Whoopi Goldberg appeared to stun her cohosts into silence when she put a positive -- even passionate -- spin on President Donald Trump's stated goal of eventually dismantling the federal Department of Education.
During Tuesday's broadcast of the ABC midday talk show, Goldberg -- who still refuses to even say Trump's name aloud on the air -- said that getting rid of the Department of Education could be a net positive if it served as a catalyst to get more people involved and engaged at the local level to make sure kids were getting what they needed.
WATCH:
Whoopi Goldberg shocked The View by supporting Trump's controversial
proposal to eliminate the Department of Education, leaving the panel
speechless as ABC producers abruptly cut to a commercial break.
pic.twitter.com/rM8WvBczxC
-- Catch Up (@CatchUpFeed) April 15, 2025
"What we have to always do, regardless of who you voted for, you still got to pay your rent, you still got to take care of your kids, you still got to take care of your business," Goldberg began, adding, "And maybe some of what's happening, like you know, they're trying to take apart the Department of Education --"
"Yes," her cohosts agreed, but then Goldberg threw them a curve and they all went quiet.
"Maybe that is a good thing," she said. "Because maybe it will force us to make sure that our kids actually get what they need. Maybe it will force us to go to our states and say, 'Listen, I want to make sure since you're taking all this money from my taxes, I want to make sure that my kids get exactly what they need.'"
"I don't have to wait for the government to do it, we can do it!" she declared, effectively making the conservative argument for returning control of education to the states and local school boards. "This is now in our hands. This is in our hands, and it's going to be tough and nobody wants to do it because it's a b****, but you know what? If it comes down to your survival, this is what you gotta do, you gotta take care of what you gotta take care of."
Her cohosts remained silent as Goldberg wrapped up her thought, then pivoted quickly to announce that producers were telling her it was time for a commercial break.
On 2025-04-21 4:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
Whoopi Goldberg appeared to stun her cohosts into silence when she put a >>positive -- even passionate -- spin on President Donald Trump's stated goal >>of eventually dismantling the federal Department of Education.
During Tuesday's broadcast of the ABC midday talk show, Goldberg -- who >>still refuses to even say Trump's name aloud on the air -- said that >>getting rid of the Department of Education could be a net positive if
it served as a catalyst to get more people involved and engaged at the >>local level to make sure kids were getting what they needed.
WATCH:
Whoopi Goldberg shocked The View by supporting Trump's controversial
proposal to eliminate the Department of Education, leaving the panel
speechless as ABC producers abruptly cut to a commercial break.
pic.twitter.com/rM8WvBczxC
-- Catch Up (@CatchUpFeed) April 15, 2025
"What we have to always do, regardless of who you voted for, you
still got to pay your rent, you still got to take care of your kids,
you still got to take care of your business," Goldberg began, adding,
"And maybe some of what's happening, like you know, they're trying to
take apart the Department of Education --"
"Yes," her cohosts agreed, but then Goldberg threw them a curve and
they all went quiet.
"Maybe that is a good thing," she said. "Because maybe it will force
us to make sure that our kids actually get what they need. Maybe it
will force us to go to our states and say, 'Listen, I want to make sure >>since you're taking all this money from my taxes, I want to make sure
that my kids get exactly what they need.'"
"I don't have to wait for the government to do it, we can do it!" she >>declared, effectively making the conservative argument for returning >>control of education to the states and local school boards. "This is
now in our hands. This is in our hands, and it's going to be tough and >>nobody wants to do it because it's a b****, but you know what? If it
comes down to your survival, this is what you gotta do, you gotta take
care of what you gotta take care of."
Her cohosts remained silent as Goldberg wrapped up her thought, then >>pivoted quickly to announce that producers were telling her it was time
for a commercial break.
I wonder if this is going to get Whoopi excommunicated from the
"progressive" movement? The Left is tolerant of everything EXCEPT
disagreeing with its narrative which, in its simplest form, is "Orange
man bad".
Also, will we see her co-hosts also admit that some of Trump's ideas may >actually be good?
If so, then I think it's likely because their network has been getting
so much pressure to moderate their views that they've demanded a more >conciliatory tone from the on-camera harpies. (It's even remotely possible >that the co-hosts have actually started to regain their sanity but that
seems pretty damned unlikely.)
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-04-21 4:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
Here's a citation for the article plagarized by Ubi the shithead, who
falsely claimed authorship of an article he had not written.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-view-hosts-shocked-into-silence-as-whoopi-argues-in-favor-of-trump-policy
Whoopi Goldberg appeared to stun her cohosts into silence when she put a >>> positive -- even passionate -- spin on President Donald Trump's stated goal >>> of eventually dismantling the federal Department of Education.
During Tuesday's broadcast of the ABC midday talk show, Goldberg -- who
still refuses to even say Trump's name aloud on the air -- said that
getting rid of the Department of Education could be a net positive if
it served as a catalyst to get more people involved and engaged at the
local level to make sure kids were getting what they needed.
WATCH:
Whoopi Goldberg shocked The View by supporting Trump's controversial >>> proposal to eliminate the Department of Education, leaving the panel >>> speechless as ABC producers abruptly cut to a commercial break.
pic.twitter.com/rM8WvBczxC
-- Catch Up (@CatchUpFeed) April 15, 2025
"What we have to always do, regardless of who you voted for, you
still got to pay your rent, you still got to take care of your kids,
you still got to take care of your business," Goldberg began, adding,
"And maybe some of what's happening, like you know, they're trying to
take apart the Department of Education --"
"Yes," her cohosts agreed, but then Goldberg threw them a curve and
they all went quiet.
"Maybe that is a good thing," she said. "Because maybe it will force
us to make sure that our kids actually get what they need. Maybe it
will force us to go to our states and say, 'Listen, I want to make sure
since you're taking all this money from my taxes, I want to make sure
that my kids get exactly what they need.'"
"I don't have to wait for the government to do it, we can do it!" she
declared, effectively making the conservative argument for returning
control of education to the states and local school boards. "This is
now in our hands. This is in our hands, and it's going to be tough and
nobody wants to do it because it's a b****, but you know what? If it
comes down to your survival, this is what you gotta do, you gotta take
care of what you gotta take care of."
Her cohosts remained silent as Goldberg wrapped up her thought, then
pivoted quickly to announce that producers were telling her it was time
for a commercial break.
I wonder if this is going to get Whoopi excommunicated from the
"progressive" movement? The Left is tolerant of everything EXCEPT
disagreeing with its narrative which, in its simplest form, is "Orange
man bad".
Trump is incidental to this issue. His ham-fisted executive orders
aren't permanent change nor reform. He's usurped congressional
authority; his own party in Congress is so intimidated that they are willfully going along with this by refusing to exercise their own power
to sunset the Department of Education in an authorization bill.
Federal legislation that imposed partially unfunded mandates on public schools is a separate issue from the mere fact of the Department of Education. A great many of the mandates originated in education bills
before there was a Department of Education and a few from before there
was a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, part of the Johnson administration's Great Society program.
It's the education bills, not the fact that there's a government
bureaucracy whether it's DOE, HEW, or something else, that are
problematic. Some of the provisions should be reformed; many should be sunsetted. Also, some of the mandates (school breakfast and lunch programs) are in the farm bill and administered by USDA.
Apr 21, 2025 at 11:27:54 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]>:
Here's a citation for the article plagarized by Ubi the shithead, who >>falsely claimed authorship of an article he had not written.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-view-hosts-shocked-into-silence-as-whoopi-argues-in-favor-of-trump-policy
. . .
Federal legislation that imposed partially unfunded mandates on public >>schools is a separate issue from the mere fact of the Department of >>Education. A great many of the mandates originated in education bills >>before there was a Department of Education and a few from before there
was a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, part of the Johnson >>administration's Great Society program.
It's the education bills, not the fact that there's a government >>bureaucracy whether it's DOE, HEW, or something else, that are
problematic. Some of the provisions should be reformed; many should be >>sunsetted. Also, some of the mandates (school breakfast and lunch programs) >>are in the farm bill and administered by USDA.
None of it is a power granted to the federal government by Article I,
Section 8, and is therefore all a matter of state/local jurisdiction,
per Amendment X.
The Dept. of Education should be abolished because it's unconstitutional. >Period.
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-04-21 4:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
Here's a citation for the article plagarized by Ubi the shithead, who
falsely claimed authorship of an article he had not written.
Whoopi Goldberg appeared to stun her cohosts into silence when she put a >>>positive -- even passionate -- spin on President Donald Trump's stated goal >>>of eventually dismantling the federal Department of Education.
During Tuesday's broadcast of the ABC midday talk show, Goldberg -- who >>>still refuses to even say Trump's name aloud on the air -- said that >>>getting rid of the Department of Education could be a net positive if
it served as a catalyst to get more people involved and engaged at the >>>local level to make sure kids were getting what they needed.
WATCH:
Whoopi Goldberg shocked The View by supporting Trump's controversial >>> proposal to eliminate the Department of Education, leaving the panel >>> speechless as ABC producers abruptly cut to a commercial break.
pic.twitter.com/rM8WvBczxC
-- Catch Up (@CatchUpFeed) April 15, 2025
"What we have to always do, regardless of who you voted for, you
still got to pay your rent, you still got to take care of your kids,
you still got to take care of your business," Goldberg began, adding, >>>"And maybe some of what's happening, like you know, they're trying to >>>take apart the Department of Education --"
"Yes," her cohosts agreed, but then Goldberg threw them a curve and
they all went quiet.
"Maybe that is a good thing," she said. "Because maybe it will force
us to make sure that our kids actually get what they need. Maybe it
will force us to go to our states and say, 'Listen, I want to make sure >>>since you're taking all this money from my taxes, I want to make sure >>>that my kids get exactly what they need.'"
"I don't have to wait for the government to do it, we can do it!" she >>>declared, effectively making the conservative argument for returning >>>control of education to the states and local school boards. "This is
now in our hands. This is in our hands, and it's going to be tough and >>>nobody wants to do it because it's a b****, but you know what? If it >>>comes down to your survival, this is what you gotta do, you gotta take >>>care of what you gotta take care of."
Her cohosts remained silent as Goldberg wrapped up her thought, then >>>pivoted quickly to announce that producers were telling her it was time >>>for a commercial break.
I wonder if this is going to get Whoopi excommunicated from the >>"progressive" movement? The Left is tolerant of everything EXCEPT >>disagreeing with its narrative which, in its simplest form, is "Orange
man bad".
Trump is incidental to this issue. His ham-fisted executive orders
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-04-21 4:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
Here's a citation for the article plagarized by Ubi the shithead, who
falsely claimed authorship of an article he had not written.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-view-hosts-shocked-into-silence-as-whoopi-argues-in-favor-of-trump-policy
Whoopi Goldberg appeared to stun her cohosts into silence when she put a >>> positive -- even passionate -- spin on President Donald Trump's stated goal >>> of eventually dismantling the federal Department of Education.
During Tuesday's broadcast of the ABC midday talk show, Goldberg -- who
still refuses to even say Trump's name aloud on the air -- said that
getting rid of the Department of Education could be a net positive if
it served as a catalyst to get more people involved and engaged at the
local level to make sure kids were getting what they needed.
WATCH:
Whoopi Goldberg shocked The View by supporting Trump's controversial >>> proposal to eliminate the Department of Education, leaving the panel >>> speechless as ABC producers abruptly cut to a commercial break.
pic.twitter.com/rM8WvBczxC
-- Catch Up (@CatchUpFeed) April 15, 2025
"What we have to always do, regardless of who you voted for, you
still got to pay your rent, you still got to take care of your kids,
you still got to take care of your business," Goldberg began, adding,
"And maybe some of what's happening, like you know, they're trying to
take apart the Department of Education --"
"Yes," her cohosts agreed, but then Goldberg threw them a curve and
they all went quiet.
"Maybe that is a good thing," she said. "Because maybe it will force
us to make sure that our kids actually get what they need. Maybe it
will force us to go to our states and say, 'Listen, I want to make sure
since you're taking all this money from my taxes, I want to make sure
that my kids get exactly what they need.'"
"I don't have to wait for the government to do it, we can do it!" she
declared, effectively making the conservative argument for returning
control of education to the states and local school boards. "This is
now in our hands. This is in our hands, and it's going to be tough and
nobody wants to do it because it's a b****, but you know what? If it
comes down to your survival, this is what you gotta do, you gotta take
care of what you gotta take care of."
Her cohosts remained silent as Goldberg wrapped up her thought, then
pivoted quickly to announce that producers were telling her it was time
for a commercial break.
I wonder if this is going to get Whoopi excommunicated from the
"progressive" movement? The Left is tolerant of everything EXCEPT
disagreeing with its narrative which, in its simplest form, is "Orange
man bad".
Trump is incidental to this issue.
His ham-fisted executive orders
aren't permanent change nor reform. He's usurped congressional
authority; his own party in Congress is so intimidated that they are willfully going along with this by refusing to exercise their own power
to sunset the Department of Education in an authorization bill.
Federal legislation that imposed partially unfunded mandates on public schools is a separate issue from the mere fact of the Department of Education. A great many of the mandates originated in education bills
before there was a Department of Education and a few from before there
was a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, part of the Johnson administration's Great Society program.
It's the education bills, not the fact that there's a government
bureaucracy whether it's DOE, HEW, or something else, that are
problematic. Some of the provisions should be reformed; many should be sunsetted. Also, some of the mandates (school breakfast and lunch programs) are in the farm bill and administered by USDA.
Also, will we see her co-hosts also admit that some of Trump's ideas may
actually be good?
Because Trump has zero interest in getting legislation written by going through regular order of Congress, we'll just never know, will we.
If so, then I think it's likely because their network has been getting
so much pressure to moderate their views that they've demanded a more
conciliatory tone from the on-camera harpies. (It's even remotely possible >> that the co-hosts have actually started to regain their sanity but that
seems pretty damned unlikely.)
I can't even guess. If every time someone said something stupid on air,
there was a measurable effect upon ratings... but there's not.
Nobody watches this shit expecting to become informed. This is the worst manifestation of everything wrong with daytime television.
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
Apr 21, 2025 at 11:27:54 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]>:
Federal legislation that imposed partially unfunded mandates on public >>>schools is a separate issue from the mere fact of the Department of >>>Education. A great many of the mandates originated in education bills >>>before there was a Department of Education and a few from before there >>>was a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, part of the Johnson >>>administration's Great Society program.
It's the education bills, not the fact that there's a government >>>bureaucracy whether it's DOE, HEW, or something else, that are >>>problematic. Some of the provisions should be reformed; many should be >>>sunsetted. Also, some of the mandates (school breakfast and lunch programs) >>>are in the farm bill and administered by USDA.
None of it is a power granted to the federal government by Article I, >>Section 8, and is therefore all a matter of state/local jurisdiction,
per Amendment X.
The Dept. of Education should be abolished because it's unconstitutional. >>Period.
What about the General Welfare clause? The Constitution doesn't get
broader than that.
On 2025-04-21 2:27 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-04-21 4:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
Whoopi Goldberg appeared to stun her cohosts into silence when she put a >>>> positive -- even passionate -- spin on President Donald Trump's stated goal
of eventually dismantling the federal Department of Education.
During Tuesday's broadcast of the ABC midday talk show, Goldberg -- who >>>> still refuses to even say Trump's name aloud on the air -- said that
getting rid of the Department of Education could be a net positive if
it served as a catalyst to get more people involved and engaged at the >>>> local level to make sure kids were getting what they needed.
WATCH:
Whoopi Goldberg shocked The View by supporting Trump's controversial >>>> proposal to eliminate the Department of Education, leaving the panel >>>> speechless as ABC producers abruptly cut to a commercial break.
pic.twitter.com/rM8WvBczxC
-- Catch Up (@CatchUpFeed) April 15, 2025
"What we have to always do, regardless of who you voted for, you
still got to pay your rent, you still got to take care of your kids,
you still got to take care of your business," Goldberg began, adding,
"And maybe some of what's happening, like you know, they're trying to
take apart the Department of Education --"
"Yes," her cohosts agreed, but then Goldberg threw them a curve and
they all went quiet.
"Maybe that is a good thing," she said. "Because maybe it will force
us to make sure that our kids actually get what they need. Maybe it
will force us to go to our states and say, 'Listen, I want to make sure >>>> since you're taking all this money from my taxes, I want to make sure
that my kids get exactly what they need.'"
"I don't have to wait for the government to do it, we can do it!" she
declared, effectively making the conservative argument for returning
control of education to the states and local school boards. "This is
now in our hands. This is in our hands, and it's going to be tough and >>>> nobody wants to do it because it's a b****, but you know what? If it
comes down to your survival, this is what you gotta do, you gotta take >>>> care of what you gotta take care of."
Her cohosts remained silent as Goldberg wrapped up her thought, then
pivoted quickly to announce that producers were telling her it was time >>>> for a commercial break.
I wonder if this is going to get Whoopi excommunicated from the
"progressive" movement? The Left is tolerant of everything EXCEPT
disagreeing with its narrative which, in its simplest form, is "Orange
man bad".
Trump is incidental to this issue.
I think you're right about what you say below but Trump is far from >incidental to the ladies on the The View. He is their obsession and
almost everything they say about anything is THEIR hamfisted way of
screaming that Trump is evil. They're not about subtlety: they're
basically keeping it really simple for their not-very-bright-viewers and >shouting a thousand variations of "orange man bad!" in the hopes that
those viewers will echo their sentiments and contribute to some kind of >backlash against Trump that will translate to support for Democrats in
the midterms and 2028.
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
Apr 21, 2025 at 11:27:54 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]>:
Here's a citation for the article plagarized by Ubi the shithead, who
falsely claimed authorship of an article he had not written.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-view-hosts-shocked-into-silence-as-whoopi-argues-in-favor-of-trump-policy
Federal legislation that imposed partially unfunded mandates on public
schools is a separate issue from the mere fact of the Department of
Education. A great many of the mandates originated in education bills
before there was a Department of Education and a few from before there
was a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, part of the Johnson
administration's Great Society program.
It's the education bills, not the fact that there's a government
bureaucracy whether it's DOE, HEW, or something else, that are
problematic. Some of the provisions should be reformed; many should be
sunsetted. Also, some of the mandates (school breakfast and lunch programs) >>> are in the farm bill and administered by USDA.
None of it is a power granted to the federal government by Article I,
Section 8, and is therefore all a matter of state/local jurisdiction,
per Amendment X.
The Dept. of Education should be abolished because it's unconstitutional.
Period.
What about the General Welfare clause? The Constitution doesn't get
broader than that.
In any event, you aren't addressing my criticism that sunsetting DOE is meaningless if Trump won't seek to sunset various authorization bills
whose provisions are federal overreach or contraindicated.
My main criticism is that Trump doesn't want to affect domestic policy through legislation as he likes that Congress has allowed usurption of
its inherent powers under the Constitution.
Apr 21, 2025 at 1:58:38 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]>:
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
Apr 21, 2025 at 11:27:54 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]>:
Here's a citation for the article plagarized by Ubi the shithead, who >>>>falsely claimed authorship of an article he had not written.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-view-hosts-shocked-into-silence-as-whoopi-argues-in-favor-of-trump-policy
Federal legislation that imposed partially unfunded mandates on public >>>>schools is a separate issue from the mere fact of the Department of >>>>Education. A great many of the mandates originated in education bills >>>>before there was a Department of Education and a few from before there >>>>was a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, part of the Johnson >>>>administration's Great Society program.
It's the education bills, not the fact that there's a government >>>>bureaucracy whether it's DOE, HEW, or something else, that are >>>>problematic. Some of the provisions should be reformed; many should
be sunsetted. Also, some of the mandates (school breakfast and lunch >>>>programs) are in the farm bill and administered by USDA.
None of it is a power granted to the federal government by Article I, >>>Section 8, and is therefore all a matter of state/local jurisdiction,
per Amendment X.
The Dept. of Education should be abolished because it's unconstitutional. >>>Period.
What about the General Welfare clause? The Constitution doesn't get
broader than that.
The phrase "general welfare" appears twice in the Constitution, once in the >Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America."
(Although the Founders got the first sentence wrong. "We the People"
should be "Yeeb Plebnista".)
And in Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common
defense and general welfare of the United States"
The Preamble is just pretty words and has no legal force or effect, per the >writings of the Founders, which subsequently have been enshrined into >precedent by SCOTUS. So the Preamble is out.
As for Article I, Section 8, plain English dictates (and the Supreme
Court has affirmed) that the term "general welfare" in that clause
applies only to laying and collecting taxes. It doesn't give Congress
the power to do anything it likes and justify it by claiming it's "in
the general welfare of the nation".
(That's what we have the Commerce Clause for.)
Otherwise, it would negate the Founders' intent to create a weak and
limited central government, the general intent of the Constitution itself >taken as a whole, as well as specifically render the 10th Amendment >meaningless, if not all but repeal it entirely.
Using the "general welfare" clause to directly regulate education, which is a >power not granted to the federal government in Article I, Section 8, would be >a disingenuous attempt to end-run the Constitution's limitation on federal >power and usurp the legitimate authority and jurisdiction granted to the >states under the 10th Amendment.
In any event, you aren't addressing my criticism that sunsetting DOE is >>meaningless if Trump won't seek to sunset various authorization bills
whose provisions are federal overreach or contraindicated.
My main criticism is that Trump doesn't want to affect domestic policy >>through legislation as he likes that Congress has allowed usurption of
its inherent powers under the Constitution.
Yes, Congress is cowardly and Trump is taking advantage of it. Anyone who's >surprised, raise their hand. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 716 |
| Nodes: | 16 (4 / 12) |
| Uptime: | 53:46:02 |
| Calls: | 12,117 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 15,010 |
| Messages: | 6,518,610 |
| Posted today: | 2 |