Here is the hilarious part in all of this. Republicans control the House, the senate and The White House. They are in total control. If trump actually wanted to or intended to do any of these things he has had nearly two years to do them. But instead of having done them or trying to do them before anyone swears into office in January, he holds it over voters heads and they will only get those things "if the Republicans win" And the list seems to keep growing with every stump speech he makes along the way. He has even stooped so low as to hold disaster relief funds over people's heads................
Trump ties big promises to GOP midterm election wins
President Trump’s growing list of promised “goodies” if Republicans retain control of Congress has become more niche the closer the country gets to the midterm elections.
Trump and the GOP are hoping his big promises to voters will get them out to the polls on Election Day in less than two weeks.
From payment of a $5,000 dividend to all Americans if Republicans win to dangling investments and settlements, these Trump promises have become a staple at his campaign stops.
The efforts have drawn skeptics who question whether Trump’s big promises will work, are legal or will even happen.
“The problem that Trump faces right now is that no one believes him on ending the war. On lowering prices. On giving away money. None of it,” said a former White House official. “I’m not sure if it is hurting Republican candidates, but it certainly isn’t helping.”
Trump has doubled down on some promises. He wrote in a Truth Social post last month, “When I say something, I mean it!” in regard to the $5,000 dividend checks.
“I think there’s a fine line with going in and promoting what you’ve done for a district or for a state, or what’s on the horizon for a district or for a state, versus having it appear as a quid pro quo or worse,” said one Republican strategist.
“We’ll just see if that’s enough to swing them or if they’re just going to focus back and bounce back to the economy and general corruption issues that are influencing them anyway,” the strategist said, adding, “personally for me, I don’t like it.”
Michael Kang, a law professor at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, said it’s not bribery or a vote-buying scheme.
“There’s no vote-buying problem with that,” he said. “That’s just like saying, ‘If you vote for us, we’re going to pass tax cuts and everyone’s going to get money back.’”
The White House dismissed any criticism of the promises.
“The doomers and naysayers have consistently doubted President Trump: when he pledged to create the historic Trump Accounts, lowered prescription prices with Most Favored Nations, secured the border with no crossings, cleaned up our streets, ended taxes on tips, grew real wages, renegotiated broken trade deals, and reshored key manufacturing back to the United States,” White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement.
Trump promised the $5,000 “Trump dividend” checks to all American adults last month during the Republican midterm convention in Dallas. He made it contingent on the GOP winning the midterm elections and said it had to be spent in the U.S.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) said he would introduce legislation to support the $5,000 dividend.
“I will get a bill ready so that we can get the Trump Dividend passed immediately after the November 3rd election … because Republicans (and America) will win!” Moreno wrote on the social platform X after Trump made the initial announcement.
On Monday in Kansas, Trump told the audience he’ll make the sale of E15 — fuel blended with 15 percent ethanol — allowed year-round instead of being restricted during the summer months for environmental reasons, but only if GOP Sen. Roger Marshall wins reelection next month.
He said more “goodies” could be coming if the Republicans in Kansas are elected.
In North Carolina on Tuesday, Trump tied Camp Lejeune toxic water settlements to the GOP winning.
“If we don’t win, there’s no money,” he said in Greenville, N.C. “If we do win, you’re getting it. It’s going to be finally over with that nightmare that’s been going on for so many years. We will never abandon the heroes who served America.”
Last week in Kentucky, he promised a major investment of $100 million in the pharmaceutical company Antheia to revitalize the facility if Republicans win.
He said Ohio would be “very strongly” considered for the Space Academy if Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio) prevails over Democratic Senate candidate Sherrod Brown.
Trump has also promised millions in disaster relief to states such as Iowa, Kentucky and Wisconsin, all contingent on the Republican candidates winning.
Some have called Trump out for these conditional promises.
“Wisconsinites will believe it when we see it,” Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers wrote on X about Trump’s promise of disaster aid to Wisconsin if Republican candidate Tom Tiffany wins.
“Clearly, President Trump and Congressman Tiffany are continuing to play politics with emergency aid that’s meant to help communities recover in the wake of disasters like tornadoes and floods,” he wrote. “That’s Complete and Total Bulls—.”
Trump’s approval rating hit a record low in a new Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll released over the weekend, at 33 percent. Roughly 66 percent of survey respondents said they disapproved of his performance.
High costs and the Iran war have hurt Republicans and made them wary of their electoral prospects.
“We’re facing an extraordinarily cynical electorate,” Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said. “So it’s hard to imagine that any of this works.”
Questions of legality have arisen, especially surrounding the $5,000 dividend checks Trump promised to Americans if Republicans win.
“In a lot of ways, the way the Trump administration and Donald Trump himself, the way they sort of propose things and they talk about money and politics often is very crass because it’s obviously what they are trying to incentivize people to do,” Kang said. “But in other ways I think the Trump’s administration and Trump himself, they’re very clever about just saying things in a way that avoids the kind of legal problems.”
Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia Law School, said Trump’s promises are “constitutionally protected messages. … They’re constitutionally protected speech.”
“It doesn’t really amount to the level of bribe because he’s not offering anything to any one person,” Briffault said. “I think it’s the sheer implausibility of it that takes it out of any kind of legal or ethical setting and basically makes it into empty campaign rhetoric.”
And Kamarck said she doesn’t see these promises getting Republicans extra votes.
“He’s desperate and so he keeps … taking spaghetti, throwing it against the wall and see what sticks,” Kamarck said. “He’s throwing out things to see if any of them could convince Americans to vote for Republicans in the midterms. And I don’t think it’s going to work.”
“This is totally unprecedented for presidents,” she said of the promises.
And how would he keep the Democrats from helping these people in the same way? Why would they only get these things if the Republicans win? He's already explained that one................
"Hey grok, what is a 30 m dollar fine to a person worth 157 B compared to a guy making 100k a year?"
Thoughts >A $30 million fine is 0.0191% of a $157 billion net worth. If you apply that same tiny percentage to someone earning $100,000 a year, it works out to about $19.
I agree it looks small, but fines shouldn't be based on a persons net worth. What they did before to accumulate that worth doesn't matter.
I agree. It's sobering nonetheless; that's a lot of money. My comment was mostly based on the scale... enough money to change people's lives for generations is $19 to him.
I agree with you. Wish this OL could be more smooth and mechanically relaxed; We seem to have one poor play call each series. For Ski it was first down and we were often behind the chains. For Monken, it is second down, and it is becoming more predictable. Also, we have made the O line's job tougher calling longer and later routes. Leaves pocket late, flushes in a panic. The pass ends up be 20 yards when we need four. This is confounded by shotgun for DW. We could look for a few linemen who block to the whistle, ambitious lads; notice how many of ours are standing around watching the plays' ends. Not trading for some help does not indicate we do not need it. Berry seems to be churning the roster and PS regularly. Go, Browns!
How is she a "degenerate"? Trump is lying about what he said. But you can't just admit that can you?
Or are you talking about Acton who was raped by her stepfather?
Would you call defending someone who is telling a blatant lie being a degenerate? If so it would seem you qualify.
But I get it. Every time trump lies or says something stupid you either ignore it or defend it and then blame somebody else for it. I'm sure you even taught your own children better than to do that. But you have ten years invested in this thing so what else can you do now?
Let me clue you in here. Pointing out someone is a liar isn't defending the person he is lying about. You're welcome.
But trump is aiding Russia be on the doorstep of our NATO allies.
We weren't at war with Russia before. We were helping Ukraine weaken one of our greatest enemies at a fraction of the cost it would be to go to war with them.
It was a wise, strategic way to weaken Russia. Now trump is aiding Russia in its war with Ukraine. Stop trying to defend that. It isn't attractive. And then people such as yourself call the other side communists.
We have poured trillions of dollars over the decades trying to mitigate Russia as a threat - and they are a threat. I posit that we have had no greater ROI accomplishing this than our aid sent to Ukraine.
Ukraine has advanced in technology at a meteoric level, in some ways outpacing our own advancements. We rely on their lessons, strategy and even their technology on our own ill -fated war in Iran. Why? Because Ukraine has figured out a way to overcome a superior enemy with technological advances that achieve asymmetric accomplishments with lower costs. To put that into context, Russia moves in with a multimillion dollar tank and Ukraine takes it out with a $5K OWA drone. The whole war has set Russia back significantly.
What’s more is that Iran is utilizing the same strategy against us. Cheap drones that we need to take out with expensive missiles. Ukraine has been instrumental in helping us counter that because they have experience with A2AD against Shahed drones more so than anyone.
What is unbelievably stupid on our parts is that our defense industry controls a lot of our expenditures. The “BOND” team is partnering with current SecDef personnel and approaching industry about the prospect of multiyear contracts for legacy systems that we 1) Don’t really need 2) Haven’t used in combat yet and 3) Don’t conform with the emerging war climate.
I hate to say it, but we are starting to look like European powers before World War I where it was believed the honor and glory of a massive cavalry charge was the way to win wars. Next thing you know, trenches were dug and everyone dies en masse because they didn’t realize warfare is not the same as it was.
This also happened to Russia. They had very advanced tanks, EW systems and an advanced stealth fighter, the Su-57. They won’t even fly that jet into Ukraine because it is too expensive and has had vulnerabilities exposed by emerging tech. So pretty much all those great and powerful things have been either inferior to their purpose or outright useless.
If we really hope to remain superior, we have to pivot to the next phase of technology while suppressing our near peers. We need to partner with countries like Ukraine to accomplish capturing emerging tech and take warfare into the next phase. That involved escaping our “business as usual” mindset, especially when it comes to defense spending and investments.
Bottom line, if you’re asking me if we should partner with Ukraine or massively overpay for another lot of F-15EX’s, I choose the former every single time.
"Hey grok, what is a 30 m dollar fine to a person worth 157 B compared to a guy making 100k a year?"
Thoughts >A $30 million fine is 0.0191% of a $157 billion net worth. If you apply that same tiny percentage to someone earning $100,000 a year, it works out to about $19.
I agree it looks small, but fines shouldn't be based on a persons net worth. What they did before to accumulate that worth doesn't matter.
I absolutely despise that this war happened. Ground invasion would be super costly in lives just due to the terrain alone. We’re all but wiped out on munitions somehow…. After most of the 40 trillion dollar deficit was spent on military. Funny how poorly mismanaged it is… I mean the MIC.
And the utter incompetence of this admin and it’s war chiefs is on the keystone cops level. Everything it does, is somehow the wrong thing, every time. We are getting drug by a third world regime. Embarrassing. It will take a drone heavy war or major losses to win this now. If the Iranians had started it, I would have been ready to nuke them before letting them do this to the world with oil. But we started it. BB suckered Trump into it. He’s an idiot. They were never goin g to have a nuke soon….. never. Now, I imagine they already have some access from Russia. Russia openly helps them kill our soldiers and helps attack us with drones while trump cups Putin’s nads lovingly for it.
Kegsbreath spoke out of turn. The day he said it I would have like to put B2A on him…. Stupid. This drunken imbecile is single handedly destroying our military. But I’m happy THEY are setting the renewed precedent of executing traitors by firing squad. I think many traitors will be uncovered in the next several years. I may have to renew my marksmanship cert.
Oh, there is one big thing that may happen even though none are pushing it…. There will be, inevitably, some form of wealth tax or redistribution. And I say about damn time. I don’t want their money, even though most billionaires have stolen or milked from the working class, used our government and laws to take advantage with their wealth. But I don’t think a single billionaire and damn sure trillionaires should exist at all. Financial success's should have a 100% tax cap. Nobody needs more than they can spend in a lifetime living an exceptional, yet ordinary life. And I’ve only recently became a believer in this watching big money kill our country in a coordinated effort.
Trump, Elon, and all the tech bros are perfect examples of this. I don’t mind them being wealthy beyond comprehension until I see the rest of us pay for their BS excess and god complexes. Think about it. Elon Bought Twitter, bought Trump’s second term, shut off Ukraines star shield intel, consults with PUTIN and other world leaders all the time. He’s trying to influence elections and results in order to bend the world to his vision. And is now helping the Ellison’s gank CNN. He is way too powerful for any single person.
You may think these are the same for everyone and he has a right…. To buy a presidency? To spread hate? Hell, if you got the bottom 60% to combine and spend 100% of their wealth, Elon could outspend them himself. Think about that. Think think about Elon being a commie.
Seriously??? Well for starters they WILL focus on the economy which will be better for all except *illionaires (MBT). Go listen to Abdul El-Sayed, Bernie, AOC, Jon Ossoff, James Talarico, or any other DSA adjacent candidate. They want a reset too, just like most Americans. A big one is money out of politics so guys like Elon can’t buy elections. The next is anti corruption measures to make sure no other POTUS abuses his office for Billions in personal profits while serving. And I think they will start breaking up all the big media corps, and many other monopoly type situations. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, they will attempt to hold these felonious traitors accountable to the fullest extent of the law, like trump’s first term where he sucked too.
Now I’d ask you, are you still having trouble seeing the difference between trump and almost all other presidencies?
I do not see the Browns making in huge moves unless they were able to secure a player that fits in their 2027 - 2029 window. I think they have a plan and have stayed fairly disciplined in 2025 and so far in 2026 to what talent they see fitting in that window. They may trade day 3 capital to secure a position for this year but even as good of a start they have to this season I do not think they are all end SB or bust so I do not see any huge splashes at the deadline. I also do not see them trading away talent like Juedy while this team in contending either.
I don't expect much to happen regarding the trade deadline. I think Berry wants to hold all his picks for the major goal of QB next year.
Areas that could see a small upgrade, but can make a big difference:
TE - I think the Browns expected for Joe Royer to be that (blocking/receiving) secondary piece in the depth chart. However, he's out for the year on the reserve/non-football illness list. Berry likes to churn the bottom of the roster, so practice squad might be his option to find another TE to play with Fannin and Whiteheart. Maybe he uses a late round pick for a blocking TE.
Why I think this is important: Think Njoku. Njoku the first couple years was a terrible blocker and good receiver, credit to him for becoming a solid blocker over the years. Fannin is still learning the blocking, great receiver. We need another blocking piece, one reason for depth and one to help take the pressure off of Fannin to block.
Slot corner - Berry received great value in getting Campbell from the Jags (i know he plays on the outside). If there is one spot that could use an upgrade is Myles Harden. Between injuries, being young (our backups) at that position this is a spot we can use a solid veteran to start and push Harden to a backup role. Or maybe Berry looks at it and thinks our defense can hide this week spot for the year (and maybe Harden will improve). We save the draft pick and draft a middle rounder next year and/or sign a FA.
Areas where we might pick up someone or not:
OL - Unless we have some injuries, I do not think we need to trade for a lineman. Center has been playing alright. Our guards have played pretty well. Johnson has been solid in my opinion. Barber has made some rookie mistakes, but has been solid. Looking at the big picture, he needs to gain some strength (and more experience) like most rookie lineman do. Fano has played solid. I am happy with his work. He falls into the same big picture as Barber. These two can improve through the year with more experience. Right tackle can use an upgrade. Howard has played "ok". He isn't a turnstile, but we do need an upgrade. Next year he would be a solid RT backup. I won't speak on the issues regarding the RBs. I unfortunetly haven't had time to look at the game breakdown replays regarding where the issues are regarding our run game. I will say our line needs to keep playing together this year to keep gelling. If this squad was being hit hard with injuries, then maybe a trade is warranted. I am sure Berry has asked Monken/Warhop their thoughts on if the line can improve. They're the only ones that know that answer.
DL - We possibly could use an old vet for depth (like Fate mentioned) along the line with a late round pick. The great thing about our line is we are second in sacks in the league (one sack behind the leader) and right at the top regarding pressures too. This is even with Graham/Hall being out, waiting for Kalia Davis to return, and Verse not showing much on the stat sheet. Berry has three options, stand pat and bank on those three returning, bringing in a vet on a late round pick, or looking at grabbing a body off another PS. I will say the players Berry keeps bringing in (i.e. Barnett as an example) have played alright for not being in the begining of the season plans.
Case #79827 in the trump is a lying idiot file................
Omar responds to Trump claim about her name
Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar is responding directly to Trump claiming that she has an entirely different name and will not be allowed to be a member of the House.
“Whenever the news turns bad, this creep reaches for one name: mine. So let’s make it crystal clear. My name has always been Ilhan Omar,” the congresswoman said in a social media post on X. “Maybe you should focus on what your VP’s real name is.”
Trump’s comments came in a Truth Social post.
Omar’s name has been listed in court records as such for nearly two decades. She sought two marriage licenses under her name, twice filed for divorce under that same name and has numerous traffic and parking tickets under her name. She is also registered to vote under the name.
From 2009 to 2017 she was married to a man named Ahmed Nur Said Elmi. His last name is the one Trump now claims is her correct name. But in their marriage and divorce filings, she always used the name Ilhan Omar and did not adopt his name.
