UPDATE: Donald Trump Takes Office as the 47th US President
- Thread starter DC_Dude
- Start date
The Administration can't afford to ruin Thanksgiving.
Former Republican Jeff Flake says people are fleeing the Republican Party in a great migration.
He said the shift started slowly but is picking up steam. “The first signs are visible. A few Republican members of Congress-some of them proud standard-bearers of the MAGA movement- have begun to distance themselves from Trump.”
He further stated that the midterms favor Democrats, not because of their message, but because the presidents policies don’t align with Conservative principles and economic reality.
He said Republicans can cling to the current economic reality as Dems did in 2024 or face the same consequences.
2026 is looking much brighter than just a few months ago.
‘A political migration has begun,’ writes Jeff Flake in Washington Post column
This migration “won’t be a stampede,” but instead will unfold “vote by vote, district by district,” says the chair of World Trade Center Utah.www.deseret.com
Even as the forest got smaller and smaller, the trees kept voting for the axe. For the axe was clever, and had convinced the trees that because its handle was made of wood it was one of them.
There's grifters and there's Grifters. Knowing when to fold and play another hand is paramount in keeping a stream of income as a politician
Trump appears to equate a Walmart Thanksgiving meal deal with an economic indicator
John Furner, the president and CEO of Walmart U.S., told GMA on October 21 that the company is lowering the cost of items making up its Thanksgiving meal promotion by an overall 25% this year compared to 2024. Furner said the price reduction was part of a push from the retailer to provide "value" to customers looking for lower prices.
By Elizabeth Schulze, Taylor Dunn and Michelle Stoddart
November 6, 2025
abcnews.go.com
www.today.com
President Donald Trump claims the cost of Thanksgiving dinner will be cheaper this than year, appearing to equate a Walmart Thanksgiving promotion with an economic indicator.
In a post on his social media platform, Trump wrote: "2025 Thanksgiving dinner under Trump is 25% lower than 2024 Thanksgiving dinner under Biden, according to Walmart. My cost are lower than the Democrats on everything, especially oil and gas! So the Democrats 'affordability' issue is DEAD! STOP LYING!!!"…
According to the September consumer price index report -- food prices are up 3.1% in the past year.
President Donald Trump speaks during an event about drug prices, Nov. 6, 2025, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington.
…Here's what the government data says about price changes for some Thanksgiving staples over the past year:
• Uncooked Poultry +0.6%
• Canned fruits and vegetables +5%
• Fresh biscuits, rolls, muffins +3.9%
• Potatoes +3.7%
• Eggs -1.3%
• Frozen and refrigerated bakery products, pies, tarts, turnovers +0.4%
• Bread +1.8%
• Butter -1.8%
John Furner, the president and CEO of Walmart U.S., told GMA on October 21 that the company is lowering the cost of items making up its Thanksgiving meal promotion by an overall 25% this year compared to 2024. Furner said the price reduction was part of a push from the retailer to provide "value" to customers looking for lower prices.
By Elizabeth Schulze, Taylor Dunn and Michelle Stoddart
November 6, 2025
Trump appears to equate a Walmart Thanksgiving meal deal with an economic indicator
President Donald Trump claims the cost of Thanksgiving dinner will be cheaper this than year, appearing to equate a Walmart promotion with an economic indicator.
Walmart $40 Thanksgiving Meal for 10: 2025 Menu & How to Buy
The holiday meal wars have just begun as retailers are rolling out all the stops for consumers amid rising grocery prices.
President Donald Trump claims the cost of Thanksgiving dinner will be cheaper this than year, appearing to equate a Walmart Thanksgiving promotion with an economic indicator.
In a post on his social media platform, Trump wrote: "2025 Thanksgiving dinner under Trump is 25% lower than 2024 Thanksgiving dinner under Biden, according to Walmart. My cost are lower than the Democrats on everything, especially oil and gas! So the Democrats 'affordability' issue is DEAD! STOP LYING!!!"…
According to the September consumer price index report -- food prices are up 3.1% in the past year.
President Donald Trump speaks during an event about drug prices, Nov. 6, 2025, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington.
…Here's what the government data says about price changes for some Thanksgiving staples over the past year:
• Uncooked Poultry +0.6%
• Canned fruits and vegetables +5%
• Fresh biscuits, rolls, muffins +3.9%
• Potatoes +3.7%
• Eggs -1.3%
• Frozen and refrigerated bakery products, pies, tarts, turnovers +0.4%
• Bread +1.8%
• Butter -1.8%
Rockaway Primetime Reporting
3h ·BREAKING: “Dr. Oz linking obesity to dementia while Trump’s slumped over at his desk is absolutely a choice...”
Agreed 100%
I don't find nothing funny about people getting their SNAP benefits getting cut.Meanwhile,these same people that's laughing and giggling about the situation are the same people that's bitching about billionaires and millionaires that's robbing the citizens in this country but won't do anything about it.
I don't understand,this mentality of helping one another is a bad thing...shit makes no sense to me.
Damn BGOL MAGA, your little “think tank” is having issues… hmmmmm
I'm genuinely glad to see the internal turmoil and conflict among the ranks but is this barely literate ofay really one of their best and brightest? From a policy standpoint it's clear that this is the level of the intelligencia churning away to make the butter at that milquetoast think tank but still.... It is quizzically - simultaneously, both surprising and unsurprising to hear her attempt to form sentences with correct syntax, grammar, and proper enunciation (spoiler: she fails in spectacular fashion). This is especially troubling (or entertaining depending upon your predilection) since it's clear that she's reading from a pre-written statement. So odd.
Nah, fuck all that noise. Look up Seneca Village. It's always built on the bones of the same groups of people. If it's not red skinned Native Americans go ahead and bet your bottom dollar it's the other Native Americans
Negroes dont want to hear it though.
Actually they should be fined and made to fix it at cost when this is all said and done. You have to be a fucking idiot piece of shit to take that contract
Grifter
The Shutdown of U.S.A.I.D. Has Already Killed Hundreds of Thousands
The short documentary “Rovina’s Choice” tells the story of what goes when aid goes.
November 5, 2025
Watch “Rovina’s Choice.”
It was January, my final week in the outgoing Administration. In a few days, Donald Trump would be inaugurated as President. I had come to the United States Agency for International Development in early 2022, leaving my surgery practice and public-health research in Boston to lead the agency’s global-health efforts. Now I’d be returning to my previous life.
I spent my last days at U.S.A.I.D. in meetings with our civil- and foreign-service leaders, thanking them. Their work with partner countries had helped to contain twenty-one outbreaks of deadly disease, sustain Ukraine’s health system after Russia’s invasion, combat H.I.V., tuberculosis, and polio, and reduce maternal and child deaths worldwide. On a budget of just twenty-four dollars per American—out of the fifteen thousand dollars in taxes paid per person last year—they had saved lives at an almost unimaginable scale. An independent, peer-reviewed analysis in The Lancet estimated that U.S.A.I.D. assistance had saved ninety-two million lives over two decades.
View the latest or submit your own film.
Many of the leaders voiced trepidation about what the incoming Administration might bring, but I struck a sanguine note. U.S.A.I.D., I pointed out, had more than sixty years of solid bipartisan backing. Trump had advanced significant parts of the agency’s work in his first term. He had personally pledged to end H.I.V. as a public-health threat by 2030. The incoming Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, had been a vocal supporter of the bureau. There would be isolated partisan skirmishes—over diversity initiatives, abortion-related policies, and the like—but more than ninety-five per cent of our bureau’s work had never been under contention.
Clearly, I lacked imagination. Within hours of being sworn in, President Trump signed an executive order for a “pause” to all foreign assistance. Secretary Rubio sent a cable suspending every program outright. No program staff could be paid. No services could be delivered. Medicines and food already on the shelves could not be used. No warning had been given to the governments that relied on them. It was immediately obvious that hundreds of thousands of people would die in the first year alone. But the Administration did not reconsider; it escalated. Elon Musk exulted in swinging his chainsaw. Within weeks and in defiance of legal mandates, he and Rubio purged U.S.A.I.D.’s staff, terminated more than four-fifths of its contracts, impounded its funds, and dismantled the agency. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court did anything to stop it.
We are now witnessing what the historian Richard Rhodes termed “public man-made death,” which, he observed, has been perhaps the most overlooked cause of mortality in the last century. Brooke Nichols, the Boston University epidemiologist and mathematical modeller, has maintained a respected tracker of current impact. The model is conservative, assuming, for example, that the State Department will fully sustain the programs that remain. As of November 5th, it estimated that U.S.A.I.D.’s dismantling has already caused the deaths of six hundred thousand people, two-thirds of them children.
The toll is appalling and will continue to grow. But these losses will be harder to see than those of war. For one, they unfold slowly. When H.I.V. or tuberculosis goes untested, unprevented, or inadequately treated, months or years can pass before a person dies. The same is true for deaths from vaccine-preventable illnesses. Another difficulty is that the deaths are scattered. Suppose the sudden withdrawal of aid raises a country’s under-five death rate from three per cent to four per cent. That would be a one-third increase in deaths, but hard to appreciate simply by looking around.
The Administration, for its part, has denied causing widespread harm, even as it has made the scale of the damage harder to measure—halting data monitoring and dismissing the inspectors general who might have documented it. This is common in cases of public man-made death. During Mao Zedong’s disastrous Great Leap Forward, from 1958 to 1961, the Chinese government released no accurate mortality data. Observers abroad understood that a hunger crisis was under way when China began importing grain, but the scale of the catastrophe was not known until the mid-nineteen-eighties, when the first reliable census allowed historians to calculate that between twenty-three and thirty million people had died.
A fuller accounting of the fallout from U.S.A.I.D.’s shutdown will probably have to await analysis of the United Nations’ 2025 mortality statistics, which likely won’t appear until 2027. But there are other ways to glimpse the scale of the harm. With a documentary team that includes both American and local journalists, I have been following what has happened in Kenyan communities where U.S.A.I.D. had been active—in an advanced-H.I.V. ward in Nairobi, in primary health-care centers that had sharply reduced malaria, in a refugee camp, and elsewhere.
We chose Kenya because I’d done a lot of work there during my tenure, and because it’s on a familiar path of development. Like India, South Korea, and many Latin American countries that the U.S. assisted to advance from low-income recipients of aid to higher-income trade partners, Kenya had reached the lower rung of middle-income status. The country had made dramatic leaps in health-system capacity and life expectancy with the help of a mixture of projects. U.S.A.I.D. supplied medicine, food, and staffing for some of the most desperate and vulnerable, while providing technical assistance and investment to accelerate the country’s expertise in needs ranging from H.I.V. control to primary care.
I was especially worried about what would happen to the programs for childhood malnutrition, which, during the past two decades, had made extraordinary progress around the world. In place of a system that waited for emaciated children to reach distant hospital wards, often hours away, we had helped countries bring the front line to where they lived. A community health worker, carrying a tape measure and a scale, could detect danger early at home. A packet of peanut-paste therapeutic food could reverse starvation for the vast majority of severely malnourished children. Hospitals became a backstop for complications and for the frailest cases, while communities worked to strengthen local food sources. The method was simple, frequent, and close at hand: measure the upper arm, check for swelling, provide supplemental nutrition, watch for infection or decline, return the next week.
The results were dramatic. Mortality rates for severe malnutrition, once twenty per cent or higher, fell below five per cent. In Kenya, communities we worked with, including refugee camps, saw death rates drop to under one per cent. The United States had played a central role in developing and manufacturing the formula for therapeutic supplements. U.S.A.I.D. then had helped UNICEF, the World Food Programme, local health systems, and other actors scale up the approach worldwide. Globally, under-five child mortality fell by more than half since 2000, in major part owing to the advances in malnutrition treatment, which saved more than a million lives in 2023 alone. Still, most of the world’s malnourished children lack access to these programs. But, instead of trying to close that gap, we are washing our hands of it and reversing the gains.
In Kakuma, a vast refugee camp near the South Sudan border, starting in spring, our documentary team followed clinicians and families inside the stabilization unit at Clinic 7, where the sickest children come. Because of the termination of U.S. support, the World Food Programme’s supplies had been reduced to forty per cent of minimum needs, and cases of acute malnutrition had surged. Two-thirds of the clinic’s community health workers were laid off, hobbling the early-detection system that once saved most children before they needed acute care. Clinic 7 is where we met Rovina Naboi, who had fled South Sudan with her family. In our short film, she reveals what it was like trying to keep her desperately ill daughter, Jane Sunday, alive in a system that has broken down.
There are valid criticisms of U.S.A.I.D. It sometimes fostered dependency. It could be inefficient. Too much of its funding went to international institutions, rather than to local ones. And its history includes episodes in which aid was bent to American military and political aims—in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Yet no other agency of the U.S. government has saved more lives per dollar. It helped move billions of people out of poverty. And it showed how to deliver results for all of humanity, including Americans, through coöperation, rather than coercion.
The destruction of U.S.A.I.D. does nothing to improve this work. Instead, we have public man-made death. And the cruelty and lethality will only grow as the Administration expands its rollback of public-health advances to the homeland. We cannot let the people affected—health workers like those of Clinic 7, families like Rovina Naboi’s—go unseen. And we cannot let the consequences go unaccounted for.
The short documentary “Rovina’s Choice” tells the story of what goes when aid goes.
November 5, 2025
Watch “Rovina’s Choice.”
It was January, my final week in the outgoing Administration. In a few days, Donald Trump would be inaugurated as President. I had come to the United States Agency for International Development in early 2022, leaving my surgery practice and public-health research in Boston to lead the agency’s global-health efforts. Now I’d be returning to my previous life.
I spent my last days at U.S.A.I.D. in meetings with our civil- and foreign-service leaders, thanking them. Their work with partner countries had helped to contain twenty-one outbreaks of deadly disease, sustain Ukraine’s health system after Russia’s invasion, combat H.I.V., tuberculosis, and polio, and reduce maternal and child deaths worldwide. On a budget of just twenty-four dollars per American—out of the fifteen thousand dollars in taxes paid per person last year—they had saved lives at an almost unimaginable scale. An independent, peer-reviewed analysis in The Lancet estimated that U.S.A.I.D. assistance had saved ninety-two million lives over two decades.
View the latest or submit your own film.
Many of the leaders voiced trepidation about what the incoming Administration might bring, but I struck a sanguine note. U.S.A.I.D., I pointed out, had more than sixty years of solid bipartisan backing. Trump had advanced significant parts of the agency’s work in his first term. He had personally pledged to end H.I.V. as a public-health threat by 2030. The incoming Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, had been a vocal supporter of the bureau. There would be isolated partisan skirmishes—over diversity initiatives, abortion-related policies, and the like—but more than ninety-five per cent of our bureau’s work had never been under contention.
Clearly, I lacked imagination. Within hours of being sworn in, President Trump signed an executive order for a “pause” to all foreign assistance. Secretary Rubio sent a cable suspending every program outright. No program staff could be paid. No services could be delivered. Medicines and food already on the shelves could not be used. No warning had been given to the governments that relied on them. It was immediately obvious that hundreds of thousands of people would die in the first year alone. But the Administration did not reconsider; it escalated. Elon Musk exulted in swinging his chainsaw. Within weeks and in defiance of legal mandates, he and Rubio purged U.S.A.I.D.’s staff, terminated more than four-fifths of its contracts, impounded its funds, and dismantled the agency. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court did anything to stop it.
We are now witnessing what the historian Richard Rhodes termed “public man-made death,” which, he observed, has been perhaps the most overlooked cause of mortality in the last century. Brooke Nichols, the Boston University epidemiologist and mathematical modeller, has maintained a respected tracker of current impact. The model is conservative, assuming, for example, that the State Department will fully sustain the programs that remain. As of November 5th, it estimated that U.S.A.I.D.’s dismantling has already caused the deaths of six hundred thousand people, two-thirds of them children.
The toll is appalling and will continue to grow. But these losses will be harder to see than those of war. For one, they unfold slowly. When H.I.V. or tuberculosis goes untested, unprevented, or inadequately treated, months or years can pass before a person dies. The same is true for deaths from vaccine-preventable illnesses. Another difficulty is that the deaths are scattered. Suppose the sudden withdrawal of aid raises a country’s under-five death rate from three per cent to four per cent. That would be a one-third increase in deaths, but hard to appreciate simply by looking around.
The Administration, for its part, has denied causing widespread harm, even as it has made the scale of the damage harder to measure—halting data monitoring and dismissing the inspectors general who might have documented it. This is common in cases of public man-made death. During Mao Zedong’s disastrous Great Leap Forward, from 1958 to 1961, the Chinese government released no accurate mortality data. Observers abroad understood that a hunger crisis was under way when China began importing grain, but the scale of the catastrophe was not known until the mid-nineteen-eighties, when the first reliable census allowed historians to calculate that between twenty-three and thirty million people had died.
A fuller accounting of the fallout from U.S.A.I.D.’s shutdown will probably have to await analysis of the United Nations’ 2025 mortality statistics, which likely won’t appear until 2027. But there are other ways to glimpse the scale of the harm. With a documentary team that includes both American and local journalists, I have been following what has happened in Kenyan communities where U.S.A.I.D. had been active—in an advanced-H.I.V. ward in Nairobi, in primary health-care centers that had sharply reduced malaria, in a refugee camp, and elsewhere.
We chose Kenya because I’d done a lot of work there during my tenure, and because it’s on a familiar path of development. Like India, South Korea, and many Latin American countries that the U.S. assisted to advance from low-income recipients of aid to higher-income trade partners, Kenya had reached the lower rung of middle-income status. The country had made dramatic leaps in health-system capacity and life expectancy with the help of a mixture of projects. U.S.A.I.D. supplied medicine, food, and staffing for some of the most desperate and vulnerable, while providing technical assistance and investment to accelerate the country’s expertise in needs ranging from H.I.V. control to primary care.
I was especially worried about what would happen to the programs for childhood malnutrition, which, during the past two decades, had made extraordinary progress around the world. In place of a system that waited for emaciated children to reach distant hospital wards, often hours away, we had helped countries bring the front line to where they lived. A community health worker, carrying a tape measure and a scale, could detect danger early at home. A packet of peanut-paste therapeutic food could reverse starvation for the vast majority of severely malnourished children. Hospitals became a backstop for complications and for the frailest cases, while communities worked to strengthen local food sources. The method was simple, frequent, and close at hand: measure the upper arm, check for swelling, provide supplemental nutrition, watch for infection or decline, return the next week.
The results were dramatic. Mortality rates for severe malnutrition, once twenty per cent or higher, fell below five per cent. In Kenya, communities we worked with, including refugee camps, saw death rates drop to under one per cent. The United States had played a central role in developing and manufacturing the formula for therapeutic supplements. U.S.A.I.D. then had helped UNICEF, the World Food Programme, local health systems, and other actors scale up the approach worldwide. Globally, under-five child mortality fell by more than half since 2000, in major part owing to the advances in malnutrition treatment, which saved more than a million lives in 2023 alone. Still, most of the world’s malnourished children lack access to these programs. But, instead of trying to close that gap, we are washing our hands of it and reversing the gains.
In Kakuma, a vast refugee camp near the South Sudan border, starting in spring, our documentary team followed clinicians and families inside the stabilization unit at Clinic 7, where the sickest children come. Because of the termination of U.S. support, the World Food Programme’s supplies had been reduced to forty per cent of minimum needs, and cases of acute malnutrition had surged. Two-thirds of the clinic’s community health workers were laid off, hobbling the early-detection system that once saved most children before they needed acute care. Clinic 7 is where we met Rovina Naboi, who had fled South Sudan with her family. In our short film, she reveals what it was like trying to keep her desperately ill daughter, Jane Sunday, alive in a system that has broken down.
There are valid criticisms of U.S.A.I.D. It sometimes fostered dependency. It could be inefficient. Too much of its funding went to international institutions, rather than to local ones. And its history includes episodes in which aid was bent to American military and political aims—in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Yet no other agency of the U.S. government has saved more lives per dollar. It helped move billions of people out of poverty. And it showed how to deliver results for all of humanity, including Americans, through coöperation, rather than coercion.
The destruction of U.S.A.I.D. does nothing to improve this work. Instead, we have public man-made death. And the cruelty and lethality will only grow as the Administration expands its rollback of public-health advances to the homeland. We cannot let the people affected—health workers like those of Clinic 7, families like Rovina Naboi’s—go unseen. And we cannot let the consequences go unaccounted for.
bet future elections will be as silent as chess tournaments !
with facial expressions of someone dealing with equations ! it's no longer a game there is consequences !
with facial expressions of someone dealing with equations ! it's no longer a game there is consequences !
Similar threads
