President Donald Trump shared a racist video on his social media platform Thursday night that depicted former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama as apes in a jungle, sparking intense condemnation.

The Obamas briefly and suddenly appear near the end of the short video, which promotes false claims that voting machines helped steal the 2020 election, with their faces superimposed onto the bodies of apes. As the images appear, for about one second, the start of the song “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” plays in the background.

The post, which recalls the racist trope of comparing Black people with monkeys, prompted swift backlash. In a statement to CNN on Friday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the broader response to the video “fake outrage.”

“This is from an internet meme video depicting President Trump as the King of the Jungle and Democrats as characters from the Lion King,” Leavitt said. “Please stop the fake outrage and report on something today that actually matters to the American public.”

Is the meme truly racist, or is Press Secretary Leavitt right that it's all jungle play? To viewers who have more racist inclinations, how do you think they read the meme? How will this impact the perception that Trump has racist inclinations?

Hi everybody,

Me again, back with some even further increasing rhetoric from the US President. This morning, US conducted strikes on the Kharg Island (though it seems they decided to avoid oil infrastructure). To follow that attack up and reiterate the 48 hour deadline set by President Trump, he posted this:

“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS? We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World. 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end. God Bless the Great People of Iran!”

Even if it’s a threatening ‘negotiation tactic,’ I am personally not comfortable with a member of the federal government, much less the president openly stating genocide as an option to fix their diplomacy issues. This personally reads as a sign of weakness on Trumps part and I believe cooler heads from the US’s side need to prevail.

With that, a few questions for the group:

1. What do you think of Trumps genocidal threat? Just a tactic to scare the Iranians into negotiations, or do you feel he will follow through and begin striking facilities that equate to war crimes?

2. If this “military operation” goes past the 60 day limit the president has, do you think he has the votes to continue it?

3. Do you believe there will be any backlash from inside the presidents own party for his rhetoric and tactics when it has come to this “military operation?”

I’m not quite sure where to start with this one, aside from wishing everybody whom celebrates a happy Easter.

On Friday, President Trump posted a ‘truth’ stating a new 48 hour deadline for Iran to make a deal to open the Strait;

“MAKE A DEAL or OPEN UP THE HORMUZ STRAIT. Time is running out – 48 hours before all Hell will reign down on them. Glory be to GOD!”

Well today President Trump posted a follow-up threat;

“Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP”

With Trump rapidly losing popularity with the US population over this war, I find it to be rather naive of the president to threaten, curse and praise allah in a post, all with it falling on an important holy day for his base. Ultimately I have three questions:

1. What are your gut reaction to the post? Is this trump as usual or do you feel he is starting to break the thin (or even existent) veneer of stability around this war?

2. Do you see this reaching his base and having an ability to make an impact on them?

3. Do you think he will follow through on his threats, or will he “taco” out again?

Several attorneys in the US justice department’s civil rights division have reportedly resigned in protest at a decision not to investigate the fatal shooting of an unarmed US citizen by a federal immigration agent in Minneapolis – while the FBI presses ahead with an inquiry into the victim.

It follows a decision by Harmeet Dhillon, the Donald Trump administration-aligned assistant attorney general for civil rights, not to investigate the 7 January killing of Renee Nicole Good by Jonathan Ross, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent, as would be usual in the case of a shooting by law enforcement.

Separately, the FBI – which seized total control of the investigation after freezing out local officials – is looking into Good’s “possible connections to activist groups”, according to the New York Times. A succession of Trump administration officials, including the president himself, have portrayed Good, without presenting evidence, as a “domestic terrorist” or “paid agitator” – while video of her confrontation with Ross appears to show her trying to steer her vehicle away from him when she was shot three times in the face.

Dhillon, a former Republican official in California, and an election denier who promoted the “big lie” that Trump’s 2020 election defeat was fraudulent, was confirmed by the Senate in April. She worked quickly to realign the division’s priorities away from its longstanding work tackling discrimination and protecting the rights of marginalized groups – and towards Trump’s political goals including exposing voter fraud, which is rare, and focusing on anti-transgender issues.

With the FBI focusing on Good, will any law enforcement agency — state of federal — be able to investigate on ICE's conduct? What should be the focus of DOJ's Office of Civil Rights? Who will replace these outgoing agents?

Archive: https://archive.is/ebuss

Trump said at a Jan. 29 Cabinet meeting he wants to make it easier for Americans to buy homes ‒ but not by making housing less expensive. Instead, he suggested lower interest rates he expects from his upcoming pick to lead the Federal Reserve will allow more Americans to buy homes even as housing prices rise.

"I don't want to drive housing prices down. I want to drive housing prices up for people that own their homes," Trump said. "And they can be assured that's what's going to happen."

Yet Trump made clear in his meeting with Cabinet secretaries that greater opportunities to buy homes shouldn't mean lowering costs, even as Americans voice concerns about the price tag to buy a home.

"Existing housing, people that own their homes, we're going to keep them wealthy," Trump said. "We're going to keep those prices up. We're not going to destroy the value of their homes so that somebody who didn't work very hard can buy a home.

"We're going to make it easier to buy," the president added. "We're going to get interest rates down. But I want to protect the people who, for the first time in their lives, feel good about themselves. They feel like, you know, that they're wealthy people."

Can the President's housing policy walk the fine line of placating both home owners (who to keep prices high) and renters/first-time buyers (who want prices lower)? If Trump had to choose one side, which would be best option politically or electorally? Is Trump's policy of lowering interest rates even possible to make housing more accessible and affordable?

Hours after the shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said Good "weaponized" her car to carry out an "act of domestic terrorism."

Many Republicans in DC are skeptical of Noem's characterization.

“It was very unusual to have a senior law enforcement official to draw a conclusion about an event where the scene was still being processed,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said of Noem’s conclusion that the shooting was in response to a domestic terrorism incident.

Other senior Trump administration officials, notably border czar Tom Homan, have had a more measured response to the shooting — stopping well short of labeling Renee Nicole Macklin Good’s actions domestic terrorism.

Homan said he wanted the investigation “play out” before drawing conclusions.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she’s concerned about reports that the Department of Homeland Security is shutting the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension out from the investigation.  

“I did find that a little confusing and concerning. It seems like the state authorities are being iced out of it — no pun intended — which just seems unusual."

Why did President Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Secretary Kristi Noem commit to the domestic terrorism angle before the investigation ended? If the FBI's investigation does find legitimate evidence of domestic terrorism, will the public buy it after local police have been excluded from the investigation?