Trump’s Day One: A Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
Here is some more negative fallout from Trump's Bold Agenda.
"Millions of travelers could skip visiting the US if proposed social media policy is implemented, industry experts warn"
"The potential decline in travelers could cost the US an estimated $15.7 billion in lost visitor spending, according to WTTC. Under one scenario, the US could miss out on as many as 4.7 million international arrivals, which would represent a 23% drop in visitors from ESTA countries in 2026."
Trump is trying to kill our economy yet many of you still support him anyway.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/28/travel/s … rld-travelTrump stirs talk as leaders signal shifting global alliances • FRANCE 24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4IOOj_92l8
'Europe Needs Urgency Mindset’: Ursula Sends Strong Message On Trump’s Tariffs In Davos Speech * Times of India
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb85Fk4a_-Q
"Davos In Panic": Cathie Wood Explains Why the EU Model Is Collapsing in 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X7x_jK1ifA
Can you tell me which one is AI generated?The first has all the earmarks of AI-generated. Although YouTube is supposed to indicate if AI has generated a video. I did not see any mention in any of the clips.
It was the last one. They aren't always easy to spot, it takes about 30 seconds, sometimes longer, the constant flow of speech without human-like pauses and breaks in the topic, eventually give it away.
There will come a time, when AI is smart enough to insert such human-pauses and shifts into what it is producing, then we will be in trouble.
Thinking back to this:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PcmsiMIaoTU
If not for the sombrero added in, it would have taken more than one viewing to be sure.
Those are not questions. That is just looking for information. I asked AI Why did Trump send Tom Homan to Minneapolis? Here is the reply I received. It's objective, not subjective. Your examples are searches.
Trump sent Tom Homan to Minneapolis to take control of ICE and Border Patrol operations after two controversial fatal shootings by federal immigration agents, and to shift the administration’s strategy toward more “targeted” enforcement while negotiating with Minnesota officials amid intense public backlash.
What drove the decision
1. Escalating crisis after two fatal shootings
Federal immigration agents shot and killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both U.S. citizens, in Minneapolis.
The incidents triggered public outrage, political pressure, and scrutiny of the administration’s immigration tactics.
2. Loss of confidence in DHS leadership
Conservatives and immigration hardliners were frustrated with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s emphasis on high-volume deportations.
Homan represents a more targeted, intelligence-driven enforcement approach, focusing on individuals deemed public‑safety threats.
3. Need for direct federal–state coordination
Trump said Homan would report directly to him and work with Minnesota leaders, including Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey.
Homan met with state officials to negotiate protocols—especially around jail notifications for individuals considered public‑safety risks.
4. Attempt to calm tensions and reduce federal presence
Homan announced plans to “draw down” federal agents in Minneapolis if cooperation improved.
His mission included stabilizing the situation and preventing further confrontations.
5. Broader political messaging
Trump used Homan’s deployment to reinforce his second‑term immigration agenda and to pressure “sanctuary” jurisdictions.
The move signaled a return to aggressive but targeted enforcement, a hallmark of Homan’s earlier ICE leadership.
If you want, I can break down how Homan’s strategy differs from Noem’s and what it means for Minneapolis going forward.
References (3)
Border Czar Tom Homan says shift in strategy will lead to a drawdown of fed agents in Minneapolis. https://abcnews.go.com/US/border-czar-t … =129667767
Trump sends border czar Homan to Minneapolis, talks with Walz amid shooting scrutiny. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/2 … s-00746125
What to know about Tom Homan, Trump border czar sent to Minnesota. https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … minnesota/
Do you see the difference?You may have missed it... His question
Can you tell me which one is AI-generated?
His comment was about AI and how it can create videos--- just not about Trump.
Why hijack his comment / Just post one of your own. You are very obsessed with Trump. So add a comment, don't disrupt others' comments. It's rude.Excuse me. Ken's post was about AI knowing who you are. I understood his examples were to show that some things are AI generated which are subjected and some are not. What he was doing is using AI for searches not questions.
My reply was to show that if you ask a question that AI response is not subjective it's objective. I use Tom Homan as an example of asking a question to AI instead of a search. I was not trying to hijack his post.No --Here is his post--- context is clear, he asked a clear question on their videos to see if one could pick which was created by AI. I played, and I was wrong. He responded to my answer and explained more about how to spot an AI video. Here is his reply to me. https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/362 … ost4394246
Sharlee01 profile image83Sharlee01posted 5 hours ago
Ken Burgess wrote:
Trump stirs talk as leaders signal shifting global alliances • FRANCE 24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4IOOj_92l8
'Europe Needs Urgency Mindset’: Ursula Sends Strong Message On Trump’s Tariffs In Davos Speech * Times of India
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb85Fk4a_-Q
"Davos In Panic": Cathie Wood Explains Why the EU Model Is Collapsing in 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X7x_jK1ifA
Can you tell me which one is AI generated?
What baffles me about some on the forum they try to walk back what reads as a clear diversion. Why not let it go? His post was so clear. You diverted to some Trump rhetoric.
He just posted a sort of challenge. Nothing more, no Trump, just a sort of fun challenge.
I had a bit of fun trying to figure out which might have been created by AI. Lighten up.. .So very tired of those who can't take the time to perhaps read a post before commenting, or diverting instead of just creating a separate conversation. I guess one has got to laugh...
I've read that reply several times... with the "Excuse me."
.... Wha?
That's all I can say... maybe ... WTF?
Your reply to it was classic.I’ll say your challenge was not only tough but also a bit fun. The clips were really informative too, giving plenty of food for thought. But, of course, heaven forbid anyone bring in something that actually makes us use our brain cells!
That's true... critical thinking is frowned upon on the Progressive Left, facts are optional, and questioning the narrative is downright verboten.
When you have a president who is suffering from extreme narcissism, a master con-artist, who sees everything as making deals, then there is no critical thinking. There is only the pressure of the extreme deals and then backing off. That is not critical thinking that is extortion
He also can't accept losing at anything. That is his own form of a sickness. He has now had his henchmen grab the Georgia Fulton County voter database and has taken it to his Bat Cave for fraud analysis.
When he said he could grab them by their who who's, that was enough for me.. Because he further talked about trying to get into a known TV host's pants by coming on as strong as he could, (his words). That is what he does with everything that he does. He is sick, in my book because he can't accept losing at anything.
All available sources describe FBI agents removing boxes of ballots and election records during the court‑authorized search — and officials explicitly said they did not know where the materials were being taken.
While referring to the FBI, Fulton County officials stated: “We don’t know why they took them, and we don’t know where they’re taking them to."
Isn't this a replay of Trump not accepting that he lost the election because he claimed voter fraud? "All I need is 10,000 780 votes, and just one more" He cannot accept losing at anything. Go ahead, spin it to the Trump can do no wrong side.Ken Burgess wrote:
That's true... critical thinking is frowned upon on the Progressive Left, facts are optional, and questioning the narrative is downright verboten.
100% agree.
MY VIEW... And I do not come by an opinion easily, nor do I use 100% easily.Since it is obvious that Regular Left and the Progressive Left both think critically I can only assume you guys are project Republican problems onto others.
ChatGPT found this evidence of my claim as opposed to your total lack of evidence:
Analytic thinking (Cognitive Reflection Test / CRT) and Trump support: A large study by Gordon Pennycook and colleagues examined CRT and the 2016 election and reported relationships between lower cognitive reflection and support for Trump in that context.
Misinformation and “lazy thinking” vs pure partisanship: Gordon Pennycook and David Rand argue (across multiple experiments) that believing/sharing fake news is often explained more by not engaging analytic thinking than by “pure partisan bias.” That doesn’t equal “only conservatives do this,” but it does link low analytic reflection to being fooled by bad information.
Trump favorability and misperceptions (COVID/2020 election): Dannagal G. Young finds that Republicans/conservatives and those favorable toward Trump reported more misperceptions about COVID and the 2020 election, and relates this to “epistemic motivations” (e.g., relying on gut/intuition).
Now, to be fair, the same can be said of the extreme (meaning beyond Progressive) Left.
The common factor is the "extreme". Normal Republicans from regular conservatives to liberal Republicans up to and including the Progressive Left do think critically according to the studies.I don’t engage in conversations with AI. I prefer dialogue where a human being is using their own reasoning and judgment. That said, I’ve used AI for a long time as a tool to gather factual information. Studies, in many cases, are not facts but hypotheses.
"Since it is obvious that Regular Left and the Progressive Left both think critically I can only assume you guys are project Republican problems onto others." ECO
That may be your view, but mine is very different, and it’s only my view. From where I stand, the left is no longer progressive, nor do many demonstrate genuine critical thinking. If I had to sum up my perception in just a few words, it would be this: robotic, intellectually shallow, and easily led.
Tip: In my view, you might actually learn something by running your comment through AI and asking a simple question, am I projecting, or am I stating facts versus perception? AI is a useful tool when used correctly. It’s meant to support human thinking, not replace it. Relying on it to think for you is how critical thinking atrophies.I'm modern enough to not be that afraid of an analytical tool to use it as an excuse not to engage the truth, facts, and reality.
As I pointed out several times before - AI does not Reason nor does it Judge. Instead it assesses based on pattern recognition and the heuristics built into its programming.
Further, a study isn’t a “hypothesis.” A hypothesis is the claim you test. A study is the test. No doubt, one test can be wrong. But when many tests point the same way—different samples, different researchers, different methods—that’s how knowledge becomes reliable. Diverting by claiming "some" studies are “just hypotheses” is basically saying, “I don’t accept evidence unless it agrees with me.”
Finally, I often do run my comments through AI, but to check facts and improve my wording.Eso, what do you think of the threat from China?
The whole situation... their ability today to build ships ten times faster than the US. The fact that they have a presence in and trade agreements with 115 countries, where America has only 63 such trade agreements...
Do you think they harbor great resentment for what was done to them in the past... do you think they are driven to right that wrong?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1Svu7P8Pfg
The link is a great all-around history of the opium wars and subjugation of China by the UK.
What do you think their efforts to support Russia in its war?
How much of a threat do they pose to America's future?
How deep do their financial ties go into our politics?In 1995, or there abouts, I wrote my final paper at Air War College on just that - that America was spending too much time looking to the West; that we needed to look to the East where the real danger way.
I am not sure counting trade agreements tells us anything absent any context about them.
No, I don't think China is harboring great resentment to the way they were treated by the colonial powers. I think what drives them is there own modern day self-interests which, like Russia's, is in opposition to freedom and liberty.
I think their helping Russia is to gain leverage over a long-time foe. Having to rely on China, and others, shows how weak Putin really is. But given Trump's propensity to favor dictators, that dynamic is likely to change anytime soon.
How much of a threat does China pose? Two words - A LOT.
I am sure they have found ways to fund Trump and the Republicans, but I doubt it is significant in anyway. I think it is their cyberwar that is more effective as well as rushing in to fill the political voids that Trump leaves in Latin and South America.Missed this reply...
So we agree, China is working to supplant America as the most dominant nation in the world, and is fast tracking towards that end.
Trump has been the only deterrent in the last 30 years to that effort, reversing America's decline.
Unlike the EU, which has decided to go quietly... and has become a grand collection of welfare states incapable of meeting their own economic needs... Trump wants to protect American interests and rebuild infrastructure and industry in America.
An interesting video on the EU's current dilemma, there are some interesting facts in it... I see the EU's collapse ahead, and possibly NATO as well... nations like Poland are not going to allow themselves to go down with a sinking ship:
Why The European Superpower is Over
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nTzDnmXOjk
Funny that you and I agree that China is a major threat... yet you don't see that all that went on during Biden's 4 years benefited China... from allowing the war in Ukraine (rather than negotiating a peace) ... and then seizing Russian assets and shutting them out of SWIFT (this act made it clear to many nations they had better develop an alternative, and make new alliances, or they could be next) to the disastrous flight from Afghanistan...
That you can see China as a threat... but not see the damage done during the Biden Administration... that allowed them to move into Panama, Mexico, Venezuela...
The Biden Administration talked tough about China, but gave them everything they wanted. Similar to the tough talk about how they had the Border under control... when in reality they were allowing in all comers, and even flew hundreds of thousands here at taxpayer expense."So we agree, China is working to supplant America as the most dominant nation in the world, and is fast tracking towards that end." - That is true.
"Trump has been the only deterrent in the last 30 years to that effort, reversing America's decline." - That is false as Trump is helping China dominate the world save for the piece that Trump has carved out for his own empire. Just read his National Security Policy..
"That you can see China as a threat... but not see the damage done during the Biden Administration... that allowed them to move into Panama, Mexico, Venezuela..." - Be specific, what damage exactly?
Here is an edited version of a ChatGPT response to you last three paragraphs. Notice the examples layered throughout?
"The statement mixes valid concern with weak causality.
First, “Biden allowed the Ukraine war” is false framing. Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022; that decision was made in Moscow, not Washington. Western policy choices affected costs and duration, but not the fact of Russia’s decision to invade.
Second, “the U.S. seized Russian assets and kicked them out of SWIFT” is inaccurate. Most Russian sovereign assets in Europe were immobilized/frozen, not simply confiscated, and legal ownership remained Russia’s; the EU later used extraordinary profits from those immobilized assets for Ukraine support. SWIFT also disconnected specific sanctioned banks under EU law—it wasn’t a blanket global shutdown of all Russian finance.
Third, yes, sanctions pressure accelerated workarounds and bloc fragmentation—but that trend is broader than one administration. IMF analysis shows RMB use in some trade-finance channels has risen since 2022, yet global dollar dominance and the core Western financial architecture remain intact. In other words: adaptation happened, but “the West destroyed its own leverage” is an exaggeration.
Fourth, on Afghanistan: the withdrawal was chaotic and harmed U.S. credibility optics, but “China took over” is not what subsequent analysis found. Even experts who flagged propaganda gains for Beijing also noted major constraints on China converting Afghanistan into a strategic windfall.
Finally, “Biden allowed China to move into Panama, Mexico, Venezuela” bundles different realities into one slogan:
Panama: concerns are mostly about Chinese-linked port infrastructure influence, not China “controlling the canal.”
Mexico: Mexico’s rise in U.S. trade is largely nearshoring/USMCA dynamics, and Mexico has also raised barriers on Chinese goods in recent years.
Venezuela: China ties are longstanding (well before Biden), with lending patterns that had already shifted/declined from prior peaks.
Bottom line: You can simultaneously believe China is a major threat and reject a simplistic narrative that every major geopolitical shift from 2021–2025 was “caused by Biden helping China.” That’s not analysis; that’s attribution-by-slogan.
What did Biden do to counter China
Thought for 7s
Biden’s China strategy was basically “compete, constrain, and align allies.” The biggest concrete moves were:
Advanced chip export controls (2022, tightened 2023/2024): The Commerce Department blocked/limited China’s access to top-end AI chips, chipmaking tools, and related know-how, then tightened loopholes in later updates.
Outbound investment restrictions (finalized 2024, effective Jan 2, 2025): Treasury set rules that prohibit or require notification for certain U.S. investments tied to China in sensitive sectors (semiconductors/microelectronics, quantum, and AI).
Alliance-based security posture in the Indo-Pacific: The administration deepened AUKUS and Quad coordination as part of balancing China’s military and regional influence.
Domestic tech/industrial resilience: Through CHIPS/industrial policy implementation, the U.S. pushed to rebuild domestic semiconductor capacity and reduce China-centered supply-chain vulnerability (paired with export-control enforcement)."Here is the thing about AI...
It compiles information from the sources it is allowed to surf for information.
That is all it is.
It proves nothing correct... it just compiles what it has access to and regurgitates the information.
So if it is allowed only (or primarily only) access to what I would consider nothing but lies and propaganda and opinion (Reddit, CNN, MSNBC, etc.) then that is what you get, lies and propaganda and opinion packaged and delivered as factual.
It is not. AI is a tool... it compiles information far faster than a human can, from the resources it is allowed to pull from, within the frame of the guardrails it is programmed with.I use Microsoft's AI, Co-pilot and when I ask it political questions, It always gives me the sources that it used.
As does ChatGPT. I find that it uses a wide-variety of sources which is just the opposite of what conspiracy theorists maintain
I did nothing about using AI --- what I attempted to share. One needs to learn how to use it effectively.
And those aren't opinion. Many studies of Trump by mental health experts substantiate those defects of Trump.
Here is what I was replying to about Ken's post. It was posted out of order. I don't know if it was my fault or HPs fault. But you should lighten up. I used Tom Homan as an example to prove the difference between searches and objective questions on AI. If one does a search, it may give you replies that are based on what it knows about your geopolitical interest. If one asks question like I did with Tom Homan. AI gave me an objective answer. This is what I was I replying to that Ken posted.
The funny thing about AI... and most people don't know this... they adapt to the person using them.
If you were to ask AI who was the greatest QB or who was the greatest President, AI will draw information based on your region, your previous site visits, and what data it has collected on you... and will formulate an answer catered to you... not necessarily factual.
Anyone that has spent a few hours ever working with these AIs... be it ChatGPT or Grok or whatever else, knows they essentially compile information that you can filter, or unknowingly gear towards your biases.
So... any AI that I were to use, for instance, would reject almost all the sites that Eso considers gospel, as an example... it would reject ANY and ALL sources of information from sites like CNN or MSNBC for instance, as I know information CNN presents is fabricated, biased, and garbage opinion most of the time, so I would direct AI searches to ignore CNN and MSNBC from all searches and compilations.
This post was followed by Ken's post with his video examples that were inadvertently posted to Ken's next post about AI videos. You are too quick to accuse me of being rude and high jacking Ken's post when you didn't have the evidence. I want to thank you Trumper's for insulting me. That's very typical of Trumper's
These sentiments have become very evident, and strangely, some people seem to enjoy belonging to this niche. I think it’s only a minority, but yes, some truly operate with this kind of mindset. I’m not even sure they realize it; they latch onto a word and run with it, almost like it’s a well-trained habit.
Interesting, that sounds exactly like Trump and Kristi Noem when they said, immediately Pretti's killing to claim he was a domestic terrorist and was sent to massacre ICE. They said it immediately without any evidence or proof.
Trump is doing more for Americans than probably all the other Presidents put together in our lifetime.
I think enough people will be able to figure this out by the time the mid-terms come around.
In States like CA and NY that are totally captured by the American-hating Party (AKA Democrat Socialists ... AKA Progressives), there is no hope for elections not completely compromised and fraudulent.
But in the rest of the country, where votes matter, where the people still can influence and impact elections... I expect him to do well, I saw they were turning their attention to housing, to make it more affordable, if they can make a dent in that issue by July of 2026 (most people look to buy new homes between July and Oct) I think Republicans are going to do well.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7kvw0oKv4pk“Trump is doing more for Americans than probably all the other Presidents put together in our lifetime.”
“I think enough people will be able to figure this out by the time the mid-terms come around.”
————
Wishful, thinking I would not bet on it if I were you……….I do think he is pulling our leg. I told you he wasn't being serious.
No, after conferring with him for some time, he does actually believe this stuff.
ESO, this should make MAGA understand the nature of the beast that they have harnessed themselves to.
The Extortionist and Chief is attempting to shake down the Treasury in a suit against the IRS for 10 BILLION dollars. Trump says that he was harmed over the release of his tax returns to the public. While he destroyed the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, giving protection to the man on the street, he can certainly line his own pockets. Trump, hands down is our very worse example of the Presidency, bar none……
What excuses can the right wing apologists offer this time?
And for your information, rightwingers, this story has legs all across the community of journalism, well beyond Salon Magazine.
"Trump is doing more for Americans than probably all the other Presidents put together in our lifetime." - yeah, Doing more to DESTROY America. That is undeniable by any rational person.
Democrats flip Texas state Senate seat in shock upset
Democrats scored a stunning upset on Saturday in a special election runoff for Texas Senate, according to a projection from Decision Desk HQ, giving the party a major boost ahead of the November midterms.
Fort Worth Democrat Taylor Rehmet, a machinist and Air Force veteran, defeated Southlake Republican Leigh Wambsganss to fill the vacant state Senate District 9.
The district favored President Trump — who endorsed Wambsganss earlier on Saturday — by 17 points in 2024.
The seat opened up after Republican state Sen. Kelly Hancock was tapped as acting state comptroller.
Great news - and she was TROUNCED!!
"The district favored President Trump — who endorsed Wambsganss earlier on Saturday — by 17 points in 2024."
This is one of several flips and where they have been "holds" Ds have done massively better than normal, thank god.Most people don't vote party lines, this is true today more than ever I believe.
It is understandable that people may want a Democrat representing them in the State, while they want Trump as President because he closed the border (which Texas suffered from as much as anyone), puts America and Americans 1st, etc.So?
That may be true for other elections...
But, Republicans have held that seat for decades... And Trump is not running.
But you're right. It IS understandable that people may want a Democrat representing them...At the State level, sure.
Massachusetts is a good example, a very liberal/Democrat state, but they have more than once in recent decades, voted in a Republican Governor because the Democrats have a tendency to destroy the budget and when things get too bad, a Republican is voted in to fix it.
Mitt Romney was one such governor, admittedly he is what would be considered today a Progressive Democrat, IMO, but still he was a Republican Governor of Mass.
So... what people may want INSIDE their state may be very different from what they want from their President.
In this case, most Americans do NOT want Open Borders, millions of migrants getting taxpayer benefits, losing jobs to migrants, being assaulted or preyed on by foreign cartels and criminals...
Most Americans do NOT want to become part of the global NWO if that costs them their free speech, their property rights, economic hardships and subordinating America to the wants and needs of International Agencies and Agendas.May is the word. But the presidential election is not the only election, right?
Not at all, which was kind'a the point, what a voter wants from the Federal government may be very different from what they want from State or local.
My concern is that "the Left" is full of people who are dangerous, openly promoting violence and calling for revolution.
Even during Biden's horrible years, letting in tens of millions of migrants and causing massive inflation unseen in most people's lifetimes... "the Right" wasn't out their rioting, attacking police, assassinating people, etc.
That is "the Left" and it needs to continuously be exposed how unhinged and deadly "the Left" is becoming in their efforts to gain control.
Why We Should Be Terrified of the Left's Call For Revolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DRm8n5o7bw
Just to be clear, this was a Texas State Senate seat, not a federal election, so it has nothing to do with how Trump performed in the presidential race. Taylor Rehmet won District 9 in Fort Worth, a seat that has leaned Democratic for decades, consistently electing Democrats through multiple election cycles. His victory maintains that long-standing trend in the district, but it does not flip control of the Texas State Senate, which has been majority Republican since 1997. While the margin and turnout in this special election were notable, the result is about reinforcing Democratic strength in a single district, not a shift in statewide political power.
Taylor Rehmet won District 9 in Fort Worth, a seat that has leaned Democratic for decades, consistently electing Democrats through multiple election cycles.
Wasn't this a special election to replace Republican Kelly Hancock? Wasn't he in office from 2013 to 2025? And before him? I believe a Democrat has not been elected to the seat since 1991.I certainly messed up due to typeing to fast without thinking. My apologies.
Taylor Rehmet, a Democrat, won the Texas Senate District 9 seat in Fort Worth, flipping a district that had been held by Republicans for decades. While this is a notable upset for the district, it does not change the overall balance of power in the Texas Senate, which remains majority Republican. This result highlights shifting dynamics in certain areas, but statewide control is still firmly in GOP hands.
Trump's "Bold Agenda" has failed. As expected the Democrats see it as an almost total failure and Independents are not far behind them. But the surprise is Trump's 2024 voters are not on-board with him either.
Significant numbers of Trump voters tell pollsters they think is first year was unsuccessful or VERY unsuccessful.
This article lays it all out citing four or five different polls all coming to the same conclusion - only his diehard supporters think he is successful.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/02/politics … skit-trumpToday, I announced Project Vault, a $12 billion initiative aimed at securing America’s future by creating a strategic reserve of critical minerals and rare earth elements. These materials are essential for modern manufacturing and our national defense, powering everything from electric vehicles and semiconductors to aerospace and military hardware. I want to make sure America is never vulnerable again to disruptions in global supply chains, especially from countries that have too much control over these vital resources.
Project Vault will function much like a strategic oil reserve, but for critical minerals instead. We will procure and store essential raw materials such as rare earths, lithium, nickel, cobalt, and gallium. This stockpile will act as a buffer against global supply disruptions and price spikes, while ensuring American manufacturers have a guaranteed source of materials crucial for technology, defense, and energy. The federal government will provide a 15-year, $10 billion loan facility through the U.S. Export-Import Bank (EXIM), and an additional $1.67 billion in private investment from participating companies will help bring this vision to life.
For too long, the United States has relied heavily on foreign sources for rare earth elements, particularly China, which at times controls 70–90% of the global supply. During trade tensions, Beijing restricted exports of key minerals, showing just how vulnerable our industries were. With Project Vault, we will reduce reliance on Chinese supply chains, stabilize prices for manufacturers, and encourage domestic mining and processing. This initiative will create American jobs, strengthen our industrial base, and provide a 60-day emergency supply of critical minerals that we can tap into whenever needed.
We are not doing this alone. Project Vault will operate as a public-private partnership. Participating firms, from automakers to tech companies, will contribute funding and, in return, gain priority access to the stockpiled materials. This allows the private sector to apply its market expertise while achieving national strategic goals, and it incentivizes companies to build more capacity within our borders.
This announcement comes at a time when global competition for critical minerals is intensifying, and the U.S. must “de-risk” its supply chains from geopolitical adversaries. In the weeks ahead, we will detail the reserve’s structure and management, identify the specific minerals and storage locations, and coordinate with allied countries on multinational efforts to secure these vital resources.
Project Vault is more than a stockpile—it’s a cornerstone of America’s economic stability and national security. It represents a major step toward ensuring that the United States remains technologically independent, economically strong, and protected from the leverage of foreign powers over resources that are essential to our future. In my view, this is just another example of how President Trump sees potential large problems before they happen and solves them proactively. He is moving America forward and protecting our place in a rapidly changing world.Busy Day !
Today, I learned about a major trade and energy deal between the United States and India. After talks between President Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the two countries reached an agreement that strengthens America’s role in global energy markets and improves our economic relationship with one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. I think this deal shows the impact of strong leadership and strategic planning in international affairs.
Under the agreement, the United States will reduce reciprocal tariffs on Indian goods from rates that had reached as high as 50 percent down to 18 percent, making trade more predictable and favorable for both American consumers and businesses. The tariff reduction is effective immediately, creating a more stable and fair trading relationship.
A key part of this deal involves energy cooperation. India agreed to stop buying Russian oil, which had been a point of tension with the U.S. Instead, India will increase energy imports from the United States, including American crude oil and potentially energy products from allied nations. This shift benefits the U.S. economy, strengthens global energy security, and positions American energy producers as leading suppliers on the world stage.
In addition to tariffs and energy, India also committed to expand purchases of U.S. goods across multiple sectors, including energy, technology, agriculture, and coal, potentially totaling hundreds of billions of dollars over time. Both countries agreed to reduce trade barriers and improve market access, which should increase commerce, create American jobs, and strengthen long-term economic ties.
From my perspective, this deal is just another example of how President Trump sees potential problems before they grow and takes action to solve them proactively. He is moving America forward and protecting our place in a rapidly changing world, creating opportunities for American workers, businesses, and energy producers.
This president is working hard to repair, build, and create A better America. And no one, I mean no one, will stop him from his promise to Make America Great Again...All the whining, all the screaming, all the crazy will not phase this man---SAVE America Act Strengthens American Democracy
America for American Citizens... not anyone who illegally enters our country and illegally votes in our elections.
Prove citizenship show your ID.
Simple.
Only someone who hates America and wants to devalue citizenship to less than meaninglessness would not support this bill... without such protections being a Citizen has no value.Do not forget those facist countries like Spain, France, and Brazil.Those racist countries all require a voter ID card.
America requires a voter ID card as well, I present mine every time I vote. What I didn't have to do was prove my citizenship.
“When Democrats attempted to advance sweeping election reform legislation in 2021, Republicans were unanimous in opposition because it would have federalized elections, something we have long opposed. Now, I’m seeing proposals such as the SAVE Act and MEGA that would effectively do just that,” Murkowski wrote in a statement posted to social media.”
As a result, I say give the Republicans ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in regards to this……
Don't be silly. Spain, France and Brazil are not fascist countries. They aren't racist, either.
If you want to use words like 'fascism' or 'racism', you need to understand what they entail.
People can be fascist or racist, true, and surely there are Spanish, French and Brazilian fascist, just as there are American fascists.
But as a country as a whole, Spain and France are not Fascist.I would assume that anyone would be able to understand sarcasm. Just because a country requires that citizens must prove that they have the right to vote that does not make a country facist.
That is not what the Nazi leftist mentioned when he told us in his ealier comment that now the US was like Iran and Russia.There is no such thing as a Nazi leftist. Nazism is a form of fascism, an extreme right-wing ideology.
If you weren't aware of this, then perhaps you were trying to make a sarcastic comment by using the word 'fascist' without knowing what it means.
Sorry I didn't pick up on the sarcasm.Every Nazi was a leftist. If you do not understand that perhaps you should read about what the Nazis were trying to do. They were trying to implement leftist policies. Those leftists accusing the conservatives of being Nazis are Nazis themselves.
Truly... this is the perfect series of statement and response that shows more than the words themselves say.
DrMark you are too kind.And of course the real reason that those Nazis from the left do not want to have voter ID is that Kamala Harris was not able to win any state that had voter ID, and only won in those states that allowed illegals to vote without ID. They know that it is going to be a long time before they are able to lie their way to power, probably until everyone that lived under Biden has died.
Nazism is a form of fascism. Fascism begins when a country becomes divided politically with one side having an authoritarian leader who divides the country into an "us and them" mentality where the "us" sees "the them" as inferior and the problem. Hence, the German NAZI's and the Italian Fascist. Hence, MAGA and the democrats. Guess who is keeping this country divided and who and what does he see as inferior?
My response to that is ROFL, how absurd!
ChatGPT had a much more informed response.
“Calling Nazism ‘leftist’ is inaccurate history.
The Nazi regime was an ultra-nationalist, racist, authoritarian dictatorship that crushed the political left after taking power. The Social Democrats were the main parliamentary bloc that voted against Hitler’s Enabling Act, while the Nazis outlawed opposition parties and independent unions soon after. That’s not ‘left policy’; that’s one-party authoritarian rule. Nazism also centered racial hierarchy, antisemitism, and leader-worship—core features of fascism, not democratic left politics.
So no, Spain/France/Brazil voter-ID debates or modern U.S. partisan fights do not rewrite what Nazism was.”
If you want the evidence in bullets:
Nazism is classified as fascist/totalitarian far-right by standard references, emphasizing racial hierarchy, anti-liberalism, anti-democracy, and dictatorial rule.
The left opposed Hitler’s power grab: Social Democrats voted against the Enabling Act.
Nazis dismantled pluralism: independent unions were suppressed, other parties were dissolved/banned, and Germany became a one-party state.
Nazi consolidation used anti-communist emergency politics and repression of left opponents.
So why where there 150.000 communists send to concentration camps wearing an upside down triangle?
The first people who were sent to Dachau (The first concentration camp), even before the Jews, were socialists and communists.
Stalinism is extreme left wing
Fascism is extreme right wing.Why are people today being compared to figures and political frameworks of almost one hundred years ago?
I have to assume it is because no one can really reference those times today, they have been characterized, made hyperbolic in their evils without people having reference anymore to the severity of the horrors...
Stalin was as equally horrific to his own people as was Hitler or Mao.
When the extreme of either (right or left) gains complete control, millions die... it is simple as that.
I do find it interesting that we ignore the horrors of today... especially the folks that say they have no problem with China... governments like the UK and France and Germany that want to get in bed with China so badly they can barely contain their excitement when they push their nations further under the thumb of the influence of what will become, if successful, a global Stalinist or Fascist like state... Far Right or Far Left... you still lose.
Uyghur Genocide and Concentrated Reeducation Camps in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/ … r-genocide
The faces of China’s detention camps in Xinjiang
https://www.icij.org/investigations/chi … detention/
The Horror of Concentration Camps in China
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ … ina-121991
When China has enough control... that is the fate of the world... those who are not Chinese, will never be treated as equal to Chinese.
For all the faults of Western Civilization... of Whites in general... we made extreme efforts to end slavery... to enforce equality regardless of race, or sex, or religion. We aren't perfect but we are far more inclusive and open than any other culture... Japan doesn't allow in millions of foreigners to become citizens... neither does China... many places do not, many places can be a horror for people to live in, made all the worse if you are not part of that culture, your fate is almost assured to be near slavery like conditions.
Trump is not trying to return to the extremes of Fascism...
Trump is trying to save Western Civilization... or at the very least America, its Constitution, its freedoms and independence... that the rest of the West (IE - Canada) seems only to happy to give up so it can become subservient and dependent on the whims of China.A most interesting narrative on your part, Ken.
Why would they not get in bed with China, when America, outside of its vaunted claims of representing freedom, is no better?
Perhaps your fear of China that even exceeds that of Russia is because China is non-white? I have to wonder?
——
“For all the faults of Western Civilization... of Whites in general... we made extreme efforts to end slavery... to enforce equality regardless of race, or sex, or religion. We aren't perfect but we are far more inclusive and open than any other culture.”
That can be given some credence as an acceptable explanation, but that is not what we are seeing NOW. Trump is taking us in the direction of these dictatorial, tyrannical societies, so what is there to accommodate or accept?
——-
Trump is trying to save Western Civilization... or at the very least America, its Constitution, its freedoms and independence... that the rest of the West (IE - Canada) seems only to happy to give up so it can become subservient and dependent on the whims of China.
Trump is destroying these ideas with aggression abroad and a return to bigotry and intimidation at home. Trump is well on his way toward making America worse than any of the other countries you rail about.Well, to the inference that I am racist... less than most.
I had a Korean GF while in South Korea... a real relationship not a one night fling. I experienced racism there, and honestly didn't think it was out of place, I WAS a minority in a foreign land... usually the negative/hostile reactions I received went away as soon as I spoke some Korean to whomever I was interacting with.
Unlike some experiences I had on the African continent (more than one location), where the dislike/hostility (for being white or American who can know for sure) was at times as real and vivid as any racism you have dealt with here in America, more likely than not.
Guess what... racism isn't isolated to America... and it certainly is worse in other parts of the world, while in others it is far better.
I think you spend too much time reading and watching the stories of how Trump is destroying America.
Woodrow Wilson did more to revert or restore racism in America than anyone has since President Lincoln. America corrected course from that.
Whatever ills come from Trump's actions will be course corrected... if he restores vitality to our economy, our national self interest, ensures the future of America for its Citizens ABOVE the interests concerns of non-Citizens ... the temporary concerns of racism and sexism (real or imagined) that are being propagandized by the leftwing media will be a small price to pay for the salvation of our economy and its support mechanisms like Social Security and Safety on our streets.Whatever ills come from Trump's actions will be course corrected... if he restores vitality to our economy, our national self interest, ensures the future of America for its Citizens ABOVE the interests concerns of non-Citizens ... the temporary concerns of racism and sexism (real or imagined) that are being propagandized by the leftwing media will be a small price to pay for the salvation of our economy and its support mechanisms like Social Security and Safety on our streets.
———-
While not appropriate for you, for ME, concerns about racism and sexism is quite real and not a mere apparition. The concerns are permanent and will be an indelible mark against Trump and the Republicans party. My respect as a first class citizen will not be bartered for white rightwingers convenience. For US the price is exorbitant and I wont pay it.
Trump has been the most racist, race baiting president, since Wilson. At least he had an excuse living in a less enlightened era, Trump has none.
I don’t have to look very far or dig very deeply to see that Trump has been a veritable land mine on every front.
As for racism, i hail the societies in which it is less prominent, as the world’s oldest democracy, we should do better and not backslide.
In Europe, i had more trouble being identified as American rather than being a black person. Because of that, i made it a point to stay away from groups of American tourists.
Sorry, that there are very few rightwinger oriented whites that are not racist, at the core. While they expend enough energy to literally push the planet out of its orbit trying to convince you that they are not. They are the ones trying to get me to ignore the offenses before my very face.
"“For all the faults of Western Civilization... of Whites in general... we made extreme efforts to end slavery... to enforce equality regardless of race, or sex, or religion. We aren't perfect but we are far more inclusive and open than any other culture.”" - And Conservatives are quickly turning back the hands of the clock
Speaking of turning back the clock... it appears that many of the footsoldiers of the Progressive Left are waking up to the lies they have been told:
Confessions of a Former Climate Activist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OybheweZGxwSince when did one become "many"? How do we know this wasn't doctored or faked?
How do you know any of the charges brought up against Trump in the corrupt NY court system weren't doctored or faked?
How do you know CNN isn't fraudulent or faked?
Here is some good news:
Rubio Drops Hammer: Britain’s Secret Plot to Outlast Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv-TdvPMeh4I enjoyed the YouTube. Yes, Rubio did drop the hammer. And I might add his entire speech was on the money.
Keeping my eye on all the buildup in the Middle East. Hey, Iran needs to be handled, and the time and conditions seem right. Yikes, will he have the balls?
Why? Because it gives us a clue as to what is to come. History does mostly repeat itself when given the same inputs
For example, Psychologically and politically, Trump and Hitler show striking similarities, and so do many elements of the movements that elevated them. The point is not that they are identical figures in identical eras; they are not. The point is that the underlying methods of power consolidation look familiar; the same pattern is present.
Hitler refined a playbook built on grievance, scapegoating, loyalty tests, propaganda, and the steady weakening of institutional restraints. Trump is using many of those same methods, somewhat successfully so far, in modern form—framing opponents as internal enemies, weaponizing government to attack the same, pressuring institutions to serve personal authority, demanding political loyalty over constitutional duty, and normalizing the idea that legal or democratic limits are optional when they obstruct the leader’s goals.
Different century, different machinery, but a recognizably similar logic: convert mass resentment into personal power, then erode the guardrails designed to contain it. Many other dictators followed Hitler’s model in one form or another—Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, Augusto Pinochet, Slobodan Milošević, and Vladimir Putin, among others—adapting the same core methods to their own time and place.To you it may look like that.
To me it looks like he is attacking the "woke mind virus" that has infected nearly every institution, including our courts.
He is protecting American interests, tackling tough situations that the Biden Administration let develop... in Panama... in Venezuela... in Iran... as well as here at home, cartels, sex traffickers, the worst of the worst that were allowed in during Biden's years.
He is restoring belief in America... Patriotism... Citizenship... those things the Left have so dearly tried to destroy or denigrate as evil for decades now.
"When the extreme of either (right or left) gains complete control, millions die... it is simple as that." - And Trump has joined their ranks.
He may not be using gas chambers or other forms of mass murder like Hitler and Stalin. But he is following Mao's playbook of starving people to death. Now Mao visited that on his own people. Trump is effecting the same outcome in a minor degree by mishandling the pandemic in order to soothe is ego, has increased the numbers by an order of magnitude by cutting off the money that fed starving people in other parts of the world and cutting off access to health systems as well.
The latest count of people Trump is responsible for killing to-date is in the hundreds of thousands and the lowest estimate of future deaths is over one million A YEAR, at least until 2029 when funding can be restored.
No matter which way you want to spin it, that is the awful truth of the matter."Trump is trying to save Western Civilization... or at the very least America, its Constitution, its freedoms and independence... that the rest of the West (IE - Canada) seems only to happy to give up so it can become subservient and dependent on the whims of China." - Give me a break. Trump's MO is to save the patient, you must kill it. And there is no question he is killing you and me and the rest of us in America.
One thing he is sure to do is isolate America by pushing away our traditional allies. While America will certainly survive that, it may be more like the way Russia survived after the boom from the collapse subsided.
There is another attempt to rewrite history. Fascism is the extreme form of Right-Wing philosophy. The proper term is Nazi rightist.
Like they do in every nation on the planet with fair and free elections... where they have put in protections to prevent fraud and abuse.
So... if you want elections like Venezuela has had for the past few decades, then let the Democrats have their way.
If you want Citizens only deciding the direction and fate of the nation, then the Save Act moves us in that direction.
Democrats don't want fair and free elections... they keep ending up with Trump being elected when we have those.
Tariffs --- what now?
From what I understand based on current reporting from Reuters and Associated Press, Donald Trump has announced a temporary 10% tariff on nearly all imports. This came after the Supreme Court of the United States struck down his earlier attempt to impose broad global tariffs under emergency powers.
The Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose sweeping tariffs. Following that decision, Trump pivoted to using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Section 122 allows a president to impose temporary tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days to address balance-of-payments problems or large trade deficits. That authority is limited in duration, and continuation beyond that period would require congressional approval. The 10% rate he announced falls within the 15% cap set by the statute.
Other trade laws that presidents have used in the past include Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows tariffs in response to unfair trade practices, and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which allows tariffs on imports that threaten national security. Those authorities are narrower and targeted compared to a universal tariff.
The Constitution grants Congress the power to impose tariffs, but Congress has delegated certain limited authorities to the executive branch through statutes like those mentioned above. The current legal dispute centers on how far that delegated authority extends, particularly regarding broad, across-the-board tariffs.Thank you for sharing the YouTube link. I truly think Susan Kokinda is brilliant — she goes straight to the heart of the issue and says what many people are thinking without dancing around it.
I also couldn’t help but notice that the Supreme Court decision, whether intentional or not, seemed to overshadow the first meeting of the Board of Peace. This new body is focused on promoting peace by bringing world leaders together and encouraging real commitment, putting resources and action behind their words, rather than simply issuing statements like we often see from the United Nations. It feels groundbreaking to me and, in my opinion, should have received far more media recognition across the globe. Did it? Not from what I saw. But I believe that in time, when its impact becomes undeniable, it will be impossible to ignore.
From my perspective, Donald Trump is working toward peace and a better world. He’s not just throwing around the label of “globalism” for effect. Too often, nations speak about cooperation and peace while acting in their own narrow interests. In the end, actions matter more than words, money spent talks, and the rest is just noise. Hot air....I thought she was out there until I did some digging... realizing she has been 'digging' for decades, since before I reached high school... makes considering what she has revealed hold some weight.
You'll like this one as well:
FASCISM WITH A DEMOCRATIC FACE: The Plan to Silence You Forever
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-YUb8BBYvMI can share with confidence that Susan Kokinda's early activism was associated with the Democratic Party in the 70s–80s, and her eventual alignment with the Republican Party occurred well after that period, as her industrial-policy views found a home with the Republican Party. She could not stand Clinton....
I wish every American who has an interest in our Nation would watch the Youtube you shared. It offered pure common-sense truth, facts that should blow anyone off their feet. Thanks for sharing it.
A good article that basically lays out the bottom line as to why the Supreme Court made the right decision in its recent ruling regarding Trump’s use of tariffs. It will put a monkey wrench in the Trump operation, slowing it down considerably in this matter. That is a healthy beginning.
The court finally shows us that it is not just a mere rubber stamp for everything on Trumps wish list.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/ … aign=shareThe ruling did not say Trump lacked tariff power altogether. It said the specific law used did not authorize tariffs in that manner, and because Congress created other tariff statutes with procedures, those would be the lawful paths.
I think the ruling just--- In the major Trump-era tariff litigation (the cases over tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — IEEPA — and similar challenges), the judges focused on one core legal principle:
It will be interesting to watch how this now sticky issue is handled.
Tulsi Gabbard's Message To America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdLnUzuF2PQWho the hell wants to listen to an American traitor? That is also why I am not listening to Trump lie tonight.
Well, in the first two minutes of his SOTU I counted ten or eleven lies - he is out doing himself.
Another minute, and another ten lies.
Finally, a truth - we do have a very secure border.
I lost count but he must be approaching 100.
He is literally making me sick to my stomach.Just my Opinion
I know some people focused on the statistics he missed in the speech, but even if every number had been perfectly precise, it still would have reflected a very strong year. I honestly can’t remember another president talking about roughly $9 trillion in investment commitments and major manufacturing projects returning to the United States. That alone signals confidence in the country’s direction. OMG 9 trillion!
We’ve seen prescription drug prices come down, a proposal to give every newborn a $1,000 start, and real movement toward de-escalation and negotiation in several foreign conflicts. Energy costs are far lower than they were just a couple years ago, and many Americans feel that at the pump every week. The border is far more controlled than before, with stronger vetting and enforcement aimed at keeping criminals out while restoring order.
There are also mineral and trade agreements meant to reduce dependence on foreign supply chains and rebuild domestic manufacturing, and companies are beginning to open or relocate facilities here again. Those are long-term policies that don’t get solved in a single speech but matter for decades.
I realize the dislike for this man has grown and, for some, it has become blinding. My eyes remain open, and I try to listen beyond what the talking heads say. It isn’t easy to stay thoughtful in the political climate we have today, but I work hard to do exactly that.
People may disagree with his style, and criticism is part of politics, but I judge a presidency more by direction and results than by delivery. From my perspective, he focuses on solutions and national strength rather than accepting ongoing problems. History, not the nightly news, will ultimately decide how his presidency is remembered.
He continues to push forward with his agenda and pursue goal after goal, regardless of the resistance he faces. As for the Democrats, I honestly believe they need to seriously reflect on the direction they are taking, because the path they’re on doesn’t appear to be working. Their presentation last night came across to me as more desperate than persuasive.
I was also glad he stayed true to himself and responded directly to his opponents. When he called them crazy, I understood the point he was making, though personally, I probably would have used the word deplorable instead. Funny how a word can come back around to bite one in the ass.Donald Trump's State of the Union address, delivered on Tuesday night in Washington D. C.'s House Chamber, is shaping up to be one of the most widely discussed speeches of his second term in office.
Speaking to both Republicans and Democrats for nearly two hours - the longest State of the Union address on record - Trump covered topics ranging from tariffs and immigration to the economy and corruption, drawing enthusiastic applause from his own party whilst largely meeting stony silence from the opposition, with only a handful of exceptions.
However, according to clinical psychologist Dr Tracy King, much of the speech was constructed around a well-established political psychological framework. Dr. King identified the structure as the Victim-Persecutor-Rescuer pattern, first coined by Karpman in 1968, and outlined how it was deployed throughout the address. Dr. King explained: "The Victim-Persecutor-Rescuer pattern shows up clearly in the speech. The "victim" moment is the wounded, obstructed framing: 'an unfortunate ruling... very unfortunate ruling,' and 'Democrats in this Chamber have cut off all funding.' That wording is not simply saying a problem exists, but that something has been taken away and blocked." It came as a lip reader revealed Ivanka and Barron Trump's private chat as they clashed over a mystery woman in Congress.
Dr King added: "It invites the viewer to feel that the country, or the speaker, is being treated unfairly. The 'persecutor' then arrives fast. Sometimes it is a named opponent in the room. Sometimes it is an abstract enemy, like when he says 'corruption is plundering America.'"
She highlights how he identifies an external adversary to shoulder the blame for the nation's troubles, noting: "Sometimes it is an external threat: Iran and missiles 'that can threaten Europe and soon reach the United States.'".
"The emotional effect is to keep the audience in a sense of siege, with multiple targets available depending on what most worries them."
Dr King then explains that he presents a solution designed to be straightforward and easy to digest: "Then comes the 'rescuer' switch, and you can hear it in the verbs. 'I am officially announcing the war on fraud,' 'Tonight I'm demanding the full and immediate restoration.' 'I used these tariffs, took in hundreds of billions.'"
Through these statements, she argues, he attempts to portray his actions as "decisive and immediate.
"This is the crucial part of the pattern: once people have been emotionally guided into 'we are being harmed' and 'here is who is harming us,' the promise of rescue becomes more persuasive."
Yet among all these tactics, Dr. King identifies a key trick in the way roles are assigned, with Trump deploying a single word to maximum effect.
She elaborates that the threat is framed as affecting the entire nation, fostering a collective sense of unity. "But the 'fixing' is often voiced as 'I'.
"'I'm announcing,' 'I'm demanding,' 'I used.' That creates bonding and ownership at the same time: 'we' for belonging, 'I' for agency. It is psychologically tidy. The audience gets to feel part of something bigger, while also being offered one clear person to trust as the solution."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ … ocialshareThank you for sharing Dr. King’s educated opinion. I shared my own perspective on the speech, what I heard, what I saw, and how it struck me personally. I felt my critique was fairly balanced: I pointed out things I appreciated, and I also mentioned areas where I thought he could have done better. He is the current president, and I think it’s reasonable to evaluate both strengths and weaknesses.
I’ve always had mixed feelings about his demeanor, and I’ve been consistent about that. Truthfully, I’ve had mixed feelings about the demeanor of most of our past presidents. Over time, that has taught me to weigh deeds more heavily than demeanor. In my comment, I highlighted some of the actions and accomplishments that align with my way of thinking, because ultimately that’s what carries the most weight for me.
As for his demeanor last night, I would describe it as typical of what we’ve seen since he first entered the political arena. He is outspoken, says what he feels without much hesitation, is very transparent, and yes, very self-focused. None of that surprised me.
At this point, I am satisfied with his job performance and believe he has a strong vision for addressing problems that have plagued the U.S. for decades. He is working hard to fix issues, not to create or ignore them. I felt our nation was heading down a path of stagnation and risked losing the special character I have always cherished.
What I saw last night from the Democrats sickened me. It revealed something I didn’t really want to see: a group that, in my eyes, has no values, no conscience, just a bunch of people seeking to tear down the values I hold dear.
I also noticed that in your comment, you didn’t share your own personal opinion but instead offered Dr. King’s view. I assume you agree with her perspective, though I would be interested in hearing your thoughts in your own words as well.If I'm going to be honest to myself, I think Trump works best when he has adversaries. In this case it was the democrats I left right after he attacked the democrats. It was like a trap that he set up. His goal was to provoke a response from them. They had a choice of going silent, which is all but two of them did or attack him. In either case they lose. Two of them did shout back at him and were presented on split-screen on TV with Trump smirking from the longest time while The Republican side of the house was chanting USA for a long period of time.
I thought that was vile and evil that he would setup that trap. I'm 87 years old and I remember how Mussolini would puff out his chest and lift his chin. Trump did the same thing through most of his speech.
When it came to affordability, He stated lower inflation: rising incomes; cheaper energy; and reduced drug prices
Here’s what **Democrats said about affordability** in response to Donald Trump’s 2026 State of the Union address, based strictly on verified reporting.
**Costs remain high**,
- **Tariffs make life more expensive**, and
- **Democrats—not Trump—are focused on lowering everyday expenses**.
Someone needs to teach Trump basic math skills when it comes to him talking about lowering drug prices by thousands of percent. Once you reach 100%, they can't be lowered any further.
He is supposed to be a graduate of the Wharton school of business. I guess he skipped that lesson. It's just bothered me to see all the people standing and clapping including the two behind him when he said that. He just lets his Truthful Hyperbole run wild with him.
My bottom line is that Trump has to blame somebody for his missteps. It's either Biden or the Democrats But, more importantly, we are a nation divided because of Trump. He has created an "Us and Them" mentality with MAGA. How can he give a speech about a State of the Union, when we are so divided as a nation? There is no Union right now. I believe Trump doesn't want a union. He works best with a divided country he can blame with an us and them mentality.Just my view
I agree that President Trump pointed directly at Democrats during his speech. He absolutely did. But calling that a “trap” assumes he was provoking them unfairly rather than holding them accountable. If a president believes certain policies caused inflation, border chaos, energy instability, or rising costs, isn’t it his responsibility to say so clearly? Disagreement isn’t a setup; it’s politics. And politics, especially in a divided government, includes calling out opposing policies.
As for the moment when he asked the audience to stand, that wasn’t a partisan policy question. It was about recognizing Americans. The fact that most Democrats chose not to stand is what shocked me. They could have risen in support of the people being honored without endorsing Trump himself. Refusing to stand didn’t make them look principled; it made them look resentful. That confirmed something I’ve felt for a long time, that too many in Congress are more committed to opposing Trump than to demonstrating unity when it comes to the country.
Comparing him to Mussolini is where I strongly disagree. That kind of rhetoric is exactly what fuels division. Trump puffing his chest or smirking is not authoritarianism, it’s stage presence. We’ve seen presidents from both parties use tone, posture, and theatrics to project strength. Body language is not dictatorship. Hyperbole is not fascism. Throwing those labels around diminishes what real authoritarian regimes actually were.
On affordability, you cite what Democrats said. Of course they’re going to say tariffs raise costs and that they’re focused on lowering expenses. That’s their talking point. But Trump’s argument is that energy policy, regulation, and border control directly affect inflation and wages. There’s a legitimate debate there. Inflation did surge under Democratic leadership. Energy policy did tighten supply. Whether one agrees with his solutions or not, it’s not unreasonable for him to argue that those policies contributed to higher costs.
On drug prices and the “thousands of percent” comment, yes, Trump often exaggerates. He has always used what he calls “truthful hyperbole.” But the core of the argument is about negotiating power and price reductions. If we’re going to criticize exaggeration, we should apply that standard evenly across politics. Exaggeration is hardly unique to him.
The bigger claim, that he created division, is where I fundamentally disagree. This country was deeply divided long before Trump. Cultural divides, economic divides, urban vs. rural tensions, media polarization, all of that predates him. What Trump did was give voice to millions of Americans who felt ignored. When people say “he created an us vs. them mentality,” I would argue that many of his supporters already felt like “them” long before he ran.
You say there is no Union right now. I would say the Union is strained because half the country feels dismissed or demonized. Unity cannot mean silence from one side while the other governs unchallenged. A State of the Union doesn’t require artificial harmony; it requires an honest assessment of where we are. Sometimes that includes pointing out policy failures.
I don’t see a man who wants division for sport. I see someone who fights aggressively for what he believes is right, in a political environment that is already combative. You may see provocation. I see confrontation of issues he believes matter.
We can disagree on tone. But I don’t think standing up for what you believe — even forcefully — is vile or evil. It’s politics in a divided era.
I truly believe that in his first year, Donald Trump has laid important groundwork for a stronger economy. He hasn’t just spoken in broad promises, he’s moved on tangible initiatives, including securing mineral agreements with other nations to strengthen American supply chains and reduce dependence on geopolitical rivals. In a world where critical minerals drive everything from energy production to advanced technology, that kind of forward-looking strategy is a major win. To me, this shows he is building toward the future rather than clinging to policies that were, in my view, leading us toward economic decline. He focuses on action, renegotiating trade, encouraging domestic production, pursuing energy independence, not simply rhetoric. Whether people like his style or not, I see a leader who acts decisively and puts structural pieces in place for long-term economic strength rather than accepting stagnation.
Yes, he misses correct stats frequently, I won’t deny that. But I also look at results. I’m paying roughly half of what I paid for gas in 2024, and that matters to me in a very real, everyday way. And when I hear that his administration has helped generate $9 trillion in investment commitments, I don’t shrug at that; I recognize it as historic. Nine trillion dollars is not a rounding error, it’s not pocket change, and it’s certainly not insignificant. Yet much of the media coverage, in my view, tried to downplay it as if it were ordinary or somehow unimpressive. Not to me. When I heard that figure, my first thought wasn’t skepticism manufactured by commentators; it was, “That is an extraordinary number.” You can criticize his tone, you can challenge his delivery, but bringing in trillions in investment and easing energy costs reflects action. To me, that signals someone working to shift the economic trajectory forward, not someone standing still. That amount of investment dollars is historic. He should not have bloviated, he should have used the historic stat....
I have come to believe that much of the intense opposition he faces from Washington Democrats stems from the fact that he has exposed what I see as misplaced priorities and, at times, values that don’t align with everyday Americans. By aggressively addressing long-standing issues, whether economic policy, border security, trade, or energy, he has forced debates that many in Washington seemed content to avoid for years. In my view, he has made confronting those entrenched problems unavoidable and, in doing so, has put his opponents on the defensive. Watching their reactions the other night, I felt their expressions reflected that discomfort. To me, it wasn’t just disagreement; it looked like the frustration of being challenged on issues that had gone unaddressed for far too long. And he makes it look all too easy.Yet it is Democrats, or before 1994, liberals who have historically had the better economic outcome. That is just a fact.
Here is my view.
Castigating Democrats from his position as President just added fuel to the fire. Why is it that only 4 Supreme Court justices appeared at the SOTU, is that not unprecedented and should have had nothing to do with politics. It had all to do with a man that does not recognize that what goes around comes around. We can all talk about Democrat resentment, but his behavior will make it all the more certain that that “resentment” will be expressed after the midterms if the gavel changes hands as it most probably will, at least for the House.
Yes, as a Democrat and as an individual with totally different views and values, I oppose 99 percent of Trump, his administration and the GOP agenda. Trump just doubles down as if he has a plan to usurp the midterm elections next fall. His tone and brusque manner will make any reconciliation impossible. Only fools burn bridges behind them, especially in the world of politics.
There are a lot of folks that disagree and resist Trump, are they all ignorant? Whether Trump likes it or not, the present situation now to his advantage may well not last, what then?I’m going to respond strongly, but fairly, because I think these concerns deserve a serious answer rather than dismissal.
The idea that “castigating Democrats” at the State of the Union uniquely adds fuel to the fire assumes that harsh rhetoric in Washington began with Trump. It didn’t. If we’re being honest, modern State of the Union addresses from both parties have increasingly included partisan contrasts and pointed criticism. Presidents from Barack Obama to George W. Bush drew sharp lines between their agendas and the opposition’s. Politics today is confrontational on both sides. Trump’s tone is certainly more blunt and combative, but the broader culture of televised partisan messaging predates him.
On the Supreme Court issue, if only four justices attended, that is unusual in optics, but it is not unprecedented for justices to skip the State of the Union. Several justices, including Antonin Scalia in prior years, openly criticized the event as overly political theater and chose not to attend. The Court is an independent branch, and attendance has always been voluntary. So while it may reflect discomfort with the political climate, it doesn’t automatically prove uniquely improper conduct by the president.
Now, on the broader concern: does Trump’s tone make reconciliation harder? That’s a fair criticism. He is not a conciliatory politician. He governs through confrontation and pressure rather than bridge-building. But it’s also worth asking whether reconciliation has genuinely been offered from the other side. From the moment he was elected, large segments of Democratic leadership publicly labeled him illegitimate, dangerous, or unfit. Impeachments, investigations, and constant legal battles followed. Whether one believes those were justified or not, the environment has been adversarial from day one.
You ask whether all who resist Trump are ignorant. Of course not. Millions of intelligent, informed Americans disagree with him on some policies and his temperament. That’s democracy. But disagreement is different from assuming malicious intent, such as claiming he has a plan to “usurp” elections without clear evidence. That kind of language escalates distrust and feeds the very resentment being criticized.
As for midterms and the possibility of a shift in power, that’s always the case in American politics. Power swings. What then? The same constitutional structure applies. If Democrats take the House, oversight intensifies. If Republicans hold it, they advance their agenda. The system is designed for friction. The question isn’t whether resentment will be expressed, it always is, but whether institutions hold. So far, despite immense tension, they have.
The “burning bridges” argument cuts both ways. In modern politics, bridges have been burning for years. Social media, 24-hour news cycles, and primary challenges reward confrontation over compromise. Trump didn’t invent that dynamic, though he certainly amplified it.
So the fair conclusion, in my view, is this: Trump’s style is polarizing and unlikely to win over committed opponents. But polarization is not solely the product of one man. It reflects a broader cultural and political divide that neither party has shown much willingness to close. If we want less resentment, the responsibility can’t rest on one side alone.Yes, Trump’s tone is more blunt and combative, and that can be expected in return once the gavel is restored to the Democrats. He is the one that would stand to lose in the face of determined Democrats obstinacy.
As for the Supreme Court justices, yes, this 2026 attendence is not unprecedented, but the only worse attendence record was in 2002 under George W. Bush. (Only one showed up) No absolutes, but a strong negative trend, regardless. Just another reflection of extreme partisanship and gridlock within the Trump regime.
If you want to move your agenda forward with minimum opposition then conciliation is something that you are going to have to learn. What happens to confrontation and pressure once the gavel changes hands?
With all of the controversy, insults and depravity from Trump and his administration from our side, yes, malicious intent is an easy conclusion. The man has lied about the 2020 election, has been charged with 34 felonies, why would I believe that he would not descend to unimagined levels in politics? In the face of the almost certain change coming this fall, he will pull all stops, democratic or not…
Yes, you can bet that oversight will intensify, his imperial presidency will come to an end on day one, once the gavel changes hands. Let’s see how Trump handles friction when he can no longer be certain of having his way? I will need a ringside seat for that.
Well if Trump wants to win and have any hope of continuing in his agenda, he will be forced to compromise.
My view is similar to yours as a committed opponent, if you keep on poking the donkey, you can expect to be kicked in the headIsn't it interesting that when "Yes, Trump’s tone is more blunt and combative" is a positive by MAGAites, but when you and I try, we get insulted.
I worked on a reply for you for hours and then HP wanted me to sign in again and I lost everything I wrote. So, I'm going to reply to each of your paragraphs. My reply will be in Italics.
I agree that President Trump pointed directly at Democrats during his speech. He absolutely did. But calling that a “trap” assumes he was provoking them unfairly rather than holding them accountable. If a president believes certain policies caused inflation, border chaos, energy instability, or rising costs, isn’t it his responsibility to say so clearly? Disagreement isn’t a setup; it’s politics. And politics, especially in a divided government, includes calling out opposing policies.
I worked on a reply for you for hours and then HP wanted me to sign in again and I lost everything I wrote. So, I'm going to reply to each of your paragraphs. My reply will be in Italics.
I agree that President Trump pointed directly at Democrats during his speech. He absolutely did. But calling that a “trap” assumes he was provoking them unfairly rather than holding them accountable. If a president believes certain policies caused inflation, border chaos, energy instability, or rising costs, isn’t it his responsibility to say so clearly? Disagreement isn’t a setup; it’s politics. And politics, especially in a divided government, includes calling out opposing policies.
Trump was angry about the Dems because they invoked a government shutdown based on ICE running rampant, creating chaos, killing innocent people, entering houses without warrants, wearing masks, and combat gear. They have cut-off funding to HHS and CBP until there is a reform of their policies. Kristi Noem is an amateur who is a puppet for Stephen Miller and his quota of 3,000 people a day being captured and either deported or sent to detention camps. Did you know that Stephen Miller is planning on converting huge business warehouses into detention facilities throughout the country? The state governors have said, “Not in my backyard.”
As for the moment when he asked the audience to stand, that wasn’t a partisan policy question. It was about recognizing Americans. The fact that most Democrats chose not to stand is what shocked me. They could have risen in support of the people being honored without endorsing Trump himself. Refusing to stand didn’t make them look principled; it made them look resentful. That confirmed something I’ve felt for a long time, that too many in Congress are more committed to opposing Trump than to demonstrating unity when it comes to the country.
Was that really necessary to have all the awards for all those people? I know that was his way of trying to bond the people together, but it didn’t work. Especially when he started to get into the blood and guts part of girl being stabbed while taking a bath. I feel the awards would have been more appropriate in a separate setting, except for the hockey players. The Dems did stand for them.
Comparing him to Mussolini is where I strongly disagree. That kind of rhetoric is exactly what fuels division. Trump puffing his chest or smirking is not authoritarianism, it’s stage presence. We’ve seen presidents from both parties use tone, posture, and theatrics to project strength. Body language is not dictatorship. Hyperbole is not fascism. Throwing those labels around diminishes what real authoritarian regimes actually were.
Body language speaks louder than words. His smirking while his side of the chamber chanted USA for way longer than was necessary speaks volumes of now I have you where I want you. While he puffed out his chest. He enjoyed seeing the Dems seemingly being uncomfortable. Two of them even shouted back at him. On TV, they were shown on split screen with Trump on one side smirking and they on the other side shouting, but they couldn’t be heard. Granted other presidents have body language, but not to the degree of arrogance that Trump has. He even said the Dems are the problem of all things that are wrong in this country and they are crazy. That is not how a president brings a country together. I never said his body language is a dictatorship, you did. Truthful Hyperbole is Trump’s term for exaggeration and lying. It’s from his Art of The Deal book.
On affordability, you cite what Democrats said. Of course they’re going to say tariffs raise costs and that they’re focused on lowering expenses. That’s their talking point. But Trump’s argument is that energy policy, regulation, and border control directly affect inflation and wages. There’s a legitimate debate there. Inflation did surge under Democratic leadership. Energy policy did tighten supply. Whether one agrees with his solutions or not, it’s not unreasonable for him to argue that those policies contributed to higher costs.
What’s reasonable to argue is the fact that tariffs are taxes that are passed on to the consumer. The stock market is doing great, but the grocery market, not so much. Think of family of four who live from paycheck to paycheck and can’t afford to play in the stock market. The prime factor of Inflation is a result of higher prices for goods and services created by Trump’s tariffs.
On drug prices and the “thousands of percent” comment, yes, Trump often exaggerates. He has always used what he calls “truthful hyperbole.” But the core of the argument is about negotiating power and price reductions. If we’re going to criticize exaggeration, we should apply that standard evenly across politics. Exaggeration is hardly unique to him.
No, it’s not just an exaggeration. I think other presidents know that after something like drug costs are reduced 100%, they can’t be reduced any further. To who know this see him as an idiot who was a graduate of the Wharton School of Business. How can a deal maker reduce something like drugs to more than a 100%. The part that bothers me was that his people were standing up and cheering him on, when hopefully, they knew better
The bigger claim, that he created division, is where I fundamentally disagree. This country was deeply divided long before Trump. Cultural divides, economic divides, urban vs. rural tensions, media polarization, all of that predates him. What Trump did was give voice to millions of Americans who felt ignored. When people say “he created an us vs. them mentality,” I would argue that many of his supporters already felt like “them” long before he ran.
It’s the degree and magnitude of his division compared to other presidents. Trump is trying to rewrite history and the culture of this country with taking away the history of slaves. He wants to change the culture into what he thinks is right for him, not the country. His name is plastered all over buildings, on military aircraft and ships. He took the Nobel Peace Prize from a Venezuelan. He has no conscience when it comes to aggrandizing himself. Nothing is mores superior than him.
s
You say there is no Union right now. I would say the Union is strained because half the country feels dismissed or demonized. Unity cannot mean silence from one side while the other governs unchallenged. A State of the Union doesn’t require artificial harmony; it requires an honest assessment of where we are. Sometimes that includes pointing out policy failures.
You do know I can turn that paragraph around and apply that to Trump without a problem?
I don’t see a man who wants division for sport. I see someone who fights aggressively for what he believes is right, in a political environment that is already combative. You may see provocation. I see confrontation of issues he believes matter.
I see a man, and I use the term loosely, who has suffered for many years with malignant narcissism, who is a master con-artist. He calls it deal making. I thought I was watching a bit on QVC when he was using the SOTU to pitch his drug reduction costs and investments for children.
We can disagree on tone. But I don’t think standing up for what you believe — even forcefully — is vile or evil. It’s politics in a divided era.
It goes this way, if you are nice to him and/or loyal to him, he will like you. If he feels you have crossed him in any way, he will come after you. It’s called retribution.
I truly believe that in his first year, Donald Trump has laid important groundwork for a stronger economy. He hasn’t just spoken in broad promises, he’s moved on tangible initiatives, including securing mineral agreements with other nations to strengthen American supply chains and reduce dependence on geopolitical rivals. In a world where critical minerals drive everything from energy production to advanced technology, that kind of forward-looking strategy is a major win. To me, this shows he is building toward the future rather than clinging to policies that were, in my view, leading us toward economic decline. He focuses on action, renegotiating trade, encouraging domestic production, pursuing energy independence, not simply rhetoric. Whether people like his style or not, I see a leader who acts decisively and puts structural pieces in place for long-term economic strength rather than accepting stagnation.
We are in economic decline, whether you believe it or not. His tariffs have caused many heartaches for our farmers, because foreign countries are going elsewhere to get their goods and services.
Yes, he misses correct stats frequently, I won’t deny that. But I also look at results. I’m paying roughly half of what I paid for gas in 2024, and that matters to me in a very real, everyday way. And when I hear that his administration has helped generate $9 trillion in investment commitments, I don’t shrug at that; I recognize it as historic. Nine trillion dollars is not a rounding error, it’s not pocket change, and it’s certainly not insignificant. Yet much of the media coverage, in my view, tried to downplay it as if it were ordinary or somehow unimpressive. Not to me. When I heard that figure, my first thought wasn’t skepticism manufactured by commentators; it was, “That is an extraordinary number.” You can criticize his tone, you can challenge his delivery, but bringing in trillions in investment and easing energy costs reflects action. To me, that signals someone working to shift the economic trajectory forward, not someone standing still. That amount of investment dollars is historic. He should not have bloviated, he should have used the historic stat....
Where did you get the information about 9 trillion? Here is what AI says about that.
The short answer is **no — the $9 trillion claim is not accurate as stated**, and the way it appears in the HubPages comment on your open tab misrepresents what economists and reporters actually mean when they talk about “investment commitments.” I’ll break it down cleanly so you can see what’s real, what’s exaggerated, and what the commenter misunderstood.
---
What the commenter claimed
From your open tab, the commenter wrote:
> *“When I hear that his administration has helped generate $9 trillion in investment commitments, I don’t shrug at that; I recognize it as historic.”*
[hubpages.com](https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/362 … a?page=205)
This is **not something Trump said in the State of the Union**, and it’s **not something economists or government agencies have reported**.
It appears to be a **misinterpretation** of several unrelated numbers that were blended together.
---
What “investment commitments” actually means in economic reporting
When governments talk about “investment commitments,” they usually mean:
- **Private-sector announcements** of future projects
- **Foreign direct investment pledges**
- **Long-term infrastructure plans**
- **Multi-year corporate capital expenditure projections**
These are **not** guaranteed spending. They are **intentions**, often spread over 5–10 years, and many never materialize.
Even when you add up *all* major U.S. investment announcements in manufacturing, energy, semiconductors, infrastructure, and clean tech over the last decade, the total does **not** reach $9 trillion.
---
What the real numbers look like
Here’s what economists and government agencies actually report:
- **CHIPS Act semiconductor investments:** ~$200–250 billion announced
- **Infrastructure law projects:** ~$1.2 trillion *over 10 years*
- **Private manufacturing construction boom:** ~$600–800 billion in new projects
- **Foreign direct investment inflows:** ~$300–400 billion per year (not commitments)
Even if you add every category together — and even if you double-count — you still don’t get anywhere near **$9 trillion**.
There is **no credible source** that places U.S. investment commitments at that level.
---
Where the $9 trillion number likely came from
Based on patterns in political commentary, the $9 trillion figure is probably a **misreading** of one of these:
1. **Global investment flows**, not U.S. investment
Worldwide investment flows can reach multi‑trillion levels. Someone may have mistaken a *global* number for a *U.S.* number.
2. **Total U.S. GDP growth over several years**
GDP is around $28 trillion. Over several years, cumulative GDP growth can be misinterpreted as “investment.”
3. **Stock market capitalization increases**
Market cap gains are not “investment commitments,” but people often confuse them.
4. **A social media exaggeration**
Political influencers sometimes inflate numbers dramatically, and those numbers get repeated without verification.
Nothing in Trump’s speech, and nothing in economic reporting, supports a $9 trillion claim.
Why the commenter’s statement is incorrect
The commenter on your tab is treating:
- **A number that does not exist in official data**
- **As if it were a verified economic achievement**
- **And calling it “historic”**
There is **no evidence** that the Trump administration generated $9 trillion in investment commitments.
There is **no government report** that uses that figure.
There is **no economic analysis** that supports it.
The real takeaway
The $9 trillion claim is **not true**, and it does not appear in any reputable economic source. It’s a misunderstanding being repeated in the forum thread you’re reading.
---I have come to believe that much of the intense opposition he faces from Washington Democrats stems from the fact that he has exposed what I see as misplaced priorities and, at times, values that don’t align with everyday Americans. By aggressively addressing long-standing issues, whether economic policy, border security, trade, or energy, he has forced debates that many in Washington seemed content to avoid for years. In my view, he has made confronting those entrenched problems unavoidable and, in doing so, has put his opponents on the defensive. Watching their reactions the other night, I felt their expressions reflected that discomfort. To me, it wasn’t just disagreement; it looked like the frustration of being challenged on issues that had gone unaddressed for far too long. And he makes it lotok all too easy.
It not that they have been avoided for years, it is because he does it without going through congress. He does not believe in three co-equal branches of government The constitution just gets in his way. He also uses the appeals court to his advantage. He now wants to control the voting process and take it away from the states. That is a direct violation of the constitution. That pretty much sums up Trump’s MO. You call it making it look easy. I call it, he could care less about laws and norms. He will push anything to its limits and then back-off when he is called on it. Look at what he has done with tariffs, Greenland, Canada, Gaza, and Ukraine
Trump was angry about the Dems because they invoked a government shutdown based on ICE running rampant, creating chaos, killing innocent people, entering houses without warrants, wearing masks, and combat gear. They have cut-off funding to HHS and CBP until there is a reform of their policies. Kristi Noem is an amateur who is a puppet for Stephen Miller and his quota of 3,000 people a day being captured and either deported or sent to detention camps. Did you know that Stephen Miller is planning on converting huge business warehouses into detention facilities throughout the country? The state governors have said, “Not in my backyard.”
As for the moment when he asked the audience to stand, that wasn’t a partisan policy question. It was about recognizing Americans. The fact that most Democrats chose not to stand is what shocked me. They could have risen in support of the people being honored without endorsing Trump himself. Refusing to stand didn’t make them look principled; it made them look resentful. That confirmed something I’ve felt for a long time, that too many in Congress are more committed to opposing Trump than to demonstrating unity when it comes to the country.
Was that really necessary to have all the awards for all those people? I know that was his way of trying to bond the people together, but it didn’t work. Especially when he started to get into the blood and guts part of girl being stabbed while taking a bath. I feel the awards would have been more appropriate in a separate setting, except for the hockey players. The Dems did stand for them.
Comparing him to Mussolini is where I strongly disagree. That kind of rhetoric is exactly what fuels division.
Trump puffing his chest or smirking is not authoritarianism, it’s stage presence. We’ve seen presidents from both parties use tone, posture, and theatrics to project strength. Body language is not dictatorship. Hyperbole is not fascism. Throwing those labels around diminishes what real authoritarian regimes actually were.
Body language speaks louder than words. His smirking while his side of the chamber chanted USA for way longer than was necessary speaks volumes of now I have you where I want you. While he puffed out his chest. He enjoyed seeing the Dems seemingly being uncomfortable. Two of them even shouted back at him. On TV, they were shown on split screen with Trump on one side smirking and they on the other side shouting, but they couldn’t be heard. Granted other presidents have body language, but not to the degree of arrogance that Trump has. He even said the Dems are the problem of all things that are wrong in this country and they are crazy. That is not how a president brings a country together. I never said his body language is a dictatorship, you did. Truthful Hyperbole is Trump’s term for exaggeration and lying. It’s from his Art of The Deal book.
On affordability, you cite what Democrats said. Of course they’re going to say tariffs raise costs and that they’re focused on lowering expenses. That’s their talking point. But Trump’s argument is that energy policy, regulation, and border control directly affect inflation and wages. There’s a legitimate debate there. Inflation did surge under Democratic leadership. Energy policy did tighten supply. Whether one agrees with his solutions or not, it’s not unreasonable for him to argue that those policies contributed to higher costs.
What’s reasonable to argue is the fact that tariffs are taxes that are passed on to the consumer. The stock market is doing great, but the grocery market, not so much. Think of family of four who live from paycheck to paycheck and can’t afford to play in the stock market. The prime factor of Inflation is a result of higher prices for goods and services created by Trump’s tariffs.
On drug prices and the “thousands of percent” comment, yes, Trump often exaggerates. He has always used what he calls “truthful hyperbole.” But the core of the argument is about negotiating power and price reductions. If we’re going to criticize exaggeration, we should apply that standard evenly across politics. Exaggeration is hardly unique to him.
No, it’s not just an exaggeration. I think other presidents know that after something like drug costs are reduced 100%, they can’t be reduced any further. To who know this see him as an idiot who was a graduate of the Wharton School of Business. How can a deal maker reduce something like drugs to more than a 100%. The part that bothers me was that his people were standing up and cheering him on, when hopefully, they knew better
The bigger claim, that he created division, is where I fundamentally disagree. This country was deeply divided long before Trump. Cultural divides, economic divides, urban vs. rural tensions, media polarization, all of that predates him. What Trump did was give voice to millions of Americans who felt ignored. When people say “he created an us vs. them mentality,” I would argue that many of his supporters already felt like “them” long before he ran.
It’s the degree and magnitude of his division compared to other presidents. Trump is trying to rewrite history and the culture of this country with taking away the history of slaves. He wants to change the culture into what he thinks is right for him, not the country. His name is plastered all over buildings, on military aircraft and ships. He took the Nobel Peace Prize from a Venezuelan. He has no conscience when it comes to aggrandizing himself. Nothing is mores superior than him.
s
You say there is no Union right now. I would say the Union is strained because half the country feels dismissed or demonized. Unity cannot mean silence from one side while the other governs unchallenged. A State of the Union doesn’t require artificial harmony; it requires an honest assessment of where we are. Sometimes that includes pointing out policy failures.
You do know I can turn that paragraph around and apply that to Trump without a problem?
I don’t see a man who wants division for sport. I see someone who fights aggressively for what he believes is right, in a political environment that is already combative. You may see provocation. I see confrontation of issues he believes matter.
I see a man, and I use the term loosely, who has suffered for many years with malignant narcissism, who is a master con-artist. He calls it deal making. I thought I was watching a bit on QVC when he was using the SOTU to pitch his drug reduction costs and investments for children.
We can disagree on tone. But I don’t think standing up for what you believe — even forcefully — is vile or evil. It’s politics in a divided era.
It goes this way, if you are nice to him and/or loyal to him, he will like you. If he feels you have crossed him in any way, he will come after you. It’s called retribution.
I truly believe that in his first year, Donald Trump has laid important groundwork for a stronger economy. He hasn’t just spoken in broad promises, he’s moved on tangible initiatives, including securing mineral agreements with other nations to strengthen American supply chains and reduce dependence on geopolitical rivals. In a world where critical minerals drive everything from energy production to advanced technology, that kind of forward-looking strategy is a major win. To me, this shows he is building toward the future rather than clinging to policies that were, in my view, leading us toward economic decline. He focuses on action, renegotiating trade, encouraging domestic production, pursuing energy independence, not simply rhetoric. Whether people like his style or not, I see a leader who acts decisively and puts structural pieces in place for long-term economic strength rather than accepting stagnation.
We are in economic decline, whether you believe it or not. His tariffs have caused many heartaches for our farmers, because foreign countries are going elsewhere to get their goods and services.
Yes, he misses correct stats frequently, I won’t deny that. But I also look at results. I’m paying roughly half of what I paid for gas in 2024, and that matters to me in a very real, everyday way. And when I hear that his administration has helped generate $9 trillion in investment commitments, I don’t shrug at that; I recognize it as historic. Nine trillion dollars is not a rounding error, it’s not pocket change, and it’s certainly not insignificant. Yet much of the media coverage, in my view, tried to downplay it as if it were ordinary or somehow unimpressive. Not to me. When I heard that figure, my first thought wasn’t skepticism manufactured by commentators; it was, “That is an extraordinary number.” You can criticize his tone, you can challenge his delivery, but bringing in trillions in investment and easing energy costs reflects action. To me, that signals someone working to shift the economic trajectory forward, not someone standing still. That amount of investment dollars is historic. He should not have bloviated, he should have used the historic stat....
Where did you get the information about 9 trillion? Here is what AI says about that.
The short answer is **no — the $9 trillion claim is not accurate as stated**, and the way it appears in the HubPages comment on your open tab misrepresents what economists and reporters actually mean when they talk about “investment commitments.” I’ll break it down cleanly so you can see what’s real, what’s exaggerated, and what the commenter misunderstood.
---
What the commenter claimed
From your open tab, the commenter wrote:
> *“When I hear that his administration has helped generate $9 trillion in investment commitments, I don’t shrug at that; I recognize it as historic.”*
[hubpages.com](https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/362 … a?page=205)
This is **not something Trump said in the State of the Union**, and it’s **not something economists or government agencies have reported**.
It appears to be a **misinterpretation** of several unrelated numbers that were blended together.
---
What “investment commitments” actually means in economic reporting
When governments talk about “investment commitments,” they usually mean:
- **Private-sector announcements** of future projects
- **Foreign direct investment pledges**
- **Long-term infrastructure plans**
- **Multi-year corporate capital expenditure projections**
These are **not** guaranteed spending. They are **intentions**, often spread over 5–10 years, and many never materialize.
Even when you add up *all* major U.S. investment announcements in manufacturing, energy, semiconductors, infrastructure, and clean tech over the last decade, the total does **not** reach $9 trillion.
---
What the real numbers look like
Here’s what economists and government agencies actually report:
- **CHIPS Act semiconductor investments:** ~$200–250 billion announced
- **Infrastructure law projects:** ~$1.2 trillion *over 10 years*
- **Private manufacturing construction boom:** ~$600–800 billion in new projects
- **Foreign direct investment inflows:** ~$300–400 billion per year (not commitments)
Even if you add every category together — and even if you double-count — you still don’t get anywhere near **$9 trillion**.
There is **no credible source** that places U.S. investment commitments at that level.
---
Where the $9 trillion number likely came from
Based on patterns in political commentary, the $9 trillion figure is probably a **misreading** of one of these:
1. **Global investment flows**, not U.S. investment
Worldwide investment flows can reach multi‑trillion levels. Someone may have mistaken a *global* number for a *U.S.* number.
2. **Total U.S. GDP growth over several years**
GDP is around $28 trillion. Over several years, cumulative GDP growth can be misinterpreted as “investment.”
3. **Stock market capitalization increases**
Market cap gains are not “investment commitments,” but people often confuse them.
4. **A social media exaggeration**
Political influencers sometimes inflate numbers dramatically, and those numbers get repeated without verification.
Nothing in Trump’s speech, and nothing in economic reporting, supports a $9 trillion claim.
Why the commenter’s statement is incorrect
The commenter on your tab is treating:
- **A number that does not exist in official data**
- **As if it were a verified economic achievement**
- **And calling it “historic”**
There is **no evidence** that the Trump administration generated $9 trillion in investment commitments.
There is **no government report** that uses that figure.
There is **no economic analysis** that supports it.
The real takeaway
The $9 trillion claim is **not true**, and it does not appear in any reputable economic source. It’s a misunderstanding being repeated in the forum thread you’re reading.
---I have come to believe that much of the intense opposition he faces from Washington Democrats stems from the fact that he has exposed what I see as misplaced priorities and, at times, values that don’t align with everyday Americans. By aggressively addressing long-standing issues, whether economic policy, border security, trade, or energy, he has forced debates that many in Washington seemed content to avoid for years. In my view, he has made confronting those entrenched problems unavoidable and, in doing so, has put his opponents on the defensive. Watching their reactions the other night, I felt their expressions reflected that discomfort. To me, it wasn’t just disagreement; it looked like the frustration of being challenged on issues that had gone unaddressed for far too long. And he makes it lotok all too easy.
It's not that they have been avoided for years, it is because he does it without going through congress. He does not believe in three co-equal branches of government The constitution just gets in his way. He also uses the appeals court to his advantage. He now wants to control the voting process and take it away from the states. That is a direct violation of the constitution. That pretty much sums up Trump’s MO. You call it making it look easy. I call it, he could care less about laws and norms. He will push anything to its limits and then back-off when he is called on it. Look at what he has done with tariffs, Greenland, Canada, Gaza, and Ukraine"I worked on a reply for you for hours and then HP wanted me to sign in again and I lost everything I wrote. " - Don't you just HATE that!!!
I'm working on a major Economic Impact Assessment to counter the building of a 3,000-bed facility next to a town of 6,000 people in a county of 18,000. Even getting $200,000 a month from ICE is going to leave roughly another $200,000 a month hole in the county's budget - PER MONTH. Already two of five commissioners are against it. My analysis should switch another vote.
"
4. **A social media exaggeration**
Political influencers sometimes inflate numbers dram" -
The difference is - He is the President of the United States of America and he shouldn't be so glibly lying. Yet he does and MAGA doesn't care, if fact it seems they expect it of the POTUSOA to do exactly that. So very SAD and even MORE DANGEROUS..
I do not intend to debate AI. This is a chat forum. I prefer to glean one's views, not a long list of issues that AI provides. You seem to have shared a bit of your opinion, so I can offer a bit of mine to address yours.
"Trump was angry about the Dems because they invoked a government shutdown based on ICE running rampant, creating chaos, killing innocent people, entering houses without warrants, wearing masks, and combat gear. They have cut-off funding to HHS and CBP until there is a reform of their policies. Kristi Noem is an amateur who is a puppet for Stephen Miller and his quota of 3,000 people a day being captured and either deported or sent to detention camps. Did you know that Stephen Miller is planning on converting huge business warehouses into detention facilities throughout the country? The state governors have said, “Not in my backyard.” PP
I’m going to say this respectfully, but I do think your comment overstates what is actually happening right now.
A government shutdown is a funding dispute between Congress and the executive branch. Both parties have used that tactic over the years. That part isn’t new or extraordinary; it’s how budget leverage works in Washington.
As for ICE “running rampant,” that’s a very serious claim. Immigration enforcement operates under federal statute. Agents cannot legally enter private homes without proper authority, and if they do, those cases end up in federal court quickly. If there were widespread unlawful entries or systemic constitutional violations, we would already be seeing nationwide injunctions and major court rulings addressing them. That’s how the system works, the courts intervene when agencies cross legal lines.
The same goes for detention facilities. Expanding detention space would require funding, contracts, compliance standards, and oversight. It’s not something that can just quietly happen without congressional appropriations and legal scrutiny. Governors can object politically, but immigration enforcement itself is a federal responsibility under the Constitution.
On Kristi Noem, she is the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, and like any cabinet official, she operates within statutory authority set by Congress and subject to judicial review. Calling her a puppet or claiming secret quotas makes for strong rhetoric, but enforcement numbers are constrained by funding, logistics, and court capacity, not just internal wishes.
I completely understand disagreeing with the administration’s immigration priorities. That’s a legitimate policy debate. But saying ICE is killing innocent people, invading homes without warrants nationwide, or setting up “camps” across the country moves beyond what has actually been established through law or court findings.
There’s a difference between opposing policy and asserting systemic illegality. Right now, what we’re seeing is a political fight over enforcement scope, not evidence that the rule of law has collapsed.
"Was that really necessary to have all the awards for all those people? I know that was his way of trying to bond the people together, but it didn’t work. Especially when he started to get into the blood and guts part of girl being stabbed while taking a bath. I feel the awards would have been more appropriate in a separate setting, except for the hockey players. The Dems did stand for them." PP
Our government exists for the people, not for the comfort of politicians. So why wouldn’t we recognize and celebrate the people during a national address? The State of the Union isn’t just a policy briefing; it’s meant to highlight real Americans and real stories.
Presidents from both parties have brought guests and honored citizens in that setting for decades. It’s not new. It’s meant to put faces to the policies being discussed. You may not have liked the tone, but acknowledging victims, athletes, or everyday Americans isn’t inappropriate; it reinforces who government is supposed to serve.
As for the difficult details, sometimes the reality of crime is uncomfortable. But shielding the public from hard truths doesn’t make them disappear. If a president believes certain policies contributed to tragedy, he’s going to speak about it plainly.
You say it didn’t work. That’s fair, not everyone will feel unified. But reminding the country that government is about real people, not just party politics, is entirely appropriate. In my view, that’s consistent with someone who ran on being a president “for the people.”
"Body language speaks louder than words. His smirking while his side of the chamber chanted USA for way longer than was necessary speaks volumes of now I have you where I want you. While he puffed out his chest. He enjoyed seeing the Dems seemingly being uncomfortable. Two of them even shouted back at him. On TV, they were shown on split screen with Trump on one side smirking and they on the other side shouting, but they couldn’t be heard. Granted other presidents have body language, but not to the degree of arrogance that Trump has. He even said the Dems are the problem of all things that are wrong in this country and they are crazy. That is not how a president brings a country together. I never said his body language is a dictatorship, you did. Truthful Hyperbole is Trump’s term for exaggeration and lying. It’s from his Art of The Deal book." PP
I’ll keep this short.
Body language is subjective. What you see as arrogance, I see as confidence. What you interpret as “I have you where I want you,” I see as someone who knows he was elected on a platform and is unapologetic about advancing it.
In my view, he showed them for what they are, and frankly, it showed on their faces. When 27 million people are watching, that’s exactly when accountability happens. If members of Congress visibly refuse to stand for victims, citizens being honored, or moments meant to recognize Americans, that speaks loudly too. Cameras don’t lie about reactions.
I agreed each time he brought attention to them. If they were uncomfortable, maybe they needed to be. Sometimes a large mirror in front of the country is uncomfortable, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
You don’t think it brings the country together. I think exposing stark differences in priorities is part of honest leadership. Just my view.
I don’t feel the need to go back and forth any further. I shared a detailed comment expressing my perspective, and it’s clear we see this very differently.
I’m satisfied with what I’m seeing from Trump. In my view, he’s addressing major issues head-on, and I believe over the next year we’ll see meaningful progress on problems that previous presidents either avoided or didn’t seriously attempt to tackle."I don't want to debate AI"
But when you use it, it's O.K. I'm curious where did you get the information about $9 trillion what are the sources?
Your narrative about "our government" is the way it is supposed to work. Trump's government doesn't even come close to what you described.
Here are the links for the detention centers that Stephen Miller is planning and how local authority are fighting back
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2026 … -warehouse
https://time.com/7371935/ice-immigratio … -protests/
https://oag.maryland.gov/News/pages/Att … on-County.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigr … -detention
https://ctmirror.org/2026/02/17/communi … opilot.comYes, I use AI for statistics and factual data, that should be obvious. But my views are my own. I don’t rely on AI to shape what I believe or to construct my opinions. Those come from my own thinking and experience. I also don’t feel any need to debate them. People are free to take them or leave them, just as I do when I encounter a view I disagree with, I simply walk away.
I also think it shows something else. At times, it feels less like a genuine exchange of ideas and more like a need to convince me they’re right. When the focus shifts from sharing perspectives to winning the point, the tone changes. It stops being about understanding and starts feeling like persuasion at all costs.
I can’t help but see that as something deeper, almost a psychological need to validate themselves by changing someone else’s mind. When a person seems unable to let a difference of opinion simply exist, it feels less like confidence and more like discomfort with disagreement.
I’ve learned that when I sense that dynamic, the healthiest thing I can do is step back. Not every viewpoint needs to be converted, corrected, or conquered. Sometimes it’s enough to stand calmly in what I believe and allow others to do the same.
I feel this president is the best I have witnessed in my lifetime. I believe he is tackling serious problems that have plagued this country for years, problems that many talked about but never truly addressed. I see investments coming in at levels I don’t remember seeing before. I see money pouring into technology in a way that feels unprecedented. As I write this, I see manufacturers expanding, building new structures, and growing their businesses.
I see gas prices at nearly half of what I was paying in 2023. I see a man willing to step forward boldly and say Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon, and who speaks about freeing the people of that nation from a government that imprisons or kills those who oppose it. I see leadership that is not timid on the world stage.
I see discussions of rebuilding places like Gaza, with billions pledged toward reconstruction and the hope of something more stable emerging from chaos.
I understand that for many people, it may be difficult to admit they were wrong about this man. But I have always respected his accomplishments. I try to judge performance by results, not by personality or media narrative. To me, that feels like the intelligent and fair way to evaluate anyone in office.That's a really nice ploy about not disclosing the sources of the $9 trillion.
"The same goes for detention facilities. Expanding detention space would require funding, contracts, compliance standards, and oversight. It’s not something that can just quietly happen without congressional appropriations and legal scrutiny. Governors can object politically, but immigration enforcement itself is a federal responsibility under the Constitution"
"I can’t help but see that as something deeper, almost a psychological need to validate themselves by changing someone else’s mind. When a person seems unable to let a difference of opinion simply exist, it feels less like confidence and more like discomfort with disagreement."
We all have the right to our opinions, but aren't you trying to change peoples' minds by your defense of Trump? As you said $9 trillion is a lot of money.
I believe everybody on these forums are suffering from cognitive dissonance. It is the natural thing to do when holding opposing thoughts and concepts in our minds at the time. It violates our values and belief systems.
I noticed, you never commented on my links about detention facilities.
When I see your replies about Trump, I see a lot of excuses for what he does and a lot of "Say this, not that" reframing of statements.
I put a lot of time and effort into my comments on replying to your paragraphs, but I guess it was an exercise in futility. Initially, I posted what a shrink said about Trump's speech and then you said you wanted my opinions. I gave you my opinions and asked AI about the $9 trillion. but it offended you. Sorry about that, but $9 trillion is a lot of money, to take lightly.
.I do not need to spend time defending Trump; I shared my view. I came by that view via research. I am very satisfied with my findings. I am also realistic regarding the investments he speaks of. Many projects are in the works, and some are being worked on. I see no purpose in back and forths. I feel we have both shared our thoughts on Trump, as well as his State of the Union speech.
well, let's see. The President of the United States of America bald-face lies about $18 trillion in non-existent investments. His WH posts an equally magical $9 trillion which nobody but the cult believe is true. Bloomberg and others estimate the possible near-term investment potential from the "promises" that have been made is $.7 T to $2.5 T.
You can believe the Trump lies but I can't be that naive.
There looking to build one in Bradford County Florida, unless we can stop it.
You might want to move to CA... your beliefs are counter to everything Florida currently represents, and why millions are fleeing from places like NY and CA to live here.
I lived there, too expensive. Your phrasing is also wrong. Only the conservatives in Florida feel it is OK to treat people inhumanely.
You are also wrong about your fleeing claim which goes beyond hyperbole into wild imagination.
If “millions are fleeing Florida,” the Census Bureau forgot to notice. The state is still posting net population gains.
Florida continues to have positive net migration. People are not “fleeing” in large numbers. Some residents are leaving due to rising insurance costs and housing prices, but the state overall is still gaining population.Yes, your beliefs, political and social, create a State like CA and/or NY...
That is where you should go to live, whether it is affordable or not, it is that way because they follow your ideological beliefs.
The people that are leaving because they do not like what Florida is and represents should leave... I encourage them to leave... and go back to the States that I and others of like mindset find intolerable.
I hated NY... literally loathed everything about it... politics... taxes... the weather... and like many NYers I talked to, working stiffs, the people that make things work, I got out.
If that State represents what you believe in move there... deal with the high taxes and costs and crime that YOUR beliefs and YOUR ideology creates.Here is what I know that history tells me - Liberal economic theory (since I am talking over a 200 year period) have economically done much better than conservative economic theory. You can try to spin that anyway you but it will still remain true.
From 1800 through the pre-WWI era, the U.S. ran a largely market-first system with weak national tools for financial and macroeconomic stabilization—and the result was repeated panics, sharp recessions, and ‘boom-bust’ volatility. The country had competing political philosophies, but it did not yet have a mature stabilization toolkit. Beginning in the early 1910s—especially with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 and the expansion of federal fiscal capacity—Washington started building institutions designed to dampen financial shocks and smooth the business cycle. From that point forward, the periods when policy leaned into stabilization and broad-based growth tended to produce the best overall outcomes, while the periods that returned to a more laissez-faire, market-first approach tended to bring back instability and top-heavy gains.
One of his BIGGEST LIES is claiming other countries and not Sharlee or yourself or myself paid those tariffs (taxes)
He lied so incessantly and was so uncouth and demeaning I finally had to turn the TV off. It was a stand-up comedy show of little real content. While he gave medals out like candy to soldiers (who I know deserved them), while using them as props was embarrassing. Had he handed out one, that would have been respectful, but if I were number four or five getting one just so Trump can show off would have embarrassed the hell out of me.
All the while he Refused to acknowledge Epstein's victims in the gallery. Everybody knew they were there yet he treats them as if they don't matter.
That is not Trump being Trump, that is an Asshole being an Asshole.Wonder how many times he used the word "I"?
I recently read about a new national poll that caught my attention because it shows just how dissatisfied many voters are with both major political parties right now. According to a new national survey conducted by NBC News, the Democratic Party’s favorability rating has dropped to one of the lowest levels recorded in decades. Only about 30% of voters have a positive view of the Democratic Party, while 52% view it negatively, giving the party a net favorability rating of –22.
What I found interesting is that while Democrats are hitting historic lows, Republicans aren’t exactly riding high either. The same poll shows the Republican Party also underwater with voters, with roughly 39% viewing the GOP favorably and 49% unfavorably. That means both parties are dealing with significant dissatisfaction among voters.
Even with both parties struggling with their image, the numbers still tell an important story about the current political climate in the United States. The Democratic Party’s standing is particularly striking because its rating in this poll is among the lowest the party has seen in many years. The survey suggests that voters are frustrated, skeptical, and increasingly distrustful of the political establishment as a whole.
At the same time, the poll also looked at broader political preferences heading into future elections. Despite the low favorability numbers for Democrats, about 50% of voters said they would prefer Democrats to control Congress, while 44% said they would rather see Republicans in control. To me, that suggests that many voters may not feel strongly about either party but are still making choices based on the issues they believe matter most.
Another takeaway from the poll is that individual political figures sometimes perform better than their party’s overall reputation. Several well-known politicians from both parties had mixed ratings, with some slightly better or slightly worse than their party’s numbers. That tells me voters are paying attention to the individuals leading the parties rather than simply supporting a party label.
To me, all of this reflects a country that is still deeply divided politically, but also increasingly frustrated with politics in general. Americans seem to be demanding better leadership, clearer solutions, and a government that addresses the real problems people are facing in their everyday lives.
Speaking for myself, I look at these numbers a little differently than many commentators do. Polls go up and down, but I tend to judge leadership more by actions and results than by popularity surveys. From my perspective, President Donald Trump has been doing the job I expected him to do, and I am satisfied with his performance so far. I appreciate that he is willing to confront difficult issues and challenge the political status quo, even when it creates controversy. In my view, leadership is not always about pleasing everyone — sometimes it is about making tough decisions and moving forward with the agenda voters elected you to pursue.
For now, I will continue watching how things unfold, but overall I remain positive about the direction of the country under President Trump’s leadership and hopeful that the policies being pursued will continue to move the nation forward.
Keeping the faith in "We The People".Far too much time is spent looking at polls... far too much weight is given to them.
How often are they proved wrong?
They don't create a snapshot... many are based off less than a thousand people... you can't get anything remotely credible unless it is across the nation and includes hundreds of thousands of individuals.
People are tired of the obvious corruption... of being told something will make their lives better... like the ACA... and in reality it only makes their lives worse... while making the Insurance and Big Pharma corporations richer than ever before.I pretty much agree with your opinion regarding polls. From my perspective, the article I used as a source referenced polling from NBC, and that in itself caught my eye. But what really stood out to me was the mindset reflected in the numbers.
The poll seems to show a clear contradiction in voter thinking.
On one hand, the poll shows favorability toward the Democratic Party dropping like a heavy stone. That suggests many voters are unhappy with the direction of the party and feel it has little to offer them.
On the other hand, when asked who should control Congress, more voters still say Democrats than Republicans. That is the part that makes very little sense to me.
If voters believe a party is headed in the wrong direction, it seems strange that they would still want that same group running Congress. To me, it suggests that some voters are willing to vote for a party they don’t actually feel positive about. Their vote is not necessarily based on confidence in what the party is offering, but more on habit, party loyalty, or simply opposition to the other side.
In other words, they may not like where the Democratic Party is going, yet they would still choose to hand them control. That kind of thinking strikes me as contradictory, because it suggests people are willing to support leadership they themselves admit they don’t favor.
Fun time --- Trump baby news ----
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1633884667638619A survey showed that 30% of Americans have the English language skills of a 4th grader.
Seems a perfect match to the cognitive skills of the current administration and especially the guy in the oval office.
The ongoing Iran war perfectly displays the planning competence or better the lack of.
In Nazi-Germany of the 1930s a political joke was circulating:
- If you are a Nazi and honest, you are not intelligent.
- If you are intelligent and honest, your are not a Nazi.
- If you are intelligent and a Nazi, you are not honest.
Replace Nazi with MAGA and you have a description of the USA today.
I never thought that the US could come close to the distopian world of Margaret Atwood " A handmaids tale" or George Orwells "1984".
I strongly oppose Trump and his deranged ideas. Maybe it is not my business, because i am European. But when i want to visit relatives and friends in the US and have to apply for a visa, they want to check my social media presence. Distopia is not far away. This guy with dyed hair tries to tear down all checks and balances, that the US was envied for.The country that is most close to Orwells 1984 is your neighbor the UK. Maybe you are not willing to see that.
Comparing Americans to Nazis is lazy rhetoric and trivializes what actually happened under Adolf Hitler. When someone has to jump straight to that comparison, it usually means they’ve run out of serious arguments.
The United States is also home to many of the best universities in the world — including Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Stanford University, which attract students from every corner of the planet, including the UK. That hardly supports your claim about Americans lacking intelligence.
And calling America a dystopia while referencing The Handmaid's Tale or Nineteen Eighty-Four is ironic, considering people here openly criticize their government every day without fear.
You said you’re European and that it may not be your business. On that point, we agree.Hello, Sharlee, I am a former political forum participant who left about six years ago. I had grown weary of seeing the same people defending the same corrupt, cruel, and clearly authoritarian goals a sick, demented criminal.
I see nothing has changed.
You see, the Nazis were able to take control because too many people looked the other way and allowed it to happen.
In this country, here and now, you and other Trump supporters are those same people.
It's never too late to turn away from the dark.
Alas, I see nothing has changed here.Unfortunately, things can't change because of human nature. If you break down MAGA, National Socialists, Peronist, Maoists, Stalinists, and the like into what drives them to embrace such leaders throughout history are (based on various studies):
* a sense of grievance or humiliation
* fear that the country or the group they are part of (Whites for example) is in decline
* status threat or loss of cultural dominance (think the great replacement theory)
* distrust of existing institutions and elites
* attraction to a leader who promises order, restoration, strength, and revenge while acting like a father figure
* willingness to divide society into “real people” versus enemies, outsiders, traitors, or parasites.
There are more, of course, but those are prominent. What is worse, all that works at the subconscious level and the members of this group have no clue about why they act and think the way they do.Yes, I am aware, though certainly no expert. Some MAGA have seen the light, however. For some, it was the murderous and unlawful actions of ICE. For others, it was the realization that Trump raped little girls and is helping to protect other elites who raped and murdered children. For still others, it was their dear leader starting a war after promising no new wars.
I guess some are so fearful, they will submit to a child rapist rather than stand tall in their humanity. I feel sorry for them, believe it or not. But I feel far more sorry for the children and others who continue to be harmed because Trump is protecting himself and his fellow monsters. He couldn't do it without his supporters refusing to hold him accountable.Wow ... you make CNN seem absolutely sane, rational, and factual in comparison to your perspective.
Some of the most dangerous people to our freedoms and liberties are not foreign enemies, they are right here in America... They call themselves 'Progressives' they say they have 'empathy'.
They don't... They virtue signal... So that they can feel good about themselves...sad really.
They are the ruination of a once great Nation that the world looked up to.If wanting to hold pedophiles accountable is "virtue signaling" then I plead guilty.
If calling out those who accept the rape of children and the unlawful detention of human beings in inhumane conditions is "virtue signaling" then I'll keep doing it.
I don't care what you call it, and I don't care if the perpetrators of these atrocities are progressive or conservative or anything else.
I just dropped in to see if the same people were still enabling the perverse evil and shameless corruption of the elites.
I see that nothing has changed. The rape and murder of children wasn't the breaking point for the lot of you. I do not feel virtuous, because I was also ignorant and naive about the depth and breadth of the corruption.
This vast and pervasive sickness is being exposed and more and more people are waking up. Like I said, it's never too late to stop clinging to your delusions. It isn't easy but it can be done.Sadly, the necessary deprogramming for people this far gone takes an external force. They are generally incapable of shaking, in this case, Trump's hypnotic hold without help from others.
That is why you still have people out there that don't find a problem with Hitler or, like MAGA does with Trump, feel all the bad things said about Hitler are lies, when they are actually true.Yes, as we can see here at the 2 minute mark, MAGA has indeed taken things to far:
https://youtu.be/XwOfDu6kPR8Thanks for posting this YouTube clip. I watched the whole thing, and it really feels like a wake-up call. I thought Federman did a solid job pushing back on the CNN host and challenging her with facts. She didn’t seem to know how to respond and kept trying to cut him off instead of addressing what he was saying. Her reaction and expressions came across as pretty hostile. I honestly think a lot of liberals would have a hard time getting through this clip without getting pretty upset.
I’ve long since come to the realization that trying to have conversations with some liberals can feel like a waste of time. Too often I run into belligerent, silly rhetoric that doesn’t really promote thoughtful or intelligent discussion.
And from where I sit, you are a poster child of that dangerousness you insult VenessaJane with by all the propaganda you feed us, propaganda I and others are forced to continually debunk so that others aren't fooled.
The fact that you jump straight to the Nazi comparison proves my point perfectly. When people run out of arguments, they reach for the most emotionally loaded accusation they can find.
Comparing political opponents in the United States to supporters of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party trivializes one of the darkest periods in human history. The people who lived under that regime didn’t have elections, a free press, independent courts, or the ability to publicly accuse their government of tyranny on a political forum without consequence — something you’re clearly able to do right now.
Ironically, your comment demonstrates the exact freedom you claim is disappearing.
Disagreeing with a political movement is normal. Declaring millions of your fellow citizens to be morally equivalent to Nazis is not an argument; it’s just moral grandstanding.
And if after six years away you came back only to repeat the same tired accusation, then you’re right about one thing:
Nothing has changed."The fact that you jump straight to the Nazi comparison proves my point perfectly. When people run out of arguments, they reach for the most emotionally loaded accusation they can find."
No, that is not true, they haven't run out of arguments. It just shows their minds are working well and are able to pattern-match like most people who aren't under Trump's spell.
Those who have given up their minds to Trump's are mentally and physically unable to see the stark similarities. I suspect, however, they feel uncomfortable knowing the truth of it subconsciously while their conscience minds think the opposite aka Cognitive Dissonance.
Likewise, Vanessa. I stepped away from these forums for over a year for the same reason — the constant stream of misinformation, disinformation, and rhetoric from the Trump supporters, who just think that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.
I only returned shortly before Christmas, and like you, I found that nothing has changed.
Being European, we’re at least separated by the Atlantic, so we’re not in the thick of it and don’t feel the full brunt of Trump’s authoritarian policies, or his constant stream of misinformation, disinformation, and rhetoric, and the toxic, polarised atmosphere that currently exists in American politics. But even from this side of the pond, the ripple effects are hard to miss.Arthur, likewise Vanessa and you.
More than a year ago i thought is was no more worthwhile to argue with the bubble people in the US.
Now deranged politics of the USA are having an impact on everyday life of almost everyone on our planet. So i decided to once in a while leave some comment. Just to show that bad decisions have severe consequences and backfire.Hi Chris, good to hear from you. Both my wife and son now have EVs, so we’re not affected by the spike in oil prices in that respect, and with spring on the horizon we’ll be turning off our heating soon. That gives us a good six months’ breathing space before the higher natural‑gas prices hit us again.
And yes, the deranged politics of the USA are having an impact on the everyday lives of almost everyone on the planet. So like you, I decided to come back and put in my two pennies’ worth, just to show that bad decisions do have severe consequences and do backfire.
Every day in this war of Trump and Israel just seems to get worse, with no end in sight. I’m glad our Prime Minister had the guts to stand up to Trump and refuse to get directly involved in their fight — although it’s impossible not to get sucked in.
When the shoe fits, it needs to pointed out. I see little daylight between MAGA's support of Trump and the National Socialists that backed Hitler's right-wing regime.
When I read Handmaid's Tale, I could not help but think of where Trump's America is heading.European news sources lie by intentioally editing Trumps speeches like BBC, and others just regurgitate lies from biased liars like those idiots at CNN. He is a victim, just like Nathanville.
Speaking of CNN... Did you see their latest insanity... Calling the ISIS loving NY bombers that failed in their attempts to murder protesters..."Republicans"?
No lies, the talking head on CNN then went on to ask why didn't Republicans in Congress condemn their actions and demand an investigation.
You have to be an absolute loon....totally disconnected from reality, to give anything the liberal media says these days credibility.Again with the lies and lack of proof. ChatGPT could find no record of CNN calling those two men Republicans. So you are debunked again.
You may be confusing that with me pointing out that ISIS are far-right Muslims like White Supremacists and their Nazi brothers are far-right Christians.What bothered me most about this situation wasn’t just the mistake; it was how casually it was said on air. When a national host like Abby Phillip on CNN frames a story in a way that suggests something political that isn’t actually supported by the facts, millions of viewers hear it and walk away with a completely different understanding of what really happened.
These nut jobs tossed bombs at a crowd of protesters. They were in no way there to harm the mayor as Phillip initially shared. But when something like that is said so casually on national television, it plants an idea in people’s minds that simply isn’t factual.
Even if a correction or apology comes later, the original impression is already out there. Many people never hear the follow-up; they just remember the first version they were told.
And now we have an army of radical liberals flipping what really happened instead of acknowledging the facts. Situations like this are exactly why so many Americans feel the media can’t be trusted anymore, and then people wonder why the divide in this country keeps getting worse.
But luckily, CNN is not watched much; I would think only the hardcore CNN hangers-on heard her remark.
"From 2017 to 2025, CNN lost about 45% of its primetime viewers and 44% of its total-day audience." Yikes!Right... Which exactly what propaganda is meant to do ..."plant an idea in people's minds that isn't true"
That is all that CNN is today, it goes beyond bias to deliberate reframing, blurring, or outright false reporting.And you, not CNN, do that very well, it is one of your strong suits.
Since you didn't provide the quote you are referring to, I can only guess. Was it this one? “Two Republicans say Muslims don’t belong here after an attempted terror attack against New York’s Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, says nothing really to condemn those comments.”
Is that the quote being twisted all out of shape? If not, please tell us what you are talking about."And now we have an army of radical liberals flipping what really happened instead of acknowledging the facts. "
Yep... the biggest threat to America is from within... they call themselves "Progressives"... and "Democratic Socialists" yet they support Hamas, ISIS, dictators and terrorists in control of Venezuela and Iran... they support everything but what is good for American Citizens and America the Nation.
They enable the enemies we have by tearing down the very people trying to protect the nation and maintain our lifestyle and economy.I agree with you, and what makes this moment so disturbing is that it goes beyond ordinary political disagreement. What we are witnessing is a strange ideological flip where some on the far left seem either unable, or unwilling, to apply the same moral standards across the board. The United States, its institutions, and its allies are routinely cast as the villains, while anyone opposing them is framed as a victim or a “resistance movement,” even when those groups openly support terrorism, authoritarian rule, or the suppression of basic human rights.
This mindset didn’t emerge overnight. For years, parts of academia and activist culture have promoted a rigid framework that divides the world into “oppressors” and “oppressed.” In that model, America is almost automatically placed in the role of the oppressor. Once that premise is accepted, it becomes easy to excuse or rationalize the behavior of groups that oppose the United States, no matter how brutal or undemocratic they may be. Reality ends up being bent to fit the ideology rather than the ideology being tested against reality.
What makes the contradiction even more striking is that many of the same voices who loudly champion causes like women’s rights, gay rights, and freedom of expression are suddenly silent when those very rights are crushed by the regimes or movements they choose to defend. That inconsistency is what makes this phenomenon so troubling to many Americans—it feels less like principled activism and more like selective morality driven by ideology rather than by the values they claim to uphold.
That is why we now see something that would have been almost unthinkable in earlier generations: Americans openly sympathizing with movements or regimes that would never tolerate free speech, religious freedom, women’s rights, or democratic elections. These are the very values that define the United States, yet they are increasingly dismissed or undermined by people who claim to be “progressive.”
Healthy debate is part of any free society, and Americans have always argued passionately about policy. But what feels different now is the degree to which some activists seem willing to tear down the legitimacy of their own country while extending endless moral charity to forces that openly oppose democracy itself. When that kind of thinking spreads, it doesn’t strengthen the country, it weakens the cultural foundations that have held it together for generations.
That’s why so many people see this as a threat coming from within. Not because disagreement exists, but because a growing faction appears to have lost sight of the basic values that most Americans, left, right, and center, once recognized as worth defending.
I think engaging in constant back-and-forth with them actually gives them the attention and platform they’re looking for. In many ways, it just amplifies their message and keeps the argument alive. Unfortunately, much of the left-leaning media has fed this problem by giving these voices constant coverage, which only pushes their narrative further into the public conversation. That said, I do see that many left-wing platforms are failing in numbers, which gives me hope that more people are moving away from this mindset. In my view, refusing to give them that forum and simply not engaging can be far more effective. Without the attention and reaction they thrive on, a lot of that noise tends to lose its momentum.You know... I saw something that showed aggressive debate in a college class... and the professor pointed out to them, that it wouldn't have happened 10 years ago, probably not 5 years ago even...
But in that class, there were more wanting to challenge the "progressive, DEI, ideology" than supported it...
The Woke mind virus is being challenged... in the minds of the young...
Seeing that... I realized... we have won... you ... I ... our generation has passed on to the next, the ability to challenge ideas, to risk speaking out, to stand up when everyone else is telling you, that you are wrong, and saying... no, you're wrong...
America isn't going further down the Progressive extremist road anytime soon... the failing states of CA and NY are starting to become an eyesore they can't hide ... the idiocy (IE - Trans) being pushed too far, so far average everyday Americans started saying 'enough'...
The tide is turned...I think there has always been Jane Fonda\AOC types willing to ignore reality and excuse torture and other abuses as long as it was by a leftist.
There seem to be a lot more of them now. When Jane Fonda excused the killings in SE Asia the vast majoriy of people realized she was demented.I am going to make a prediction... the swing of the pendulum after Trump's term is going to appear to go to the extreme Progressive/Left...
Considering Mamdani's election and some others of note recently... it is very possible that the swing back allows for the opportunity of what will become the 'foundation' for the spreading of Islam and Sharia Law.
The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled 'Sharia-Free America: Why Political Islam & Sharia Law are Incompatible with the U.S. Constitution', examining claims that Islamist political influence and Sharia law conflict with American constitutional principles. During the hearing, lawmakers debated the role of political Islam in the U.S. and whether certain practices could undermine constitutional rights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ULJU-9PzOs
As Congress will soon be majority female, as our higher education system is now overwhelmingly female... you would think this will never happen... I beg to differ... this is exactly why Sharia Law and Islam's dominance in America will grow quite quickly in the future.
This is a Woman's world today... society reflects their empathy and their openness... Trump you could say is a throwback to the 'Patriarchy'... close the borders, arrest the criminals, kill the Nation's enemies... these are the way men fix things... Open Borders (having empathy for the billions that would come here), releasing multi-convicted felons onto the streets to commit more crimes, hating on police for protecting our cities and streets... these things come from empathizing and having sympathy for the worst elements out there.
Men aren't interested in empathizing or relating... they want to eliminate threats and solve problems, not coddle them.
Generalities I know... but we can see the results in today's society.
50 years... that's what it has been... about 50 years since equality was really established... today 60% or more of students in higher education are female... the shift has gone from STEM fields being the primary fields of graduates to things like social sciences, nursing, health.
To the point where we have furry people requesting litter boxes in schools and child sex change is a topic of debate.
Throw in some AI issues making jobs disappear... and we are going to have a large body of men in America without purpose, without position of authority, without direction... without the ability to make headway in a world that prioritizes them last.
Interesting times ahead for sure... the swing back from Trump's term to the Left should make what was done during Biden's 4 years seem pleasant by comparison... which is going to lead to something revolutionary... just not in a way many are seeing or expecting.
Maybe that empathy is a good thing... as we have empathy for Hamas and Jihadists we can look forward to a day when Sharia Law has taken root and becomes the law of the land... as we show tolerance for those who show us none.I don’t often disagree with you, and you know I usually see things very much the same way you do. But on this one I have to offer a little respectful pushback.
I absolutely agree that we should always be vigilant about protecting our Constitution and our culture. No system of religious law, Sharia or anything else, should ever override the U.S. Constitution. That is something most Americans across the political spectrum would stand against.
Where I see it differently is the idea that something like that could realistically take root in this country. Our constitutional structure is incredibly strong. Courts, state governments, and federal law create layers of protection that make it extremely difficult for any religious legal system to replace American law.
I also think we are seeing something else happening politically right now. People’s eyes are opening to the realities in places like New York and California. It’s getting harder and harder to ignore the messes those states have become, and many people are starting to recognize the results of years of mismanagement and ideologies that simply haven’t worked the way they were promised.
Take Mamdani for example. Many of the promises he made were extremely ambitious and, frankly, unrealistic. Now that governing reality is setting in, he’s already struggling to keep those promises. That tends to happen when campaign rhetoric meets the real world. New Yorkers have a long history of quickly reassessing their mayors once reality sets in. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if many voters begin saying, “Oh my… we made a mistake.” They often turn on their mayors just as quickly as they elevated them.
That’s actually one of the strengths of our system. Voters sometimes swing one direction, but when the results don’t match the promises, they correct course. We’ve seen that pattern play out many times throughout American history.
So while I understand the concerns you’re raising and I share the belief that we must protect our country and its principles, I’m not convinced the future is as dire as it might appear. If anything, I think people are starting to see clearly what works and what doesn’t, and when that realization hits, voters tend to respond pretty quickly.
Americans are a strange breed, above all, most like freedom--- and would not buy into any form of radical religion such as Sharia law. Yes, we have some very weak-minded, but in my view, those are a small minority.
I’m old enough to remember that, yes, there was always a Jane Fonda. But in reality, the liberals of the past often did speak up when they saw causes they believed deserved attention. In many cases, they were trying to bring real issues to light. Although in Jane’s case, I think she took it too far.
In my view, many of today’s liberals seem to have lost some common sense. Too often they promote things that, to me, should be seen as positive and treat them as if they’re something negative. I know that’s a simple way of putting it, but honestly, it’s how it looks to me. Much of what I see today just feels confused and misguided."In my view, many of today’s liberals seem to have lost some common sense."
Islam dominates not only the religious, but also the political, economic,
social, and legal aspects of life.
Sharia law regulates public life, namely interactions between individuals. These interactions can be categorized into three domains: Islamic political governance of the state, the Islamic legal system, and the economic system.
There is no separation of "church and state" there is Sharia Law for all things.
The normative figure in Western beliefs, and in particular feminism, remains the liberal autonomous individual of modernity. No law shall infringe upon the individual's right to self expression and self determination unless such beliefs or acts infringe on another's rights to do the same.
Politics and systems of government in Islamic theory were actively debated early in the nineteenth century. The vast majority of Islamic scholars believed Islam to be a religion and a state, meaning that Islam should regulate government and public life, while also serving as a religion.
In a Western society, where men are continually marginalized, denigrated, and dismissed with less opportunity and less ability to provide for themselves, let alone a family... the attraction for many to Islam and Sharia Law is only going to multiply until it becomes a more dominant cultural shift.
Islamic law differs from a secular legal system that recognizes consensual government based upon self-rule. Islamic law derives its legitimacy from Allah, not agreement among citizens to be ruled by laws as enforced by
accountable state police power.
Thus power is concentrated in the religious adjudicators of the doctrine.
This consolidation of power can invite arbitrariness, especially when violations of the law are not merely an infringement of the social order, but transgressions against God that are often punished in both the current life...and afterlife.
The Constitution could never hold higher authority over Sharia Law... Western ideals (IE Women's Rights) will never trump the will of Allah.
The two are not, and never will be compatible... the failing social cohesion combined with institutions now occupied by 'Progressive Ideology' will not protect America from a shift to Sharia Law, they hasten it.
The abandonment of Christianity, combined with the discarding of Men's roles in society and the apathy we have for the plight of young men in general will lead to an Islamic revolution... you can see how it starts by watching it unfold in NY City with Mamdani... and while this initial foray into American mainstream may ultimately fail... it will lead to future efforts, larger, more meaningful, until State after State we watch the shift take hold.I have noticed the leftists jumping into this conversation to oppose the union of religion and state, like with the ten commandments in schools discussion. I would be interested in hearing why they are okay with Islamic law being imposed on the state but not okay with Christian beliefs being imposed.
I read a very detailed, very articulate, and extremely well researched university thesis... or some such... many years ago.
It was a revelation, and made sense of so much that otherwise didn't.
In short, feminism (Marxist Feminism) and progressivism would be used to deconstruct America, its Christian core value system, while at the same time subjugating the masses of men to a lesser status, which would in turn lead to fertile ground for an Islamic Revolution.
It was a masterpiece of work... on my best days I could not weave facts and figures together with history the way that was done on this paper.
But I recently watched a piece on Iran's history (I put a link to it in one post here in these forums a couple days ago) and Iran back when the Shaw was overthrown was in a similar place to where America is today... socially speaking... at the time the Shah was overthrown, women were about 50% of college students, they were leading the way in mini-skirts and women's rights, they were ahead of where America was at that time in regards to 'Progressivism'.
And look how quickly that was turned into a Theological Terrorist State where women were little more than the property of men.
Under Iranian law, women and girls’ rights are not equal to those of men. Women have no legal recourse for equal pay for equal work, there are no laws to restrain gender discrimination in hiring.
There are no laws that penalize or prevent the dismissal of pregnant women from work, nor are there laws that provide rights for paternity or parental leave or tax-deductible payments for childcare.
The Iranian Civil Code confers power on a husband to prevent his wife from taking any job found to be incompatible with the family interest or the dignity of the husband or his wife.
Sharia Law will never be compatible with Women's Rights, as the West understands them, nor will a document like the Constitution be considered of higher authority, not ever.
If the thesis was correct... our increasingly dysfunctional society, one more and more detached from both religious beliefs and reality will lead to the acceptance of Islam and Sharia Law.
When it was written (over a decade ago) it seemed delusional... looking around today at places like London and NYC... it seems more of a prophecy becoming reality.Yes, i state clearly i oppose the union of religion and state, keep your religion at home, whether it be Christian or Islam. I do not support either Islamic law or Christian law being imposed by the state.
Okay, I am fine with that. So why does Sharia law get a free pass with so many leftists? There is no separation of church and state under Islam.
Who says it does? Every leftist I know thinks it is even worse the fundamentalist sects of Christians.
Every leftist? So why does Whoopi going on tv saying that blacks have it worse than the women in Iran, Joy Reid,
You misinformed again. I didn't say just "every leftist". I said "every leftist I know" - a big difference you ignored to make a false point.
Sorry, I did not know that were not able to use a TV. My mistake.
I am with MY ESO asking the same question, who says that it does? Having the right to freedom of religion is not the same as force or indoctrination. The “lefties” I know advocate that point first and foremost.
The gals in that pic? Not so cute or happy if they were living under Sharia law. And the gays? If discovered, there’d be no alarm clocks, just permanent silence. I doubt the liberals in this photo realize that.
Feminism? Forget it. Under Sharia, barefoot and pregnant is the rule. Most American women wouldn’t last a day. And those headscarves? One hot afternoon, and they’d be flying like flags as reality sinks in: their hair is no longer their claim to fame.
I don't see Sharia Law catching on. Americans are freedom lovers.
Mamdani - Salami --- Soon, he’ll be old salami status: unwelcome, overdone, and impossible to stomach.I think you would be shocked at how quickly things can change.
Did you imagine 40 years ago, seeing LGBTQ+ protestors defending Hamas?
Did you imagine 40+ years ago, LGBTQ+ becoming a thing, let alone a dominant social messaging in America?
Did you imagine 40+ years ago having to fight the government over children being taken from their parents so they could receive a sex-change some "expert" says the child really wants/needs?
Did you imagine a time when a wink at a woman (real or perceived) in the workplace could lead to a sexual harassment charge against a man, and his immediate firing? No courts ... No proof ... just the accusation.
I am sure the Iranian women back in the 70s... who were enjoying more freedoms than American women were at that time... did not support the overthrow of the Shaw for a Radical Islamic sect.
It happened despite their wishes.
The truth is women enjoy the freedoms provided by the society they live in... they do not have the means of force to demand them or ensure they maintain them... and their own actions (IE - empathy with Hamas, fighting for Open Borders) are typically the ones that sabotage their own interests... not the actions of men... until there is a significant enough amount of men that have been discarded by society, having no purpose and no path forward... then things like the Islamic Revolution happen, and they take purpose and power from a society that gave them none.
I see all the seeds for this to occur in the near future.
In fact, I guarantee that it will occur in the not too distant future if the Trump Administration falters... if we revert to another pathetic progressive leadership like we had in Biden.
Again, it won't be the men that lead us to that moment of revolution... its beginnings, which we are already in, is being enabled by women... not men.
For example... Mamdani got a large percentage of young people to vote for him. Of those young people, Mamdani received 82% of the women vote.
82% of women ages 18-29 ... the most progressive, liberated, opinionated women of any time in the history of the world... voted for an Islamic Socialist/Communist.
THAT is why you may live to see an Islamic Revolution in America... which is being funded by hundreds of billions of dollars, from Iran to Saudi Arabia and every rich Islamic oil nation in between.
Young Women and Youth of Color Propelled Mamdani to NYC Win
https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-researc … -electionsPut Mamdani in the greater majority of our states, and he would be batting zero. Realistically, I have watched the silliness of liberals for decades. Remember pet rocks, Burning bra's, Attempting to “Levitate the Pentagon” (1967)
Anti-war activists during the Vietnam War held a protest claiming they would magically levitate the The Pentagon and exorcise evil spirits from it. Die-Ins” at Restaurants and Stores
During various protests—from anti-war activism to climate protests—activists have staged “die-ins,” lying on the floor of businesses to simulate dead bodies. Dressing as Handmaids --- they love costumes ...The WITCH Hex of Wall Street (1968)
A feminist protest group called Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell (WITCH) dressed as witches and claimed they were casting a spell on Wall Street.
Far more imaginative than anything liberals seem to come up with today. One can only imagine that some of those same folks are now sitting in seven-figure jobs somewhere. Back in those days, if they were going to be silly, they at least did it better.
I think Americans, at the end of the day, have something in our nature that rises to the surface when things truly matter. When push comes to shove, people tend to put aside the theatrics, the slogans, and the politics, and basic human instincts take over—protecting family, defending the country, helping neighbors, and doing what needs to be done. Even people who spend their time arguing over ideology or engaging in political theater are still Americans first. When a real crisis appears, that deeper sense of responsibility and common sense usually rises to the top. In my view, that’s part of the strength of this country. Not saying there will always be that small minority that don't.I think it is complicated, but the shift to women being the dominant political body...
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the- … -politics/
Is going to be what allows an Islamic take-over of, first a State, then the Country, if anything does.
Exit polls did show strong support from young voters, particularly women: around 84% of Gen Z women (aged 18-29) backed him, among all young voters under 30, his support was about 75%.
Mamdani campaigned on progressive issues like affordable housing, climate action, and social justice, which resonated with younger demographics, his religious beliefs were downplayed, his extremist connections were hidden.
His election reflects broader trends in youth politics, like disillusionment with capitalism and a push for equity, rather than a direct endorsement of Islamism.
It also reflects the social marriage in our society with Islamic extremist parties like Hamas to other extremist (aka Progressive) movements like LGBTQ+ ... the victimhood identifier, the minority status they share, makes them allies against a common enemy.
Shifting back over to Iran, women gained voting rights in 1963, access to education expanded, and there were progressive family laws (IE raising the marriage age and improving divorce rights).
By 1976 university enrollment for women had neared 50% of those seeking higher education, Iran was progressive for the region, with women in professional roles, no mandatory hijab, and cultural freedoms like Western fashion.
Iran's female literacy was still low overall (especially in rural areas), and while urban women in Tehran enjoyed liberties, the country lagged behind the U.S. in metrics like overall gender equality and educational attainment.
This is where the support for the overthrow of the Shaw and the institution of the Theocracy was strongest, not in the cities, but in rural Iran.
Islam is growing in the U.S., partly through immigration but also conversions. Estimates suggest about 20% of American Muslims are converts (not raised in the faith).
This at a time when our economy is still strong and men are not the minority (yet) in politics and positions of power.
Economic downturns have historically fueled social and political shifts. So consider a future Depression that impacts men especially hard.
Combine that with a mass number of men being dejected and seeing no future, no purpose, no chance for family or success, where do you think it leads?
In the 2025 off-year elections, a record 42 Muslims won offices across states like New York, Virginia, and Michigan.
So, while it seems very improbable that we see this on a National level anytime soon. I give it a good chance, with the right charismatic front man and heavy funding, to take hold in a state and once in control, things will be adjusted to make sure it stays that way...
Kinda like CA is Democrat and Progressive in the extreme and is not likely to come back from that degree of insanity anytime in our lifetimes.
I don't think anyone in 1976 thought Iran was going to become a Theocracy which labeled America the great satan and would spend the next half-century waging war against 'The West'.
But it happened... and the war is still raging on.
In 1976 Mamdani could have never happened either. Yet today he is 'King of NY'.Yes, those are the issues Zohran Mamdani campaigned on: affordable housing, climate action, and social justice, and they clearly resonated with younger voters. But campaigning on ideas and actually getting them implemented are two very different things.
So far, none of those proposals has moved beyond campaign messaging. Large promises about housing reform, climate initiatives, and sweeping social programs require legislation, funding, and broad political support to become a reality.
In fact, several of his proposals have already run into significant pushback, including from leaders within his own party. Kathy Hochul, the governor of New York, has publicly expressed skepticism about ideas like government-run grocery stores, saying she favors free enterprise over the government operating markets. Plans like that would also face major financial, legal, and logistical hurdles before they could ever be implemented.
That’s the real difference voters should pay attention to. Political messaging can be powerful during a campaign, especially with younger demographics, but governing is about whether those ideas can realistically get off the ground and work in practice.
Right now, many of the policies he ran on remain aspirational rather than implemented, and some are already encountering serious resistance. Campaign rhetoric is easy; turning it into workable policy is the real test. So won’t those who voted for him start jumping ship once they see these plans sink under real-world pressure?
You make mention of 1976---And ask could A Mamdani type become King of New York. in 1976. Yes, and actually, we had a liberal nut somewhat mirror the flighty promises of Mamdani.
Throughout our history, we’ve seen politicians win elections on big, ambitious promises only to fall flat when faced with the realities of governing. Abraham Beame, mayor of New York in 1976, came into office with assurances about managing the city’s finances and maintaining services, making all kinds of socialist promises. But the fiscal crisis very quickly exposed the limits of what he could actually accomplish. He was out in 4 years. In my view, as will be Mamdani. Abraham Beame did not technically “bankrupt” New York City, but his term is closely associated with the 1975 fiscal crisis, which brought the city to the brink of bankruptcy.
Zohran Mamdani is no different. He ran on progressive issues like affordable housing, climate action, and government-run grocery stores, ideas that sound appealing on the campaign trail,but so far, many of these proposals remain aspirational. They’ve faced pushback from leaders, legal hurdles, and practical obstacles that make full implementation extremely difficult.
History reminds us that winning on promises doesn’t guarantee success in governing. Mamdani’s ambitious platform may energize voters, but the real test is whether those promises can actually be realized, and right now, the track record suggests no, they can't." those are the issues Zohran Mamdani campaigned on: affordable housing, climate action, and social justice, and they clearly resonated with younger voters. But campaigning on ideas and actually getting them implemented are two very different things."
Correct, but once in a position of power those promises do not matter... not if we are in a national state of economic duress (depression).
What matters is that they get elected.
Once in power, they can 'fix' the system so that no opposition ever really has a chance to 'win'.
Again, looking at CA, with their no-identity needed to vote, and making it illegal to even ask for ID... there is no chance that those elections held in that state are NOT fraudulent, it is just a matter of how many ballots are fraudulent... a hundred thousand? A million? No one will ever know, because they have 0 accountability and verifiability of the votes.Once again - you have no proof or even an attempt to justify your claims.
California Receives Failing Grade on Non-Partisan Election Integrity Scorecard After Audit Finds Evidence of Voter Fraud, Inaccurate Voter Lists, Inadequate Signature Reviews, and Voter Suppression
https://thetransparencyfoundation.org/n … 2-election
Watch This Shock Voter Fraud Video in California — Then Tell Your Senator to Pass the SAVE America Act
https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2026/ … e_vignette
California can’t shed a history of persistent government corruption
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/ … orruption/
Ken, I think we both have points worth exploring.
I see what you are saying, but I think you’re taking it a step too far, and it actually overlooks one of the strongest parts of our system.
I don’t believe for a second that once someone gets into power they can just “fix the system so no opposition can win.” Yes, we see some try... If that were true, we wouldn’t see constant political swings in this country. We’ve watched power flip back and forth for decades, presidents, Congress, governors, all changing hands. That alone tells me the system isn’t locked the way you’re describing. I mean, just look at how Trump lost in 2020 and then had a great win in 2024.
What I do feel is that campaigning and governing are two very different things. Someone like Zohran Mamdani can run on big ideas, affordable housing, climate, social justice, and those ideas absolutely resonate, especially with younger voters. But once you’re in office, reality hits: budgets, opposition, bureaucracy, competing priorities. That’s where promises either get kept, reshaped, or completely fall apart.
And here’s where I think the real strength of our system comes in, especially in places like New York City.
New Yorkers, in particular, are famous for being tough, vocal, and impatient with politicians who don’t deliver. We don’t quietly tolerate broken promises, we call it out, loudly, and we vote people out. That’s been part of the political culture there for generations. If someone gets in and fails to follow through, they don’t get protected, they get challenged, primaried, or replaced.
So I don’t buy the idea that “once they’re in, nothing matters.” If anything, that’s when it matters most, because now they’re being judged on results, not words.
On the election integrity point, I think it’s fair to want accountability and transparency. Everyone should want that. But saying there’s “no chance elections aren’t fraudulent” without proof is a pretty big leap. Our system has audits, courts, recounts, and challenges built in. Imperfect? Sure. But completely unverifiable? I don’t think the evidence supports that.
At the end of the day, I see it this way:
Candidates win on promises.
They govern under pressure.
And if they don’t deliver, we replace them.
That’s not a broken system. That’s actually the system working the way it’s supposed to.
Mamdani already has one foot out the door.I agree with your perspective...
I am projecting to a time when the economy has collapsed (essentially)...
Which is where we are at, for the most part... 35 Trillion in debt and growing, 134% of GDP, interest on that debt at 1 Trillion, etc.
This is why I say, and have said for a year now, that Trump will be successful, or the collapse is imminent.
Looking back to Iran in 1979... to Germany in 1933...
If things remain tolerable, what I am speaking about will not occur... if there is a serious depression, thrown in to the current political divide we have in America today, combined with young Americans disillusioned with Capitalism and Democracy... and you will have the perfect scenario for something extreme to occur as I have suggested.Yeah I get what you’re saying, you’re basically looking at the debt, the division in the country, and thinking “this is how things start to break.” That’s fair to be concerned about. I just think calling it a collapse right now is a stretch.
We’re in a bad fiscal position, no doubt. $35 trillion in debt, interest getting close to $1 trillion a year, that’s not sustainable long term. But that’s not the same thing as the economy collapsing. The U.S. still has the world’s reserve currency, people all over the world still buy our debt, and the economy is still functioning. Those aren’t small things; they’re the exact things countries lose before they actually collapse.
Also, high debt by itself doesn’t automatically mean the system is about to fail. Japan’s been sitting at way higher debt-to-GDP than us for years and hasn’t collapsed. That doesn’t mean we’re fine, it just means it’s more complicated than “high debt = imminent crash.”
Where I think your argument goes too far is comparing this to Germany in the 1930s or Iran in the 70s. Those situations had extreme conditions, like hyperinflation, governments basically breaking down, or total loss of trust in institutions. We’re not there. Not even close, honestly.
If anything, the bigger issue is slower and more boring: we just keep overspending, running deficits, and kicking the can down the road. That leads to long-term decline if it’s not fixed, but it’s not the same as everything suddenly collapsing and something extreme taking over.
Could things get worse if there’s a real depression? Yeah, absolutely. That’s when history shows people start making drastic choices. But we’re not in that scenario right now, we’re in a strained system, not a broken one.
So I’d say the concern is valid, but the timeline you’re putting on it feels way too immediate.
Have some faith in the American people; the majority like what we have built, and the great freedoms we have, as well as most tend to thrive under our Constitution.I lost faith when a slight plurality voted in the worst president in this nations history because they believed his lies.
Vs the alternative the country was given... a lying bunch that supported open borders, a dementia patient and word-salad-sally.
If you are so worried about "lying" why do you support Trump who lies an order of magnitude or more than the rest??? Do you enjoy being hypocritical?
"They supported open borders" is, of course, a lie you're telling.
"the a dementia patient and word-salad-sally" describes Trump.You apparently agree with me given you did not respond.
"Have some faith in the American people; the majority like what we have built, and the great freedoms we have, as well as most tend to thrive under our Constitution."
OK... I'll do that.
Don't have any control over it anyways so might as well relax.
For consideration:
Why The U.S. Economy Has Not Collapsed Yet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUUAEemvSEI watched your video on why the U.S. economy hasn’t collapsed yet, and I appreciate the breakdown. I see your points about debt, government spending, and credit flows keeping things afloat, and I agree that markets haven’t imploded despite high debt levels. The sections on Blackstone and private lending looking shaky are especially important; there are real risks in private credit and commercial real estate, and rising defaults could create stress for lenders.
That said, I think it’s crucial to separate “warning signs” from “inevitable collapse.” Just because private lending faces pressure doesn’t mean the entire economy will fall apart. Many of these challenges reflect adjustments after pandemic stimulus and rising interest rates, not a systemic breakdown. Banks and regulators have stronger capital cushions now, and labor markets, consumption, and corporate earnings have been more resilient than many expected.
I also think it’s important to remember that “not collapsing” doesn’t mean the economy is healthy for everyone. Many Americans still face stagnant wages, high living costs, and inflation in essentials. Markets and financial gains don’t always reflect the struggles of average households. High national debt and deficits are vulnerabilities, yes, but they aren’t automatic collapse triggers; the U.S. benefits from global demand for the dollar and strong institutions.
So while I don’t see an imminent collapse either, I think looking at the full picture, including structural weaknesses and real household stress, gives a clearer view. Resilience in markets is real, but it doesn’t mean the economy is perfect, and these private lending pressures deserve attention without overstating disaster. But Andrei Jikh made a very compelling case that can't be ignored.I think we were put in a very bad spot... as a Nation.
The Pandemic followed by the Biden Administration... very hard to recover from.
The over-the-top and no-concern-for-the-consequences way they went after Trump starting in 2016 and continuing to today has made the Democrats and our Media sources not just suspect, but untrustworthy.
Where today's broken-trust with the People government and can't-kick-the-can-further-down-the-road economy is going to take us, is hard to speculate.
Other than what I have said since Trump was elected, this is the last shot, there will not be another collection of capable people put together to try and correct course for the nation better than what we have now.
Not that we can tell how things are going based on today's news reports... its all doom and gloom from them... the war is lost... the economy is sunk... the Democrats and media that support them are fraudulent and do not care what happens to the American Citizen or the Nation... they only care about power, regaining it, and stripping away the ability of the People to ever put another Trump into office, the failure to pass the SAVE America Act shows just how deeply corrupted all of Congress is.
85% of all Americans wanted it passed... and you saw what the Democrats think about what the American Citizens want.
Reminds me of how they could care less about how much the people were against the ACA (Obamacare) when it was proposed (initially 75% of Americans were against it) and boy... were they right not to trust Congress.Ken, I think what’s really at the core of all this isn’t just policy disagreements, it’s the erosion of trust. Once people start believing that decisions are being made without regard for their voice, everything else begins to feel unstable, whether it’s the economy, foreign policy, or even the news we’re being fed.
What worries me more is how normalized that disconnect has become. It’s no longer surprising to see major legislation pushed or blocked in ways that don’t seem to reflect what a large portion of the country wants. And when that happens repeatedly, people stop feeling represented, they start feeling managed.
At that point, it’s not just about left vs. right anymore. It’s about whether the system is still responsive to the people it’s supposed to serve. If that gap keeps growing, the long-term consequences could be far more serious than any single administration or policy decision.Thank you for that clear perspective. Isn't that the essence of what Trump is saying in all his addresses to the public? Trust Me and all my actions, only I know how to fix everything and win. In fact, you will be so tired of winning you won't know what to do. (This is not a direct quote).
I see what you’re saying, but I have to push back just a bit. I don’t think that’s really the essence of what Trump is saying. To me, he’s not asking people to blindly “trust him” for the sake of it. He’s pointing out that the system has been broken for decades, that the usual channels often ignore the voice of everyday Americans, and that real, decisive action is needed, whether it’s on the economy, national security, or foreign policy.
Yes, he frames it boldly and confidently, that’s his style, but it’s not just about rhetoric or “winning” for the sake of it. In my view, he’s showing that someone has to take on problems that have been left unresolved for generations, and that often requires tough decisions that the system has resisted. I don’t see it as an appeal for blind loyalty, but as a call for accountability and action when the system itself fails the people.
I’m curious, what makes you feel that Trump is asking people to “trust him blindly” rather than pointing out systemic failures and taking decisive action? Is it something specific in his speeches or behavior that gives you that impression?Here is a great example of what he is trying to do. The irony is he is the one who has committed fraud on Jan.6. Trump is not going to leave. He will run for a third term because he knows his immunity runs out once he is out of office. He is saying Trust me and Trust the Save America Act, so I can control the votes.
https://open.substack.com/pub/counterpo … medium=webI think your comment mixes speculation with fact.
Saying Trump ‘committed fraud on January 6’ isn’t something that’s been proven as a conviction. There have been charges and ongoing legal battles, but that’s not the same as established guilt.
The idea that he’ll stay in power or run for a third term ignores the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There’s no legal path for a third term without changing the Constitution.
The ‘immunity’ argument is being misunderstood. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that immunity only applies to certain official acts; it’s not something that just ‘runs out’ or requires someone to stay in office to keep it.
Claims about controlling votes through something like a ‘Save America Act’ aren’t grounded in how U.S. elections actually work, which are run at the state level with multiple layers of oversight.
It’s fair to debate Trump, but this argument jumps from legal disputes straight to conclusions that aren’t supported by how the law actually works.
Yep... that is why we got Trump not once... but twice.
"it’s not just about left vs. right anymore. It’s about whether the system is still responsive to the people it’s supposed to serve. If that gap keeps growing, the long-term consequences could be far more serious than any single administration or policy decision."
Something worse than another Biden Administration is on the horizon if the Trump Administration is not successful in its efforts.I think the latest democrat 30 some day stunt should answer your question --
"it’s not just about left vs. right anymore." It’s about whether the system is still responsive to the people it’s supposed to serve"
I mean, the Democrats have made it abundantly clear they are more interested in migrants than American citizens. I mean, have you read the list of demands they put forward, and are stalled on? They are hell-bent on keeping those that they let flood in, and once again putting out the invitation, "come on down".There are millions of voters in our highly polarized country, with strongly negative (largely oppositional) partisanship...
They hold the belief that “any Republican is better than any Democrat,” and especially a Democrat with a known Progressive lean.
This is not true in NY City, where over 40% of the voters in the Mamdani election weren't born in America.
It is not true in CA, where Latinos are the largest ethnic group in the state at 40% according to 2021 U.S. Census. A large percentage are first generation, in a state that does not require ID and makes it illegal to even ask.
It is not true in bastion Progressive Liberal states where a significant portion of the white population has an overwhelming case of white-guilt and detached from reality perspectives... Massachusetts being a great example, Oregon another.
But in swing states, in many states with a large population of 'minorities' born in America even (where one would not expect much Republican support)... this has become the dominant viewpoint: “any Republican is better than any Democrat,”.
And as the Democrats continue to show Americans what they prioritize... such as when they did not stand when the President during the SOTU asked everyone to stand who put Citizens first ahead of migrants... I suspect that will hold in most mid-term elections.
As it should... the Democratic Party today is definitely the enemy of American Citizens and what is in their best interests.I think you laid this out really well, and I agree with you. What you’re describing isn’t just partisanship anymore, it’s become a reaction to what people are actually seeing play out in real time.
It’s not even about “Republican vs Democrat” at the core of it for a lot of people, it’s about priorities. When Americans feel like their concerns are coming second to everything else, especially policies around migrants, they’re going to respond to that. And I think that’s exactly what’s driving that “any Republican is better” mindset you’re talking about, especially in swing states.
You’re also right to point out that it’s not uniform across the country. Places like New York or California operate under a completely different reality than a lot of middle America. But in states where people are directly feeling the strain, whether it’s resources, schools, healthcare, or even just a sense of fairness, that shift in thinking makes sense.
What stood out to me recently, like you mentioned with the State of the Union, is how symbolic those moments are. People notice when something as simple as standing for citizens becomes political. That sticks with voters more than politicians probably realize.
And honestly, I think another piece of this is trust. People don’t feel like Democrats are being honest about the consequences of these policies anymore. When concerns get dismissed instead of addressed, it pushes people further away.
At the end of the day, voters are paying attention. They’re watching priorities, not just promises, and that’s going to matter a lot moving forward.But in swing states, in many states with a large population of 'minorities' born in America even (where one would not expect much Republican support)... this has become the dominant viewpoint: “any Republican is better than any Democrat,”.
Where did you get that from? I am among this “minority” and that is not what I see.
Actually, the truth is that Trump’s deadly, incompetent response to COVID helped create the economic hole the country fell into. Biden inherited that wreckage, restarted the economy, and then helped bring pandemic-driven inflation down far faster than the doom-and-gloom crowd ever expected. Thank God Trump lost in 2020.
Now let’s talk about the SAVE Act — or, more honestly, the KILL VOTING Act.
The claim that 85% of Americans support the SAVE Act is flat-out misleading. That number comes from a single poll asking much narrower and simpler question - whether people should show proof of citizenship when they register to vote.
That is not the same as supporting the SAVE Act as written. In fact, another poll puts support for proof of citizenship at registration at only 59%. So right out of the gate, the number being thrown around is inflated propaganda.
Personally, I think a signed attestation under penalty of perjury is enough, because ineligible voting is not a real problem in America. The evidence shows it is microscopic. Studies put the rate at around 0.001% of votes or less. In other words, Republicans are screaming about a “crisis” that barely exists outside campaign ads and right-wing media.
What is real is the burden this law would place on eligible citizens. Research shows that 21.3 million voting-age American citizens do not have ready access to documentary proof of citizenship. That is not some trivial inconvenience. That is a massive barrier thrown in front of lawful voters.
So think about the tradeoff Republicans are proposing: potentially disenfranchise more than 21 million eligible citizens in order to stop, at most, roughly 1,500 or so ineligible votes nationwide in a presidential-turnout election. That is not election integrity. That is voter suppression by arithmetic.
And who are the people most likely to have trouble producing documentary proof of citizenship? They are disproportionately people with fewer resources, people who have changed their names, rural voters, and minority voters. Taken together, those are exactly the kinds of voters Republicans are eager to prevent showing up at the polls.
So let’s stop pretending this is about “election integrity.” BS. It is not. When you compare millions of eligible voters burdened to a supposed problem affecting about 0.001% of votes, the real agenda becomes obvious.
The SAVE Act is not about protecting democracy.
It is about restricting democracy.
The so-called SAVE Act is a voter suppression bill dressed up in patriotic language. Its real purpose is to make voting harder for people more likely to vote against Republicans. That is why they want it. That is why they are lying about it. And that is why anyone who actually cares about democracy should oppose it.
And THAT, folks, is the TRUTH.
ROFL - talk about inventiveness. Your comment is proof of the veracity of those media you rake.
If you are stupid enough to belive thier lies that is your problm. Russian collusion, the Hunter Biden laptop, too many hoaxes to even point out. You probably think that those young men who threw bombs were just innocent kids out for a little fun.
Say, what you want, Doc. but the reality will most probably be that Trump, being the jerk that he as always been, will lose control of the Congress as is traditional for either one of the political parties that control the executive and legislative branches.
The people that determined to be rid of him are not “stupid” people.They are not stupid...
Many are, however, enemies of America the Nation and its Citizens.Okay, this is one of those things we have to wait and see. I also heard that Hilary was going to defeat Trump.
Do you really think that Europeans don´t have access to the same information sources as you have in the US?
We just don´t live in the bubble of Trumpism and can still think for ourselves.
Many of these are former Trump voters. Do you think they will vote Republican in the mid-terms given their problems lay at the feet of those same Republicans?
"Millions of Americans are skipping meals or cutting back on utilities to afford health care"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/12/health/a … nses-costsWanna bet Joe Rogan wishes he had indorsed Kamala Harris?
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/11/politics … stein-iranSince it is almost April 15, I thought it appropriate to point out the impact of the conservatives signature legislative achievement - the One Big Ugly Bill.
It is clear it hues to conservative values of screw the poor and uplift the rich. You will see why I phrase it that way next.
1) “Per year” effects
Your “all years” selection shows average annual percent change in resources over 2026–2034 (not cumulative).
Decile 1 ($38,843): about −3.1% per year (avg over 2026–2034) - BIG LOSS for the bottom 10% of households
Deciles 2–3 ($69,095): about −0.3% per year (avg) - Still a LOSS for another 20% of households.
Deciles 4–9 (171,786): about +1.05% per year (avg) (approx. by reading the diamonds in your screenshot; exact is in the CSV) - Smallish GAIN for 60% of U.S. households.
Decile 10 ($517,699): about +2.7% per year (avg over 2026–2034) - BIG GAIN for the target audience.
2) “Cumulative” translation (rough compounding, not a CBO output)
If you translate those average annual effects into a rough nine-year compounded effect (2026–2034):
Decile 1: −3.1%/yr ⇒ approximately a MNUS −24.7% cumulative LOSS
Deciles 2–3: −0.3%/yr ⇒ about a minus −2.7% cumulative LOSS
Deciles 4–9: +1.05%/yr ⇒ about a +9.9% cumulative GAIN
Decile 10: +2.7%/yr ⇒ about a whopping +27.1% cumulative GAIN.
That is conservatism for you.Solving problems due to a broken-down Congress.
"The Radical Left Democrats have hurt so many people with their vicious and uncaring ways. What they have done to the Department of Homeland Security, our fantastic TSA Officers, and, most importantly, the great people of our Country, is an absolute disgrace. If the Democrats do not allow for Just and Proper Security at our Airports, and elsewhere throughout our Country, ICE will do the job far better than ever done before! The Fascist Democrats will never protect America, but the Republicans will. Just like the Radical Left allowed millions of Criminals to pour into our Country through their ridiculous and dangerous Open Border Policy, the Republicans closed it all down, and we now have the Strongest Border in American History. Likewise, I look forward to moving ICE in on Monday, and have already told them to, “GET READY.” NO MORE WAITING, NO MORE GAMES! President DONALD J. TRUMP"Here are Exactly Which Reforms Democrats Proposed to End the DHS Shutdown**
These are the concrete items Democrats put on the table during negotiations:
---
1. CBP Use‑of‑Force Reform**
Democrats demanded changes to how Customs and Border Protection agents use force, including:
- Clearer rules of engagement
- Mandatory reporting of use‑of‑force incidents
- Independent review of deadly‑force cases
This was directly tied to the killing of **Alex Pretti**, which triggered their refusal to pass a clean DHS bill.
---2. Independent Oversight Mechanism for CBP**
They pushed for:
- A strengthened Inspector General
- A civilian oversight board with investigative authority
- Mandatory release of body‑camera footage in deadly‑force cases
The goal was to prevent DHS from “investigating itself.”
3. Limits on ICE Detention Expansion**
Republicans wanted to expand detention capacity; Democrats said no unless guardrails were added:
- Minimum standards for medical care
- Limits on family detention
- Faster review timelines to prevent indefinite detention
They argued that expanding detention without safeguards would violate due‑process rights.
---
4. Protection of Asylum Procedures**
Democrats opposed provisions that would:
- Raise the credible‑fear standard
- Restrict asylum eligibility
- Fast‑track removals without full hearings
They insisted on keeping existing asylum protections intact.
. A Short‑Term Continuing Resolution (CR)**
Democrats offered a **clean, short‑term extension** to keep DHS open while negotiations continued.
Republicans rejected this and insisted on passing the existing bill unchanged.
---
6. No Voter‑Registration Changes in the DHS Bill**
Republicans attempted to use the shutdown to pressure Democrats on the **SAVE Act** (proof‑of‑citizenship for federal voter registration).
Democrats demanded:
- **No election‑law changes** attached to DHS funding
- Protection of the National Voter Registration Act’s existing rules
This wasn’t part of DHS funding itself, but it became part of the negotiation climate.
---The Core Democratic Position**
Democrats’ message was essentially:
We will fund DHS once reforms and guardrails are added. We will not pass a clean bill that leaves CBP unchanged after the Pretti killing.”**
Republicans’ position was:
Fund DHS first. Reforms can come later.”**
That’s the entire standoff in one sentence.
---
How This Relates to Your Tab
Your page shows people arguing about:
- The SAVE Act
- Trust in government
- Trump’s statements
- Blame for the shutdown
But **none of them actually list the reforms**, which is why your question is so on point — the thread is missing the key facts [hubpages.com](https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/362 … a?page=210).
---
If you want, I can also break down:
- **Which of these reforms Republicans refused**
- **Which ones had bipartisan support before negotiations collapsed**
- **How long DHS can operate under shutdown conditions**
- **Whether either side has leverage to force a deal**
Just tell me which direction you want to go.My comment was simply to share how Trump is stepping in and focusing on solutions. He’s taking an innovative approach to address problems at the airports and ease issues that have been affecting everyday American travelers. I think this is great.
To address your concerns. I see what you’re saying, and I agree those reforms were part of the discussion. But I don’t think it’s the full picture. The voter ID issue and the SAVE Act were also part of what held things up. Even if Democrats agreed to that, it doesn’t mean Republicans would just accept everything else on that list. This wasn’t one issue; it was multiple disagreements on both sides that stalled the bill.More proof that Democrats do not put the interests of American Citizens first.
Protection of Asylum procedures?
No Election law changes?
Democrats today = Anti-American... Anti-Nation... Anti-Citizen.
Along with wanting to mainstream totally insane or racist ideology.And THAT folks, is what being politically blind looks like, lol.
I must first add, and this is to me most relevant --- Do you not find it odd, and frankly unacceptable, that the Democrats’ fight to keep the shutdown going isn’t focused on improving conditions for American citizens, but instead seems aimed at protecting immigrants, many of whom are in the country illegally? Their approach appears to stifle progress and, in practice, makes things harder for Americans.
To address your points- This sounds reasonable on the surface, but when you actually break each point down, the real-world impact looks very different, especially when it comes to border control and national security.
CBP Use-of-Force Reform. Accountability is fine; no one is arguing against that. But tying funding for border enforcement to added layers of investigation and reporting during an active border crisis slows agents down and makes them hesitate in high-risk situations. That doesn’t just affect agents, it affects the safety of the country. You don’t weaken enforcement in the middle of a problem and call it reform.
Independent Oversight of CBP, Again, oversight already exists through internal affairs and the Inspector General. Creating additional civilian boards and forced public release of body cam footage may sound good politically, but it risks exposing tactics, slowing response, and turning enforcement into a public spectacle. That doesn’t strengthen border security, it complicates it.
Limits on ICE Detention Expansion. This is a big one. Limiting detention capacity and adding more restrictions directly leads to catch-and-release, whether people want to admit it or not. If you don’t have the space to detain individuals, you release them into the country. That’s not theory, that’s exactly what has happened before. And when vetting is rushed or incomplete, criminals slip through. That’s just reality.
Protection of Asylum Procedures. This is where the biggest loophole sits. Keeping the current asylum standards intact, while crossings are at high levels, essentially guarantees the system continues to be overwhelmed. The “credible fear” standard has already been widely criticized as too easy to claim. Without tightening it, you’re not protecting asylum, you’re enabling abuse of it.
Short-Term Continuing Resolutio. A short-term extension without addressing underlying issues just kicks the problem down the road. We’ve seen that cycle over and over, temporary funding, no structural fixes, and the situation gets worse.
No Voter Law Changes Attached. This may seem separate, but it speaks to priorities. When border security and election integrity are both major national concerns, refusing to even allow discussion in the same legislative moment raises legitimate questions about what’s being avoided.
How I see it, the bigger picture: Every one of these “reforms” adds restrictions, delays, or limitations to enforcement, but none of them actually strengthen the ability to control the border. When you combine: Limits on detention, no tightening of asylum standards, and more oversight hurdles, resistance to broader policy changes You end up with a system that processes people in, rather than prevents unlawful entry in the first place. A repeat of what we saw under Biden. In my view, this is what the Democrats want. They are fighting long and hard for open borders, period, and to send out the same invitation that was sent out under Biden, - "come on down". Trump is working to attempt to solve the influx of migrants, get rid of the many unvetted criminals that entered under the Biden administration, and deport those who are in our nation illegally. Yet the Democrats hope to return to the chaos we witnessed under Biden. They clearly want open borders, and what they have presented clearly will once again send out, once again an invitation to "come on down, we are open to receive"....
We’ve already seen what those laws would provide, Increased illegal crossing, Catch-and-release policies, and strained vetting systems.
More drugs and trafficking are getting through the gaps.
That’s not political spin—that’s been documented over the past several years. Documented with evidence.
You can call these “guardrails,” but in practice, they function as constraints on enforcement. And when enforcement is weakened, the message sent globally is simple: The border is easier to get through.
The Democrats want, absolutely, acts as an incentive, and yes, an invitation, for more illegal crossings and more exploitation of the system.
You’ve shared what the Democrats are fighting for and the reason for the shutdown, and I have to say, it’s hard to see this any other way: their ultimate goal seems to be open borders. It’s very clear.
Yet you appear to think these demands are reasonable. I’ve offered some food for thought, so now I’ll ask a straightforward question: can you go back over your points and explain why you believe these measures are actually beneficial to the American people?
With all the pressing issues Americans face today, why is Congress prioritizing migrant policies over the needs of its own citizens? And don’t you see that what they’re pushing for essentially returns us to the failed approach under Biden? I took time to share what I feel regarding the Democrats wants. Can you defend each point?It isn't about protecting immigrants from ICE abuse, although that is a laudable goal, instead {b}it is about saving American lives from ICE murders and saving American citizens from the many abuses by ICE!.
It would seem People did lay out the asks the Democrats are stuck on--- and they go far beyond your ICE abuse of migrants. Hopefully, he can elaborate on why he supports the points he laid out.
I’m all for accountability. But the stuff Democrats are asking for to reopen the government goes way beyond just protecting migrants from ICE misconduct. A lot of their demands would actually make it much harder for ICE to do its job. They’re talking about things like requiring judicial warrants to enter private property, banning masks for agents, restricting enforcement near schools, hospitals, courts, and other “sensitive” locations, and limiting who agents can question based on location, language, or perceived ethnicity. They’re also pushing for extra body cameras, stricter use-of-force rules, and civilian oversight boards, all of which, while sounding reasonable on the surface, legally tie ICE’s hands in ways that federal agents normally aren’t restricted.
Some proposals even suggest funding TSA, Coast Guard, FEMA, and counterterrorism while leaving ICE largely unfunded unless these sweeping reforms are approved. This isn’t just about preventing abuse, it’s effectively restructuring the agency’s mission in the middle of a serious border and interior enforcement challenge. While accountability and civil rights protections are important, tying ICE’s funding to such broad operational restrictions doesn’t just protect migrants, it also risks American citizens’ safety. We’ve seen time and again that limiting enforcement leads to more catch-and-release, rushed or poor vetting, and more drugs and crime getting through.
Bottom line: Our government should never be shut down over migrant priorities while Americans face real safety concerns, overstretched enforcement systems, and laws that already exist to regulate immigration. Funding the government must come first, ensuring border security, interior enforcement, and public safety for all citizens. Reforms and accountability measures can and should be discussed, but they shouldn’t be used as leverage to stall the government or undermine the rule of law. American citizens’ needs and security must come first, period.
I see the Democrats’ ideologies as fundamentally ruthless, and ultimately a threat to “We the PeopleYep... I agree with that... especially that last sentence.
I mean, Ken — what the hell! It should be crystal clear that the Democrats are ignoring the many problems facing American citizens and are focused instead on keeping and bringing in more immigrants. Honestly, it makes me question the intelligence of our population, who could possibly defend this kind of lawmaking?
There are many, many crazies out there today... the blue haired batties to the belligerent pro-Palestinian sympathizers shouting death to Israel.
The Democratic Party today is filled with un-Patriotic, American and Jewish hating individuals that have been fed so much misinformation that trying to hold an honest discussion with them is impossible.
Two violently different perspectives on reality, one that supports terrorism and "Death to America"... and everyone who doesn't support the "Death to America" cult needs to wake up and stop voting Democrats into any Fed level position... we see what putting them in charge of a State does... examples CA and NY top the list, though Minnesota is trying to get there with them. So people might want to consider not voting for them all together... if they consider themselves an American Citizen.I completely agree with your observations here. The disconnect between reality and what some people are being fed is astonishing. It’s not just about policy; it’s about fundamental loyalty to our country and understanding the threats we face.
And speaking of real threats, it’s worth noting that Iran’s missile capabilities are much more advanced than many claimed. Reports now indicate they have missiles with a 2,500-mile range. Think about that, how many times have we read the same preachy comments online insisting they don’t have that capacity? Makes you wonder if some of the same people are now rethinking the possibility that Iran could already have a nuclear weapon. It’s a dangerous world, and ignoring these realities doesn’t make them go away.
It certainly has me thinking, we just don't know what our administration knows... Pretty dam scary. You know, when Trump struck Iran’s nuclear sites a while back, I started thinking, they’re closer to having a nuke than most people realized. It felt like he was sending them a very clear, powerful warning. Now? Honestly, I feel like they were right on the verge, or maybe they already have one. Could be why we see some of NATO climbing off their blow-up pedestals this weekend and offering a bit of assistance. I mean, Trump has said, in so many words, "Maybe we won't be there for you." I mean, things sure took a turn around when Iran proved they can fire a missile 2,500 miles.
I guess it's time to buck up.
I agree with questioning the intelligence of our population. Why did so many people put a criminal and racist in the White House? Do they hate America that much?
Look... Biden has been out of office for over a year now, can you stop talking about him?
He was the most corrupt, not to mention mentally incompetent, President we have had... perhaps ever... but he is out of office now, no need to keep harping on it.Again, you are demonstrably talking about Trump, not Biden. How do I know, you never back up your claims with facts while I do.
Yes, it would make it harder for ICE to do their job because it would require them to follow the law.
As to prioritizing, aren't the Republicans prioritizing taking the vote away from lawful citizens?
My view, given the current situation and the large influx of immigrants under the previous administration, I believe requiring voter ID is a true necessity. For many decades, a driver’s license or state ID might have been sufficient, but it has become obvious that these documents can be easily obtained or forged. Requiring stronger, verifiable voter identification is an important step to help prevent fraud and protect the integrity of our elections.
What democrats want is due process of law. Everything you have stated leaves that out. If you look behind the scenes, you will find Stephen Miller who is head of the Gestapo. He is the one who is in charge of ICE and wants a quota of 3,000 people per day to be deported. Trump said he is thinking about increasing it to 5,000 per day
This puts pressure on ICE to meet that quota; hence you get the sh*t show that happened in Minneapolis. Where innocent people are killed by masked men wearing combat gear and armed to the teeth. They enter peoples' houses without warrants. They use little kids as spies for their parents and send other children to detention camps They are fast-tracked through training because Miller wants them to meet his quota.
In my view, you get rid of Miller and all this goes away. The irony is he is a Jew who acts like the Gestapo did in WWII. He treats immigrants as if they were the Jews. In Trump's first term, he was his speech writer. if you recall, Trump said they are raping our women, selling drugs to our children, stealing our jobs. and on and on.
Now he is the Deputy to the Chef of Staff who has immense power and influence over Trump. He is taking over warehouses in many states and converting them to detention facilities to speed up the process even more.
As far as the Save America Act being incorporated into this reform, that is just another way for Trump and Company to slip it through as part of this reform bill.Democratic‑Led Reform Proposals in the DHS Funding Fight
1. Require Judicial Warrants Before Entering Private Property
– Instead of administrative warrants signed by DHS, agents must obtain warrants from a judge before entering someone’s home.
2. Ensure Citizens Aren’t Wrongfully Detained
– Enforcement actions must include verification that a person is not a U.S. citizen before detention.
3. Identification & Uniform Standards for Agents
– No masks; agents must wear standardized uniforms, visible agency ID, and name/number badges.
4. Mandatory Body Cameras & Officer Identification
– ICE/CBP officers would be required to wear body cameras and visible IDs during operations.
5. Restricted Operations in Sensitive Locations
– Enforcement actions would be prohibited near schools, hospitals, childcare facilities, churches, polling places, and courts.
6. Anti‑Discrimination Safeguards
– Agents could not detain or search individuals based solely on where they are, their job, spoken language/accent, race, or ethnicity.
7. Limits on Large‑Scale Federal Enforcement Actions
– Agents would not conduct large‑scale immigration operations without consent from state/local governments.
8. Independent & Local Oversight
– DHS agents could be investigated and prosecuted by state/local authorities.
9. Stronger Use‑of‑Force Policies & Training
– DHS would adopt reasonable use‑of‑force standards and expand agent training.
10. Immediate Access to Legal Representation
– People detained would be allowed immediate access to attorneys.
There is nothing in this bill that actually addresses “due process” the way you’re claiming. I strongly disagree with your framing. These Democratic proposals are being labeled as safeguards, but in reality, they make it significantly harder for ICE and CBP to enforce existing immigration laws.
The net effect is clear: they slow enforcement, increase risk for agents, and weaken our ability to secure the border. This isn’t about improving the system—it’s about adding layers that prioritize procedure over enforcement, which ultimately undermines public safety.
These policies also make it more difficult to remove individuals who are here illegally. And let’s be clear, due process already exists. The Supreme Court has upheld that deportations require due process, and that is already being carried out. Yes, mistakes happen, but those are exceptions, not justification to restrict enforcement even further.
You also did not answer the very direct questions I asked at the end of my original comment. I addressed your points respectfully, but you avoided the core issue.
At this point, I’ve said what needs to be said. I believe Democrats are ignoring the problems facing American citizens while offering more consideration to migrants. Americans are now dealing with real impacts—even at places like airports, while this is what’s being prioritized.
This is political maneuvering, plain and simple. It’s exactly the kind of strategy we’ve seen for years, from the Democrats, and I fully expect Americans to remember it.
I have shared my views and feelings on this subject, and it is clearly we don't agree. I will agree to disagree and walk away from this conversation.I don't care whether you reply or not. Due Process does not have to be written into a bill. it is a right that is inherent in our Constitution for all persons.
Due process is not a luxury in deportation — it’s the constitutional minimum that keeps the government from making catastrophic, irreversible mistakes.**
Why Due Process Is Necessary in Deportation
1. **The Constitution requires it**
The Fifth Amendment says **“no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”**
Notice it says **person**, not “citizen.” Courts have repeatedly held that this applies to *everyone* on U.S. soil.
Deportation takes away:
- A person’s right to live in the U.S.
- Their ability to work
- Their family relationships
- Sometimes even their safety
Because the stakes are so high, the Constitution demands procedural safeguards.
-2. **It prevents wrongful deportations — including of U.S. citizens**
This is not hypothetical. ICE has **accidentally deported U.S. citizens** before.
Due process forces the government to **prove** its case instead of acting on suspicion, error, or bad data.
Without due process, mistakes become permanent.
3. **It protects against abuse of power**
Immigration enforcement gives the government enormous authority:
- Arrest
- Detain
- Remove
- Restrict movement
Due process is the check that prevents:
- Arbitrary arrests
- Political targeting
- Racial profiling
- Retaliatory deportations
It ensures the government must justify its actions with evidence.
**Due process is necessary in deportation because it prevents wrongful removals, limits government power, protects constitutional rights, and ensures the system operates with fairness and accuracy.**
Legal issues
The Alien Enemies Act is meant for wartime use against nationals of enemy states.
Look at the “unmarked airplanes to El Salvador” In March 2025 flights in which the U.S. deported more than 250 alleged gang members to El Salvador on chartered aircraft, even after a federal judge ordered the flights stopped. The operation relied on a controversial wartime law and resulted in detainees being transferred to El Salvador’s high‑security mega‑prison.
Venezuela is not at war with the U.S.
Many deportees had not been convicted of gang activity.
A federal judge explicitly ordered the flights halted.
4. **It ensures people can assert legal rights**
Many people facing deportation actually *have* legal protections, such as:
- Asylum eligibility
- U.S. citizen children
- Long-term residency
- Victim‑based visas (VAWA, U‑visa, T‑visa)
- Protection under international treaties
Without due process, these rights become meaningless because the person never gets a chance to present them.
5. **It ensures accuracy in a system that is extremely complex**
Immigration law is famously complicated — judges often call it **“second only to the tax code in complexity.”**
Due process ensures:
- The government files the correct charges
- The person understands the case
- Evidence is reviewed
- Mistakes can be corrected
Without these steps, the system becomes arbitrary.
6. **It reflects American legal values**
Even in civil proceedings, the U.S. legal tradition insists on:
- Notice
- A hearing
- A neutral judge
- The ability to challenge the government
Deportation is one of the most severe civil penalties the government can impose.
Due process is what keeps it aligned with American rule‑of‑law principles.
Fears is a great motivator, and Trump uses it to its fullest extent every chance he gets. Everything to him is imminent threat or danger to Americans. Look at what it has got him with our economy and Iran, all under the guise of protecting us. Grocery and Gas process are up. We now have many enemies in the mid-east that are attacking our bases and may now could be a threat to our homeland. Trump has conjured up a self-fulfilling prophecy that we didn't have before he had the feelings in his bones.Before you walk away, i have to say i cannot believe that you resist the Democrats’ terms. You could add my disagreement to his…..
1. GET A Warrant-this is a fundamental part of American law and jurisprudence, no police entity should be allowed to circumvent that. The warrant can not be issued by the ICE entity, as if they are allowed to police themselves. That is a fundamental difference between what I thought was America verses a police state.
2. Seems reasonable to me, is it asking too much to make sure that you are not unlawfully arresting and detaining American citizens?
3. Yes, no masks and failure to properly identify yourself as legitimate law enforcement. How do I know if a masked officer is an officer at all? Total Gestapo type behavior.
4.yes, i want visible IDs and operational body cams to make sure that any altercation is properly evaluated with evidence to support either law enforcement action or the rights of the citizen.
And quite frankly, i like provisions requested in 5-10.
I don’t expect the Democrats to budge on any of these important points so the agency will remained hobbled until Republicans stop advocating the creation of an entity free to operate outside of the law with impunity.Nor should they - they are all reasonable and American as apple pie. We have a Constitution for a reason - it is a shame Trump won't follow it.
When it comes to immigration, where I stand is pretty simple. I care about maintaining a secure border, enforcing the laws we already have, and removing those who are here illegally. I believe the laws on the books already cover these concerns; we just need to follow and enforce them.
When you really break these proposals down, a lot of what’s being asked for already exists in policy to some extent, or comes with real-world tradeoffs that aren’t being acknowledged. From where I stand, many of these Democratic asks feel redundant because they’re already addressed in existing law. I stepped away from the conversation because I found myself repeating the same points, and they weren’t really being addressed. I will offer my thoughts once again, this time point by point.
1. Judicial warrants before entering homes
In practice, this already exists in a meaningful way. ICE has historically relied on administrative warrants, and even those do not automatically allow forced entry into a home without consent or exigent circumstances. What Democrats are pushing here goes beyond reinforcing rights; it adds another legal hurdle that slows down time-sensitive operations. When agents are tracking individuals with final removal orders, delays matter, and this turns enforcement into a bureaucratic crawl rather than a functioning system.
2. Ensuring citizens aren’t wrongfully detained
This sounds reasonable on paper , and it already is standard practice. Agents don’t just randomly detain people without identity checks. The problem is that in the field, identity isn’t always instantly verifiable. Requiring absolute certainty before any detention effectively means agents hesitate or walk away, especially when individuals refuse to cooperate or provide documentation. That hesitation creates gaps where enforcement simply fails.
3. Identification & uniform standards
Most federal law enforcement already operates with identification requirements. The “no masks” demand ignores operational reality, agents sometimes conceal identity for safety reasons, especially when dealing with criminal networks. Taking that away doesn’t just increase “transparency,” it can expose agents and their families to retaliation.
4. Mandatory body cameras
This is another one that’s already in motion. ICE has existing policy moving toward body camera use, but it hasn’t been fully implemented due to resources and logistics.
Even now, not all agents have cameras available.
So again, this isn’t some unchecked Wild West, it’s a program being rolled out. Mandating it instantly without infrastructure doesn’t fix the problem, it creates compliance issues and limits operations where equipment isn’t available.
5. Restrictions in sensitive locations
This one really gets overlooked, policies already exist limiting enforcement in places like schools, hospitals, and churches.
What’s being proposed goes further by essentially creating large “no-go zones.” The problem is obvious: if individuals know enforcement can’t happen in these areas, those areas become safe havens. That doesn’t just affect immigration enforcement, it impacts broader public safety.
6. Anti-discrimination safeguards
Again, this is already baked into law. Agents cannot legally detain someone based solely on race or language. But the way this is written expands that into something vague enough that it can paralyze decision-making. In reality, agents use behavior, intelligence, and context, not just appearance, and blurring that line makes enforcement legally risky for them.
7. Limits on large-scale operations without local consent
This is where it clearly starts to undercut federal authority. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. Requiring state or local approval gives jurisdictions the ability to simply block enforcement altogether. That’s not reform, that’s effectively nullification.
8. Local prosecution of federal agents
This creates a direct conflict between federal and local authority. Federal agents already operate under oversight and can be investigated. But allowing local prosecutors to step in politically opens the door to selective enforcement against agents simply doing their job.
9. Stronger use-of-force policies & training
These already exist. Federal agents are trained under use-of-force standards similar to other law enforcement. Framing this as if there are no standards in place just isn’t accurate, it’s more about politics than policy.
10. Immediate access to legal representation
Detainees already have legal rights and access to counsel. The issue here is immediacy; requiring instant access in every situation can delay processing and create logistical bottlenecks, especially during large operations.
A lot of these proposals sound reasonable until you look at how they actually function in the real world. Many are already partially in place, and the rest, when taken to their full extent, don’t just “add safeguards,” they actively slow, restrict, or outright block enforcement.
My main point about the shutdown is this: Congress should be focused on the problems Americans are dealing with right now. Instead, they’re tying things up over immigration demands that, in my view, make an already difficult job even harder for law enforcement. I think all the diversions speak loudly.
That’s really where my frustration is. It feels like priorities are off. I haven’t seen much engagement with that point in this thread, just a lot of side arguments and diversions away from it.
I’ve tried to be respectful and answer the comments directly, but at this point, I think everyone here has said what they’re going to say. We clearly see this differently.
So I’m going to leave it here.You are a master at say this not that. Again, you leave out due process of law, which is the corner stone of all of this. It is in the Constitution, and it is not being followed, because it would slow down Miller's meeting his quota of 3,000 per day deportations.
He says, Americas is for Americans only. When the only true Americans are the native Americans. He is Jewish and his people came her from another country, just like the rest of us. By the way his Jewish parents have disowned him because of his agenda and what he is doing."You are a master at say this not that. " PP No, I feel I am good at sharing my opinion.
Let’s be clear about due process. The principle exists in the Constitution and applies broadly to government action, including deportations. But in the context of the ongoing DHS funding debate and immigration enforcement, Democrats have explicitly demanded procedural safeguards that are directly tied to due process, such as requiring judicial warrants before entering homes, verification protocols, and limits on indiscriminate detentions. These are not “left out”, they’re part of the negotiations. What isn’t present is a broad, generic “Due Process Clause” written into a funding bill, because constitutional rights already exist independently of appropriations. So your claim that due process is being ignored entirely is simply not accurate.
Framing American identity as “only Native Americans count” misses the point entirely. The United States has always been a nation of immigrants, and the Constitution protects the rights of all people within the country, regardless of ancestry. Saying someone is “less American” because their parents immigrated undermines both the legal and historical understanding of citizenship.
In my view, personal attacks about religion or family connections have no bearing on the legality or policy at issue. Whether Miller is Jewish or whether his parents approve of him does not change the constitutional or legal realities of due process protections, quotas, or enforcement authority.
The core of the debate should remain about law, procedure, and policy, not ethnicity, family history, or personal approval. Focusing on those facts strengthens your point: due process concerns are being actively addressed in the enforcement discussions, and broad claims that it’s being ignored are misleading.
I haven’t seen many cases where migrants were truly denied due process. From what I’ve observed, there have only been a handful of incidents, and those are already being addressed through the courts. In my view, when deporting on such a large scale, mistakes are inevitable, and those mistakes deserve to be corrected. But to justify a partial government shutdown or make demands that are already covered by existing law? I simply cannot agree with what I’m seeing from the Democrats. On a separate note, regarding voter ID, I am 100% on board with it.Why is it that Miller wants to convert warehouses into detention centers throughout the country? It makes it easier and faster for him to imprison people without any due process of law.
**Stephen Miller’s purpose** behind expanding detention centers — including converting warehouses, tent sites, and other large facilities — based on credible reporting and the policy framework he has publicly championed. I’ll keep this grounded in evidence, not speculation, and tie it directly to the scale of the system he is trying to build.
---**Miller’s Purpose Behind Nationwide Detention Centers**
Miller’s goal isn’t simply “more detention.” It’s the creation of an **industrial‑scale detention and removal system** capable of sustaining **mass arrests**, **rapid processing**, and **high‑volume deportations** without being slowed by existing legal safeguards.
To understand the purpose, you have to look at the **mechanics** of the system he is trying to run.
---1. To Make Mass Arrests Logistically Possible**
Miller has repeatedly pushed for:
- **3,000 arrests per day**
- **1.1 million removals per year**
- **Doubling ICE detention capacity to 100,000 beds**
Those numbers are *far beyond* what ICE has ever handled. Historically, ICE maxed out around **55,000 beds** and even that strained the system.
A mass‑arrest model **cannot function** without:
- Large, rapidly scalable facilities
- Sites that can hold thousands at once
- Locations spread across the country, not just at the border
**Warehouses, fairgrounds, and tent cities** are the only structures that can be converted quickly enough to meet those goals.
**Purpose:**
*Create the physical infrastructure needed for a mass‑detention system.*
---
**2. To Reduce the Role of Courts and Slowdowns**
You mentioned due process — and you’re right to focus on it.
Miller’s model depends on:
- **Fast-track processing**
- **Minimal judicial involvement**
- **Administrative (not judicial) warrants**
- **Shorter detention-to-deportation timelines**
A distributed network of detention centers makes it easier to:
- Move people quickly
- Avoid overcrowding that triggers court intervention
- Keep detainees far from legal aid networks
- Process large numbers before lawyers can intervene
**Purpose:**
*Speed up removals by reducing opportunities for legal challenges.*
---
*3. To Detain People Far From the Border**
Miller’s enforcement strategy is **nationwide**, not border-focused.
It includes:
- Workplace raids
- Citywide sweeps
- Local police and National Guard deputization
- Arrests in interior cities (Minneapolis, Chicago, Atlanta, etc.)
If arrests happen everywhere, detention must also happen everywhere.
Otherwise:
- Transport bottlenecks occur
- Border facilities overflow
- Courts intervene due to unsafe conditions
**Purpose:**
*Support nationwide raids by placing detention capacity near population centers.*
--*4. To Normalize Long-Term Detention**
Miller has pushed for:
- **Looser detention standards**
- **Longer detention periods**
- **Fewer releases pending hearings**
This requires:
- More beds
- More holding space
- More long-term facilities
Warehouses and repurposed buildings are ideal because they can be:
- Expanded
- Secured
- Operated cheaply
- Scaled up or down quickly
**Purpose:**
*Enable long-term detention without relying on existing jails or border facilities.*
--**5. To Avoid Local Resistance and Legal Constraints**
Traditional detention centers require:
- Local zoning approval
- Environmental review
- Public hearings
- Contract negotiations
But:
- Warehouses
- Industrial parks
- Federal land
- Temporary structures
…can often be used **without** those hurdles.
This allows the administration to:
- Move faster
- Avoid local political opposition
- Circumvent state and city governments that refuse to cooperate
**Purpose:**
*Bypass local governments and build detention capacity unilaterally.*
---
**6. To Create a System That Can Run Even If Courts Push Back**
Miller has long argued that:
- Courts “interfere” with enforcement
- Due process “slows down” deportations
- The executive branch should have more unilateral authority
A nationwide detention network gives the administration:
- Redundancy
- Flexibility
- The ability to shift detainees away from jurisdictions with strong legal aid
- The ability to continue operations even if some facilities are shut down by court order
**Purpose:**In short- concentration camps.
That is the way they are describing the camp they want to put in Starke, FL at the Board of County Commissioners.
I made my little presentation at their meeting Thursday night. The last plan I saw was that ICE would reimburse the county about $200,000/month. Seems like a lot of money, doesn't it. When I got done totaling it up and doing my cost analysis thing, I got their attention when I told them they need to negotiate $397,000/mo just to have 50/50 chance of not going over their budget.There is no verified evidence that Stephen Miller personally floated a plan to convert warehouses into detention centers specifically as a plot to imprison people without due process. There’s no factual public record of such a direct quoted statement from him.
What is documented, however, is that the U.S. government, under the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement plans , has been pursuing a plan through U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to buy and convert large warehouse facilities into migrant detention and processing centers. These plans have sparked significant local protests and public debate. Blloomberg
There is no direct, verifiable public statement from Stephen Miller personally saying “I want to convert warehouses to violently imprison people without due process.” No major news outlet or government record quotes him making that specific claim.
Here is ehat I found factual that you offred.
ICE and warehouse/tent conversions – It is documented that ICE has purchased or considered large facilities (warehouses, fairgrounds, etc.) to expand detention capacity. (Bloomberg, Jan 2026)
ICE capacity and historical numbers – ICE’s prior detention capacity historically maxed around 55,000 beds. Expanding to larger numbers would indeed require new facilities. Nationwide enforcement – Interior enforcement, workplace raids, and arrest operations beyond the border are part of ICE’s operational mandate and have been reported. Local resistance/zoning hurdles – Local governments sometimes resist detention facilities; using federal or industrial properties can reduce the need for local approvals.
Here is what I found speculative --- Stephen Miller personally driving all these plans – While Miller has advocated for stricter immigration enforcement, there is no public record of him explicitly “floating” warehouses or mass-detention sites. It’s an inference based on his policy stance. Exact goals like “3,000 arrests per day” or “1.1 million removals per year” – These numbers have been reported in media as proposed goals by Trump administration officials, but attributing them specifically as Miller’s personal target is speculative.
Purposes listed (“reduce role of courts,” “normalize long-term detention,” “bypass legal constraints”) – These are interpretations of policy goals, not verified statements or confirmed intent by Miller. They are plausible inferences, but not factual claims supported by public records.
Not supported with facts --- Unsupported or misleading --- Claims that Miller’s aim is to imprison people without due process – This is not documented as fact. The administrative system does aim to expedite deportations, but U.S. immigration law still guarantees legal rights and hearings.
Statements implying that all of these steps are solely Miller’s ideas or directives – ICE and the broader administration involve multiple officials; policy decisions cannot be attributed entirely to one person without clear evidence.
I support all that the Trump administration is doing regarding immigration, including the mass deportation of anyone here illegally.Sharlee, There was no verified evidence that Al Capone was a mobster, but everyone knew he was. This is no different with Miller.
That said, I hear what you’re saying — you want verified evidence, and that’s fair. Nobody wants to believe something that isn’t grounded in facts.
But the standard you’re using goes a step further. It basically says unless there’s a direct, documented confession or smoking-gun email or text that does the same thing, we’re not allowed to draw conclusions — even when the pattern of facts clearly points in a direction. Under that standard, juries couldn't do their job in circumstantial cases.
Relying only on verified evidence is not how most people actually reason in real life. We look at behavior, statements, policies, and outcomes, and we connect the dots. That’s not bias — that’s judgment.
If we weren’t allowed to do that, we couldn’t evaluate intent or motives in almost any situation. We’d be stuck waiting for someone to openly admit what they’re doing — and people in power almost never do that.
So I’m not saying there’s a smoking-gun quote. I’m saying people are allowed to look at the full pattern and come to a reasonable conclusion.
I suspect PeoplePower look at a series of dots that include:
1. Miller publicly endorsed very large detention infrastructure.
2. CBS reported Miller said in May 2025 that the administration was “actively looking at” suspending habeas corpus for people the administration said were in the country unlawfully.
3. He obviously has unusually direct influence over immigration enforcement machinery.
4. The government was in fact moving toward major detention expansion.
5. The envisioned scale is enormous.
6. There is evidence Miller pushed for dramatically higher arrest volume.
7. CBS reported federal judges in 2025 were saying the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was likely unlawful
To me, anyway, connecting those dots makes me think PeoplePower's analysis is spot on,S: "There is no direct, verifiable public statement from Stephen Miller personally saying “I want to convert warehouses to violently imprison people without due process.” No major news outlet or government record quotes him making that specific claim."
So, it is safe to assume that you are so good at what you do that you have exhausted all possibilities of a public record of Stephen Miller and the detention centers...Bravo!
You do realize that that Stephen Miller is Deputy Chief of Staff to Susie Wiles who is Chief of Staff? Do you think Trump comes up with these ideas on his own?. I told you Miller has tremendous influence over Trump. He is his Chief Advisor for God's sake. Do you think sending ICE to the airports is Trump' idea?
There is *strong documented evidence* that Stephen Miller is driving the push for massive detention expansion — but no single “smoking gun” document that says he alone created the entire system.**
What exists instead is a **stack of public statements, policy directives, budget allocations, and on‑air appeals** that together make his role unmistakable.
Below is the breakdown, with citations from the sources we just pulled.
1. Direct, on‑record evidence tying Miller to detention expansion**
A. Miller publicly urged states to build new detention centers**
In July 2025, Miller went on *The Ingraham Angle* and **called on Republican governors nationwide to construct immigrant detention facilities**, explicitly praising Florida’s new “Alligator Alcatraz” mega‑facility as the model.
[aarr.org](https://aarr.org/stephen-miller-gop-gov … n-centers/)
This is not speculation — it’s a direct public appeal.
B. Miller is the architect of the Trump administration’s mass‑detention strategy**
Multiple credible sources describe Miller as the **chief architect** of the administration’s immigration enforcement agenda, including detention expansion.
[The Hill](https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration … migration/)
This includes:
- Family detention
- Child detention
- Expanded ICE authority
- Policies designed to increase the number of people held for longer periods
C. The administration’s budget and policy goals match Miller’s stated objectives**
The Trump administration’s 2025–2026 immigration budget includes **$45 billion for new ICE detention camps** and a plan to expand to **100,000 detention beds** — a scale that aligns with Miller’s mass‑arrest and mass‑detention strategy.
[America's Voice](https://americasvoice.org/blog/private- … on-agenda/)
This is not a coincidence: the budget reflects the enforcement model Miller has been publicly advocating.
2. Indirect but powerful evidence**
A. Private prison companies were preparing for — and profiting from — Miller’s plan**
The companies that run most ICE detention centers (CoreCivic, GEO Group) were openly anticipating **massive profits** from the Miller‑driven detention expansion.
[America's Voice](https://americasvoice.org/blog/private- … on-agenda/)
Their financial behavior (donations, lobbying, public statements) aligns with the administration’s detention build‑out.
B. Miller’s mass‑arrest quota makes massive detention expansion unavoidable**
Miller has repeatedly pushed for **3,000 ICE arrests per day**, which equals over **1.1 million arrests per year**.
This scale *requires* a nationwide detention network — far beyond existing capacity.
Even without a memo saying “build detention centers everywhere,” the math makes his intent clear.
3. What we *do not* have**
To be precise and fair:
- There is **no leaked memo** signed by Miller ordering “massive detention centers.”
- There is **no official document** stating he alone designed the entire detention infrastructure.
- The administration frames the expansion as a “public safety” and “border security” initiative, not a Miller‑specific project.
But the combination of:
- his public statements,
- his policy role,
- the budget,
- the arrest quotas,
- and the state‑level pressure campaign
makes his influence unmistakable.
Bottom line**
**Yes — there is substantial, documented evidence that Stephen Miller is driving the push for massive detention expansion.**
It comes from his own public advocacy, his role in shaping immigration policy, and the administration’s budget and enforcement goals.
There is **no single smoking‑gun document**, but the pattern is overwhelming.
---
If you want, I can also break down:
- **Which states are most likely to build new detention centers**
- **How many facilities a 100,000‑bed system actually requires**
- **What legal challenges are already forming**Why is it that Miller wants to convert warehouses into detention centers throughout the country? It makes it easier and faster for him to imprison people without any due process of law." PP
Could you offer a source that can prove the quote you offered in your comment?
I fact-check YOUR claim as you WORDED it. again --- ✔️ Fact check result
There is no verifiable public record (major news outlets, transcripts, official statements) of Stephen Miller saying anything like:
“I want to convert warehouses to violently imprison people without due process.”
As I said before, and I hope this puts the issue to rest, I support the Trump administration’s immigration policies. I believe in enforcing the law and maintaining order at the border. If additional detention space is needed to prevent overcrowding, then constructing new facilities or repurposing existing structures like warehouses is a practical and responsible solution.
Using existing buildings can be done more quickly and cost-effectively than starting from scratch, which helps address immediate capacity issues. It can also reduce overcrowding, which is important for maintaining safer, more humane conditions for both detainees and staff. Centralized facilities can improve organization, security, and access to basic services like medical care and processing.
At the end of the day, ensuring that facilities are not overwhelmed is part of running an orderly system. Expanding capacity in a controlled and efficient way is simply a matter of responsible management, not something that should be mischaracterized.You claim, Sharlee, the following:
I fact-check YOUR claim as you WORDED it. again --- ✔️ Fact check result
There is no verifiable public record (major news outlets, transcripts, official statements) of Stephen Miller saying anything like:
“I want to convert warehouses to violently imprison people without due process.”
Here is the problem, PeoplePower never said those words. Please show use where he made that exact claim."S: Why is it that Miller wants to convert warehouses into detention centers throughout the country? It makes it easier and faster for him to imprison people without any due process of law." PP'
"Could you offer a source that can prove the quote you offered in your comment?"
If you read what I said carefully, that is not a quote. It is a rhetorical question with a question mark, followed by an answer for it.
Your rationalizing everything into a positive is a waste of your time and mine as well. The purpose of those detention centers is to expedite the arrest of those who ICE deem are here illegally without any due process of law while meeting Miller's quota of 3,000 per day.
Your president has now put troops into airports with no training in TSA functions and procedures. They are now just standing around with their police ICE uniforms on while they are being paid and TSA are not.
That's because ICE is still being paid because it was pre‑funded for multiple years under Trump’s 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” TSA is not being paid because it relies on annual appropriations, and DHS’s annual budget is currently the part of the government that is shut down. Those are facts, not my quote.
Miller is probably behind ICE being in airports to condition people to get used to them being deployed in cities. This is my opinion, so don't waste your time into rationalizing it into something positive. It reminds me of Nazi Germany.Oh my God --- Your context is very clear...
Question or not, your statement is worded as a fact --- that Miller wants to convert warehouses into detention centers.
"Why is it that Miller wants to convert warehouses into detention centers throughout the country? It makes it easier and faster for him to imprison people without any due process of law." PP'
Your point hinges on how the statement is phrased. Even though it’s framed as a question, it’s not a neutral inquiry, it asserts a fact within the question itself. The phrasing “Why is it that Miller wants to convert warehouses into detention centers…?” implies that Miller does want to do this, presenting it as an established truth rather than an open question.
The second sentence, “It makes it easier and faster for him to imprison people without any due process of law,” reinforces the statement as factual, providing a rationale as if the premise is already accepted. So, even though there’s a question mark, the overall context and wording treat it as a factual claim, not a speculative or neutral query.
In short, the presence of a question mark doesn’t make it a question in the neutral sense; the content and framing are assertive, which is why your interpretation that it’s presented as a fact is accurate.
I know how much you untalize AI. I politely offer an AI interpretation of your statement, and it will explain why I took it as if you were attempting to share a fact, not a view.
Original text:
"Why is it that Miller wants to convert warehouses into detention centers throughout the country? It makes it easier and faster for him to imprison people without any due process of law."
Step 1: “Why is it that Miller wants…”
The phrase “Why is it that” often introduces a question, but here it presumes the premise is true: that Miller does want to convert warehouses. In true neutral questioning, you might say: “Does Miller want to convert warehouses into detention centers?” or “Is it true that Miller wants to…”
By stating it as “Why is it that Miller wants…,” the sentence implicitly assumes the desire exists, turning it into an assertion cloaked as a question.
Step 2: “…to convert warehouses into detention centers throughout the country?”
This is the substance of the claim: that Miller wants nationwide conversion.
There’s no hedge words like “allegedly,” “supposedly,” or “reportedly,” which would signal uncertainty. Because it’s stated definitively, the sentence functions as a factual statement, not a tentative query.
Step 3: “It makes it easier and faster for him to imprison people without any due process of law.”
This is not a question. It explains the supposed reasoning behind Miller’s actions.
By providing a motive as if it’s established fact, it reinforces the claim in the first sentence.
The combination of a presupposed premise + rationale leaves no space for doubt — the author is treating the statement as true.
Step 4: The effect of the question mark
Grammatically, the question mark signals a question, but in rhetorical or leading questions, it often asserts something while pretending to ask it.
Here, it’s a classic case of a rhetorical question: the writer doesn’t genuinely ask if it’s true; they assume it is and want the reader to accept it.
Conclusion:
Every part of the sentence presumes Miller’s intention is real and explains it as if factual. The question mark is just rhetorical — the overall context reads as an assertion, which is why your interpretation that it’s “worded as a fact” is correct.
At this point, you can take your argument to ChatGPT.
Perhaps you need to reread your comment. Here is the permalink, which offers the statement I quoted.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/362 … ost4396533
I have expanded politely. I feel the idea of building or refurbishing a warehouse is a good one. I really have no further input on he sunject. I fully supprt Trumps agenda with ridding America of anyone who is here illegally. Not sure there is anything left to say on the subject. I actually don't care what Miller said at this point. I have researched your statement and found no truth to it. But couldn't care less.This is what you said PeoplePower said "“I want to convert warehouses to violently imprison people without due process.”" Why did you add the word VIOLENTLY? What was the purpose of changing what he said?
It is a fact, just because you can't find my exact quote does not negate the facts. Everything that I presented in the links is a fact. You are wasting your time and mine by trying to prove semantics about neutral inquiry. I noticed that you haven't disputed the information in the links. Maybe you just ignored it because it doesn't align with your agenda.
I fully supprt Trumps agenda with ridding America of anyone who is here illegally.
How do you know they have been here illegally without due process of law? That is not a neutral inquiry. It is a very direct question.I think DOJ needs to open an investigation into Melania Trump. According to AP, she became an illegal immigrant when she violated the terms of her visa.
At the very least, that needs to be looked into so as to rid America of anyone who is here illegally, which she was.How do you know they have been here illegally without due process of law? That is not a neutral inquiry. It is a very direct question." PP
Are you assuming migrants are being deported without die process? Everyone deported has an official order.
All migrants in the U.S. are entitled to due process under federal immigration law before they can be deported. That's the law.
That includes a formal removal/deportation order and the ability to be heard before an immigration judge.
Everyone deported still receives due process due to our current laws. But some may have fewer opportunities to delay the process, due to court rulings that affect their state.It seems to me you are conflating ‘there’s paperwork’ (your so-called "official order of removal") with ‘there was due process.’) A lot of deportations happen without a court hearing at all.”, which is the kind of due process PeoplePower is talking about.
If you don't believe me, research the following:
1. Trump's illegal use of the Alien Enemies Act deportations to El Salvador in March–April 2025.
2. Third-country deportations despite torture concerns and court orders. Clearly, you can't believe Trump's lies that only the worst-of-the-worst criminals are subject to that.
3. Efforts to expand “expedited removal” nationwide - which, by definition, have no due process
4. Attempts to fast-track deportation of people who entered legally on parole.
5. The gov't was about to deport these LEGAL immigrants without due process until others intervened on their behalf.
* Liam Conejo Ramos
* Adrian Conejo Arias
* Elvis Joel Tipan Echeverria
* Chloe Renata Tipan Villacis
Now, can you provide your evidence which you always ask us for that 100% of deportees or potential deportees received due process?Yes, I have posted conversations regarding mistakes that have been made. It could be considered human error, due to the many hundreds of thousands that have been deported under this administration.
I have no intention of offering you anything more than what you read here.Those go way beyond simple mistakes and human error, Sharlee, that is deliberate policy on the part of Trump and his corrupt administration as has been voiced by many judges. It is clear as day and your claiming otherwise is back to making a silk purse out of a sows ear, simple as that.
All of the migrants that you listed as not receiving due process, and I claimed possible mistakes due to the large number of migrants being deported. Have been given consideration, and are recieving due process in our court systems.
Here’s a clear summary of what’s publicly known about each of the people you listed in a previous comment.
• Liam Conejo Ramos (5 years old) and Adrian Conejo Arias (his father): They did have a pending asylum case when they were detained by ICE in January 2026, that means they had filed for asylum and were in the immigration court process, not simply undocumented without any legal avenue. They were detained during an enforcement action in Minnesota, sent to a family detention center in Texas, but a federal judge ordered their release in late January while their legal case moved forward.
• In March 2026, an immigration judge denied their asylum claim and issued a final order of removal, meaning the judge ruled they do not qualify for asylum and ordered their deportation. Their attorney has since filed an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which means their case is still in the legal system and hasn’t simply been ignored; it’s now on appeal.
So for Liam and his father, there has been a legal process: they had an asylum case, were detained while that case was pending, were released by a judge, then had that asylum claim denied and are now appealing that decision in immigration court.
• Elvis Joel Tipan‑Echeverria and Chloe Renata Tipan Villacis (his 2‑year‑old daughter): They were detained by ICE on January 22, 2026, in Minneapolis during a targeted enforcement operation and transported to a Texas immigration detention center. Their family’s attorney stated they have active asylum claims, which means they filed for asylum and had open cases before they were detained, and neither has a final removal order at the time of their arrest.
For Elvis and Chloe, the public reports focus on the fact that they were detained while their asylum cases were still active and they had not been ordered deported, suggesting they were still in the legal process when taken into custody, though the details of their upcoming court hearings weren’t widely reported at the time.
Summary:
Liam and his father did have asylum proceedings before the court, were detained during that process, were released by a judge, and later had their asylum claim denied with an appeal filed.
Elvis Tipan‑Echeverria and Chloe Villacis were also reported to have active asylum claims without a final removal order when they were detained, meaning they were also in the legal process at the time of their arrest.
None of these families had simple “no court” situations — all had ongoing asylum claims or court involvement when the detentions occurred, though the exact status of future hearings and appeals varies by case.
All are being given the opportunity of our judicial system.
Ah, you are missing one important point. That is the purpose of detention centers. They are not being deported. They are being locked up. How do you think Miller can make his quota of 3,000 per day without due process of law? That is not a neutral inquiry. It is just GD question.
This is my understanding of the purpose of ICE detention centers are used for..
I have noted that some people throw around the term “migrant detention centers” without really explaining what they are. At the most basic level, they’re facilities used to hold individuals who are in the U.S. without legal status or who are going through the immigration due process. People can be detained while their identity is verified, their background is checked, and officials determine whether they can stay or need to be removed. Most importantly, ensuring due process before deportation.Dotting all the Is and crossing all the Ts.
Yes, they’re also used to hold migrants while they wait for immigration court hearings, mainly to ensure they actually show up and complete the legal process. If someone is ultimately ordered to be deported, they may remain in detention until travel documents are arranged and removal can happen.
In some cases, detention is used for individuals considered higher risk, like those with criminal records or those authorities believe might not appear for court. There are also facilities that handle short-term detention right after someone crosses the border, and sometimes families, depending on current policy.
At the end of the day, detention centers are part of the enforcement system; they exist to hold people while the government decides who stays, who goes, and how that process plays out.High enforcement quotas like 3,000 per day require either massive detention capacity or sharply reduced due‑process timelines; otherwise the system gridlocks. That is ≈ 1.1 million arrests per year.
Short stays (fast processing/expedited removal) → tens of thousands of beds. Longer, court-heavy due‑process timelines → into the hundreds of thousands of beds to sustain 3,000/day without jamming the system.
That is why huge warehouses are being converted all over the country. That is why people in those areas are saying not in my backyard.I do not approve of quotas, and I am not aware if they are being kept. I am aware of the fact that due process is part of the deportation process. I support due process as written in our current laws and amended laws. I have no problem with building more detention centers; I feel there is a humanitarian issue. The centers have been overcrowded for decades.
The primary reason new immigration detention centers are being built is to expand the capacity to hold individuals and families while their immigration cases are processed, particularly under policies focused on border security and preventing unauthorized entry. Rising numbers of migrants at the border, including families and unaccompanied minors, have quickly overwhelmed existing facilities, so new centers help prevent overcrowding and provide more organized detention space. Many of these centers are designed to centralize and streamline operations, making it easier for ICE and CBP to manage large numbers of detainees efficiently. Some of the expansion is explicitly aimed at holding families together, responding to legal and public pressure against separating parents from children while maintaining secure custody. New centers also support enforcement and deportation operations by giving the government the ability to detain more people pending removal. Additionally, building these facilities serves as a political signal that the administration is serious about enforcing immigration laws and controlling the border. Overall, the new centers are intended to handle more detainees safely and efficiently, keep families together in custody, and support broader immigration enforcement goals.
For example, some of the newer and existing immigration detention facilities are designed to house families together rather than separating parents from children the way older policies sometimes did. For example, the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas was reopened in 2025 specifically as a family detention facility where parents and their children can be held together in residential‑style cottages rather than in separate adult and child facilities. The layout includes shared living areas and common spaces meant to accommodate families as units rather than splitting them up.
Having more centers can result in shorter stays, faster processing, and quicker due processing.
I am not aware of the specific locations of these building sites. However, I do believe that citizens have the right to protest if the construction is in any way disrupting their lives. Disruptions could include increased traffic, noise from construction equipment, dust or pollution, restricted access to roads or public spaces, strain on local resources, or impacts on the safety and well-being of nearby residents and children. American's have the right to speak up.It speaks volumes that you didn't know about recording the quotas. The difference between your comments and mine is I am providing hard facts information. I don't know what sources you are using but to me it sounds a lot like your opinion and generalization with buzz words. Here is an example of what you posted. Where did you get this information?
Overall, the new centers are intended to handle more detainees safely and efficiently, keep families together in custody, and support broader immigration enforcement goals. Apparently you haven't heard of Alligator Alcatraz. Here is a summary: If you want the details just google it.
1. Inhumane Conditions
Reports include:
Overcrowded cages (e.g., 32 people in a single cage)
Heat and humidity exposure
Overflowing toilets
Worms in food
Lack of medical care
These conditions triggered:
Hunger strikes
Congressional visits
Civil liberties lawsuits
There is hard, documented evidence of Stephen Miller’s arrest quotas, and there is equally strong evidence of the legal, operational, and human problems they have caused.** Federal judges, DOJ filings, and investigative reporting all confirm the existence of the *3,000‑arrests‑per‑day* target and show how it has already triggered illegal sweeps, court pushback, and strained federal law‑enforcement capacity.
Below is the evidence, organized cleanly and backed by citations.
1. Direct Evidence of Miller’s Quota: 3,000 Arrests Per Day**
**Miller’s own public statement**
- Stephen Miller said on Fox News that ICE should make **“a minimum of 3,000 arrests every day”** and that Trump would push the number higher.
[POLITICO](https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/0 … h-00490406)
**Courts have treated the 3,000‑per‑day figure as real**
Multiple federal judges cited the quota as evidence of:
- **Illegal pressure on ICE**
- **Unlawful expansion of expedited removal**
- **Potential violations of due process**
Judges Jia Cobb and Trina Thompson both referenced the 3,000‑arrest target in rulings blocking parts of the administration’s immigration agenda.
[POLITICO](https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/0 … h-00490406)
**DOJ’s contradictory courtroom position**
The Justice Department told courts that:
- **“No such orders have ever been given.”**
[POLITICO](https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/0 … h-00490406)
But this denial directly contradicts Miller’s public statements, which judges noticed — undermining DOJ credibility.
[The New Republic](https://newrepublic.com/post/198768/dep … ation-plan)
**2. Evidence of the Problems the Quota Causes**
**A. Illegal or Improper Enforcement Tactics**
The quota has been cited in lawsuits alleging:
- **Illegal sweeps in Los Angeles**
[POLITICO](https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/0 … h-00490406)
- **Arrests in previously “protected” areas** (courthouses, schools, etc.)
[immigrationrights.org](http://immigrationrights.org/the-human- … st-quotas/)
- **Targeting of activists and individuals with prior stays of deportation**
(e.g., Jeanette Vizguerra)
[immigrationrights.org](http://immigrationrights.org/the-human- … st-quotas/)
These cases argue that ICE agents, under pressure to hit numbers, cut corners or violated established enforcement norms.
**B. Judicial Pushback and Legal Instability**
Judges have used the quota as evidence that:
- The administration is **prioritizing numbers over legality**.
- Expedited removal expansions **violate statutory limits**.
- Ending TPS for certain groups may be **legally tainted by improper motives**.
This has resulted in:
- **Blocked policies**
- **Court orders halting deportation actions**
- **Increased scrutiny of ICE operations**
[POLITICO](https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/0 … h-00490406)
**C. Operational Strain on Federal Law Enforcement**
The quota has forced:
- **Mass redeployment of federal agents** away from other missions
(child‑trafficking, counterterrorism, financial crimes)
- **Leadership purges inside ICE** to align with Miller’s priorities
[immigrationrights.org](http://immigrationrights.org/the-human- … st-quotas/)
- **Expansion of 287(g) deputization** of local police
[immigrationrights.org](http://immigrationrights.org/the-human- … st-quotas/)
This shift has raised concerns about:
- Reduced capacity to investigate non‑immigration crimes
- Overextension of detention facilities
- Increased risk of wrongful arrests
**D. Human and Community Impact**
The quota has produced:
- **Erosion of trust** between immigrant communities and law enforcement
(people avoid reporting crimes or seeking help)
[immigrationrights.org](http://immigrationrights.org/the-human- … st-quotas/)
- **Arrests in “safe spaces”** that were previously off‑limits
[immigrationrights.org](http://immigrationrights.org/the-human- … st-quotas/)
- **Fear‑driven displacement** and community destabilization
**3. Why the Quota Is So Problematic Mechanically**
To hit **3,000 arrests per day**, ICE must:
- Triple its historical arrest rate
- Expand detention capacity dramatically
- Conduct large‑scale sweeps rather than targeted operations
- Reduce or bypass judicial review (expedited removal)
- Divert agents from other federal missions
Judges have explicitly noted that this pressure **increases the likelihood of unlawful enforcement behavior**.
[POLITICO](https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/0 … h-00490406)
**Bottom Line**
**Yes — there is clear, documented evidence of Miller’s deportation quota and equally clear evidence of the legal, operational, and human problems it has already caused.**
The 3,000‑arrests‑per‑day target is not speculation; it is a publicly stated goal that has already shaped enforcement behavior and triggered judicial intervention.I was already aware of what’s been reported in the media regarding quotes; I never said otherwise. And I’ve said multiple times that I do not support deportation quotas.
At this point, I’m not interested in beating a dead horse. I’ve shared how I feel on the subject, and I don’t have anything further to add. One of Donald Trump’s main agendas has been deporting illegal migrants, and I don’t have a problem with that being done quickly, as long as it’s done legally.
That said, I think you might be surprised at how few deportations this administration has actually carried out so far.
You asked about my sources and suggested what I’m saying sounds like opinion or generalizations with buzzwords. So I’ll answer that directly.
Most of my information comes from reading, primarily articles, as well as watching C-SPAN. I spend a lot of time following Congressional hearings and sessions, so I try to stay grounded in what’s actually being said and discussed.
When I need specific dates, statistics, or quotes, I’ll use AI to help fill in those details. But in conversations like this, what I’m sharing is mostly my own opinion, formed from everything I’ve read and watched. I try to be clear that I’m expressing a personal viewpoint, not presenting something as absolute fact.
Sometimes I’ll back up my perspective with examples I’ve come across, but I’m not here to argue facts, I’m here to share how I see things.
I do think AI is a great tool, and I’ve likely been using it longer than most. But it can’t replace gut instinct or real-life experience, and those still matter when it comes to understanding these issues.
From what I’ve seen in our conversation, it feels like you’re not willing to accept that I have a different viewpoint. It seems important to you to prove your point and show that I’m factually wrong.
I’ve been upfront and honest about where I stand. I’ve acknowledged that mistakes have been made by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and I’ve pointed out that those situations are being addressed through the courts. I don’t support quotas, and I do support due process.
At the same time, I’ve said more than once that I support deporting those who are in the country illegally. I also don’t have an issue with building more detention centers, and I’ve explained why.
At the end of the day, we clearly have very different mindsets. I’m comfortable with mine, just as you are with yours. And I’m not interested in debating AI-generated responses, I feel like relying on that takes little effort and doesn’t reflect a person’s own thinking, but rather a computer’s algorithm.
In the end, it would be ideal if someone who knows they’re in the United States illegally, and has no remaining legal options, chose to follow the law and leave on their own. That way, there would be no need for arrests or deportations at all. I expect our laws to be respected and enforced when necessary.It isn't a question of a "different viewpoint", Sharlee, it is a question of facts, which PeoplePower and I present and you rarely do.
Facts like an estimated 30% - 60% of interior deportations (~300,000) lacked basic due process - meaning no judge, immigration or Article III, ruled on the case. - (AI researched)
In order to protect your version of Trump, your stated feeling or viewpoint implies you disagree, without evidence of any sort, with that fact-based finding.
The issue isn't illegals being in the country, it is whether the LAW is being followed in removing them (which hurts America). Clearly, the facts say it is not while your feeling says it is in almost all cases.My background was technical writing and instruction on very complex digital equipment. It required research and analysis to get things right for my students. That's why I don't give my opinion. I think my use of AI is a wonderful tool for doing that. I'm in the business of informing people with facts not my opinions. In these forums opinions cause people to get off track of what the original post is about.
Have a great day.I’ll just be honest about what I’m looking for in conversations online. I value open discussion, people sharing their opinions and gut reactions. Facts matter to me, too, but I appreciate when people are willing to look at all the facts and consider both sides. I don't dispute your facts; I offer the other side of the coin to your facts. My thoughts, my opinions...
I respect your knowledge and do think you’re an intelligent person. That said, I’m not very interested in conversations that feel like they just go in circles or get stuck in long, drawn-out analysis that doesn’t feel current. I follow the news closely, and I prefer talking about what’s happening now—real-time, breaking issues.
I’ve always tried to be polite and respond to people who engage with me, but I’ve reached a point where I’m not going to reply to long, AI-style responses or overly structured lists. So please don’t take it personally if I don’t respond to every comment.
You might actually find you have more in common with ECO—I think you’d appreciate his style. He tends to share similar AI-generated, in-depth posts, and that seems more in line with how you like to engage.
I think we just have different styles and interests, and going in circles isn’t really my thing."I’ll just be honest about what I’m looking for in conversations online. I value open discussion, people sharing their opinions and gut reactions. Facts matter to me, too, but I appreciate when people are willing to look at all the facts and consider both sides. I don't dispute your facts; I offer the other side of the coin to your facts. My thoughts, my opinions."
Yes, let's be honest here you are in the business of defending Trump, no matter what he says or does. I understand it's hard to debate AI when it has the truthful facts and no BS. Also, what makes you think AI doesn't provide the current news? All one has to do is read the sources of its citing's.I’ve never said that AI doesn’t provide current news. As I’ve admitted, I use AI frequently, but I don’t rely on it to form my own views.
I think I have shared my thoughts on my preferences on how I prefer to communicate.
To repeat --- I’ll just be honest about what I’m looking for in conversations online. I value open discussion, people sharing their opinions and gut reactions. Facts matter to me, too, but I appreciate when people are willing to look at all the facts and consider both sides. I don't dispute your facts; I offer the other side of the coin to your facts. My thoughts, my opinions...
It’s clear that my perspective doesn’t align with yours, so why direct your comments at me? You’ve said frequently, “Yes, let’s be honest here, you are in the business of defending Trump, no matter what he says or does,” which, for the most part, is true. But why feel the need to share that with me? I have been very clear: I voted for Trump, I support his agenda, and so far, emphasis on so far - I am satisfied with his performance in office. I’m grateful that he is making every effort to keep his promises, even in a very hostile environment. He is doing the heavy lifting that others before him could not do.For example, I just asked ChatGPT about today's No Trump rally, rather No Kings rally. It reported today's AP headline of over 3,100 protests. I asked how many people and it said (paraphrase) "don't know yet, it's too early to tell but some are estimating 9 million will show up"
Seems to me that is pretty current.This is the kind of conversation/debate with a Trumper.
You Say; The sky is Blue today.
Trumper's Say: That's a fair observation, but to me it looks purple.
You Say: I can see where that might happen if your color vision is off but I just to a spectrometer reading and it came up with 480 nm. I then check the calibration on the machine and it was fine.
Trumper's Say: But on the other side of the coin my view says it is purple.
You Say: But, but the spectrometer reading?
Trumper's Say: I don't care about that fact, I feel it is purple.
You notice they never say - but my spectrometer says it is 400 nm, which is purple (violet actually)
Does that sound about right?What I like about ChatGPT and other AIs is it cuts through the semantics and gets to what is really going on. I fed your fact-laden conversation into AI, made the claim Sharlee's approach seems like misinformation to me, or at least denying reality.
Well, it said yes and no to my thesis and broke it down like this, which clears a lot of things up.
1. What you (and PeoplePower) are doing
You’re presenting:
Specific claims
Backed by sources (courts, DOJ filings, reporting)
With cause-and-effect reasoning
Example:
Quota exists
Courts referenced it
It led to legal/operational consequences
That’s fact-based argumentation.
2. What Sharlee is doing
Sharlee is not engaging at that level.
She explicitly says:
“I’m not here to argue facts”
“I’m sharing my opinion”
“I rely on gut instinct and experience”
“I don’t want AI-style analysis”
And then:
“I don’t dispute your facts; I offer the other side of the coin…”
That’s the key move.
3. Why it feels like misinformation to you
Because from your perspective:
If facts show legal problems, court pushback, and harm
And she continues to support the system anyway
Without engaging the evidence
→ It feels like denying reality
That reaction is completely understandable.
4. But here’s the precise distinction (this matters)
There are three different things, and they’re getting mixed:
A. Facts
“Courts cited a 3,000/day target”
“Detention centers have documented conditions”
“Policies triggered lawsuits”
These are verifiable or falsifiable
B. Interpretations of those facts
“This shows systemic abuse”
“This shows enforcement pressure”
“This shows government overreach”
These are reasoned conclusions
C. Value judgments
“I support deportation even if imperfect”
“I prioritize enforcement over risk of error causing human suffering”
“I’m okay with detention expansion”
These are opinions
5. Where Sharlee crosses the line (and where she doesn’t)
She is not necessarily spreading misinformation when she says:
“I support deportation”
“I’m okay with more detention centers”
“I think enforcement is necessary”
Those are values
But it becomes misinformation if she:
Denies documented conditions
Claims due process is being followed when evidence shows otherwise
Dismisses established facts without counter-evidence
6. What she’s really doing with “other side of the coin”
She’s reframing:
“Even if what you’re saying is true, I still support the policy.”
But instead of saying that directly, she says:
“There’s another side”
Which makes it sound like:
there are two equally factual realities
When in reality:
there is one factual record and different moral/political responses to it
7. Why this conversation goes nowhere
Because you’re asking:
“Do you accept the implications of these facts?”
She’s answering:
“I don’t care about the implications the same way you do.”
And that feels like reasoning is taking a backseat to strongly held opinions.
They are trying to put a 3,000 bed facility in a contaminated warehouse site in my backyard. I think we will be successful in our opposition when it finally sinks in to the County Commissioners that it will bankrupt the county.
Sharlee - regarding Judicial Warrants, if you leave it there, you are ignoring the elephant in the room - ICE is forcibly violating people's houses regardless of the reason now, not just for exigent circumstances
Your argument leaves out the most important fact: the problem is no longer hypothetical. Historically, ICE did rely on administrative warrants, but those warrants were not understood to authorize forced entry into a home absent consent or exigent circumstances. That is consistent with the basic Fourth Amendment rule the Supreme Court laid down in Payton v. New York: absent exigent circumstances, officers may not cross the threshold of a home without a warrant.
What changed is that DHS/ICE reportedly adopted a May 2025 policy saying agents can use administrative warrants to enter homes of people with final removal orders and even use “necessary and reasonable” force if refused entry. ICE’s public FAQ also says ICE does not need judicial warrants to make arrests.
That is exactly why requiring judicial warrants matters. It is not some brand-new bureaucratic obstacle layered on top of a system already respecting constitutional limits. It is a response to the agency’s new claim that it can ignore the Constitution and decide for itself when to enter a home. A judicial warrant means a neutral judge, not ICE, decides whether the government may break the sanctity of someone’s home. Brennan Center’s analysis makes the core problem plain: an ICE administrative warrant is issued by the same executive branch that wants to carry out the arrest, not by the “neutral and detached magistrate” the Fourth Amendment is designed to require for this kind of intrusion.
So the Democratic position is not, “let’s invent a new hurdle.” It is, “if ICE is now claiming authority to enter homes without a judge’s approval, then the law should explicitly restore the constitutional safeguard that protects everyone’s home from unilateral executive entry.”
In other words, if the agency is pushing beyond the old constitutional line, then spelling out the judicial-warrant requirement is not obstruction; it is enforcement of the Fourth Amendment and is a perfectly reasonable ask.Traditionally, that is very true. But, DHS has moved beyond that which seems to is what is being overlooked.
As of May 2025, DHS issued a memo instructing agents that, in certain beyond consent and exigent circumstances, they could force entry into a person’s home without a judicial warrant, relying instead on an administrative warrant issued under their own authority.- that is critical. Even if there are currently only a small number of confirmed uses, the issue is no longer theoretical—it’s nevertheless operational.
That means this is no longer just an abstract legal debate or a hypothetical abuse. It is a power the executive branch has claimed for itself and operationalized it in the real world. Everyone knows that once that happens, requiring a judicial warrant is not some technicality; it becomes a basic constitutional safeguard.
I hadn't really looked at what the "ballroom" is going to look like when completed. It is an ugly monstrosity that is an embarrassment to America.
I sure hope construction is delayed long enough to let the next administration cancel the project and restore the East Wing to its former iconic glory.
If they can't, then they need to tear it down and then restore the East Wing. At least it won't cost as much as Trump is wasting putting it up.
Sickening.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/25/politics … wing-trumpA bit of current news --- COURT WIN: A second federal court found that illegal immigrants detained by ICE do not have to receive bond hearings, removing a potential legal impediment to President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda.
Attorney General Pam Bondi called the ruling a “massive court victory against activist judges.”It is not accurate if interpreted as a nationwide rule — because other courts have ruled the opposite.
The legal landscape is fragmented, and the issue is far from settled.
This is a classic circuit split, and it increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will eventually have to resolve the conflict.Very true --- If lower courts in other states have ruled differently, those decisions still control locally until an appeals court or the Supreme Court resolves the conflict nationwide. This is a solid point.
Looking ahead: Because lower courts have ruled differently across the country, and now multiple appeals courts have issued conflicting decisions, this issue is very likely to go to the Supreme Court for a final ruling. One can only guess.
So, for those of you who care, here is the FULL story.
First - the two appellate courts, the 5th and the 8th, are reactionary activist conservative courts. To have ruled differently would have been earth-shattering.
Second - unlike what is implied in the post, only a SMALL segment of illegal immigrants are covered by their ruling. Mainly they are certain types of criminals or recent border crossers.
Third - the latest estimate says over 300 district court judges have ruled bonds ARE required - 300. Roughly 12% have been, as Trump would call them, radical Left Trump appointed judges. Roughly 40% equally radical Left judges were appointed by such radical Left presidents like Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. (for those that are confused, the "radical Left" was sarcasm. Most of the judges are in fact rather conservative judges.)
Fourth - clearly those two rulings have little to no impact on Trump's disgraceful mass deportation agenda.
Trump is really bringing America together - Against Him!!!
The first No Kings - meaning Trump - rally had 5 to six million participate. The second one had around 6 - 7 million. Estimates are today's anti-Trump rally will bring out 9 million or more.
Don't these repeated rally's normally get smaller each time?Current news ---
A Fox News Digital investigation has revealed that the upcoming nationwide #NoKings protests are not entirely spontaneous. The events are reportedly supported by roughly 500 activist organizations with an estimated $3 billion in combined annual revenue. These groups range from mainstream progressive coalitions to more radical socialist and communist organizations, some of which plan to use the protests to push their own agendas. Source foxnews.com
Documents tied to the march permit for the main event in St. Paul, Minnesota, list Indivisible, a national Democratic advocacy group financially supported by billionaire George Soros, as the principal organizer. Fox News reporting also traced involvement from revolutionary socialist and communist groups funded by American tech billionaire Neville Roy Singham, who now lives in China and openly identifies as a communist. Source https://www.foxnews.com/us/500-groups-3 … revolution
Over the past decade, Singham has directed funding to multiple activist organizations that coordinate nationwide protests, including:
The People’s Forum (New York)
Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)
ANSWER Coalition
CodePink (co-founded by Jodie Evans, Singham’s spouse)
Freedom Road Socialist Organization Source ChatGPT
Some of these organizations have openly encouraged their members to attend the demonstrations, and at least one has explicitly said it plans to bring a call for “revolution” to the events.
In Minneapolis on Friday, activists from the PSL’s Twin Cities chapter were seen loading bright red signs reading “NO KINGS. NO WAR.” into vehicles ahead of the protests. These signs also featured the organization’s name and were meant to be distributed at the state capitol.
Similar preparations were reported nationwide. In New York City, the People’s Forum urged members to join local #NoKings gatherings. In Washington, D.C., the PSL called for a “Socialist Contingent.” In Grand Rapids, Michigan, Freedom Road Socialist Organization told supporters to meet as part of an “Anti‑Trump Contingent.”
A message from the Freedom Road Socialist Organization circulating online stated:
“People everywhere are becoming increasingly hostile to the Trump agenda, and more sympathetic to revolution… now is not the time to sit on the sidelines.” Quote foxnews.com
ChatGPT - What the NoKings Movement Says About Its Goals
The organizers of the #NoKings protests have framed the demonstrations as decentralized events opposing what they view as authoritarian overreach by the federal government. Key issues they publicly highlight include:
Opposition to certain immigration enforcement actions by ICE (en.wikipedia.org)
Criticism of U.S. involvement in the Iran War (en.wikipedia.org)
Concerns about executive power and perceived threats to civil liberties (washingtonpost.com)
Indivisible co‑founder Leah Greenberg said the movement was “conceived to be something that was more about uniting a massive cross‑movement push against authoritarianism” rather than a single-issue protest. Source (theguardian.com)
Similarly, Hunter Dunn of the 50501 movement explained that the name No Kings is intended as a broad repudiation of “unconstitutional, illegal, immoral” actions and as an effort to “return power back to the people.” (theguardian.com)Who is saying it is spontaneous? Not the liberals for sure. If no one is claiming the protests are spontaneous, then why is Fox is using a familiar framing tactic: suggesting it has exposed something suspicious when it really hasn’t.
Just sharing some of what I obtained from my personal research. Part of my research comes from chatting with liberals on X, Facebook, and several other sites. Many are under the impression that the No Kings Day is a grassroots effort, not at all planned by and paid for by leftist entities. I suggest that those who want to learn more about those who organized No Kings Day --- ask GhatGPT or read the article on Fox.
I asked ChatGPT this question Who organized No Kings Day. Offer facts only. Here is the results
Who organized / planned No Kings Day
1. A coalition of established political & activist groups
Reuters / AP / Guardian reporting consistently state the protests were:
“organized by Indivisible, 50501, labor unions, and grassroots groups”
Another report confirms:
“Spearheaded by activist network Indivisible…”
These are real, established organizations, not random individuals.
2. Specific national organizations involved
Across multiple reports and documentation, groups involved include:
Indivisible (major national political activist network)
50501 movement (organized nationwide anti-Trump protests since 2025)
MoveOn
SEIU (Service Employees International Union)
AFL-CIO (major labor union federation)
ACLU
Human Rights Campaign
Local reporting confirms this kind of backing:
“supported by… ACLU… SEIU… MoveOn… and others”
3. It was coordinated nationwide (not spontaneous)
There were:
“over 3,000 events… organized in all 50 states”
The protests are described as:
“a coordination of peaceful protests taking place on March 28, 2026”
That level of scale requires planning infrastructure—permits, coordination, messaging, scheduling.
4. Built from an existing movement (not sudden)
The March 2026 protests were not new, they were part of an ongoing campaign:
“preceded by No Kings protests in June and October… coordinated by Indivisible and 50501”
So this wasn’t something that “just popped up”—it’s part of a continuing organized movement.
5. Designed to appear decentralized
Even organizers admit the structure is intentional:
“deliberately designed as a decentralized, leaderless movement”
That’s important—
It explains why many people perceive it as grassroots, even though coordination exists. "
Bottom line (this is your strongest factual position)
✔ It involved thousands of pre-planned events
✔ It was organized by known national groups
✔ It was part of an ongoing coordinated movement
✔ It was intentionally structured to feel grassroots" end of quoteI don't think "grassroots" and "spontaneous" are equivalent. A "grassroots" protest can easily be a planned event.
I watched over a three-week period our local No Kings/Anti-ICE detention facility protest here in Bradford County come together - there was a ton of planning.
In any case, No Kings was a well publicized event, so there was nothing "spontaneous" about it. Fox news, as is their habit, wanted to mislead you.
It is well known who was sponsoring and organizing it - just as ChatGPT suggested - no surprise there.Who gives a big rat's patootie if it was organized or spontaneous. As you always say about Trump, it's the performance that counts. It sends the message to the world that we are fed up with Trump and his deals which in my opinion are nothing more than cons and his acute narcissism kicking in. He acts like he is the King, not a president.
PeoplePower - here is a perfect example of where gut over reason and facts get you (us) into trouble.
Trump said "he had a feeling based on fact" about going to war with Iran. Understand that "feeling based on fact" is not the same as "reasoned judgement" or "seeking the advice of experts".
"Reasoned Judgement" is
* Evidence is identified and evaluated
* Alternatives are considered
* Risks and consequences are weighed
* Often involves input from experts or intelligence assessments
That is structured and explainable
"Feeling based on Fact"
* The person believes there are facts
* But isn’t clearly presenting or articulating them
* The conclusion is partly intuitive or instinct-driven
It’s subjective and not easily testable
So where does that leave us?
Reasoned judgment → “Here is the evidence and how it leads to this decision”
Feeling based on facts → “I believe there is evidence, and I feel confident in the conclusion”
I'm an analyst, so guess which side I come down on?
Most experts appeared to believe that the U.S. and Israel could win tactically in the opening phase, but that a lasting strategic or political victory was far less certain. And that seems to be exactly the problem now.
Early military success did not resolve the larger risks. Iran retaliated, the conflict widened, and the economic consequences spread well beyond the battlefield. That is what happens when instinct is treated as a substitute for disciplined judgment.
That is why I believe in reasoned judgment over gut feeling.""No Kings" demonstration in Philadelphia draws massive crowd"
I find it very informative and telling that MAGA frames this as anti-American. It really suggests where MAGA's loyalty's lie, and it obviously isn't with America.Just my view---
Whether these protests were organized or spontaneous absolutely matters, because it
speaks to whether they reflect genuine, widespread public sentiment or a coordinated political effort designed to appear that way.
These events did not simply arise on their own. They were planned, permitted, funded, and promoted by a network of established political organizations such as Indivisible, MoveOn, and the American Civil Liberties Union. These groups operate with structure, strategy, and funding, including PAC involvement, logistics, promotion, and, in many cases, covering the costs of permits and event coordination.
Scale also matters. The United States has a population of over 330 million people. Even gatherings in the tens or hundreds of thousands represent only a small fraction of the population, a drop in the bucket. Presenting that level of turnout as if it reflects the will of the country as a whole is simply inaccurate.
When events are organized and funded at this level, they are not purely organic expressions of public opinion, they are amplified political messaging. They may send a message, but they do not represent all Americans, nor do they reflect the values and views held by a large portion of the population.
Characterizations of Donald Trump as a “king” or similar labels are subjective opinions. What can be evaluated more objectively are policies and outcomes, such as border enforcement, economic strategy, and foreign negotiations. Those are the areas where meaningful debate should take place.
In the end, if performance is what matters, then the focus should be on measurable results, not optics created by organized demonstrations.Of course it matters...
Paid useful idiots much different, than say, a stadium filled with Trump supporters that had no financial incentive to be there.
One is an illusion designed to convince you of what is not really there.
You know... As of January 2026, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has taken a leading role at the World Economic Forum (WEF) as the interim co-chair of the board of trustees.
Larry Fink, as the Chairman and CEO of BlackRock, leads the world's largest asset management firm, which oversees a staggering amount of capital that surpasses the annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of almost every nation on Earth, including Germany and India.
13 June 2019 – The World Economic Forum and the United Nations signed a Strategic Partnership Framework outlining areas of cooperation to deepen institutional engagement and jointly accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Why this matters:
The UN’s acceptance of this partnership agreement moves the world toward WEF’s aspirations for multistakeholderism becoming the effective replacement of multilateralism, (Corporations trump Nations).
WEF in their 2010 The Global Redesign Initiative argued that the first step toward their global governance vision is ‘to redefine the international system as constituting a wider, multifaceted system of global cooperation in which intergovernmental legal frameworks and institutions are embedded as a core, but not the sole and sometimes not the most crucial, component.”
The goal was to weaken the role of states in global decision-making and to elevate the role of a new set of ‘stakeholders’, turning our multilateral system into a multistakeholder system, in which companies are part of the governing mechanisms.
This would bring transnational corporations, selected civil society representatives, states and other non-state actors together to make global decisions, discarding or ignoring critical concerns around conflicts of interest, accountability and democracy.
Public interest civil society organizations and social movements have played crucial roles in upholding human rights and in the development of intergovernmental positions on a wide range of global crises over the past 75 years.
But these efforts have been commandeered, while Trump's support was a true "We the People" act of Americans both the first, and second time he was elected; social movements like BLM in 2020 and currently the "No Kings" movement can be traced back to the very billionaires and corporate entities that travel to Davos.
This is why how these protests come to be... and who funds them, matters.
Truth has never been harder to find... the deceptions woven never more powerful or with more united effort than we see today.Absolutely, I see what you mean. There’s a huge difference between genuine grassroots support and events or movements that are essentially engineered by powerful interests. Take some of the major protests over the past few years, when you trace the funding, connections often lead back to billionaire-backed foundations or corporate groups, not ordinary citizens. Compare that to Trump’s rallies, where the turnout reflected people showing up on their own, with no financial incentive, real engagement from the ground up. The more you look, the more you realize how carefully influence and narratives are being structured at the global level, whether it’s through corporate-backed initiatives at Davos or UN partnerships pushing multistakeholder agendas. Truth really has become harder to discern, and the more organized these efforts are, the more powerful their messaging becomes. It’s a reminder that paying attention to who’s really pulling the strings matters just as much as what they’re saying.
The No Kings protests are framed by organizers as a pushback against what they view as:
Executive overreach
Authoritarian tendencies
Erosion of democratic norms
Here are the measurable results;
Here’s the clearest snapshot of **Donald Trump’s current national poll numbers as of late March 2026**, based on the most recent reputable surveys.
---
**National Approval & Disapproval (March 2026)**
**Overall Range**
Across major polls, Trump’s **approval is running between 36% and 43%**, while **disapproval ranges from 55% to 60%**.
This places him **underwater in every major national survey**.
[Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-d … l-11746274) [Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-a … w-11726313) [International Business Times UK](https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/trump-approva … nt-1785669)
**Key Individual Polls**
**Big Data Poll (Mar 22–24, 2026)**
- **Approval:** 42.3%
- **Disapproval:** 55.7%
- **Net:** –13.4
[Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-d … l-11746274)
**The Argument (Mar 12–17, 2026)**
- **Approval:** 40%
- **Disapproval:** 58%
- **Net:** –18 (worst in their series)
[Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-a … w-11726313)
**Economist/YouGov (Early March 2026)**
- **Approval:** 38%
- **Disapproval:** 58%
[International Business Times UK](https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/trump-approva … nt-1785669)
**Quinnipiac (Mar 19–23, 2026)**
- **Approval:** 38%
- **Disapproval:** 56%
[Forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2 … -iran-war/)
**Reuters/Ipsos (Mar 20–23, 2026)**
- **Approval:** 36%
- **Record low for this pollster**
[Forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2 … -iran-war/)
**Morning Consult (Mar 20–22, 2026)**
- **Approval:** 43%
- **Stable week‑to‑week**
[Forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2 … -iran-war/)
**State-by-State Snapshot (Mid‑March 2026)**
State approvals vary widely—from **mid‑50s in deep‑red states** to **below 30% in blue states**.
Example:
- **Alabama:** 52%
- **California:** 27%
- **Florida:** 44%
[Yahoo](https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/pre … 36455.html)
**What’s Driving the Numbers?**
Across polls, the same themes appear:
- **Iran war** → majority of Americans oppose it; Republicans support it.
- **Rising gas prices & inflation** → major drag on approval.
- **Economic dissatisfaction** → most voters say wages aren’t keeping up with prices.
[Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-a … w-11726313) [International Business Times UK](https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/trump-approva … nt-1785669) [Forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2 … -iran-war/)"The No Kings protests are framed by organizers as a pushback against what they view as:
Executive overreach
Authoritarian tendencies
Erosion of democratic norms
Here are the measurable results;" PP
I will address this part of your comment, it's on the subject.
I hear how they’re framing it, but I think there’s another side to that. What some people are calling executive overreach or authoritarian tendencies, others see as a president using the same powers every administration has used, just in a way they don’t agree with. We’ve had years of executive orders, political pressure, and heated rhetoric from both parties, so it feels selective to suddenly label it as a threat to democracy now.
When I look at the bigger picture, the system is still doing exactly what it’s supposed to do—courts are ruling, elections are happening, the press is active, and power transfers when it has to. That doesn’t line up with actual erosion of democratic norms to me. It looks more like a country that’s deeply divided, where one side sees danger and the other sees politics as usual.
That’s why I don’t automatically take those protest claims at face value—because depending on where you stand, the same actions can look completely different.
The AI blurb is regarding polls. Which AI has factually offered. No interest in discussing polls. Trump historically has had very poor poll numbers. He had poor polls throughout the elections he ended up winning. So polls mean little to me at this juncture in our current political climate.
Since the second term began in January 2025, I’ve been paying close attention to what Melania Trump is doing as First Lady, and there are some real accomplishments and initiatives that don’t always get big media headlines. First, she continued to expand her focus on children’s safety and well-being. One of her earliest efforts was helping advance and pass the “TAKE IT DOWN ACT,” a bipartisan law aimed at protecting kids and families from online exploitation and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, something she worked with lawmakers on early in 2025 and then stood with the President for when it was signed into law.
She also secured a $25 million investment in the 2026 federal budget to support youth aging out of foster care, which goes toward housing stability and support services so these young people don’t end up homeless or without opportunities. Building on that, she has been the driving force behind a major initiative called Fostering the Future, now expanded into a global coalition called "Fostering the Future Together", that brings together countries and technology partners to help kids thrive in a world of rapidly evolving education and innovation technology. This coalition had its first big summit in March 2026 with 45 nations and top tech companies working on digital literacy, safety, and access to tools for children and families.
Melania Trump has also taken a hands-on role in helping children affected by the Russia‑Ukraine war. She personally wrote a letter to Vladimir Putin urging the protection and reunification of displaced children, which President Trump delivered, and she has maintained an ongoing communication channel with him and his office about these cases. While it’s not clear that she and Putin have had direct, face-to-face conversations, several children have already been reunited thanks to these efforts.
Throughout all of this, she doesn’t appear to seek notoriety for herself, even though she works hard to push her own agendas and get tangible results. She continues traditional first lady activities that tie back to her priorities: hosting international leaders, speaking at large summits, reopening White House public tours, advocating for technology safety at forums like an FTC workshop, and representing the U.S. at major events.
So while you might not see her in the headlines every day, Melania Trump’s second-term role has involved child protection legislation, federal budget wins for foster youth, worldwide educational and technology coalitions, and even behind-the-scenes diplomacy about war-affected children, with concrete results in legislation passed, funding secured, and international cooperation.YIKES!
8 Arrested in Health Care Fraud Takedown, Including Owners of Hospices that Billed Taxpayers Millions of Dollars to Serve the ‘Dying’
More Than $50 Million in Intended Health Care Fraud Losses Charged
LOS ANGELES – In coordination with the Vice President’s Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, eight defendants, including three nurses, a chiropractor, and a purported psychologist, have been arrested on federal charges that they schemed to defraud the nation’s health care system out of more than $50 million – including by running sham hospice care facilities that bilked Medicare by using people without terminal illnesses as beneficiaries, the Justice Department announced today.
Six of the defendants arrested today are expected to make their initial appearances this afternoon in United States District Court in downtown Los Angeles. One defendant is expected to make his initial appearance in U.S. District Court in Idaho.
“We are enforcing a zero-tolerance policy for criminals who defraud American taxpayers,” said First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli. “The defendants arrested this morning who are charged with stealing millions of dollars of health care benefits got caught and now face years in federal prison.”
“The Southern California region is a high-risk environment for hospice-related and many other forms of health care fraud,” said Akil Davis, the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office. “The United States loses hundreds of billions of dollars annually to healthcare fraud at the expense of all American taxpayers, whose benefits decrease as premiums, co-payments and taxes grow. Our aim is to reverse that trend with ‘Operation Never Say Die’ and others like it.”
“The defendants charged today allegedly turned hospice care into a cash producing operation, resulting in more than $50 million in losses to taxpayers. The magnitude of the losses underscores a deliberate abuse of the authority and trust afforded to health care providers,” said Inspector General T. March Bell of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). “Today’s takedown reflects HHS-OIG’s commitment to deploy every tool at our disposal, and collaborate with our law enforcement partners, to dismantle hospice operations built on deception. Anyone who seeks to weaponize hospice care to bilk Medicare should expect to be held accountable.”
“Today’s arrests are another decisive strike in our war on fraud,” said U.S. Department of Labor Inspector General Anthony P. D’Esposito. “My office is relentlessly pursuing those who target union benefit plans and exploit employee healthcare programs for personal gain. Working side-by-side with the FBI, the Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration, and our law-enforcement partners, we are aggressively dismantling fraud schemes and taking down those who exploit American workers. Let this be a warning: If you steal from workers or taxpayers, your time is up. We will find you, investigate you, and hold you accountable.”
“When employee benefit plans become targets for fraud, it’s not just the plans that are hurt – everyday working Americans who earned those benefits honestly, their families, and the communities they live in are hurt,” said Robert Prunty, Acting Regional Director U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration’s Los Angeles Regional Office. “In the Trump Administration, we will relentlessly seek out fraud and ensure those responsible are brought to justice.”
“Health care fraud undermines federal programs, threatens public trust, diverts resources away from legitimate patient care, and is a calculated attack on programs meant to protect the vulnerable,” said Tyler Hatcher, Special Agent in Charge, IRS‑CI Los Angeles Field Office. “The enforcement actions taken today demonstrate IRS‑CI’s commitment to uncovering the financial lies behind these schemes and holding accountable those who profit at the expense of taxpayers and patients. Our agents will continue to work alongside our law‑enforcement partners to protect the integrity of our healthcare system and ensure that those who abuse it are brought to justice.”
Lolita Beronilla Minerd, 65, a.k.a. “Lolita Beronilla Rice,” of Anaheim, a licensed vocational nurse, was arrested today on a federal criminal complaint charging her with health care fraud.
According to court documents, Minerd owned and operated the Artesia-based Topanga Hospice Care Inc. From July 2020 to April 2025, Minerd used this company to submit more than $9,174,117 in fraudulent hospice claims to Medicare, which paid more than $8,510,448 on these claims.
Through Topanga, Minerd billed Medicare for hospice services for beneficiaries who were not terminally ill. Numerous beneficiaries had common addresses and lived far from the facility, which is consistent with being recruited by marketers. The investigation further revealed that Minerd paid kickbacks to beneficiaries and marketers for the referral of purported hospice patients to her company.
One beneficiary couple was approached at a market about signing up and then were visited at home by Minerd and three other Topanga employees, who promised them if they signed up everything would be free, and they each would receive $300 per month. The money was delivered in an envelope in cash: $600 per month for six months. Neither beneficiary stated they had a terminal illness, which their physician confirmed. The couple also reported receiving unneeded items such as nutritional shakes, non-prescription vitamins, and wheelchairs.
Topanga had a non-death discharge rate of approximately 85%, nearly five times the national average of 17.2% from 2021.
The FBI is investigating this matter along with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG).
Assistant United States Attorney Alexandra M. Michael of the Major Frauds Section is prosecuting this case.
USA v. Gill, et al.
Gladwin Gill, a 66-year-old purported psychologist, and his wife, Amelou Gill, a 70-year-old registered nurse, both of Covina, were arrested today on a federal criminal complaint charging them with health care fraud.
According to an affidavit filed with the complaint, the Gills owned and operated the Glendale-based 626 Hospice Inc., which did business as St. Francis Palliative Care.
The Gills allegedly schemed to defraud Medicare by paying illegal kickbacks for the referral of patients who were not dying. The Gills also submitted more than $5.2 million in fraudulent claims to Medicare for hospice services that either were not medically necessary or were not provided. Medicare paid the Gills more than $4 million on these fraudulent claims.
They then laundered the scheme’s proceeds and spent their ill-gotten gains on personal expenses such as mortgage payments, car payments, international flights, restaurants, and personal bills.
The Gills are expected to make their initial appearance this afternoon in U.S. District Court in downtown Los Angeles.
HHS-OIG, the FBI, IRS Criminal Investigation, and the Food and Drug Administration are investigating this matter with assistance from United States Trustee, Region 16, Los Angeles Field Office.
Assistant United States Attorney David Y. Pi of the Major Frauds Section is prosecuting this case.
USA v. Palma, et al.
Nita Almuete Paddit Palma, 76, a thrice-convicted health care fraudster now incarcerated at a federal prison in Seattle, and her husband, Adolfo Catbagan, 68, of Glendale, are charged in an 11-count indictment with operating at least three fraudulent hospice care facilities – including while Palma was free on bond awaiting a hospice fraud trial. Law enforcement arrested Catbagan this morning.
Palma, who is a lawful permanent resident from the Philippines, and Catbagan are charged in an indictment with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud and 10 counts of health care fraud.
According to the indictment, from June 2022 to April 2024, Palma and Catbagan opened three Glendale-based hospice care facilities despite Palma being legally barred from doing so: One Up Hospice Care Inc., Rosewood Hospice and Palliative Care Inc., and Advance Hospice and Palliative Care Inc.
Catbagan was named as the nominal owner and CEO of the three hospices when Palma in fact owned and exercised operating control of them – despite her exclusion – so Medicare would not deny the companies’ claims. The defendants submitted false claims to Medicare for beneficiaries who were not terminally ill and the physicians supposedly providing hospice services did not treat the patients.
Palma and Catbagan submitted at least $4.8 million in fraudulent claims through these companies, resulting in Medicare payments of at least $4.2 million.
HHS-OIG and the FBI are investigating this matter.
Assistant United States Attorneys Andrew M. Roach and Roger A. Hsieh of the Major Frauds Section are prosecuting this case. Assistant United States Attorney Alexander Su of the Asset Forfeiture and Recovery Section is handling asset forfeiture matters for this case.
USA v. Tindimobuna
Evelyn Tindimobuna, 51, a licensed vocational nurse from Chatsworth, is charged in a federal criminal complaint with health care fraud. According to an affidavit filed with the complaint, from January 2022 to September 2025, Tindimobuna used the Tarzana-based Comfort Choice Hospice Inc. to submit to Medicare hundreds of fraudulent claims for purported hospice services to dozens of beneficiaries. For those claims, Comfort Choice sought more than $3.8 million, of which Medicare paid approximately $3.4 million.
For example, in November 2022, Comfort Choice submitted a claim to Medicare in the amount of $7,021, for reimbursement of hospice services for a beneficiary. Law enforcement later interviewed this beneficiary and other Comfort Choice patients who said they were not terminally ill, a requirement to qualify for hospice care.
Tindimobuna allegedly also paid kickbacks to marketers for their referral of hospice patients to Comfort Choice in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute.
HHS-OIG is investigating this matter.
Special Assistant United States Attorney Yervant P. Hagopian of the Major Frauds Section is prosecuting this case.
USA v. Lauritzen
Ivan Verne Lauritzen, 50, of Simi Valley, was arrested Tuesday on a federal criminal complaint charging him with health care fraud. According to court documents, Lauritzen was the CEO and CFO of the Simi Valley-based Valley Pacific Hospice Inc., whose Medicare enrollment was revoked in August 2024.
In 2022, the live discharge rate of Valley Pacific patients was more than 75%, vastly higher than the national average that year of approximately 17%. Based on an audit examining 18 Valley Pacific Medicare claims from August 2023 to March 2024, CMS determined the company had a pattern and practice of submitting claims that failed to meet Medicare’s hospice standards and requirements. To facilitate this fraud, Lauritzen forged the signature of at least one physician on the Medicare enrollment forms.
During the alleged scheme, Valley Pacific billed Medicare more than $580,000 and was paid more than $526,000.
Lauritzen made his initial appearance Tuesday and was ordered released on $10,000 bond.
HHS-OIG is investigating this matter.
Assistant United States Attorney Neil P. Thakor of the Major Crimes Section is prosecuting this case.
PRIVATE HEALTH CARE PLAN FRAUD
USA v. Aulava-Moala, et al.
Four defendants with South Bay ties – one of them a licensed chiropractor – have been charged in a two-count information with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud in connection with a $19 million scheme to defraud a labor union’s health plan via false claims for chiropractic services and physical therapy that weren’t needed or never provided.
The defendants charged are:
Tolu Aulava-Moala, 51, of Carson, who was the director of the facilities;
John Nicola, 77, of El Segundo, a licensed chiropractor;
Crysta Richter, 40, of Torrance, who owned a medical billing company; and
John Keohuloa, 49, of Long Beach.
These defendants will be summonsed into Los Angeles federal court and are expected to make their initial appearances in the coming weeks.
According to court documents, from January 2010 to September 2023, they fraudulently submitted at least $19,005,463 in claims to International Longshore and Warehouse Union Pacific Maritime Association and other private health insurers on behalf of several chiropractic and physical therapy service companies: Ohana Wellness Center, Ohana Management Corp., and R3New Wellness – all based in Carson – and the Huntington Beach-based One Life Acupuncture APC.
Aulava-Moala and Keohuloa induced beneficiaries to visit clinics to receive medically unnecessary services, such as massages or endoscopies, in exchange for kickback payments. Nicola knowingly created fake client notes for beneficiaries, and Aulava-Moala, Nicola, and Richter submitted false and fraudulent claims to health insurers for reimbursement for medical services.
In August 2022, the former owner of the Ohana companies testified under oath at a civil trial that the companies falsified patient chart notes and billed claims under chiropractors’ names and insurance numbers without their knowledge. A state court later that month found the Ohana companies liable for the fraud scheme.
In addition, from March 2016 to June 2023, Aulava-Moala and Keohuloa conspired to submit approximately $700,000 in fraudulent receipts for a charity donation program operated by a Los Angeles-based oil refinery for which the company paid at least $500,000.
The FBI, the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General (DOL-OIG), and the U.S. Department of Labor – Employee Benefits Security Administration are investigating this matter with assistance from Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the United States Secret Service.
Assistant United States Attorney Jason C. Pang of the Transnational Organized Crime Section is prosecuting this case.
USA v. Cartmell; USA v. Surace
Gregory Cartmell, 62, of Coeur D’Alene, Idaho, a licensed chiropractor, was arrested today on a four-count indictment charging him with two counts of health care fraud and two counts of aggravated identity theft. He is expected to make his initial appearance today in U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. He will be arraigned in Los Angeles in the coming weeks.
According to the indictment, from December 2018 to November 2022, Cartmell submitted approximately $9.14 million in fraudulent claims to the ILWU-PMA health plan for chiropractic services – including for services not rendered – and received approximately $6.43 million in payment from the union’s health plan, which had terminated him from the plan in December 2020.
To circumvent his termination, Cartmell arranged with a co-conspirator – Vincent Surace, 87, of McKinney, Texas – to bill ILWU-PMA’s health plan under the co-conspirator’s name and identification number. In exchange for allowing his name and ID number to be used in the scheme, Cartmell paid Surace a portion of the proceeds the union’s plan paid for the fraudulent claims.
Surace is charged via information with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. He will be summonsed to Los Angeles federal court in the coming weeks.
The FBI, the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General (DOL-OIG), and the U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration (DOL-EBSA) are investigating this matter.
Assistant United States Attorneys Jason C. Pang of the Transnational Organized Crime Section and William M. Larsen of the Criminal Appeals Section are prosecuting this case with assistance from Assistant United States Attorney Christopher C. Kendall of the Transnational Organized Crime Section.
USA v. Griffen
Sonia Griffen, 51, of Lakewood, was arrested today on a five-count indictment charging her with health care fraud. From April 2019 to May 2024, Griffen allegedly submitted nearly $5 million in fraudulent claims to ILWU-PMA’s health care plan through her wellness company, Bee Well Holistic Wellness Center, for purported chiropractic services given to union members, even though the plan had previously terminated Bee Well and barred it from submitting claims.
According to the indictment, to circumvent Bee Well’s termination from the ILWU-PMA plan and obtain payments, Griffen concealed Bee Well’s identity and involvement by arranging with two chiropractors to bill the plan under their names and at fictitious addresses. She also submitted false claims billing the plan for chiropractic services that were never rendered.
In total, Griffen submitted approximately $4.9 million in fraudulent claims to the ILWU-PMA plan, resulting in payments of approximately $2.5 million.
The FBI, the United States Department of Labor Office of Inspector General (DOL-OIG), and the Department of Labor – Employee Benefits Security Administration (DOL-EBSA) are investigating this matter.
Assistant United States Attorney Jing Yan of the General Crimes Section is prosecuting this case.
IMMIGRATION HEALTH CARE FRAUD
USA v. Ko
Young Joo Ko, 59, of East Hollywood and a lawful permanent resident from South Korea, was arrested today on a federal criminal complaint charging her with fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents.
According to an affidavit filed with the complaint, Ko engaged in a medical fraud scheme exploiting the green card application process by creating fraudulent immigration documents. Civil surgeons designated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and operating in the Los Angeles area did not examine green card applicants as required by law.
Instead, Ko – for a fee – fraudulently prepared the required forms by presenting herself as a nurse or doctor and indicating false compliance with medical examination requirements necessary for immigration applicants to register permanent residence or adjust their immigration status.
If convicted, Ko would face a statutory maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison.
HSI, IRS Criminal Investigation, and USCIS are investigating this matter.
Assistant United States Attorney Brenda N. Galván of the General Crimes Section is prosecuting this case.
Health care fraud-related charges in these cases carry a statutory maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison. Wire fraud is punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison. Aggravated identity theft carries a mandatory two-year consecutive prison sentence.
Complaints and indictments contain allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court.It is great to know that if there was a Harris-Trump rematch today, Harris would trump Trump.
"As President Donald Trump’s poll numbers have hit new lows amid the Iran war, there’s now the firmest evidence yet of a long-anticipated dynamic: the regretful Trump voter.
While a fair number of Trump voters have had reservations for a while, a series of polls in recent weeks shows those reservations are starting to tip over into something more serious.
A YouGov poll from the University of Massachusetts Amherst — a survey we’ve spotlighted before on this issue — is the hardest evidence.
Rather than ask a straight question about whether people regret their votes, the poll offers a sliding scale of more-nuanced options, including “some concerns,” “mixed feelings” and “some regrets,” rather than just full-on regret.
In April 2025, 74% of Trump voters scorned any of those options and said they were “very confident” in their vote. But today, that number has declined to 62%.
The 38% of Trump voters who chose a less-resolute option was double the 19% of Kamala Harris voters who did the same.
Another 21% of Trump voters said they were still “confident” in their votes but had “some concerns.”
And the percentage who declined to express confidence in their vote — and said they at least had “mixed feelings” — has gone from 8% in April 2025 to 17% today.
Just 5% said they regret their vote and would vote differently if they could. But that appears to actually undersell the level of regret.
When given a chance to recast their 2024 votes, in fact, just 84% of Trump voters said they would vote for him again — compared to 91% for Harris voters.
So while some might prefer to not call it “regret,” 16% would apparently do things differently with hindsight."
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/04/politics … trump-2024These sayings are not a viable opinion for President Donald J Trump-Kamala Harris rematch.
How do you think Kamala should handled the Iran War?
Friendly?We wouldn't be in an illegal war to start with.
This is what Communists and Fascists do - guess that tells us what Trump is and anyone who agrees with this are.
"Trump is trying to build a massive voter database. Election officials are afraid of what he’ll do with it"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/05/politics … tion-fraudWhen Donald [b"]the sexual predator"[/b] Trump decided to try to cheat his way to a Republican victory this coming Nov, he did the Democrats a great favor with his incompetence.
"Early voting points to an edge for Virginia Democrats trying to enact a US House map that could flip four seats"
It looks like when the dust settles by Nov, the Democrats will have picked up between 1 and 3 seats, depending on the outcome of Ohio's try to redraw the maps.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/14/politics … rly-votingFrance’s President Emmanuel Macron is facing renewed criticism for his lack of support for President Donald Trump’s war against Iran and demands to include Lebanon in the current ceasefire as historic talks between Israel and Lebanon are set to begin Tuesday.The Jerusalem Post reported that Israel’s government requested that France be excluded from the talks
On Saturday, Macron again pushed his desire for a ceasefire and wrote on X that he had discussions with Iran’s President Massoud Pezeshkian: "I stressed the importance of full respect for the ceasefire, including in Lebanon. France extends its full support to the actions of the Lebanese authorities, who alone are legitimate to exercise the sovereignty of the State and decide the destiny of Lebanon."
TO LITTLE TO LATE!
It’s difficult to view Emmanuel Macron as a serious or constructive voice in this situation given the timing of his involvement. The article lays out that he’s now facing criticism over his approach to Iran and Hezbollah, particularly as tensions tied to Hezbollah and Iran continue to threaten regional stability. But where was this urgency earlier?
At the same time, the Trump administration is actively hosting talks between Israel and Lebanon, real diplomatic engagement aimed at reducing conflict along a very dangerous border. That’s meaningful involvement. That’s being at the table when it counts.
Macron, on the other hand, is now drawing backlash for policies and statements that many see as too accommodating toward Iran and insufficiently tough on Hezbollah, an organization widely recognized as a destabilizing force in the region. The criticism highlighted in the article underscores a broader concern: that his approach risks legitimizing or downplaying actors that contribute directly to the conflict.
And that’s what makes his late-stage commentary so frustrating. The article makes clear that he’s now speaking up and positioning himself in the conversation, but without having played a leading role during the most critical moments. When a leader steps in this late, after negotiations are already underway, it raises legitimate questions about motive.
At best, it feels disconnected from the urgency of the situation. At worst, it feels like political positioning, trying to shape the narrative after others have already done the difficult diplomatic work.
In a situation this serious, involving Iran, Hezbollah, and the security of Israel and Lebanon, leadership isn’t about who speaks the loudest at the end, it’s about who shows up early and contributes meaningfully. Based on what’s laid out here, Macron didn’t do that.Sorry, but that rhetoric is American right wing bias - disinformation. The actual reason given was that Israel viewed France as “an unfair mediator” due to France’s recent diplomatic positions, including actions seen as limiting Israel’s ability to operate against Iran and Hezbollah.
France has clearly been engaged diplomatically in the region, including calls for ceasefires and ongoing discussions with regional actors. That part isn’t in dispute.
However, what stands out is the difference in visibility and role in the current negotiations. The Donald Trump administration is actively facilitating and hosting talks between Israel and Lebanon in Washington, with U.S. officials directly involved in the process, as reported by Reuters.
From my perspective, France’s more recent and high-profile statements come at a moment when structured negotiations are already being driven elsewhere. That timing naturally raises questions about whether this is substantive diplomatic leadership or more of a reactive political positioning.
You can disagree with that interpretation, but that’s how it comes across to me based on the sequence of events.Sharlee, I understand the point you’re making about visibility, but the Reuters reporting doesn’t actually say that France should be playing a central role in these particular negotiations. These talks are being hosted by the Trump administration because it is the United States — together with Israel — that initiated and is conducting the military campaign against Iran and Hezbollah. Europe isn’t a party to that war, and it hasn’t endorsed it, so it wouldn’t make sense for European leaders to be front‑and‑centre in Washington’s negotiations.
France’s role has been consistent with Europe’s position throughout: diplomacy, ceasefire advocacy, and engagement with Lebanon, Iran, and the Strait. The articles simply note that Israel asked France to be excluded and that Macron reiterated France’s position on the ceasefire.
So the difference in ‘visibility’ reflects the fact that this is an American‑led conflict and therefore an American‑led negotiation — not that France arrived late or only spoke up once the Washington talks began. The idea of ‘late‑stage commentary’ isn’t something the reporting itself states; that part is an interpretation rather than a fact from the articles.Let me emphasize - this war is something Trump and Netanyahu started for reasons that did not exist. Unfortunately, a few supporters bought into the strawmen.
Happily, Roughly 70% of Americans oppose what Trump let Netanyahu talk him into an illegal war that is hurting Americans terribly not to mention the rest of the world.Quite so, My Esoteric. And the reaction over here mirrors it — even the far‑right in Britain is stepping back from Trump, and his remarks about the Pope have triggered a strong, widespread backlash among the Italian people, with around 93% opposing Trump.
This must be driving Trump more nuts and unstable than he already is. His base is crumbling more each day with him comparing himself to Jesus lately.
The only support he has left are scared Republican congressmen, Americans who are like him and think his bad characteristics are a good thing, and the sizable number of those he has brainwashed.
Across the world, democratic leaders think he is terrible while those of repressive nations think he is great.
That is what happens when you act like you think you are God.Exactly, My Esoteric. The global reaction says it all
I think you’re making two points that don’t fully line up. On one hand, you’re saying France wouldn’t be central because this is a U.S.-led conflict and negotiation, which is fair. But on the other hand, you’re also suggesting that France’s lower visibility is simply a natural outcome, not something worth questioning.
To me, that’s where the tension is. Within alliances like NATO, countries like France can clearly state their positions, ceasefires, diplomacy, de-escalation, but when they’re not aligned with or directly involved in the strategy driving the negotiations, their influence is naturally more limited.
At the same time, they still have historical and political stakes in the region, so it’s not surprising they continue to speak out and expect their voices to carry weight. That’s why I don’t think it’s odd to question the timing and visibility of France’s statements.
My point wasn’t that France should be leading these talks, it’s that when their most visible engagement comes after negotiations are already underway elsewhere, it’s reasonable to ask whether that reflects proactive diplomacy or more reactive positioning. That distinction still stands.Sharlee, I don’t think there’s a contradiction in what I said. The reporting makes a clear distinction between who is conducting the military campaign and who is not. Because the United States and Israel are the belligerents, they are naturally the ones hosting and driving the Washington talks. Europe isn’t a party to the war and hasn’t endorsed it, so its role is diplomatic rather than operational.
That’s why the visibility differs — not because France arrived late, but because the structure of the conflict places the United States at the centre of the negotiations. The articles don’t suggest any shift in France’s level of engagement over time; they simply note that Israel asked France to be excluded and that Macron reiterated France’s established position on the ceasefire.
And on the timing: the Washington talks were only announced on 9 April 2026. France, meanwhile, had already publicly offered to facilitate or host Israel–Lebanon talks back on 14–15 March 2026 — almost a month earlier. So the idea that France only became ‘visible’ after negotiations were underway doesn’t really fit your sequence of events. The talks didn’t exist until early April, and France had been advocating for them since mid‑March.Nathan, I understand the distinction you’re drawing, but I think you’re narrowing the frame in a way that avoids the substance of my point.
Yes, the U.S. and Israel are the belligerents, and yes, that gives them a central role in negotiations. I’ve already acknowledged that. But influence in international diplomacy isn’t limited to who is actively conducting military operations. Countries like France often exert influence precisely outside of that structure, through leverage, alliances, and early positioning.
That’s where my point still stands.
You’re focusing on when France first made statements in March, but I’m talking about when those efforts translated into visible influence within the actual negotiation framework. There’s a difference between signaling willingness to facilitate talks and being meaningfully included once those talks take shape.
And that gap is what raises the question.
If France was advocating for talks in mid-March, yet is explicitly excluded when negotiations formalize in April, that doesn’t just reflect “structure of the conflict.” It also reflects limits to France’s influence in shaping outcomes, whether due to strategic disagreement, lack of alignment, or decisions made by the primary actors.
So I don’t think this is about contradiction; it’s about levels of analysis.
You’re describing why the U.S. is leading. I’m questioning what it says that France, despite early diplomatic positioning and historical involvement in the region, is not more present once those talks materialize.
That’s not rewriting the reporting; it’s interpreting what the sequence and visibility imply.Sharlee, you’re trying to turn this into a theoretical debate about ‘levels of analysis’ when the reporting is absolutely clear on the practical sequence of events.
France wasn’t sidelined because of a lack of influence. It was excluded because Israel explicitly asked for it to be excluded — that’s what the reporting says. And the timeline is not ambiguous: France publicly offered to facilitate Israel–Lebanon talks in mid‑March. The Washington talks didn’t even exist until 9 April.
So the idea that France only became ‘visible’ once the talks materialised is backwards. The talks materialised after France had already positioned itself. There is no ‘gap’ to interpret.
You’re trying to read significance into something that isn’t there. The visibility difference isn’t about influence; it’s about who is conducting the war. The United States and Israel are the belligerents, so they are the ones hosting and driving the negotiations. Europe isn’t a party to the war and hasn’t endorsed it, so its role is diplomatic rather than operational.
That’s not a ‘narrow frame’. It’s the structure of the conflict, and it’s exactly what the reporting reflects.
And just as a small note — my name’s Arthur, not Nathan.Apologies for the earlier name mix-up. I referred to you as Nathan based on your username, but I understand your name is Arthur
You’re presenting your interpretation as if it’s the only “clear” reading of the reporting, but the reality is that the reporting you’re citing doesn’t actually eliminate the question I raised, it just describes a sequence of events.
Saying France was excluded because Israel requested it is not the same as explaining the full diplomatic picture. Even if that request was made, it doesn’t automatically resolve why France’s early diplomatic positioning did not translate into participation once the framework shifted. Those are two different questions, and you’re treating them as if answering one removes the legitimacy of the other.
You’re also flattening the distinction between “who is conducting the war” and “who has diplomatic influence.” Those are not interchangeable categories. Countries that are not belligerents still routinely shape negotiations through back channels, alliances, and leverage. That’s not theory, that’s how diplomacy functions in practice.
So when I refer to “levels of influence,” I’m not ignoring structure, I’m pointing out that structure doesn’t fully determine access or relevance once negotiations begin. Otherwise, there would be no variation in which non-belligerent states are present at different stages of peace processes, and history clearly shows that’s not the case.
You’re assuming the only meaningful measure is whether a country is physically present at the negotiation table. That’s a very narrow definition of influence. Absence can reflect exclusion, yes, but it can also reflect limited priority, competing preferences among the primary actors, or simply different strategic alignments at the moment talks are formed.
So my point isn’t that France “should” be central. It’s that its absence still tells us something, and it’s not fully explained by the fact that it is not a belligerent. That’s the gap I’m pointing to, and your response doesn’t actually close it, it just restates the procedural framework.Sharlee, you’re now shifting the discussion away from what the reporting actually says and into abstract theorising about “levels of influence”, but none of that changes the basic facts.
France wasn’t excluded because its early diplomacy “failed to translate into influence”. It was excluded because Israel explicitly asked for it to be excluded. That is the explanation the reporting gives. You’re trying to replace that with a hypothetical gap that simply isn’t in the articles.
You keep saying that France’s absence “tells us something”, but the only thing it tells us — based on the reporting — is that Israel did not want France involved. That is not a commentary on France’s diplomatic weight, and it is not evidence of diminished influence. It is a direct request from one of the belligerents.
Your argument depends on treating France’s exclusion as if it must reflect some deeper structural weakness, but that’s an assumption, not a fact. The reporting does not support it.
You also keep suggesting that France’s early positioning “did not translate into participation”, but again, that assumes that participation was ever on the table. It wasn’t. The United States and Israel initiated the war, they initiated the talks, and they chose the participants. Europe is not a belligerent and has not endorsed the conflict, so it would have been unusual for France to be central in Washington’s military‑driven negotiations.
The visibility difference is structural, not chronological. France didn’t “arrive late”; the Washington talks arrived after France had already positioned itself. The timeline is clear: mid‑March versus 9 April.
You’re trying to interpret a “gap” that doesn’t exist in the reporting. The articles describe a sequence of events, not a failure of French diplomacy. And when the reporting gives a direct explanation — Israel requested France’s exclusion — replacing that with speculation about “levels of influence” isn’t analysis, it’s conjecture.
You’re reading significance into something the reporting treats as procedural. I’m reading the reporting as it is written.
You forget, this all started with Trump and Netanyahu ILLEGALLY starting a shooting war with Iran and Lebanon (which IS part of the ceasefire according to the Pakistani president who negotiated it).
Why would you expect Macron to go along with an ILLEGAL aggression? I admire him for his courage not to be coward by two ego-driven bullies.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/van … 32830.html
Wisdom from the mouth of babes? Finally. Watching Trumpism and the “Right” unravel from sea to shining sea, as well as abroad has to be of great comfort. Is there more “buyers remorse” to be found?
Turning Point? Now it becomes a tuning fork for those that have ears to listen and pay attention to the reality.
It is just tragic that all these folks are finally coming to a revelation of a truth that i recognized the moment this Trump came down the escalator 11 years ago.This article gets into great detail about how Trump is destroying, along with everything else, his base.
President Donald Trump’s weekend tirade against the pope — capped off by an AI-generated depiction of the president as Jesus — was, for some of his supporters, just too much.
Their unusually severe backlash comes as many once-devout Trump supporters are having a crisis of faith. Upset over what they feel is a too timid deportation agenda, a sputtering economy and another war in the Middle East, many couldn’t stomach the affront the way they might have in the past.
The backlash cut across evangelical Protestants, traditional Catholics and the populist conservatives who form the backbone of Trump’s base — a sign of how little grace key supporters are willing to extend at a moment when frustrations are already running high."[/i]
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/04/1 … h-00872163
Thank God there are some judges willing to smack down Trump's BS
"Judge: Trump can’t claim that entire White House ballroom project is needed for national security"
"A federal judge has again ordered President Donald Trump to pause construction of a massive new ballroom at the White House, rejecting the president’s “disingenuous” bid to circumvent an earlier ruling against the project by claiming that it needed to proceed for national security reasons."
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/16/politics … ity-rulingHere is a GREAT example of how Trump is trying to reclaim America - destroy it.
"‘I am trying to stay alive.’ Jobs at mom-and-pop shops are disappearing"
"New York — Shirley Modlin started her manufacturing business 20 years ago in her garage with her husband. Now, she fears the company won’t survive.
Modlin’s tiny company based in Powhatan, Virginia, faces major delays on components and price hikes of up to 400% that she blames on tariffs. She is struggling to pass those costs on to clients and has fallen 90 days behind on payments to vendors.
“Everything is delayed or high-priced. The customer is screaming. It’s killing us,” Modlin, owner of 3D Design and Manufacturing, told CNN in a phone interview.
Mom-and-pop shops are under increasing pressure from a confluence of factors: tariffs, high interest rates, expensive health insurance and now surging energy costs.
Small businesses with fewer than 10 employees have cut jobs 13 months in a row, according to according to a new analysis by the Democratic staff at the US Congress Joint Economic Committee that was first shared with CNN.
That’s a big change from the spike in small business optimism that accompanied President Donald Trump’s 2024 victory."
Trump Failing to Deliver Again.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/07/business … mp-economyMusic to America's ears -
"The GOP’s enthusiasm problem"
"Republicans would have turnout challenges in the 2026 midterm elections regardless of how President Donald Trump was doing. After all, his base has proven they largely only come out in droves when his name is on the ballot.
So what happens when we add in Trump’s historic unpopularity and a series of moves that have alienated even many of his own supporters?
We’re starting to find out, and it doesn’t look good for the GOP.
A series of polls in recent weeks have taken an early look at enthusiasm and motivation to vote ahead of the 2026 election, and Republicans are suffering from a real deficit.
The party has trailed significantly on such measures for months, as CNN polling has showed. But what’s particularly remarkable is how unenthused Republicans are, compared to other recent midterm elections — including those involving Trump.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll this week, for instance, showed 73% of Democrats said the upcoming election is more important than past midterms. But just 52% of Republicans said the same."
More Great Analysis from CNN - https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/07/politics … ions-polls
Related Discussions
- 30
Why Drill, Baby, Drill Isn't Working
by kerryg 12 months ago
Contrary to what has been suggested in several posts here over the last few weeks, Obama's supposed imposition of "regulation after regulation, roadblock after roadblock" is not what's holding up domestic oil drilling, it's the oil companies themselves holding out for higher profits.This...
- 32
Oil spill result of corporate negligence and a lack of over sight.
by Stump Parrish 15 years ago
How do we make sure this doesn't happen again you ask? Deregulate further and open more of the gulf to drilling. That could only makes sense to those in the oil companies back pockets.
- 214
Obama's attacks on BP not going down well in the UK
by CMHypno 16 years ago
Obama's attacks on BP are increasingly being viewed in the UK as signs of his anti-British stance. Or is he just trying to pull attention away from his own administration's failures?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … itain.html
- 47
Biden’s Dirty Oil Deal With Venezuela
by Sharlee 3 years ago
What do you think about becoming dependent on dictators for energy? Is this not all half-ass-backward?Wall Street Journal Biden’s Dirty Oil Deal With VenezuelaCaracas gets a sanctions reprieve while the U.S. vetoes a loan to Guyana, a rare U.S. ally in the region."At the United Nations climate...
- 192
Global Warming is Socialist Propaganda
by Nickny79 17 years ago
Mississippi and Lousiana get snow: http://news.aol.com/article/rare-snow-c … 1200988198So much for global warming. I bet Al Gore was scheduled to give a speech in New Orleans.
- 59
What's the libertarian take on the BP oil spill?
by Don W 16 years ago
Would a free market have prevented this from happening?I'm guessing the libertarian argument would be that the failings of state regulation was a contributing factor. Those failings stemming from the fact that the regulators were in bed (figuratively and literally) with those regulated. Whereas...