[AMV] VS #1213 Trump vs Musk: popcorn niet meer aan te leveren

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 juni 2025 12:12 schreef MissButterflyy het volgende:
Dus ze gaan het uitpraten vandaag? Ben benieuwd of ze het volhouden, voor de bühne.

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 juni 2025 12:49 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]
Zegt wie? [ x ]

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 juni 2025 12:49 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]
Zegt wie? [ x ]

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 juni 2025 09:22 schreef Hanca het volgende:

[..]
Nee, het feit dat Trump dus liegt dat hij de opdracht gaf, geeft aan dat het hele verhaal een leugen is. Dus alles wat jij nu noemt is ook bij elkaar gelogen.

Er loopt trouwens een opsporingsbevel naar een stel Oekraïners voor deze aanslagen, dat is allemaal veel waarschijnlijker.

quote:

"^{bron: politfact 12sep24} Former President Donald Trump admitted during the Sept. 10 presidential debate that he “blew up the Nord Stream pipeline.”

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 juni 2025 13:14 schreef Vallon het volgende:

[..]
^{Zo ja bedoeld, omdat het Oekräiners zouden zijn wil dat zeker niet zeggen dat Oekraïne daarmee zelf betrokken is,}

quote:

ARussian official said the American billionaire Elon Musk could be offered political asylum in Russia over his fierce dispute with U.S. President Donald Trump

Dmitry Novikov, first deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs, made the comments to Russian state news outlet TASS.

"I think that Musk has a completely different game, [so] he will not need any political asylum, although if he did, Russia, of course, could provide it," Novikov said, in remarks translated from Russian.

quote:

Capitol agenda: GOP leaders rush into Elon Musk damage control
Speaker Mike Johnson is mounting a full rebuttal as he aims to keep the billionaire from hurting the megabill’s prospects.

Hill GOP leaders are in full-on damage control as they scramble to save their megabill — and themselves — from the blast radius of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s breakup.

But Musk doesn’t seem interested in sparing any part of the GOP trifecta from his wrath on his way out of Washington. The president’s new enemy attacked both Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune on Thursday over the cost of the party’s sweeping domestic policy package. Thune brushed it aside.

Johnson, however, is mounting a multi-front rebuttal as he aims to keep Musk from hurting the megabill’s prospects. He’s questioning the tech mogul’s motives for opposing the bill and challenging his claims about its impact on the deficit. Johnson already had to reassure hard-liners concerned about the bill’s spending in order to squeeze the bill through the House last month.

“I’m the same guy that’s always been a deficit hawk, and now I’m the speaker of the House, and I’m working on a multi-step plan to reverse the fiscal insanity that has haunted our country,” Johnson told reporters Thursday. “We have to get the big, beautiful bill done.”

Johnson’s leadership team quickly claimed Musk wouldn’t rattle their members. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise insisted it hadn’t moved any votes. And House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, in an exclusive interview with POLITICO, said he’s not tracking Musk’s onslaught on X.

“Sorry,” Emmer said, “he’s not on my phone.”

Some fiscal hard-liners — who share in Musk’s concerns about the bill but allowed it to pass the House — avoided immediately picking sides in the feud. Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-Md.), bombarded with questions about Musk on Thursday, said only that he’s “right on the deficit.” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) posted on X: “But … I really like both of them.”

They may not have to choose. Signs of a détente emerged late Thursday, with Trump brushing off the clash in a phone call with POLITICO and Musk seeming somewhat open to a reconciliation (just not the reconciliation bill). White House aides are working to broker peace.

Still, if the Trump-Musk divorce goes through, MAGA will likely side with the president. There were signs Thursday that Musk was alienating some of Trump’s biggest Hill boosters.

“Elon is getting too personal. It’s getting out of control,” Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) told POLITICO. “Some of the most recent comments, I think: Elon, you’ve lost your mind.”

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 juni 2025 14:15 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]
https://www.politico.com/(...)an-megabill-00391554

Dat denken wij al wat langer Troy.

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 juni 2025 14:19 schreef Lord-Ronddraai het volgende:

[..]
Dat ook maar het is ook wel weer bizar dat hij daar een probleem mee zou hebben. Too personal? Dat vind een Trump supporter toch niet erg. Trump heeft dagelijks op deze manier ruzie met iedereen van muzikanten tot rechters tot journalisten tot politici, tot priesters die empathie preken, die hij allemaal aanvalt op hun persoon.

quote:

The Supreme Court on Thursday sent the case of an Ohio woman who contends that she was the victim of reverse discrimination back to the lower courts. In a unanimous ruling by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the justices agreed that a federal appeals court in Cincinnati was wrong to impose a higher bar for the case brought by Marlean Ames to move forward than if Ames had been a member of a minority group.

Ames had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for 15 years, starting as an executive secretary in 2004 and eventually becoming a program administrator. In her 2018 performance evaluation, Ames’s new supervisor, who is gay, indicated that Ames met expectations in 10 categories and exceeded them in an 11th.

The dispute began in 2019, when Ames applied for a new position within the department. Not only did she not get that job, but she was also demoted to a previous position, where her hourly salary was just over half of what she had previously been making.

Ames filed a lawsuit in federal court, alleging that she had been the victim of employment discrimination based on her sexual orientation. The department had hired a lesbian for the position that she had sought, she contended, as well as a gay man to replace her after she was demoted.

The United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit threw out Ames’s sexual orientation claim. Because Ames is straight, the court of appeals explained, her claim could not go forward unless she could show “background circumstances” to support her allegations of reverse discrimination – for example, evidence that a member of a minority group made the allegedly discriminatory decision or showing a pattern of discrimination against members of a majority group. But in this case, the court of appeals emphasized, the department officials who actually made the hiring and demotion decisions were straight, and there was no “pattern” of reverse discrimination.

In a nine-page decision on Thursday, the court revived Ames’s claim and sent the case back to the lower court for another look under the proper standard. Federal employment discrimination law, Jackson explained, prohibits intentional discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

The Supreme Court has outlined a three-step test for discrimination claims. At the first step – the one at issue in Ames’s case – a plaintiff must produce enough evidence to support an inference that the employer intended to discriminate. This is generally, Jackson wrote, not a high bar: “A plaintiff may satisfy it simply by presenting evidence ‘that she applied for an available position for which she was qualified, but was rejected under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.’” But the court of appeals in this case, Jackson continued, incorrectly added an additional requirement, directing Ames to “establish ‘background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.’”

The 6th Circuit’s rule, Jackson wrote, is inconsistent with the text of the federal employment discrimination law, which bars discrimination against everyone – without distinguishing between members of a minority group and members of a majority group. “By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’—without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”

The Supreme Court’s cases, Jackson added, also make clear that the test for showing discrimination in a case like Ames’s “does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.” “The ‘background circumstances’ rule flouts that basic principle,” she concluded

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 juni 2025 16:16 schreef MissButterflyy het volgende:
Ik lees trouwens op CNN dat er echt een militaire parade gaat komen he. Op 14 juni, als Trump jarig is.

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 juni 2025 16:35 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]
En taco's.

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 juni 2025 16:25 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]
'Benadeeld door streven naar gelijkheid'.

quote:

Rather than admit that two of their favorite people have fallen out and are making increasingly dire threats against each other, QAnon folks prefer to believe that this is all part of a scheme cooked up by the pair in recent months.

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 juni 2025 16:42 schreef MoreDakka het volgende:

[..]
Wat DEI dus niet is.

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 juni 2025 16:47 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]
Want ja, het default is eerlijk. Ze nemen geen mensen aan die niets kunnen, maar helpen wel de scheefheid wat bij te stellen. Heb je een beter idee?