To include your event in the Briefing and Live Calendar, please fill out this form.
Weather: A slight chance of showers, then a chance of showers and thunderstorms after 11am. Mostly sunny, with a high near 91. Heat index values as high as 101. Calm wind becoming southeast 5 to 9 mph in the afternoon. Chance of precipitation is 50%. Thursday Night: A 30 percent chance of showers and thunderstorms before 8pm. Partly cloudy, with a low around 74. South wind 5 to 7 mph becoming calm after midnight.
- Daily weather briefing from the National Weather Service in Jacksonville here.
- Drought conditions here. (What is the Keetch-Byram drought index?).
- Check today’s tides in Daytona Beach (a few minutes off from Flagler Beach) here.
- Tropical cyclone activity here, and even more details here.
Today at a Glance:
Drug Court convenes before Circuit Judge Dawn Nichols at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 401 at the Flagler County courthouse, Kim C. Hammond Justice Center 1769 E Moody Blvd, Bldg 1, Bunnell. Drug Court is open to the public. See the Drug Court handbook here and the participation agreement here.
The Flagler Beach City Commission meets at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall, 105 South 2nd Street in Flagler Beach. Watch the meeting at the city’s YouTube channel here. Access meeting agenda and materials here. See a list of commission members and their email addresses here.
Model Yacht Club Races at the Pond in Palm Coast’s Central Park, from noon to 2 p.m. in Central Park in Town Center, 975 Central Ave. Join Bill Wells, Bob Rupp and other members of the Palm Coast Model Yacht Club, watch them race or join the races with your own model yacht. No dues to join the club, which meets at the pond in Central Park every Thursday.
The Palm Coast Democratic Club holds its monthly business meeting at noon at the Flagler Democratic Party Headquarters in City Marketplace, 160 Cypress Point Parkway, Suite C214, Palm Coast. This gathering is open to the public at no charge. No advance arrangements are necessary. Call (386) 283-4883 for best directions or (561)-235-2065 for more information. For further information, please contact Palm Coast Democratic Club’s President Donna Harkins at (561) 235-2065, visit our website at http://palmcoastdemocraticclub.org/ or Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/groups/palmcoastdemclub/permalink
Exchanges: With a friend from the other morning. I’m in the darker blue.
—P.T.
View this profile on Instagram
The Live Calendar is a compendium of local and regional political, civic and cultural events. You can input your own calendar events directly onto the site as you wish them to appear (pending approval of course). To include your event in the Live Calendar, please fill out this form.
July 2025
Free For All Fridays With Host David Ayres on WNZF
Friday Blue Forum
Flagler Beach Farmers Market
Coffee With Flagler Beach Commission Chair Scott Spradley
Grace Community Food Pantry on Education Way
Second Saturday Plant Sale at Washington Oaks Gardens State Park
American Association of University Women (AAUW) Meeting
Peps Art Walk Near Beachfront Grille
ESL Bible Studies for Intermediate and Advanced Students
Grace Community Food Pantry on Education Way
Palm Coast Farmers’ Market at European Village
Gamble Jam at Gamble Rogers Memorial State Recreation Area
Al-Anon Family Groups
For the full calendar, go here.
“Then forty-five, Kissinger personified human complexity–his characteristics ranging from brilliance and wit to sensitivity, melancholy, abrasiveness, and savagery. As he adapted to Nixon’s court, with its arcane and unsavory intrigues, he was also to acquire a talent for duplicity. He was not, as he liked to pretend, the innocent scholar fallen among fierce competitors for influence; he had flourished in an academic jungle at least as hostile as the upper echelons of government. For he was driven by inexhaustible, almost primeval ambition. ‘What interests me,’ he confessed to journalist Oriana Fallaci, ‘is what you can do with power.'”
–From Stanley Karnow’s Vietnam: A History (1983).
Pogo says
@FWIW
When asked what time it is (and for lawyers and academic researchers, let us stipulate: right here, right now) reply with the current time — not something else. With that as a preamble:
Q: Who says death to America?
A: https://www.google.com/search?q=who+says+death+to+america
Good day.
Ed P says
Would a degenerate who was smart enough to be worth $600 million dollars be dumb enough to have a list of co-conspirators/clients?
If such a list does or did exist and Trump was on that list, why didn’t the left use it against him? They tried literally everything else including a “dossier”. They would not have passed on that opportunity.
Finally, dead men tell no lies. Also if Ghislaine Maxwell had the “goods”, why would she accept a 20 year vacation in the federal prison system? 2037 is her earliest release date, she’ll be 75 years old. It’s a sure bet that a pardon isn’t in her future. She’s radioactive.
Skibum says
I’m surprised that every one of drumph’s sycophant cabinet appointees haven’t yet been directed by that fool to submit the idiot wanna-be dictator’s name and made up justifications to nominate him for a Nobel peace prize as part of their job responsibilities. He is so transparent in his determination to be nominated that I wouldn’t put it past him to reach out to Kim Un Jong, begging him to send a little love note to Norway with love and kisses as his most fervent regards.
There is NOTHING in drumph’s abhorrent attitude and behavior toward other countries that would lead any rational person to conclude that he has done one scintilla of the hard work toward peace making anywhere in the world, yet he somehow fantasizes that the award is given randomly to do-nothing radical idiots… just because someone has the audacity to make shit up.
I do agree though with the person who has suggested one award for drumph… that being the person most human beings would like to read is deserving of an early obituary.
Pogo says
@The horses’ asses speak
…and the smell is predictable:
One at a time — all in one place:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=trump+on+epstein
Why DO these creeps matter?
Sherry says
Regarding truly horrific “Alligator Alcatraz” merch. . . Please boycott “ETSY” until they remove such things. Also, please sign this petition:
https://www.change.org/p/enforce-etsy-hate-speech-policy-by-banning-alligator-alcatraz-merch?signed=true
Sherry says
Huuuumm, can’t decide who is more “STUPIT” (as dennis would say) Pam Bondi, Pete Hegseth, Kristi Noem, MTG,. . . ah the list is too long. . . or is it Jeffrey Epstein? Amassing wealth obviously has no direct link to intelligence!
Sherry says
A MESSAGE TO MACHO MAGA MEN:
They pose as tough guys—but follow Trump like lost puppies. Our sons are watching, and it’s time for better role models.
Adam Kinzinger
Jul 10
Let me say something that’ll probably ruffle a few camo-covered feathers:
A lot of the self-proclaimed “alpha males” in today’s MAGA world aren’t leading anything. They’re following. Hard.
And not following in the way a soldier follows a chain of command with discipline and moral clarity. No—this is blind, sycophantic, almost adolescent worship of a man who wouldn’t return their loyalty if they were bleeding out on the side of the road.
You’ve seen the aesthetic. The selfie in the truck cab—sunglasses on, hat pulled low, a stoic expression that says “I mean business,” even though it’s a Tuesday and they’re sitting in a Wendy’s parking lot. Their social feeds are filled with the same hashtags, the same memes, the same angry rants about “the libs,” the same “Trump 2024” flags flapping behind their pickups like badges of masculinity. They probably have pronouns like come/take it.
But none of that is strength.
None of that is leadership.
That’s cosplay.
What passes for “alpha” in the Trump movement is little more than a caricature—loud, shallow, reactive. And all of it, let’s be honest, is built around following a single man: Donald J. Trump.
Trump posts, they repost.
Trump rants, they echo.
Trump lies, they defend.
He calls someone a traitor, and they fall over themselves to repeat it.
That’s not dominance. That’s dependence. That’s performative masculinity with a weak foundation.
Real strength doesn’t need constant affirmation. Real men don’t need someone else’s approval to know who they are. And real leaders don’t follow populist strongmen around like political fanboys. They think for themselves. They stand up when it’s hard. They have a moral compass that isn’t recalibrated by the next Truth Social post.
And let me get personal for a second.
When I served in Iraq, I saw real leadership up close. It looked like calm under pressure. It looked like putting your team’s safety before your own. It looked like humility. You could spot the posers a mile away—the guys who talked tough but melted down and pouted. The ones who needed attention. Who needed to be seen. Who needed someone else to make them feel important.
That’s what I see when I look at this new “tough guy” MAGA culture.
The tribal loyalty. The groupthink. The worship of one man over principle, over country, over character. It’s weak. And deep down, I think a lot of them know it.
The tragedy is that this isn’t just a private identity crisis. It’s a generational problem.
Our boys are watching. They’re learning what it means to be a man from the examples we put on pedestals. And when the loudest voices in our culture tell them that manhood is about dominance, cruelty, and blind loyalty to a demagogue, we are planting the seeds for a broken future. When Andrew Tate is abusive to women, and men cheer, the acid pours out.
Masculinity isn’t about screaming louder or winning every argument. It’s about having the courage to do the right thing when it’s hard. It’s about responsibility. It’s about protecting the vulnerable, not mocking them. It’s about punching up, not down. Or if you do, it’s about making those strikes on behalf of a greater cause, exposing the falsehoods of faux masculinity.
And it’s about standing alone when necessary.
Look, I’ve stood alone. It’s not easy. When I broke with my party to stand against Trump and his attacks on our democracy, people called me every name in the book. They sent threats. They tried to cancel me. But I did it because it was right. Because real leadership demands sacrifice. And because my son, and your sons, deserve to see a better version of manhood than what’s being peddled to them online.
So if you’re reading this and you’ve got that flag waving from your truck—ask yourself: is it because you believe in something? Or because you’re afraid of being left out of the tribe? If you truly believe this, ok. But if this is a way to feel you “belong” to something, there is only an emptiness that will follow.
It’s okay to change. It’s okay to wake up. It’s okay to stand on your own two feet. In fact, it’s the most masculine thing you can do.
Because the next generation doesn’t need more rage-fueled imitators screaming into their phones.
They need men who live with purpose.
Men who fight for what’s right.
Men who don’t need to cosplay alpha because they already are.
Skibum says
Amen, Sherry, AMEN!
Ray W, says
Given the consistency of the recent demands by several of the many leaders of current administration on Fed Chair Jerome Powell to immediately reduce the central bank’s lending rate (currently set at between 4.25% and 4.5%) to commercial lending institutions by as much as three percentage points, I looked for explanations to help me understand why such a stance would be taken by the administration.
I found an article published by MAS.Economics on what is known in economic circles as “monetary policy lags.”
As epiphanies can so often be, the article helped me understand the many weaknesses in Ed P.’s recent comment in which echoed both the President’s and Howard Lutnick’s claim that reducing the Fed’s lending rate by three percentage points would lead to $1.9 trillion in savings to the debt, not the deficit, over a span of 10 years.
As an aside, had Ed P. in his comment referenced “deficit”, instead of referencing “debt”, I would have likely not have responded to his comment after he made it, as it would have been far more accurate than it turned out to be.
Here is a portion of the position paper:
Question: “What are monetary policy lags?”
Answer: “Monetary policy lags refer to the delay between when a central bank implements a policy, such as changing interest rates, and when its effects are felt in the economy. These delays occur at various stages, including recognizing the need for intervention, implementing policies, and seeing their full economic impact.”
Two points can be derived from this answer:
First, the authors list three separate types of delays that need to be considered before implementing any economic policy: “intervention”, “implementation”, and “impact.” A definition of each of these types of delays will be included below.
Second, I interpret this answer as undergirding the importance of downplaying the significance or the lack thereof of any form of short-term economic data, as such data is often too volatile to mean anything. As an example of the caution that should attend to any review of weekly or monthly economic data reports, economist after economist describes the Fed’s most preferred economic data as coming from the year-over-year data contained in the government’s monthly CPI report, but only that portion of the report that has the more volatile food and energy data stripped from the report.
From the beginning of the second Trump administration, I have been cautioning FlaglerLive readers to avoid jumping to conclusions over the full impact of the economic policies now being implemented. I have repeatedly agreed with Ed P. that there might be some advantage to the tariff policy, in that the threat of tariffs may result in future trade agreements that might permit revocation of the pending or implemented tariffs, after which a new worldwide economic trade order might be phased in to the benefit of all nations. Then again, Trump’s tariff scheme might not work at all.
Next issue. Here is the first of the three economic lag issues raised in the first question:
Question: “Why do recognition lags occur in monetary policy?”
Answer: “Recognition lags arise because economic indicators, such as inflation or GDP, are retrospective and take time to gather and analyze. This delay can result in central banks identifying inflationary pressures or other issues after they have already escalated.”
I interpret this answer as highlighting the importance of having the best available economic data in hand.
For example, for about a year and a half, the Fed held lending rates high after the rates peaked at 5.25% to 5.5%. Then, given a prevailing the view that inflation was easing while the job market was remaining strong, the Fed, over a span of three meetings, voted to lower the lending rate by a total of one point.
During the two months following the three cuts, short-term inflation reports reflected upwards pressure on inflation, so the Fed stopped cutting its lending rates.
Once Trump took office, the specter of future tariffs resulting in increasing inflation has been at the center of the Fed’s repeated statements that it needs to wait and see before cutting lending rates again.
Here is the second of the three forms of economic lag mentioned in the article:
Question: “How does implementation lag affect monetary policy?
Answer: “Implementation lag refers to the time it takes for central banks to decide on and execute a policy. Factors like the frequency of policy meeting, complex decision-making processes, and political considerations contribute to this delay.”
I remind FlaglerLive readers that I recently posted a comment on the fact that the Fed was holding a two-day policy meeting that had been set some dozen or so years earlier, after another policy meeting at which it had adopted a policy scheme by which all of its economic decisions would be filtered.
It makes sense to me to have a stable policy scheme in place that can be reviewed every so often. Without an overall controlling policy scheme in place, economic decisions have no base, have no boundaries.
An example of such a policy scheme change was that up until 2012, there had been no policy target percentage for inflation. During that 2012 policy meeting at which numerous respected economists spoke to Fed leaders, it was decided to adopt a target inflation rate at 2%. Other nations utilize different target inflation rates. Most that differ with us use 3% as their target inflation rate, around which central bank lending rate decisions, and other economic decisions, are formed.
Here is the third issue:
Question: What is the role of impact lag in monetary policy?
Answer: “Impact lag is the delay between policy implementation and its effects on the economy. For instance, changes in interest rates take time to influence borrowing, spending, and inflation, often resulting in a lag of several months to years.”
President Trump often says that he wants to bring manufacturing jobs back to America, which is a laudable goal. But it also means that tariffs must remain in place for many years. If tariff rates high enough to prompt companies to reshore manufacturing jobs are in place over the long term, tariff impacts due to inflation might be more pronounced.
No company planning on reshoring production, which means giving up an already existing factory in another country, would be willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, on refurbishing an already existing American factory or building a new one here if it thought that tariffs might go away at the whim or caprice of any administration. Building new factories, from permitting, to financing, to hiring contractors, to arranging for supply lines, to arranging for distribution lines, and all of the minutiae of buildout, takes time, usually in the five-to-seven-year range.
There are more questions and answers:
Question: How do monetary policy lags complicate inflation control?
Answer: Monetary policy lags make it difficult to time interventions precisely. Acting too late can allow inflation to become entrenched, while acting too early can stifle economic growth. These timing issues often force central banks to balance competing risks.”
This is the driving force behind President Trump’s criticism of Fed Chair Powell as having been “too late” in raising lending rates in early 2022 to counter rising inflation after Trump’s spending policies had triggered the onset of inflation to begin with.
Almost every economist in the country predicted a hard landing after the $2.9 trillion in unfunded stimulus money that was approved by Congress was signed into law by Trump. The economy was going to overheat from all the spending and it would then crash land into recession, they said in unison.
When Congress approved another $3 trillion in unfunded stimulus money that was signed into law by Biden, the economists remained convinced of the impending hard landing. Recession was nearly certain, they said. Existing economic models told them that much.
But the level of unfunded stimulus spending was beyond anything ever experienced in any advanced economy. I began arguing that the economic models would not work in such a scenario of massive stimulus funding. Almost every Biden hater among the FlaglerLive commenting community insisted otherwise; they claimed that the economy was about to be destroyed. I argued that we needed to wait.
In time, economists, one after another, began predicting a possible soft landing. I kept arguing that we needed to wait.
In time, economists, one after the other, began arguing for no landing at all, that the economy would slowly descend into a normal healthy economy.
The effect of the unprecedented had become known, and it was good (the effect of the quickly rising debt is another story, one that I worry about). The economy had not been destroyed. In fact, the American economy had experienced the strongest recovery among the developed nations of the world. Both the Wall Street Journal and The Economist wrote that Trump was about to inherit an economy that was the “envy of the world.” Yet the Biden haters kept insisting that the economy had been destroyed.
Question: “Can globalization amplify monetary policy lags?”
Answer: “Yes, globalization can amplify lags by introducing complexities such as capital flows, global supply chain dynamics, and external economic shocks. These factors can delay the domestic effects of monetary policy and complicate inflation control.”
Since perhaps as early as April 2021, I have been warning FlaglerLive readers that OPEC+ was intent on manipulating the world’s crude oil supply to its economic benefit, starting with its vote in February 2021 to phase in a production cut of six million barrels per day, with the Saudi government voluntarily cutting another million barrels per day.
Oil prices in the international marketplace began rising, eventually peaking at over $120 per barrel, then dropping back into the $80 range. Gas price rises at the pump soon followed.
The more gullibly stupid among us blamed the Biden administration for the high gas prices, but it was OPEC+ all the way.
Only since this past April has OPEC been voting to increase its production quotas analysts say that OPEC+ wishes to recapture lost market share. Crude oil prices are hovering in the low-$60s. Gasoline prices at the pump are dropping.
The more gullibly stupid among us will credit the Trump administration for the lower gas prices, but it is OPEC+ all the way.
Make of this what you will.
Ed P says
Sherry and Skibum,
Men were in fact a large segment of swing voters that elected Trump. The Dems chased them out.
Disrespecting or pandering to men won’t get them back. They hate being belittled.
Exactly what you both endorsed.
The only faux masculinity I witnessed was by the Dems….remember “white dudes for Kamala, or Governor Walz putting an air filter into an old pick up truck. Cringe worthy.
Ray W, says
Here is a take from a second article on what economists call “response lag” inhering in implementation of economic policy by the Fed, this one from Investopedia, dated February 2, 2024, an article that predates the Trump administration’s pressure on Fed Chair Powell.
Response lag is defined as “the time it takes for monetary and fiscal policies, designed to smooth out the economic cycle or respond to an adverse economic event, to affect the economy once they have been implemented.”
Investopedia discusses four economic lags, not three: Recognition lag, decision lag, implementation lag, and response lag. My first comment on this subject matter in this comment thread focused on the first three of the four economically recognized lags.
The author of the article writes:
“In the popular imagination, central banks can control the economy at will by manipulating the money supply and interest rates. In reality, it is difficult to determine how effective monetary policy has been, never mind knowing how tight monetary policy should be.”
“Response lag occurs because any monetary fiscal policy, once implemented, must then work through a series of transactions that occur between market participants. Each of these transactions takes time, and businesses, consumers, and investors along the chain of transactions may wait for some time before completing the next transaction. Eventually, once all the necessary transactions take place, the outcome of a policy may be observed.
When the Federal Reserve cuts the federal funds rate, it can take 18 months before there is any evidence of that change’s impact, and central banks can find themselves pushing on a string. This inability to fine-tune the economy, with the aim of evening out business cycles, is perhaps why many tightening cycles in the Fed’s history have been followed by a recession or depression.”
This emphasis on long time lags prompted by the Fed’s changes in monetary policy up or down is only part of the puzzle. What happens when a Congressional stimulus spending bill mandates the transfer of some of the stimulus money directly to consumers, separate and apart from Fed policy decisions?
The author writes:
“… [D]uring periods of economic distress, the direct issuance of stimulus checks to taxpayers has become a popular tool of fiscal policy. However, once the policy has been implemented and the checks are in taxpayers’ hands, several more steps need to occur before the policy can have its desired stimulatory effect. Taxpayers need to cash the checks or deposit the checks with a financial service provider, then they need to spend the money they get on goods and services.
“Therefore, stimulus policies depend heavily on the multiplier effect; the businesses where taxpayers have spent their stimulus money need in turn deposit the money in their banks and then spend it on wages, raw materials, or other goods purchased from other businesses.
“Because all economic action necessarily takes place over time, this chain of transactions may take a while. The process may be delayed if, at any step along this chain of transactions, the holders of the stimulus money hang on to it for a while as savings rather than spending it. Only once the new stimulus money has circulated throughout the economy can the full effect of the policy be felt and observed by policymakers. …”
As an example, the author writes that some two years after Congress mandated that the Biden administration issue $1,400 stimulus checks to taxpayers, the full economic impact of the infusion of money has yet to be determined.
Make of this what you will.
Me?
President Trump and Commerce Secretary Lutnick both are pressuring Fed Chair Powell to cut the fed’s lending rate to financial institutions by three percentage points. Should this happen, they say, the country will realize $1.9 trillion in deficit savings over a 10-year span. But economists say that an improvident cut in the lending rates of even as little as a quarter-point could trigger a rise in inflation that would offset some, much, or all of the suggested savings.
No one can yet know the impact of the Liberation Day tariffs, as they are not yet set. It’s been almost five months since onset of the first tariffs, mostly on Canada and Mexico, at first, and then on China, and the tariff rate pendulum has swung widely several times ever since.
Some of the most recent economic data suggests that inflation is on the rise and GDP growth is wobbly, but I hesitate to put too much stock in the data.
At first, we were promised 200 tariff deals, and then 90 deals in 90 days. We have three partial deals after the 90 days period ended, and the Trump administration is sending out letters to foreign leaders announcing the revised tariff number, and President Trump is claiming that the one-way letters are actually two-way deals.
Some FlaglerLive commenters joyously predict fantastic economic times ahead, thinking that a single report of 177,000 new jobs in June and dropping gasoline prices at the pump answers all of the nation’s economic questions for good.
I, on the other hand, remember when President Trump promised in 2018 that his tax cut would so stimulate the economy that America would see a 10-year string of, on average, 4% GDP quarterly growth reports, which would bring in enough tax revenue from all that growth so as to offset all of the tax revenue lost by the cuts. It’s been some seven years and only four to the approximately 28 quarterly GDP reports have reflected 4% or more in growth and our Congress just extended the tax cuts, as if they worked the first time. Two of the four 4% GDP growth quarters happened during the first Trump administration and the other two happened during the Biden years. The first quarter 2025 GDP growth figure was -.5%.
So, no, Ed P., I don’t buy for a second the claims that a three-point cut in the fed’s lending rate will result in $1.9 trillion in savings to the deficit over 10 years. This is pie in the sky.
In 1980, America was in the midst of a fifteen-year bout with one and off stagflation. America would soon see the Fed raise its lending rate to over 20%.
In 1990, we were in a Bush recession that may have cost him the loss of the 1992 election President Clinton.
In 2000, we were in the midst of the only two years of a surplus in a now 60-year string of budget deficits.
In 2010, we in the tail end of the Great Recession.
In 2020, we were struggling to cope with the pandemic.
We have a $30 trillion GDP that relies on the spending habits by 340 million Americans for 70% of the output. A rise in consumer confidence is a good thing, because people spend more when they have hope for the future. A drop in consumer confidence is not a good thing, because people cut their spending habits.
Any 10-year prediction that relies on the Fed cutting rates by three points and then relies on the Fed never adjusting the lending rate up or down again for 10 straight years and concurrently relying on the idea that inflation won’t rise and that GDP growth won’t go negative during those 10 years is foolishness on steroids.
You, Ed P., just have to accept the idea that some people just say things with the intent to just say things, knowing full well that what they are saying will almost certainly not work out. I know and accept the idea that you want to feel good and that what you are accepting as true makes you feel good. Whether what you internalize is 10 years off and hangs by a thread.
Sherry says
Thank you Skibum. . . Adam Kinzinger is a wise and courageous man!
Sherry says
It is still interesting to me that no maga commenter ever addresses the massive revenue that would be brought into the treasury if only the wealthy would be required to “PAY” their “full share” of income taxes as stated in the actual tax tables. Maga/Fox always refers to the tax table percentages. . . to indicate that amount as what the wealthy are “taxed”. . . BUT, the wealthy billionaires often actually “PAY” less than their secretaries.
PDE says
Sherry’s comment yesterday at 1:34 is one of the best I’ve ever read on FL.
She absolutely nailed it in regards to trump’s pseudo-macho ‘alpha’ followers.
Because that’s exactly what they are – followers, not leaders.
I also didn’t know she served in Iraq, and it lends real legitimacy to her post.
Hey Sherry, well done!!
Laurel says
Bondi is a disgrace, and I am ashamed she once represented my state. She said “The list is on my desk,” and of course, as usual, we had to be told what she really meant, that the “file” was on her desk. The far right never seems to know what they mean when they talk. So, now, according to the latest b.s., is the list “nonexistent” or is the file “nonresistant”? Quick, make up your minds, folks.
Palm Beach society did not accept Trump for a long time. The Palm Beach pedophiles did. Trump stated, his buddy, Jeffery Epstein “Liked ’em young.” He said about Ghislaine Maxwell, after she was committed for sex trafficking young girls “I wish her well.” Epstein died in jail, because, as we know, all millionaires commit suicide in jail as they are 1.) embarrassed or 2.) don’t believe they will ever get out.
Stop being so naive, people. There was a list. I don’t know if Trump was on it, but many of his very wealthy friends may well have been. Epstein died in jail, while on suicide watch (who was watching?), with one minute, from one camera, was missing the same time each night. Only one camera? This is an active cover up, at the expense, again, of the (now) young women they assaulted. Does it make you feel better being complicit, or are you really that naive? Someone asked why didn’t Maxwell use the list to keep herself out of prison. How about, maybe, a dead Epstein? That could be motivating.
As for the topic of neo-macho men, no woman wants a man like that. So, the leaders of this cult are so weak that they try to convince young men to follow them to make themselves feel better. It is an incredible disservice to our young men, screwing up their lives maybe, for their full lives. It just another form of fear manifesting into supposed strength.
Both topics are a very active attempt at suppressing women, by women haters. These immature males are scared to death of women. There is no other reasoning.
Sherry says
Regarding the very dangerous clowns surrounding trump. . . This from Robert Reich:
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
Trump’s Magnet of Malevolence
Why Miller, Vought, Bondi, Patel, Noem, Vance, Kennedy Jr., Rubio, and Hegseth are amplifying his cruelty
Robert Reich
Jul 11
READ IN APP
Friends,
The conventional explanation for why Trump’s second term is far more extreme than his first (which was extreme enough) is that the guardrails are now gone.
The people who occupied significant roles in the White House and Cabinet during his first administration — who talked him out of (or subverted) his illegal and unconstitutional cravings — are no longer there. In their places are loyalists who will do whatever he wants.
But this conventional view overlooks a more important explanation.
He’s more extreme this time because he’s attracted people around him who are also extreme and pushing him to new levels of malevolence.
I’ve served under three presidents and advised a fourth. In every case, I’ve seen the same pattern: A president acts as a magnet, drawing into the highest levels of his administration people who not only share his values but amplify them.
When a president wants to do a decent job — at the least, respecting democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law — the magnet produces an administration of people who respect our institutions of self-government.
But when a president is malevolent, those drawn to him are among the most fanatical and dangerous in the land.
Richard Nixon — the most malevolent president in recent American history before Trump — drew to the White House a collection of bottom-feeding crooks: H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, Attorney General John Mitchell, Chuck Colson, Egil Krogh, G. Gordon Liddy, and E. Howard Hunt. They amplified Nixon’s worst paranoid and criminal tendencies.
Twisted people who surround a twisted president encourage his malevolence.
They also provide him a chorus of group-think approval.
They embolden one another as they destroy norms for how White House and Cabinet appointees are supposed to behave.
And they compete for his attention and praise by taking his twisted values to new levels of malevolence.
Trump didn’t know enough in his first term to surround himself with unethical people. He hadn’t been in politics long enough to have a network of vicious clones who were drawn to him because of his viciousness.
Then, after losing the 2020 election, he had four years to pull into his orbit some of the worst fanatics in the land — more loyal to him than to the United States, eager to extend and magnify his fanaticism, obsessed with white Christian nationalism, who are as, if not more, sadistic, cruel, and vindictive as their boss.
We are now seeing the result. Stephen Miller’s anti-immigrant scourge. Russell Vought’s retributive targeting of universities, law firms, and the media. Kash Patel’s eagerness to investigate Trump enemies; Pam Bondi’s eagerness to prosecute them. Kristi Noem’s cruelty. Robert Kennedy Jr.’s paranoia. JD Vance’s misogyny. Marco Rubio’s and Pete Hegseth’s brainless sycophancy.
Throughout history, malignant leaders have been rendered more malignant by the malignant people they have attracted.
Think of Hitler’s top henchmen — Hermann Göring, Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels, Rudolf Hess, Albert Speer, Karl Dönitz — all of them as, if not more, fanatical and sadistic than Hitler, eager to carry out his orders, wielding considerable power on their own to wreak havoc and sow destruction.
It’s not just that the guardrails are gone in Trump’s second term. It’s that the people who have been drawn to him and are now surrounding him are egging him on, competing for his attention and praise by doing even worse, eagerly destroying democratic institutions and turning America into ever more of a police state.
The good news is they will all but ensure that he will overplay his hand. The bad is that, by then, they may have demolished much that is good about this country.
Sherry says
Thankyou PDE says Adam Kinzinger. . . the actual author of that piece as noted in the first paragraph. Certainly Mr. Kinzinger is very wise and courageous!
Ed P says
Ray W,
You are twisting in the wind trying to prove your false premise. Your resistance to accepting that the fed rate does effect the cost of servicing the national debt is just flat wrong….period! Lower rates will save tax payers. The fed does borrow short term, less than 1 year – about 17%-32% of total. The average maturity of US publicly held marketable debt is 71 months. Some debt is long term of 10 or even 30 years.
Try this search;
Cost of servicing national debt based on the fed rates.
Maybe a second try will help you understand the fundamental concept that interest rates always effect all borrowers, including our federal government. High rates equate to high costs. Lower the rates and cost of borrowing is reduced.