority of referees' decisions, especially when the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) is involved. The credibility of the competition depends on clear rules that are applied consistently."
EUFA Statement :
Yesterday’s decision to suspend for a probationary period of a year the implementation of the one-match automatic suspension following the red card issued to the player Folarin Balogun crossed a red line.
Football, like any other sports, relies on rules, which are the basis for fair, honest and transparent competition. Sometimes rules are open to interpretation. In this case not. A minimum automatic suspension of one match following a red card is not a discretionary option and does not require the decision of a competent body to be enacted. It is a principle embedded in regulations, which cannot be made subject to exceptions, let alone in the middle of a tournament where several other players have been in the same situation and regularly served their suspension.
When the certainty of rules is no longer guaranteed by its guardians, the integrity of the game is at stake and the credibility of a competition is undermined. Equally, such decision creates a precedent in the ongoing tournament, where similar situations will now require an equal treatment, to the detriment of the competition.
Football is the most loved sport in the world because it is a beautiful game and is trusted because it is played everywhere with the same laws. A tournament is never a pure standalone and, if the tournament in question is the World Cup, it has the power to drive positive or negative consequences on the game as a whole.
We express our disbelief at such an unprecedented, incomprehensible and unjustifiable decision.
