President Donald Trump pledged Wednesday to send every American adult $5,000 if Republicans retain control of the House and Senate in the midterm elections, an extraordinary gambit to reverse his party’s sagging fortunes in November.
The dubious promise would most likely cost more than $1 trillion and require congressional approval, and would further exacerbate the country’s nearly $1.8 trillion annual budget deficit and concerns about inflation.
“If the Republicans win, you win with us and you get $5,000,” Trump said during the GOP’s midterm convention in Dallas. “It will be called the Trump Dividend.”
He likened the payments to a corporation’s distributions to shareholders, citing “our tremendous strength and success economically.”
Within an hour, Vice President JD Vance appeared to try to walk back Trump’s proposal — at least in part — by suggesting the dividend payments would not go to the wealthy. Vance suggested it could be paid for by U.S. tariff revenues, though the suggested payment dwarfs what the U.S. has taken in through the protectionist measures.
The White House did not respond to a message seeking details.
Trump’s $5,000 adult-citizen ‘dividend’ would cost taxpayers an estimated $1.23 trillion
Congress would need to approve or otherwise acquiesce to the payment. The sum would far exceed U.S. tariff revenues even before the Supreme Court tossed much of the president’s tariff program last year.
The national debt last month topped $40 trillion for the first time.
Trump has frequently lamented that, during the modern era, the president’s party almost always loses seats in Congress during the midterms, and he has looked for unorthodox ways to defy the trend, including this week’s convention.
“We’re going to change that,” Trump said. “There’s no reason for it.”
Marc Goldwein, the senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a think tank in Washington, said Trump has no authority to send money to Americans without approval from Congress.
Goldwein added that dividends are something that companies pay when there’s a surplus, but the U.S. is running $2 trillion annual deficits and has $40 trillion in debt.
“The idea that we’ve had fiscal success is backwards and bordering on laughable,” he said. “We don’t have surpluses to give away.”
The move was reminiscent of billionaire Elon Musk’s efforts to buy votes in last year’s Wisconsin state Supreme Court race, where he handed out million-dollar checks to voters to try to boost a candidate who ultimately lost.
Trump has discussed the possibility before but has never tied it to his party’s electoral fortunes. Earlier this year, he proposed a $2,000 dividend and said he didn’t think he needed approval from Congress.
Last year, Trump gave members of the military a $1,776 check that he called a “warrior dividend.”
“I will get a bill ready so that we can get the Trump Dividend passed immediately after the November 3rd election,” Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio wrote on X late Wednesday. “Because Republicans (and America) will win!”
A $5,000 check would give each American more money than they received in direct government payments from COVID-19 relief measures during Trump’s first term.
Trump’s proposal would be legal because the payment would go to everyone regardless of how they voted, or whether they voted at all, said New Mexico-based attorney John Day.
“This is a campaign promise,” Day said. “It’s not a payment to individuals to try to get them to vote in a particular way.”
Republicans are on defense as they look to defend their narrow House majority against strong headwinds. Trump is unpopular, and Americans overwhelmingly oppose the war in Iran. Even the Senate, which Republicans once were well-positioned to keep, is up for grabs.
18 U.S. Code § 597 - Expenditures to influence voting
Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and
Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 721; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 601(a)(12), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3498.)
He was and still is part of the problem with ANY team he plays for- he has the mentality of a linebacker and body of smallish QB. He cost us games/season with his mental, I'll run over the guy to make A (single first down) play, he got hurt in Tampa too because of his mental attitude. I think Tampa was dumb paying him......mental, time will tell. Additionally, NFL- not for long- Sam D lasted five plays- sack could ruin his season-- you never know. Wonder if Watson last in a run option offense. Go Browns!!!!
How Many of the Founding Fathers Went to ‘Seminary’?
A staple of “Christian America” history is the claim that “half,” or “twenty-nine” of the signers of the Declaration of Independence had “seminary” or “Bible college” degrees. This claim unfortunately shows up in Fourth of July sermons and even the occasional megachurch pastor’s tweet.
The claim is, on a literal basis, easy to refute. In fact, there were no seminaries in America, in a modern sense of a graduate school of theology, until 1807, when Andover-Newton Theological School was founded. (ANTS was originally a traditionalist Calvinist school founded in opposition to Harvard’s theological liberalism. In 2016, having long since become theologically liberal, the ANTS campus was closed, and the school was folded into Yale Divinity School.) Princeton Theological Seminary, arguably the most influential American seminary of the 19th century, was founded as a separate institution from Princeton’s undergraduate college in 1812.
If you wanted “graduate” theological education in the 1700s in America, you could stay on for extra study with someone like Princeton’s John Witherspoon, which is what James Madison did (he may have been considering the pastorate at the time). But Witherspoon is really the only signer who had a recognizable seminary education, since he did graduate study in theology at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland prior to coming to America.
The idea of Founders going to a “Bible college” is a more slippery concept, but it is also easy to refute on a simple factual basis. “Bible colleges” began to appear in the late 19th century, as part of the early fundamentalist-modernist controversy. Nyack College (originally called the Missionary Training Institute) was arguably the first such college, founded by A. B. Simpson in 1882 in New York City, before relocating to the New York village of Nyack in 1897. The most recognizable Bible college in America was probably Chicago’s Moody Bible Institute, founded in 1887.
So in the modern sense of the term, no Founding Father went to a Bible college, either. It is hard to know whether Christian America polemicists are intentionally misleading their readers about these claims, or whether they simply don’t understand or care that they’re being anachronistic. These types of overinflated assertions obscure the profound, if quieter, role that Christianity and Christian education did actually play among the Founders.
There is zero evidence that anyone tried to "steal an election". That's the entire point. If you're going to audit some states, audit them all or none at all. In case you missed it, I explained the answer to every question you just asked before. It's not my fault you have chosen to ignore it.
In August, had an historical event in Colorado Springs. The National museum of World War 2 Aviation hosted 3 SB2C Helldivers. The only 3 in the world that fly. They did a sunrise flight along with a B-25, then a second flight around noon. Seeing 4 WW2 planes startup, taxi and sit in line waiting for takeoff was quite a sight.
My unlikely hope is that the end of the year comes before we have to switch to Green.
I don't think the reports are acurate, but Monkens comments opended the door for speculation that Green will be active this week and Sanders won't.
I think Green might be active but fully expect Sanders will be active. Personally I don't think that last active sport is so valuable that we can't have 3 QBs active on gameday.
Under the proposals it would be a criminal offence for a member of the Senedd, or a candidate for election to the Senedd, to wilfully, or with intent to mislead, make or publish a statement that is known to be false or deceptive. Proceedings would have to be brought within six months from the date on which the statement was made.
It would be considered a defence if it could be “reasonably inferred” to be a statement of opinion, or if it were retracted with an apology within 14 days. Being prosecuted for such a law would disqualify a person from being a Senedd member.
Lmao… politicians would have to pass this. Find one on either side that never lies.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of the Jaguars. They ended on an 8 game winning streak in the regular season, but it was the opposite of a murderer's row. LAC (Lance replaced Herbert in game behind an OL mash unit), @ARI, @TEN, IND (Riley Leonard mostly at QB), NYJ, @DEN, @IND (off the couch Rivers at QB), TEN.
Re Hines-Allen specifically how much are his numbers about him being good vs the OTs he faced being "bad" and vice versa? How much were Ersery and Dan Moore Jr being "bad" about Hines-Allen (and the Texans DEs) being good? I can't say I watched much any of the Jaguars. Only thing that stands out in my recollection is the kicker booting bombs.
Personally, I think the biggest matchup for the Browns is probably Watson vs himself. Whether he can win that one when it counts now remains to be seen.
I get what you're saying but often times teams that are mismatched do give QB's opportunities they do not get against better opponents. It's much easier for a QB to do the things you speak of when they are comfortable, not pressured and have more time in the pocket. When you're not being pressured your game will flow in your own comfort zone. Not saying that's the case here because I didn't watch the game.
If you play a much weaker team your WR's aren't facing top end defenders. It makes it much easier for your WR's to get open than they may be against much better opponents. Your OL isn't facing top tier DL and LB's which also makes their jobs easier to protect the QB.
Top CB's, DL, OL and every position on the field whose aspiration and talent makes their goal playing in the NFL go to schools where they get the most attention and the most exposure. Many of those who don't go to the top schools do so because they aren't sure they could win the starting position so it's easier for them to be starters and get more exposure at a smaller school than sitting on the bench at a better school.
It does make it easier to see what they can and will do when they're in their comfort zone. What their natural tendencies are when you have the luxury of playing against inferior players. It doesn't tell you what they will do when their teams talent has to face similar talent and they're thrown out of their comfort zones. How a QB will react or what he may revert to when his WR's don't get open on a regular basis and he has to throw into traffic more often. How his mechanics may change when regularly pressured. How he reacts when he has to lead his team on late, game winning drives. The judge of a great QB is how they react when the heat is on. You don't win it all in the NFL based on playing inferior teams.
And yes you can bring up Josh Allan. On rare occasions even QB's who play on lower tier teams can develop into more. It's just not a very common occurrence.
For me, I am more curious about Monken's "type" of QB vs any particular name and how Monken et al will be able to prop up the QB position this year.
I like what I'm seeing out of the skill groups (Judkins and Fannin as well as the earliest returns from the rookie WRs), and I'm cautiously optimistic about our Oline... so if all goes well our rookie QB should have a nice (if young) supporting cast going into next season.
I could care less what Monken's "Type" is. The QB will more than likely out last Monken.
As for his career, he inherited Jameis Winson, he inherited Baker Mayfield and he inherited Lamar Jackson.. I don't see a pattern, except he coached what he was given.
I want the best possible player to build an offense around, not just a type to run Monken's offense.
I don't expect a lot out of this season. It depends heavily on this rebuilt O-line as you already mentioned. It typically takes some games to gel when you get a new guy or two.. they have 5 who have never played together. If they can learn to play effectively early, we could get some surprise wins if the QB doesn't lose games for us.
I agree, growth is the most important ingredient here, nothing helps a young QB more than an experienced team around him...
I certainly am not honing in on Manning though, too much talent at the college level right now to focus on one player.
What's really messed up is that Trump is possibly actually investing ("trading futures") in the opposite happening. Yet, some people will probably believe he will actually get what he allegedly wants and bet that way. Market manipulation at its slimiest.
You were a smartass, I was flat-out rude. No excuse for that.
My apologies, I let frustration get the best of me.
I apologize as well, and will go a step further to say I sometimes vent frustration on here when work is getting to me (this is one of those times). That type of energy really isn't needed (to put it mildly) in these threads.
Billionaire Leon Black sues House Oversight Committee over Epstein probe subpoenas
A lawyer for the former Wall Street private equity investor argued that the committee was overstepping its authority.
Leon Black, a former Wall Street private equity investor, on Thursday sued the House Oversight Committee, seeking to stop the panel from enforcing its subpoenas against him in an ongoing probe of the late disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.
“The Committee is on a fishing expedition that oversteps its authority and completely ignores its responsibility. This is no longer about finding the truth about Epstein. It is about trying to destroy Mr. Black. We were left with no choice but to file this lawsuit in response to an abuse of Congressional power,” Black’s attorney, Susan Estrich, said in a statement.
Black had been set to appear before the committee Thursday morning.
The lawsuit comes after Black voluntarily sat for a closed-door transcribed interview with the Oversight Committee in late June but left the hearing early.
Lawmakers have for months sought more information on the financial web that allowed Epstein to fund his sex trafficking operation and whether Black was at all involved or aware of any illegal activity. They specifically have sought information about any nondisclosure agreements Black signed with women.
Black has denied any wrongdoing, involvement in or awareness of Epstein’s illegal activity.
In Thursday’s statement, she said that Black was “misled” about the intentions of the committee’s chair, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky.
“Mr. Black has cooperated with the Committee by voluntarily appearing to answer questions in a transcribed interview. Despite being misled about the intent of that interview, he then fully complied with the Committee’s subpoena related to Epstein,” Estrich said.
She added, “To imply misconduct because of the existence of a confidentiality agreement is entirely unjustified. Confidentiality agreements are routinely used in business.”
Estrich went on to wholly deny any allegations against Black, saying, “We want to reiterate that Mr. Black had no awareness of the criminal activities that led to Epstein’s arrest in 2019. Mr. Black never abused a woman. He never was with an underage woman. He never engaged in sex trafficking. He never paid Epstein for access to women. He was never blackmailed by Epstein.”
Black’s name appears more than 300 times in files released by the Justice Department late last year and early this year related to Epstein. His name appears often in emails from Epstein’s assistant, directing the financier to call Black. More than 100 of the mentions of Black are in emails from Epstein’s assistant, who wrote, “Leon Black returned your call.”
In a statement, Comer reacted to Black’s failure to appear before the committee Thursday, saying, “It’s a shame Leon Black is hiding behind litigation rather than provide answers to the American people.”
He added, “Mr. Black’s testimony is crucial to our investigation as he was one of Mr. Epstein’s fee paying clients and has several non-disclosure agreements. Our deposition is moving forward this morning for the record and there will be an empty chair for Mr. Black. I will speak with our members about next steps.”
Black’s career and his reputation have been marred for years due to his relationship with Epstein, a convicted child sex offender who died in 2019.
In 2022, Black was sued over allegations that he raped a woman in Epstein’s New York City mansion in 2002. That case was later dropped with prejudice after both parties reached an agreement to do so and Black denied the allegations against him. A separate but ongoing lawsuit, filed in 2023, accused Black of raping a 16-year-old girl at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse in 2002. A lawyer for Black denied the allegations, calling them “frivolous and sanctionable.” In April, a judge overseeing the case wrote that the plaintiff and her attorney “engaged in serious, sanctionable misconduct in this case,” but allowed the case to proceed.
Black in 2021 stepped down from the hedge fund he co-founded, Apollo Global Management, after the firm conducted an independent review looking into his ties to Epstein. The review found that Black was not involved in Epstein’s criminal activities.
Earlier this year, he was set to be deposed in a lawsuit filed by survivors of Epstein and his associates alleging that Bank of America facilitated and profited from Epstein’s illegal sex trafficking activity. Bank of America later settled that lawsuit for more than $70 million and did not admit any liability in that case.
“While we stand by our prior statements made in the filings in this case, including that Bank of America did not facilitate sex trafficking crimes, this resolution allows us to put this matter behind us and provides further closure for the plaintiffs,” a Bank of America spokesperson told NBC News at the time.
In a statement reacting to news of the lawsuit Thursday, Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said, “By refusing to testify today, Leon Black is now defying two Congressional subpoenas. Black gave Jeffrey Epstein over $180 million over six years. He funded Epstein’s abuse and trafficking of women. Multiple women have also accused Black of sexual assault. His connections to Epstein and his unwillingness to cooperate are unacceptable.”
Garcia also called to hold Black in contempt of Congress.
![[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Aviation/Airshow2026/SB2CAug2026/i-8V7wCVg/0/NNCMHHXz3t5zxJFMpbKHbxK7nDDbN3mdgZNmk6fP2/X4/173A4809-X2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Aviation/Airshow2026/SB2CAug2026/i-2Cg27xZ/0/KMSvtCJvcSwjR4dJ2Z38r9CSW6mLZC2LGNwGkDFg3/X4/A45A1939-X2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Aviation/Airshow2026/SB2CAug2026/i-kzGsVMv/0/Mdtnpchb6k3XR4bbDtWz3Gx6rXCCV6LgkX9bV2g2r/X4/A45A1957-X2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Aviation/Airshow2026/SB2CAug2026/i-RmTfZRQ/0/K4ZgXBBRqzWcXbWs8h8cP7w5GZDWWZJGQX5fDBCvs/X4/173A5919-X2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Aviation/Airshow2026/SB2CAug2026/i-cpdqdF5/0/K26WsZJ7ZjNtPCqVdRRk2hBqD3VcPHf7vWHMSbnQT/X4/173A6177-X2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Aviation/Airshow2026/SB2CAug2026/i-V9q3Rnk/0/L3kDt83ZKmtFFP2QMzKMRrMFV43bf42gGbHhnhB5L/X4/A45A2503-X2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.gifer.com]](https://i.gifer.com/1tae.gif)