Mexican National women’s soccer team play a game with that ugly ass head against Canada’s women’s team.
How many minutes would that last before it would be a pile of hamberder?

tried to do the same, twice. He tried to give away a sword of Simon Bolivar to a couple of World leaders, but he was not able to, someone with a better mind than Chavez stopped him, and like trump now, he was only able to give them replicas.

For those who may not know who Hugo Chavez was, he was a so called "socialist" who in reality was a dictator, he died of cancer, and the speculation is that he, and other thugs from his regime opened Simon Bolivar's grave, took some bones out, made tea, and they all drunk it. All those who drunk the tea have died of cancer.

Simon Bolivar liberated Venezuela from the Spaniards, he also liberated Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and of course Venezuela, and he also helped with the liberation of Argentina, even though the credit has gone to Jose de San Martin, although Martin could not have been able to accomplish it without the help from Bolivar.

Why am I pointing this out? Because if one takes the time to analyze trump's moves to become a dictator, and compares the moves that Chavez made, you will find the parallelism, the use of the same methods which if trump and his minions are not stopped, the USA runs with the danger of becoming another Venezuela. IT CAN HAPPEN HERE!

So even stupidities like that of the sword he has copied from Chavez. He and Chavez are twins from different mothers, they both act/acted as if they owned the country, and they both serve a master, in Chavez case it was Fidel Castro, in trump's case is Putin.

That is why I tell some of my Venezuelan friends who think trump will end Maduro's regime, that it will not happen, Putin did not allow it in 2018, and won't allow it now. I hope that, for the Venezuelan people, that I am wrong. Chapter 9 of John Bolton's book "The Room Where it Happened", he talks about how Bolton was ready to bring Maduro down, but Putin gave the orders to trump to leave him alone, trump stopped Bolton, one of the reasons why trump is going after Bolton.

...he should take that sword and cut his own head off.

but he'd still give him due process first.

EVEYTHING is his (according to him)

It is decades past time when somebody needs to tell the brat that NO in a complete sentence and means NO.

"10. He wants EVERYTHING and with each thing he takes, the emptiness inside just grows"

... a willing victim of the delusions of grandeur caused by a mental illness known as power psychosis.

Others have done it successfully, and the judges are mostly sympathetic.
This guy was treated very unfairly.

He only cares about what he can get from anything he touches.

did any of the hate-mongering scum around krasnov even know of the sword? Does it have some particular connection to GB or the Royal Family?

Also, who actually owned the Tiffany brooch that was presented to Camilla?

And, what, by the way, were the pedo rapist and the slovenian sex worker given that nnow belong to us?

It's not a secret that such a small man can be easily manipulated.

been written about her indicates that she is a student of history, or familiar with Eisenhower.

…and 100% better grasp of diplomatic protocol than Trump ever has had or will ever have.

From the article.

“Arrington had been working as director of the Eisenhower library since August 2024. It is one of 16 presidential libraries in the US that are run by the National Archives.

The US archivist is responsible for hiring library directors, and the White House does not have a say in the firing and hiring of these employees.

Arrington told CBS that he wanted to go back to his job.

"I'd return to this job in a heartbeat," he said. "I love the job, I love the people, I love the history. I never in a million years wanted this to happen." “

He has no authority to do half the shit he does, and people like this just cave.

Trump and his goons employ mafia tactics. They can make life unbearable for anyone standing in the way. They would figure out who holds the sword over the persons head and apply pressure that way. I’d say “See you in court.”

…who stands in his way for any reason.

It’s always worked for him. When he would stiff contractors in NYC he would tell them, “So sue me. “ He has always had a posse of lawyers and millions of dollars to deploy them, so he could simply wear down and bankrupt any complainant.

Do you have a million dollars to defend yourself against him?

With his obsession for anything/everything GOLD, he is likely to try and do a switcheroo with the U.S. gold, held at Fort Knox, for his worthless crypto trash...

All the ugly bling now in the White House came from somewhere? If it is real, then questions come to mind.
If it is fake gold paint...well, we still paid for that ugly re-decoration.
Can I tell you how much I despise this man and his cabinet?

pass it on.

That guy was a serious piece of shit. He is literally a key reason we have our of control religious extremism in this country. Screw that guy, that sword and Mango Mussolini. Don't give a damn about any of them.

Are you confusing Ike who warned us about the military industrial complex and Reagan who let the nose of the Xtian extremist camel under the tent?

Warned us about Nixon!

How do you think we ended up with "in god we trust" as our national motto and on our money and the pledge of allegiance? He also gave religious conservatives a seat at the table.
Eisenhower opened the door to religious extremism and forever muddied the waters of the separation of church and state.

... and the argument is older than Ike himself; it goes back to the Civil War and beyond.
I am a Liberal down to my DNA, and a devout atheist, but I can see no justification for blaming Eisenhower, the last half way decent Republican ever born, for the groundswell of public outrage, as grotesquely misguided as it was, that forced Congress to mandate printing the phrase on US currency, and for the president signing it. It was an expedient solution to a tempest in a teapot generated by religious zealots who have always had their bloodstained fingers in matters of state where they did not belong. The President had far more important issues to address, and if giving these religious fanatics a bone would shut them up, it was deemed a minor sacrifice at the time, I'm sure.

And not supported by the facts.

How do you think we ended up with "in god we trust" as our national motto and on our money or including "god" in the pledge of allegiance? He also gave religious conservatives a seat at the table. It's all very well documented.
Eisenhower opened the door to religious extremism and forever muddied the waters of the separation of church and state.

not count. It us not our job to do yours.

Pull a dollar out and look at it. It says "in god we trust" . It's there because of him (1956). It's our national motto. He did that (1956, replacing the more inclusive and unifying"E pluribus unum" "from many, one). The phrase "under god" was also added to the Pledge by him (1954). There are literally dozens of websites you can look that up. It should be common knowledge. It's literally US history.
It was said to be in reaction to the "red scare" and the godless Communists. What it really was is the adoption of religious extremism and a clear violation of the Constitution's establishment clause.

Secretary of the Treasury Chase mandated on US coins in 1861. The law mandating it on paper currency was passed in 1956 by Congress and signed by Ike. Much of the push was to differentiate the US from the "godless" Soviets. Ike was no Xtian Nationalist.

He actively supported adding "in god we trust" as our motto. On our money. In the Pledge. Without his support it would not have happened.
He was not the first religious extremist. Just the first one to be president.
By way of example on that Pledge:

I provided the historical context in which this move was made. I also included the history that well-predated Eisenhower. At almost 73 yo, and a recovering Catholic, growing up in rural America, I never felt pressure by the federal government to worship in any proscribed measure, or any matter at all. As a Catholic in a predominantly WASP world, if there was any pressure, it was minimal and it was not the government. So obelieve what you like. By comparison to any Republican president since Eisenhower, I still like Ike.

But it's damn near impossible to imply, with a straight face, that requiring ever child, through multiple years of education, to recite the pledge ever single morning, at every single baseball game and everywhere else that could shoehorn it in, doesn't conflate nationalism and Christianity is crazy to me.
That seeing it on money doesn't conflate Christianity with value, capitalism and power and changing the motto from "from many, one" to "In God we Trust" doesn't send a clear message that only Christians are welcome here, is crazy to me.

You referenced yourself as a Catholic (for reference I am an atheist but graduated from a Catholic university where I majored in Business Administration and minored in Religion) which, last time I checked, is Christian, but saw no consideration for those that were not Christian and their experience.
Leaving with this quote from Eisenhower:

You are right about the Congress and Ike, btw.

…federalizing the National Guard and integrating Southern schools after Brown vs. Board of Education. That event was formative to my worldview and thus the rest of my life — altho as a little Californian in the San Fernando Valley and then resident of Hawai’i from when it was a Territory until 1978, I did not experience segregated schools personally. To my parents he was a towering hero of WWII.

He deserves to be remembered for much more than one fairly modest response to America’s fear of “godless Communism, “ and for more than acknowledging Billy Graham long before there were Evangelicals and mega-churches.

Religious extremism on our nation by stripping away our motto of "From Many, One" to "In God We Trust"

Before you say it wasn't really about religion, it was:

Too bad you're catching so much shit.

https://academic.oup.com/book/36089/chapter-abstract/313358170?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Dwight D. Eisenhower’s personal behavior, the mood of the 1950s, and shrewd publicity combined to make his administration seem more religious than those of most other presidents. Although the general did not join a church until the second Sunday after his inauguration, he is considered one of the most religious presidents in American history.

Eisenhower attended church regularly, proclaimed national days of prayer, invited Billy Graham and other influential clergymen to the White House, and helped create an organization called the Foundation for Religious Action. Eisenhower maintained very cordial relations with most of the nation’s religious communities. The president met frequently with religious delegations, sent hundreds of messages to religious gatherings and groups, and spoke to numerous religious assemblies.

His speeches contained more religious rhetoric than almost any other president’s, and he repeatedly called for a spiritual revival and a moral crusade to remedy the nation’s ills. While he was president, the highly publicized national prayer breakfasts began, the words “under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance, and Congress made the phrase “In God We Trust” the national motto.

Was Ike as evil as Heydrich or Goring in your book, or are we just going with the religion thing for the reason you're not a fan?

I guess he's just a RINO now.

Republicans will probably destroy his imagein the white house now, like they did to Pres. Biden.

twisted

Just as Ike would have when confronted by the head Nazi.

And, you know, human.

director of the Eisenhower library hadn’t quit. Of course right now, it’s probably closed because of the government shutdown. I am in MO and the Truman library is closed. Are all presidential libraries government funded in some way?

The museum portion remains open while the research room and administrative offices of the library are closed. The ongoing operations are funded by the National Archives and Records Administration. Private donations were accepted for the construction of the library and initiatives such as scholarships.

who knows, just from the Kansas side of it.

It seems likely that Charles III quickly had the replica sword deposited in a storage room, never to be seen or spoken of again.

Only a POS would try to steal the legacy of one of America's greatest military leaders and president.

I'm just guessing, but given that King Charles is not only king but a member of the British military who is steeped in world and military history, he would have refused to accept the actual Eisenhower sword. I believe King Charles to be a man of honor.

There a long history of giving gifts to English royals (and other foreign dignitary) - some new; some historical.

https://archive.li/OTtbS
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2011/5/24/18605291/obama-michelle-and-british-royals-swap-gifts-details-here

There is a protocol for gift giving (no idea whether it was followed), and It was entirely appropriate for the museum director to say "no." But valuable American historical items have been given to foreign dignitaries in the past.

The archivist was perfectly within their rights to refuse to allow this particular artifact as a gift. But using an American artifact as a gift to a foreign dignitary is hardly "trying to steal"

Krasnov told the head of the Library to give him Ike's sword or quit or be fired. You claim the head of the Library did the right thing because he wasn't allowed to give the sword away when in fact he was only doing his job.

Krasnov had zero rights to that sword so I sure do call that trying to steal it with the head of the Library being an accomplice. Sorry but I think my using the word steal was too mild.

But (first) he wasn't claiming it for himself. He was asking for it to give as a gift from the US to the British monarchy. The property of the US, including historical artifacts can be given as diplomatic gifts to leaders of foreign countries. This is not unusual. Follow the links I gave you, or do some research on your own.

(second) the head of the library can't be an accomplice if the sword was being given as a diplomatic gift - any more than when a decision is made to give any American artifact to a foreign dignitary as a diplomatic gift

(third) was it stealing when Biden took a leather folder of letters between Queen Elizabeth and Eisenhower to give King Charles as a gift in 2023?

The giving of US property to foreign dignitaries as diplomatic gifts is absolutely ordinary.

Trump's threats are trump's threats, Trying to coerce officials by the use of threats is just Trump being Trump. Reprehensible - but it doesn't turn an ordinary diplomatic act into attempted theft.

and asking him/ her for 10,000 dollars, not for me, for my best friend.

It is not a personal gift from Trump to another person. This is not a personal exchange - it is an exchange between two countries.

Presidential libraries are not owned by the government. The same is true of artifacts in those libraries.

I suspect even in the case of government owned artifacts it would take more than the president asking for it.
At one time Stuben glass was the traditional gift given to foreign dignitaries.
I'm sure there's protocol involved in these gifts which of course Trump ignores.

So when the billion dollar plane goes to the Trump library, as they plan to do, Trump won't have legal access to it.

Nixon's behavior changed that rule - since he wanted to take personal stuff with him they passed a law making it clear that it belongs to the American people the moment he leaves office.

As to Trump, he would have to formally request access to it (aside from any access the public has). But as to things like planes, I don't know what kind of access is possible

I wonder how many he has stolen for himself?

"There are things we know."
"There are things we don't know."
"there are things we don't know we don't know."

Wonder who had Epstein killed?

A handful of billionaires want it all.

Krasnov wants to crash the dollar and boost Crypto where a handful of oligarchs can live in their own little communes.

The stock market is booming because the money is being transferred from the poor to the people who own the stock.

I do not know any more about that, it will likely come about.

What a stupid gift.

fake like that spray tan, that fake gold crap in the O.O. and his elevator shoes.

Since he sees everything as his to do with as he sees fit.

Todd Arrington, the director of the Eisenhower library, was forced out of his job for having done the right thing. He’s hardly alone.

The ridiculous reason Team Trump fired the director of the Eisenhower library

Ahead of Donald Trump’s recent state visit to Britain, the president apparently wanted to present King Charles with some kind of gift, and administration officials settled on something related to Dwight Eisenhower. (Eis

— @billspaced (@billspaced.com) 2025-10-03T17:11:47.297Z

He has no class, no sense, no diplomacy, no compassion, no abilities.

He’s horrible.