Makes it hard for them to forget this humiliation when you keep talking about it.
Trump Hid In A Crate When He Left NATO Summit
- Thread starter martin
- Start date
serendipity
Verified User
He was told to by the Secret Service, stupid cunts!
QP!
Verified User
If you pay in $1 to the Federal and get back $0.50 in Federal transfer payments the arguments you keep making that 'yeah but the Blue States get $0.50 from the Federal gov't they could not afford to lose', is a pretty stupid one.
You are ignoring that overall the Blue States PAY IN more than they get back and overall the Red States take out more than they pay in.
Blue States and are providing the welfare the Red States rely on to survive.
Putting a fat guy in a McDonald's food catering container makes sense.But this wasn't any crate. It was a special crate, a super crate the nicest crate anyone ever saw. People would line up for a chance to go on airplane trip in this crate.
Trump hid in catering truck in secret plane swap over Iran threat, reports say
The US president was reportedly part of a ruse where reporters were falsely told he was with them on Air Force One leaving a Nato summit in Turkey.www.bbc.com
Makes it hard for them to forget this humiliation when you keep talking about it.
What humiliation?
Does it? Who did that?
Noking
Fight authoritarianism support Noking
Poopeye, the financial expert from Pickle Park.
Remember when Clinton lied about "landing under fire" in Bosnia? Yeah... Good times.
At least this story has some basis in truth unlike Bosnia where Clinton was met by a 9 year old girl bearing gifts. In this case he took a different flight and got there in secret when asked by the Secret Service personnel to do so. So, some of this story is true.
At least this story has some basis in truth unlike Bosnia where Clinton was met by a 9 year old girl bearing gifts. In this case he took a different flight and got there in secret when asked by the Secret Service personnel to do so. So, some of this story is true.
7 pages in, and lefties are still lying.
No, the characterization “Trump hid in a crate” is not accurate. It is a mocking, dismissive exaggeration from the justplainpolitics forum thread (and similar online jokes). The actual reported events involve a standard airport catering truck/container as part of a deliberate security deception, not a wooden crate or box.
According to detailed accounts published around August 10–11, 2026 by The Washington Post (primary source for many outlets), The New York Times, and others citing U.S. officials and reviewed material:
The justplainpolitics thread title and posts (“hid in a crate,” “special crate,” “super crate,” jokes about fatness/fitting in a box, “frightened,” abandoning others, etc.) deliberately flatten a professional security transfer via a large, elevated catering vehicle into a cartoonish image of cowering inside a shipping crate. That is rhetorical mockery, not a precise description of the reported mechanics or the intelligence-driven context.
In short: the core event (secret plane swap using a catering truck as cover amid an Iranian threat, with Air Force One as decoy) is what major outlets reported based on officials and documents. Calling it “hiding in a crate” is inaccurate spin.
grok.com
No, the characterization “Trump hid in a crate” is not accurate. It is a mocking, dismissive exaggeration from the justplainpolitics forum thread (and similar online jokes). The actual reported events involve a standard airport catering truck/container as part of a deliberate security deception, not a wooden crate or box.
According to detailed accounts published around August 10–11, 2026 by The Washington Post (primary source for many outlets), The New York Times, and others citing U.S. officials and reviewed material:
- After the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey (July 8, 2026), Trump publicly boarded the older (“legacy”) blue-and-white Air Force One Boeing 747 in full view of cameras and waved, consistent with his public statements that he would use it for the first leg home “for old time’s sake” while the newer Qatari-gifted plane went to RAF Mildenhall so troops could see it.
- Minutes later, on the far/opposite side of the aircraft (out of public view), Trump and a small group of aides exited into a hydraulic airport catering truck/container—the elevated vehicle normally used to load in-flight meals and supplies. The container was raised to the door, then lowered and driven a short distance across the tarmac to a waiting U.S. Air Force C-32A (a modified Boeing 757).
- The C-32A (flying under a nondescript call sign with tracking transponders off) carried Trump to RAF Mildenhall in Britain. The older Air Force One, carrying the White House press corps and some staff who believed the president was still aboard, served as a high-profile decoy. Reporters were told to close window shades.
- The switch was driven by intelligence of a credible Iranian assassination threat (or threat targeting the president/his plane) amid escalating U.S.-Iran hostilities at the time. Similar (if less elaborate) decoy tactics have been used historically (e.g., Clinton in 2000).
The justplainpolitics thread title and posts (“hid in a crate,” “special crate,” “super crate,” jokes about fatness/fitting in a box, “frightened,” abandoning others, etc.) deliberately flatten a professional security transfer via a large, elevated catering vehicle into a cartoonish image of cowering inside a shipping crate. That is rhetorical mockery, not a precise description of the reported mechanics or the intelligence-driven context.
In short: the core event (secret plane swap using a catering truck as cover amid an Iranian threat, with Air Force One as decoy) is what major outlets reported based on officials and documents. Calling it “hiding in a crate” is inaccurate spin.
Grok
Grok is an AI assistant built by SpaceXAI. Chat, create images, write code, and get real-time answers from the web and X.
QP!
Verified User
I get that you think that as that is something a stupid person would think.
But once again i will address that point. Those Federal Infrastructure dollars blue states get are smaller portion of the money THEY SENT IN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COMING BACK to them.
so once again, they send in $1 and then the Federal gov't says 'here is $0.50 in Federal infrastructure dollars back to you for your use.
Whereas Red States send in $1 and the Fed's say here is a $1.50 back as we are giving you money we collected from Blue States.
Last edited:
QP!
Verified User
Yes because your simple math tells you to ignore that Dem States submit to the Federal to gov't then they get back while only talking about what they get back because your feelings cannot handle the FACT that Dem States are why Magat Red States can function and not go bankrupt by supporting them as the welfare recipients they are.
Rub his sniveling nose in this:
The unlimited (pre-2017) SALT deduction functioned as a federal subsidy that masked the true economic cost of high state and local taxes in predominantly Democratic (“Blue”) states, creating an inflated appearance of prosperity and fiscal sustainability.
Core Mechanism
Under the pre-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) rules, itemizing taxpayers could deduct the full amount of state and local income, property, and (in some cases) sales taxes from their federal taxable income. This reduced their federal tax liability by their marginal federal rate times the SALT amount paid.
- Example: A taxpayer in the 35% federal bracket paying $20,000 in state/local taxes received a $7,000 federal tax reduction. The net (after-federal-tax) cost of those state taxes was only $13,000.
- Higher-income taxpayers (who face higher marginal rates and itemize more) received larger absolute benefits. The deduction’s value rose with both the size of state/local tax bills and the taxpayer’s federal bracket.
Because high-tax Blue states (New York, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, etc.) have progressive state income taxes, high property values/taxes, and concentrations of high earners, their residents claimed disproportionately large SALT deductions. In 2017 (last uncapped year), New York filers claimed SALT deductions equal to 9.7% of AGI versus a national average of 5.6%. Benefits clustered heavily in a handful of high-income metro counties.
How This Created an Impression of Prosperity
- Lowered the perceived price of high taxes and spending: State and local governments in Blue states could levy higher rates with less political resistance from influential high-income residents and businesses. The federal treasury (funded by taxpayers nationwide, including those in lower-tax states) absorbed a large share of the cost. This “discounted” the after-tax burden of progressive taxation and expansive public services.
- Supported higher disposable incomes and consumption in high-tax areas: Residents’ after-all-taxes income looked stronger than the raw state tax rates implied. High nominal incomes + federal offset made high-cost, high-tax coastal metros appear more affordable and prosperous than the underlying fiscal model would otherwise allow. This reinforced narratives of Blue-state economic success and superior public goods.
- Distorted interstate comparisons and “donor state” claims: High-tax, high-income Blue states often send more federal tax revenue to Washington than they receive in spending (because progressive federal taxes hit their wealthy residents harder). The SALT deduction partially offset this, allowing politicians to claim these states were net “donors” while still maintaining high local taxes. Critics note this confuses individual high-income taxpayers with “states” and ignores that the deduction itself is a transfer favoring those same high-tax jurisdictions.
- Reduced fiscal discipline and interstate competition: By insulating high earners from the full cost of state policies, the deduction weakened incentives for tax restraint or efficiency. Post-TCJA evidence is consistent with this: after the $10,000 cap raised the effective price of state taxes, multiple states cut top income-tax rates, and migration of people and income accelerated from high-tax Blue states toward lower-tax Red/Sunbelt states.
The 2017 Cap and the Revealed Reality
The TCJA capped the SALT deduction at $10,000 ($5,000 married filing separately). This removed most of the federal subsidy for taxpayers whose state/local bills exceeded the cap—precisely the high earners in high-tax Blue states. Average uncapped SALT liability far exceeded the cap in places like New York (~$43,000 difference per claimant in later data).
The result was greater sensitivity to state tax levels, complaints from Blue-state politicians about a “punitive” policy, and clearer visibility of the true net burden of high state taxes. Subsequent proposals to raise or eliminate the cap (including temporary increases in later legislation) have been recognized as primarily benefiting high-income taxpayers in a small number of high-tax Blue jurisdictions and as a renewed subsidy for higher state spending.
In short, unlimited SALT deductibility let Blue-state governments impose higher taxes while shifting a substantial portion of the cost to the federal fisc. This subsidized appearance of greater after-tax prosperity and fiscal capacity than the underlying tax-and-spend model would have supported on its own. Capping the deduction forced more of the true cost onto the residents who voted for (or tolerated) those policies.
QP!
Verified User
But they still do not make enough to pay their bills and are debtor States relying on welfare from Blue States.
But they still provide in more money to the Federal gov't than they take out and that surplus cash allows the Feds to give Red States welfare so they can survive.
That is only true is you make them keep giving the dollar and do not give them back the $0.50 in infrastructure money.
FACT IS that you keep ignoring that money from the Fed's you push Blue rely on is a small part of the money BACK that the Blue States gave the feds to begin with.
Oh, and Marcos Rubio and Bessent, two of his cabinet heads. Someone on the news said "That's what they all signed up for." Um, no -- I don't think anyone signed up to be the slow duck in the video game.