Random Thoughts.
This Article is a perfect metaphor for the Trump failed presidencies, both of them.
"Blue material peeling off bottom of Reflecting Pool, days after costly renovation"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/18/politics … renovationIt always seems to appear that everything and anything Donnie touches turns to sh!t…..
Who is advising the man? Did anybody bother to think about the possibility of algae bloom prior to the planned paint job.
this entire matter is coming off as dumber than rocks.
Conservatives will never admit that Trump was a mistake, a big one. But in their pride they would rather go down with a sinking ship than to acknowledge their error.
Another example of Trump being an embarrassing asshole who is so unhinged he can't keep his foul trap shut.
"In an interview with Italy’s La7 TV, Trump claimed Meloni had “begged” him for a photo at the summit, and he obliged because he felt sorry for her, according to a dubbed Italian translation posted by the outlet."
That generated this expected headline -
"Italian foreign minister cancels trip to US over Trump’s comments about Meloni"
Somehow, though, his defenders here will either be silent or will do what they normally do, defend Trump's insanity.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/19/politics … oni-tajaniIt is all part of the Trump misogynistic profile and totally out of touch with any world leader. He is not even smart enough to bother to conceal it.
It is that "to bother to conceal it" which leads me to conclude he is unhinged.
No surprise here is there. Our racist SCOTUS sides AGAINST RELIGION if it isn't Christian and White.
"Supreme Court rules against Rastafarian who sued prison officials for cutting his dreadlocks"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/23/politics … rt-opinionI saw that too, i understand that there are valid reasons to have men shave their hair in prison. But the religious exemption should have superseded all of that. Cutting that man’s hair was an unnecessary and malicious act. This Supreme right wing tribunal has no problems in allowing a Christian to complain bringing an entire bureaucracy to a halt, but it is ok to desecrate a single man and his religion if it is non-Christian.
I continue to loathe rightwingers and everything they stand for….Hence, my book.
BTW, I had ChatGPT do some research (I'll try deep research, next) to find any positive aspect of conservatism in practice in America. It found two: Nixon's EPA (now opposed by MAGA) and the other was Eisenhower's interstate highway program (which MAGA probably wouldn't fund today).
I am sure there are a couple of others.
"New polls show Americans’ complicated feelings about the country, 250 years on"
A very interesting read about how Americans feel. The chart it includes is very telling.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/25/politics … tion-pollsDamn, I thought Trump had forgotten about this huge waste of billions of tax dollars - building his virtually useless, ego-driven, vanity border wall. Next move, steal people's (mainly MAGA) land.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/25/politics … ent-domain"Supreme Court hands Trump two major immigration victories
Justice Samuel Alito wrote both opinions, also holding that TPS recipients cannot block revocation of their status" https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem … -victories
I was pleased to hear these rulings, and am pleased to see these long-time issues settled in the high court. In my view, our immigration laws need work, and to be clear to prevent confusion.I can understand the asylum ruling, as I understand it, because it seems the law is pretty clear. I disagree with keeping people out of America who really our help simply to stay alive. The consequence of that is more people will cross the border illegally to ask for asylum.
The TSP ruling is complete BS and is frankly inhumane, but expected from these conservatives. Why do I say that? Because those conservatives see no reason to stop Trump and his minions from arbitrarily lying and cheating in their campaign to eliminate Brown and Black immigrants from White America and taking our economy with them. The thing is, it is very likely, from my research into this, that DHS nor Trump honestly followed the law in order to terminate the TPS status of the Black Haitians and Brown Syrians. The Court simply didn't care - all they needed was for DHS to claim they followed proper procedures.
As to the gun ruling, i think that was a nothing burger. In interrogating ChatGPT about the case it seems to boil down to this:
1. Hawaii had a law that "presumed" it was illegal to carry weapons into private businesses that are open to the public unless the owners affirmatively said they could. The conservative justices said that was an unconstitutional presumption.
2. What the Court didn't say was unconstitutional is for the owners to affirmatively prohibit guns in their public establishments.
So, all mall owners, for example, have to do is post signs at each entrance saying "No Guns Allowed". (assuming state law doesn't ban them from doing that)
I agree immigration laws need fixing, but every time over the last 30 years that Democrats tried, Republicans block them (I provided specific examples in previous posts) Clearly, your side wants to make sure this remains a hot button for MAGA.Immigration Act of 1990, Title III, Section 302. This law added Section 244 to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Today, the controlling statute is codified as:
8 U.S.C. § 1254a (Section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) was created by the Immigration Act of 1990 and signed into law by George H. W. Bush.
The intent was not to create a permanent immigration path, but rather to solve a humanitarian problem.
Congress created TPS so that if a person's home country suddenly became too dangerous to return to, the U.S. government could temporarily allow those already in the United States to stay legally until conditions improved.
The law specifically lists three situations in which a country may be designated for TPS:
An ongoing armed conflict, such as a civil war, that makes returning unsafe.
A natural disaster, such as an earthquake, hurricane, or epidemic, where the country cannot adequately handle the return of its citizens.
Other extraordinary and temporary conditions that prevent safe return, provided allowing people to stay is consistent with U.S. national interests.
The key word throughout the law is temporary. Congress envisioned that:
A country would be designated for a limited period (typically 6–18 months).
The Department of Homeland Security would regularly review whether conditions still justified the designation.
If conditions improved, the designation would end and beneficiaries would lose TPS unless they had another lawful immigration status.
TPS itself does not provide permanent residence or citizenship.
Those here under TSP do not have permanent status to stay. I feel that anyone here under the TSP, that are deemed here illegally should be deported. We have laws, and our laws should be enforced, as written."If conditions improved, " is the key phrase. The State Dept summary says basically no change for Haiti and I didn't read what it said about Syria.
DHS arbitrarily decided the Haitians aren't in danger any more, so send them back to fend for themselves in a murderous nation.
What the Court said was that so long as DHS found some report, reviewed it, and came to a conclusion, any conclusion, then the Court (and NOBODY else) has any reason to tell them they are wrong, regardless of how much obvious evidence they are. That is what the Court calls "deference".
In other words, Trump can do what ever he want to hurt people and nobody can do a damn thing about it.
I have to wonder how many people are now dead because of Trump's decisions.Only when he wants to - we have seen plenty of proof that if he doesn't like a law, he ignores it.
Some Prime Examples:
1. Withholding Ukraine aid after Congress specifically told him to spend it. WHY? Because Trump was pressing Ukraine to announce investigations that would benefit him politically.
2. Trying to impose voting rules by executive order. Multiple judges have declared those efforts unconstitutional.
3. Withholding or freezing funds Congress had already approved which are variations of his Ukraine violation
4. Trying to govern through “emergency” or unilateral executive authority. Many of those were shot down by courts as illegal.1. You make it sound as though Trump simply ignored Congress. What actually happened is that the administration temporarily paused the aid while conducting a policy review, believing it had the authority to do so. Before the funding expired, the money was released and Ukraine received the aid. The GAO later concluded the pause violated the law, while the administration disagreed with that conclusion. That's a legal dispute over executive authority—not evidence that Trump permanently refused to carry out Congress's appropriation.
2. Voting rules by executive order: Lower federal courts have blocked portions of the order, finding the President likely exceeded his authority. However, those rulings are being appealed, and there has not been a final Supreme Court ruling on the merits. More importantly, presidents of both parties issue executive orders that are challenged in court. Having an executive order struck down or temporarily blocked is not the same thing as "ignoring the law." It's the constitutional process of the courts deciding the limits of executive power.
3. Freezing congressionally approved funds:** This largely refers back to the https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … 27#Ukraine aid issue. The administration temporarily paused the funding, arguing it had authority to conduct a policy review before releasing it. The aid was ultimately released and Ukraine received all of the congressionally appropriated funds. The GAO later issued an opinion that the pause violated the Impoundment Control Act, while the administration disagreed. There was never a final court ruling on the merits because the funds had already been released, making it inaccurate to claim this proves Trump simply "ignored the law."
4. Emergency powers:** This is not unique to Trump. Every modern president has relied on emergency or broad executive authority, and courts have often been asked to decide whether those actions exceeded presidential power.
George W. Bush:** After 9/11, Bush authorized warrantless surveillance of suspected terrorists through the NSA. The program faced numerous legal challenges, and Congress later revised surveillance laws through the FISA Amendments Act.
Barack Obama:** Obama used executive actions to create DACA after Congress failed to pass immigration reform. He also attempted to expand DACA and create DAPA by executive action. Those expansions were blocked by the courts, and the Supreme Court ultimately left the lower court's ruling in place. That didn't mean Obama was "ignoring the law"—it meant the courts concluded he had exceeded his authority.
Joe Biden:** Biden attempted to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt through executive authority. The Supreme Court ruled that the administration lacked authority under the HEROES Act to implement the program as proposed. Biden also used OSHA to require large employers to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations or testing, and the Supreme Court blocked that rule.
The point is that presidents frequently test the boundaries of executive authority. Sometimes the courts uphold those actions, and sometimes they strike them down. That's how our constitutional system works. A court ruling against a president does not automatically prove the president ignored the law—it often reflects a disagreement over the scope of executive power.
Trump issued a number of executive actions and emergency declarations that were challenged in court. Some were upheld, some were partially blocked, and some were struck down."
Saying "many were shot down by courts as illegal" oversimplifies what happened because:
Some rulings were preliminary injunctions, not final decisions.
Some actions were upheld by appellate courts or the Supreme Court.
Some cases became moot when the policy expired or a new administration took office.
Obama had similar legal battles with the courts, and in some major cases his administration also lost or was blocked, just like Trump, Bush, and Biden. The pattern is actually normal across modern presidencies because executive power is constantly tested.1. You make it sound as though Trump simply ignored Congress. - [b]The GAO later concluded the pause violated the law[/b} - To say "the administration didn't agree" is like saying the sky is blue on a sunny day. They can object all they want, part of GAO's job is to make those judgements. The GAO can be believed, Trump cannot.
"2. Voting rules by executive order: Lower federal courts have blocked portions of the order, finding the President likely exceeded his authority." - TWO points - we are talking about multiple, meaning A LOT, of judges struck Trump down and I am not sure why you don't think that in America the rulings of lower courts don't count, that until appeals run out, their decision isn't valid.
#3 - same answer as #1
#4 - what makes Trump unique is his ABUSE of that power. Other presidents waited until there was a REAL emergency, not ones conjured up in Trump's mind to excuse his illegal, often inhumane actions.
Trump has had at least 80 to more than likely 150+ lower court rulings against him. Of those, maybe 2 were overturned by SCOTUS and 1 upheld. SCOTUS stayed the injunctions of around 10 while the merits played out in lower courts.
This may be a bridge too far for even this conservative Christian Court
"Texas is poised to require millions of students to study Bible stories"
It is hard to fathom the arrogance and frankly unAmerican actions of Texas. Don't they realize that America is NOT a Christian nation; it is a nation with Christian living in it. Our founders, many of them very religious, went out of their way to separate church from state.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/26/us/texas … culum-voteI saw the article.
Texas and Oklahoma suck, the Moon is more inhabitable. it was only on the Missus’ insistence that I compromised with her to come to Florida which is almost as “red” as those two states.
What is it about conservatives that want to indoctrinate children with religion, when everybody knows that no one “really” knows what is the right religion?
Separation of church and state is a linchpin in maintaining a Democratic society, what parts of the Constitution do they glaringly omit to overlook so fundamental a principle?A little less than 70 years ago I ask the same question - which version of Christianity was the right version. If I chose one, another said I was going to hell. This one defined God this way and that one defined God that way.
The Bible didn't help for after reading it cover to cover I was frankly aghast! What person, I thought in my 10-year old mind, would want to worship such a murderous ogre. So, I didn't, I was going to wait until they ended up with only one Christian faith with only one version of God and one set of rules.
Then I set out looking for an answer myself.Interesting,
I tend to lean more agnostic than anything else. There are only so many favorable circumstances as to our very existence that i can write off to coincidence before having to acknowledge a pattern. I have come to the conclusion that people have to discover the truth on their own, you can’t force people to believe anything.
In the black baptist tradition, i went to loud, vocal churches with “big shot” ministers and preachers, who sweat profusely while giving their sermons.
I don’t expect everyone to be critical thinkers, but have problems with people who don’t think critically about anything and are more than happy to do what they are told, not question the minister, etc. My late Mom kept a bible on the coffee table but never took the time to read it or ask questions as to contradictions in the Bible from the things that her minister said. I have taken the trouble to read it, most Christian faiths treat it as a smorgasbord, taking in the morsels that they like and disregarding the rest.
As a result, i learned to be skeptical and question authority and its validity, while conservatives are comfortable with doing and thinking as they are told.
I don’t think that there are ever going to be a single set of rules. There are more versions of Christianity and every other sort of faith than there are grains of sand. Whenever man gets his grubby hands on what could be a beautiful concept we see violence, bigotry and intolerance, none of which was the spirit of the scriptures themselves.
President Biden is still kicking around long after Republicans and sadly, many Democrats, have written him off. And he still speaks the TRUTH.
"Two years after their last debate, Biden jabs at Trump: ‘What a loser’"
When you tick down the list, Biden's description fits like a "T" (one of those saying that has mysterious beginnings). Consider these promises and actions:
1. Not starting any wars - He Lost
2. Iran War - He Lost
3. Bringing inflation down - He Lost
4. Bringing down prices - He Lost
5. Tariffs will bring back manufacturing - He Lost
6. Tariffs will lower trade deficits - He Lost
7. Bringing down prescription drug prices dramatically - He Lost
8. Replace Obamacare - He Lost
9. Drain the swamp (reduce corruption / elite influence) - Being the best example of corruption, He Lost.
10. Bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. (other than tariffs) — He Lost
That is a short list. Biden is right.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/28/politics … ats-speechI have made similar claims during the Covid crises.
"Why there is a lower life expectancy in Republican vs Democrat House districts"
Now there is more evidence to back that up.
"Even as health care issues rise in the 2026 campaign debate, new data show that far more House Republicans than Democrats represent districts where the most residents face major medical challenges — and lack health insurance.
An exclusive CNN analysis of data collected by the Congressional District Health Dashboard project finds that significantly more House Republicans than Democrats hold seats where an elevated proportion of residents are experiencing such significant health problems as diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, and deaths from cardiovascular problems or breast cancer. Likewise, many more House Republicans than Democrats now represent districts where the share of residents who are uninsured exceeds the national average.
In a powerful measure that crystallizes all these disparities, results from the dashboard show that nearly 70% of House Democrats represent districts where life expectancy now exceeds the national average — while life expectancy lags below the national average in over 70% of Republican seats.
These stark disparities provide a dramatic backdrop for the escalating campaign confrontations over health care. In their 2026 messaging, Democrats and their allied groups are aggressively condemning the Republican moves last year to cut Medicaid in the “One Big Beautiful Bill” and to allow the expiration of enhanced subsidies under the Affordable Care Act."
It is self-evident that the OBUB will end up shortening the lives of millions of Americans - ironically, mostly Republican.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/28/politics … expectancyNow NO ONE can deny Donald "the Felon" Trump isn't a SEXUAL PREDATOR.
"Supreme Court declines to hear Trump appeal of E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse verdict"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/29/politics … reme-courtThe Supreme Court did not rule on whether Trump was guilty or innocent of the allegations.
Instead, it simply decided not to review the lower courts' decisions.Reasonable people understand that by refusing to take the case, they agreed with the verdict.
Trump claimed the jurors were misled because of evidence of his past misdeeds was allowed in, the Court disagreed. Conclusion, the jurors were NOT misled and came to a just verdict. (Just too bad it wasn't criminal)Reasonable people would not read into the ruling one way or the other and simply look at the fact: the court decided not to entertain the case.
The question still remains - Why did they do it? I want to know, even though you may not.
I am not sure if the Justices will share their thoughts on why they passed over the case. There were no dissents; we don't even know whether the vote was 9-0, 8-1, 7-2, or something else. We only know that fewer than four justices voted to take the case, because it takes four votes to grant Supreme Court review.
This leaves me to speculate, but we simply don't know the Court's reasoning. Some legal commentators have suggested the justices may have concluded that the lower courts correctly applied existing law and that the appeal did not present a sufficiently important legal issue for Supreme Court review. Others think the Court may have felt there was no conflict among lower courts that required its intervention. But those are informed opinions, not facts.
One thing that surprised me is that not even the three justices appointed by Trump publicly dissented from the denial. That doesn't necessarily mean they agreed with the lower court's decision; it only tells us they did not publicly argue that the Supreme Court should hear the case.Whether they share or not is beside the point in my opinion. The question remains, why did they do it, especially with no known dissents. All their silence means is that one must look elsewhere to suss out a reason.
One of those indicators is that this Court, unlike any other in recent memory, has no problem ignoring the text of the Constitution when they feel it necessary to take political rational into consideration. The conclusion I can draw from that is that if one or more of the Justices felt Trump was wrongly convicted, it is likely they would have said so.
I think the most likely answer is in your second to last paragraph "Others think the Court may have felt there was no conflict among lower courts that required its intervention."
Because of, Trump, the gutless Republican Congress, and a far-right SCOTUS this so-called celebration feels more like a wake. They can stand tall and review the destruction to American values, American democracy, American culture, and our very weakened standing in the world.
The ONLY reason democratic nations around the world work with us comes from the fear of what a crazy man with a nuke might do. I can hear the signers and founders turning over in their graves right now.
Anointed by SCOTUS ALL HAIL TO KING TRUMP
"The Declaration of Independence: Annotated 250 years later — during the Trump era""
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2026/06 … d-250-vis/Hot off the presses,
“ Court rejects Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship”
Who is always telling me that Conservative jurists are always based on theConstitution”s original intent” and liberals legislate from the bench. The Righties of the Court got their a$$es kicked today and I am delighted.It is clear they ignored the text let their fear of Brown people being born here override their legal judgement.
Not surprised that you are once again cheering for China.
First, that is what is called in America as a non-sequitur.
Second, your view is clouded. It is Trump who is cheering for China ... and Russia.
"Supreme Court lifts Watergate-era caps on campaign spending"
Why do the conservatives want to inject more corruption into America's electoral system?
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/30/politics … reme-court"Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s rebuke of Trump on birthright citizenship"
One clear takeaway is that three "Justices" don't believe in the Constitution. In part of their descent is that the TEXT of the Constitution has no meaning to them if it leads to an outcome they do not like. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch clearly elevated feared outcomes over the text, precedent, and settled understanding of birthright citizenship
If they say they are textualist, you know they are lying.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/30/politics … hip-barelyThankfully, we have something pleasant to think about other than how Trump is turning our 250th into a political rally for himself.
"Sorry, America. It’s Taylor Swift’s weekend now"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/01/entertai … ng-weekend
"How Trump’s takeover fractured America’s birthday party"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/27/politics … 0-divisionMAGA must be so damn proud they elected the most CORRUPT man in America.
"Trump made more than a billion dollars from cryptocurrency ventures in first year back in office"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/30/politics … isclosures"Soaring revenue at Mar-a-Lago shows how Trump’s business interests and politics intersect"
I, for one, do not have a problem with a president, even this one, earning lots of money while president. What I do mind is if they are incentivized to change or make policy to get it. In this case, I asked ChatGPT for red flags:
1. Trump profited massively from an industry his administration was deregulating
2. DOJ dismantled crypto-enforcement capacity while Trump-linked crypto ventures were generating huge income
3. World Liberty Financial appears central to both the money and the policy conflict[/b] Please don't give me any BS that Trump doesn't have a strong influence through his two sons - no reasonable person would believe it.
4. The UAE-linked $500 million World Liberty deal is the sharpest foreign-policy red flag
5. Stablecoin/Binance-related transactions create another policy-money overlap
6. The structure let Trump capture upside while others bore much of the risk
7. Trump did not use a blind trust, so policy and profit remained entangled
As always, I can provide more detail and sources for those self-evident indicators of self-dealing. Just ask.
This just supports my claim that Trump is the most CORRUPT politician this nation has known.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/01/us/trump … ncome-invs"OpenAI in talks to give Trump administration a 5% stake in the company, FT reports"
As a liberal capitalist, I am absolutely opposed to the federal gov't buying "stakes" in private companies, it is too much like socialism. I would think REAL conservatives would be opposed for the same reason.
But it appears MAGA conservatives think it is a great idea.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/02/business … stake-intlInteresting point, ESO, conservatives Republicans turn full circle. The federal government buying stakes in companies is an idea that is fraught with corruption through and through.
Add this on to the stubborn persistence of Trumpers who lost trying to change birthright citizenship along with rumblings from them now wanting to repeal the 17th amendment over frustrations that their disenfranchisement bill wont see the light of day, is all the more reason to see them all gone as soon as possible.I think you meant the 14th amendment.
Did you read that as a result, right-wing media is suggesting that all pregnant women be barred from entering the US? OMG!!!
https://truthout.org/articles/trump-aid … ip-ruling/Yes, i have heard of this draconian proposal by the Rightwinger mad-men. It is so ridiculous to not be worth a comment.
I got this snippet from an Atlantic Article, which is supporting what i have been saying for some time
——-
By design, U.S. law makes it extremely difficult, often impossible, for undocumented parents in the United States to gain legal status based on a child’s citizenship. And studies have shown that the primary incentive for irregular migration is jobs for the parents, not birthright citizenship for their children. That is why the rate of such migration drops precipitously during U.S. recessions. Moreover, European countries do not have birthright citizenship, yet they also struggle with waves of immigrants fleeing violence and poverty for a better life.
If the government truly wanted to deter undocumented immigrants, it would crack down on the many thousands of U.S. citizens and corporations that violate immigration law by hiring them. Yet no administration, Republican or Democrat, has made a serious effort to enforce immigration law against U.S. employers of undocumented immigrants. The few times that Trump briefly attempted broader enforcement—for example, by targeting Wisconsin dairy farms, whose workforce is roughly 70 percent undocumented—he faced significant pushback from his own supporters. Far from deporting those workers and penalizing their employers, Trump is allowing this—he is expected to announce a special guest-worker program just for these dairy farmers (the majority of whom happen to be Trump supporters) in the coming weeks.
——
Two-faced? So, in truth what is that the conservatives regarding this issue, really want?Birther tourism is just another imaginary villian cooked up in conservative minds. I doubt it will catch on, however, because it is too hard to pronounce, lol.
"If the government truly wanted to deter undocumented immigrants, it would crack down on the many thousands of U.S. citizens and corporations that violate immigration law by hiring them."
Lot of truth here; government has ALWAYS had a large contingent of members that welcome illegals into the country. It has NEVER, as a group, been united in enforcing our immigration laws.
Until Trump. You are wrong about the efforts there, such as the Dairy group. We have always had those that want illegal (cheap) illegal slave labor...for ourselves. Not for others, but those losing that cheap labor did not like it. The rest of the conservative country was cheering. Liberals country wide, no, but the conservatives did.
So yes, two faced all the way. What else is new about our political arena?It would be nice if we focused more on the demand side of this equation as the excerpt spoke more about the attraction of undocumented for employment and economic survival over the “anchor baby” stuff.
If this administration put as much effort in penalizing those that hire them as it does in building bigger fences the attraction for coming here might just wane a bit.
I see conservatives, while cackling about illegal immigration, being disingenuous about assaulting the problem when their bedfellows are knee deep in it.
You indicated two models of conservative, those that are quiet because they profit and the others as actual xenophobes. It has been always hard to distinguish them as they all come out the same in the wash for me. But, It is obvious which brand of conservatism Trump is supporting.Hell, I welcome illegals into America, history shows it only benefits us in the long run.
Among other benefits, it brings down are crime rate because the more law abiding illegal immigrants increase the denominator by which the crime rate is measured without increasing the numerator as much.
Anther thing - it is an economic fact: More Population = Higher GDP, even on a per capita basis.
Why does your side continually shoot down any immigration reform law that has been proposed in the last 30 years?
Please don't try to defend the Republican point of view on this issue since they are the real problem.
Is Anybody really surprised?
"Trump-backed organizer of America’s 250th birthday events may have duped donors, report from House Democrats alleges"
"Donors who intended to support a bipartisan nonprofit that’s organizing celebrations for America’s 250th anniversary were allegedly redirected — without their knowledge — to a separate nonprofit behind events being promoted by President Donald Trump, according to a report from a group of House Democrats, citing confidential, unnamed sources.
The interim report, compiled by Democratic staff on the House Natural Resources Committee, includes accounts from unnamed sources about donors who wanted to give to the America250 nonprofit, which is overseen by a bipartisan congressional commission, being given incorrect wire instructions so that their money would flow to the Trump-backed Freedom 250.
“A gift solicited in the name of the nation’s nonpartisan birthday commission could thus be redirected without the donor’s knowledge, by an entity created to serve the President’s priorities,” the report said.
If true, the actions could constitute “potential wire fraud and charitable solicitation fraud,” according to the report, which doesn’t detail how much money was diverted, if at all."
Before you complain about "unnamed" sources, may I remind you that most of what the other side posts is also from unnamed sources.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/02/politics … ats-reportI wish the best of luck to this courageous AF officer, Major Jason Watson, for standing up and saying what most reasonable people would like to see happen.
"US service member arrested at Capitol after calling for Trump’s impeachment"
If you feel compelled to lash at me for supporting someone breaking the law, preface by acknowledging your complicity in backing a convicted felon and sexual predator. If you don't then you are declaring yourself not serious in your disparagement of me.
I suspect Watson will be courts martialed because he did violate the UCMJ but he apparently thought the sacrifice was worth the message.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/02/politics … mpeachment"Tricorn hats or Trump rally? Americans have July Fourth options"
So many Americans are staying home tomorrow physically and mentally worn out from Trump's war with American ideals.
They include once proud federal workers so demoralized by Trump that they lost the will to celebrate who allowed their lives to be destroyed.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/03/us/feder … -250-anger
Or For these colonial reenactors, this July 4th is a bit meh
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/03/travel/v … ent-digvid
The majority of Americans are no longer extremely proud to be an American, a record low since 2001. Even 30% of Republicans no longer feel that way today.
"When Gallup first asked this question in 2001, 55% of U.S. adults were extremely proud to be American. Pride surged after 9/11, with 65% to 70% of Americans expressing extreme pride through 2004. Extreme pride declined after that but held at majority levels through 2017. Since 2018, no more than 47% of U.S. adults have said they are extremely proud. The latest figure, from a June 1-15 poll, is down eight percentage points from last year and is tied for the largest year-over-year change in the trend, along with 2004-2005.
This partisan divide persists and has been larger the past two years with Republican Donald Trump as president. Currently, 70% of Republicans, 28% of independents and 14% of Democrats say they are extremely proud to be American. Extreme pride has edged down seven points since last year among Republicans and six points among Democrats, but it is not statistically lower among independents.
Democrats’ and independents’ pride levels are at new low points for their respective groups. "
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/02/us/america-250-vibes-cec
https://news.gallup.com/poll/711938/ame … d-low.aspx
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/03/politics … p-analysis
For me, even though I am now embarrassed to be an American because of King Trump has done to us, I will still hold our family fireworks display in the backyard - no need to let Trump ruin it for our grand and great-grandkids.
I can't wait until 2029 when we have a Democratic president who will start the long road to regaining respect around the world.A Random thought ...
As I watch the Fox News build-up to the July 4th weekend ...
I am proud to be an American. I am proud that our nation has survived. I am proud that we can elect an Obama and a Trump.
I am proud that we (its people) are one of the most charitable nations on the planet.
Just saying ...
GAWell said! It is a great country even if not perfect. There is none better.
At this moment, while Trump is president, Canada is.
Later this month I am taking a cruise to the Mediterranean, Because of Trump, I and my wife don't feel safe. In fact, a couple we met on another cruise cancelled the same cruise itinerary, but the one before ours, because of fear for their safety from the world turmoil Trump has caused.Our opinions differ on Canada.
I could be leery of a Mediterranean cruise, too. We canceled one to the Baltic a few years ago because of the war; seems reasonable to be concerned about another war. Of course, I have for a long time refused to consider visiting the Near East because of the whackos living there.
Trump's fault, no doubt.
So you don't agree with the demise of USDA and all the death that has caused. Good for yoy.
You make a lot of presumptions.
I do agree with the demise of nation-level racism—to the point that a Black man won the office of the presidency.
I also think our Constitution is working as intended.
Warts or beauty marks?
This weekend I'm seeing beauty marks.
GAFunny that all those Dems that have sucked off the American teat all of years cannot see those beauty marks. Even when all of the world cup visitors point out how great things are in your country over a third of Democrats are not proud of America, at least according to their own network CNN.
A random thought on July 4th.
Still proud to be an American. Still proud of America.
This morning's Smerconish show offered a thought:
Polls say 2/3 of the world now views the U.S. negatively. Smerconish pointed to the World Cup visitors' viral positive responses. Surprised because America and Americans weren't the orgre their media had portrayed.
The media shows the world Washington and calls it America; Americans show the real America — and our world visitors are praising the difference.
World Cup Visitors React to America
Just saying ...
GADamn and double damn. What a way to start this day.
71 minutes watching the shorts in the post.
Yep, proud to be American.
Check out this Brit's declaration:
GAWell, i don’t know if one declaration by one man regarding a single event is representative of what is going on in this country generally.
Looking at the tragedies and triumphs and the success and failures of 2 and 1/2 centuries, i have always gave America the benefit of the doubt as those shortcomings were recognized and being addressed in an overall national objective. That has not been true since January 20, 2025. I am proud of the foundations of the principles of equality and the rule of law which this society has not adhered to in an ideal way, but was moving in fits and starts in the right direction, UNTIL NOW. With this administration (Trump), there is that word again, those foundation principles that gave me reason to be prideful are disappearing. Nothing to be proud about there. Until Trump and his operatives are removed from office and the stench, aura associated with his agenda that has well contributed to our current divisions are eliminated, there will not be much left to be proud of……..
Regardless, happy 4th, back to my grilling…..I'm like you, I am proud of the America it attempted to become. I am not proud of the America that Trump and MAGA have turned it into.
When a President does his best to run down the country to the world what else can we expect from foreign media? Obama was great at that and we're still fighting the results of his negativism.
Please tell the truth rather than conservative myths. It is Trump's ACTIONS that is running down America.
If you can get past the firewall, this analysis tends to support your point, just from a different angle.
The fact is that international visitors for the world cup are down significantly from expectations. Further, tourism in America is way down. For example, the April report by the National Travel and Tourism Office shows a 14% decline, year over year.
On the other hand, after the effects of Covid wore off, international tourism was up 9.4% from 2023 to 2024.
This article explains the World Cup excitement, but for other reasons than you suggest.
"America held a big birthday party — and a soccer extravaganza broke out"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/04/politics … 4-analysis
Why is the pregnant woman such an OMG thing? Foreign citizens have found an unintended loophole in our legal structure and are exploiting it to the max. We should not even take the first step in stopping the abuse? Just let the world take advantage forever?
Are you REALLY that paranoid of the "Other" to not see what is wrong with that policy besides solving a problem that doesn't exist?
What happens when Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) no longer has Donald Trump as its focal point? Three years from now, when he's no longer in office, will Americans finally step back and honestly evaluate what has happened over the past decade?
Will we be able to focus on the real challenges facing our country instead of being consumed by one political figure? Some of those challenges are the very issues Trump said he was trying to address.
Will we recognize how far our political and cultural landscape has shifted? Will we acknowledge that ideas rooted in socialism, and, some would argue, even aspects of communism, have gained more acceptance than many Americans ever imagined?
Perhaps after Trump, we'll have a clearer perspective. Maybe we'll realize that our intense focus on either supporting or opposing one man distracted us from larger issues and allowed ideologies that conflict with America's founding values of individual liberty, limited government, and personal responsibility to gain ground.
Whether you supported Trump or not, the bigger question is this: What kind of country do we want to leave to the next generation?Sharlee, doesn't it make sense to you that if Trump were actually helping the country as opposed to destroying it like he is and stop being as corrupt as he is, that your fake TDS wouldn't exist?
If Trump were the only issue, then why were many of the same people protesting him before he even took office in 2017? "TDS" isn't about disagreeing with Trump—it's about the inability to judge anything involving him objectively. If every success is dismissed and every problem is blamed on one man, that's not critical thinking. My post isn't really about Trump; it's about whether Americans will be able to focus on the country's long-term challenges instead of one individual.
Don't you think it was Trump's violent angry, racist, misogynic, Islamophobic, homophobic crude rhetoric that those people were reacting to?
As to not about Trump, didn't you start with "What happens when Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) no longer has Donald Trump as its focal point? "? You could have fooled me that it wasn't about Trump.
You also keep presuming TDS is a real thing - it is not, it is made up to explain why people are so legitimately upset with Trump.
To be honest, TDS actually applies to you and the rest of MAGA. It stands for Trump Devotion Syndrome defined as "Blind loyalty to Trump regardless of facts" That, in fact, reflects reality.There might be a TDS, and some people will enter discussions with a BIAS. But in one way or another there is always a bias. And using the TDS argument to stop a discussion is a very crude remedy and a last resort in an argument.
If we look at president Trump it is clear that he is not a normal president.
He made a business out of the presidency. Some people perhaps prefer a businessman above a politician as a president. But the result is that this businessman has enriched his own brand using the presidency. Trump is not a hypocrite, as he is openly corrupt. Now some people may take the corruption. (excepting a private jet from a foreign country and having your own untraceable crypto currency etc) as a minor thing, as he is doing other good things in their opinion.
But corruption is never a way forward. And above all of the tweets and social media attention grabbing. (He is a master in using social media), this self enrichment and corruption is perhaps the worst thing of all that happened to the American governmental system.
Foreign countries know now how to deal with America. Give Donald Trump a bag of gold and you can do anything. That's basically the reason why Trump loves the tariffs so much. It's a bargaining chip. I lower the tariffs if you build for me a personal golf course. (which happened with Vietnam).
This corruption may enrich the Trump family but it weakens the United States.
Perhaps this view is a TDS syndrome, but if you can not criticize Trump without being accused of having a Bias or TDS syndrome we are in the country where you have to follow a leader without criticism and I think that's not a good idea.I don't think anyone is saying President Trump should be beyond criticism. Every president should be scrutinized and held accountable. That's not what I mean by TDS.
The point is that, for some people, every issue is filtered through Trump first. If inflation falls, it's in spite of him. If the economy improves, it isn't because of him. If something goes wrong anywhere in the world, it's somehow his fault. That's not objective analysis, it's viewing everything through a predetermined lens.
You also made several serious accusations—such as bribery, trading tariffs for personal gain, and corruption, as though they're established facts. Those claims require evidence, not assumptions or speculation. It's one thing to disagree with Trump's policies or ethics; it's another to present allegations as proven without substantiation.
Bias exists on all sides, and I agree with you on that. But the question I asked remains: After Trump leaves office, will Americans be able to stop making him the center of every political conversation and focus on the long-term issues facing this country, our debt, border security, education, crime, foreign policy, and the economy? Or will we simply find another person to blame for everything?
That's really what my post was about.The accusations are serious. But don't you think it odd that he and his family have been granted immunity from any ongoing audits into their tax affairs?
But yes, back to the main subject will Trump still be the boogieman if he leaves office? I don't think so, unless he is still using social media to express his views.
Trump has changed the world, and it will never be again like it was before Trump took office.(if this is good or bad, is another discussion)
I think that basically Social Media is to blame. As social media has given people the possibility to monetized hatred. The more outrageous your opinion the more likes and the more money you earn. And I think you can finger point to Musk and Zuckerberg for that.
Trump uses social media like no other, and used it to divide. (divide and conquer...). And Trump in a way is a product of this social media era, even although he's 80 years old.
You are or left-wing or right-wing, the opinion of the center has almost gone in the US because of all these Social Media battles. And people are more radicalized and are forced to take more extreme points of view.
This process is also happening in Europe. Although many European countries are making laws to forbid social media for children under 16. To stop influencing the age groups that is easily radicalized. I don't know if this is a topic in the US too?
Social Media is also used by foreign entities (Like Russia) to saw discord.
So, yes, social media is discovered by politics. It is the big propaganda machine used to simplify complex political issues. And you can lie as much as you want in the open as nobody has the time to verify the lie live. Everyone will have forgotten the lie the next day.It would only be speculation as to why the IRS settled with Trump. Trump sued the IRS and Treasury for $10 billion, alleging they failed to protect his confidential tax information from being illegally leaked by former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn, who was convicted and imprisoned for stealing and disclosing thousands of taxpayers' returns, including Trump's
.
Rather than litigate the case, the Justice Department settled it.
As part of that settlement, the DOJ added a provision permanently barring the IRS from pursuing audits or examinations of tax returns filed before May 19, 2026, for Trump, certain family members, and related entities.
So was this settlement "odd"? I would say yes, the IRS clearly wanted to end the case, and was willing to agree to permanently bar the IRS from pursuing audits or examinations of tax returns on Trump and some of his family.
I actually agree with much of what you wrote. Social media has amplified outrage because outrage gets attention, clicks, and money. That's not unique to one political party or one leader, it's become the business model.
Where I see Trump differently is that he also forced a lot of issues into the open that many people felt were being ignored. Whether someone agrees with his solutions or not, debates over border security, trade with China, government spending, media bias, the role of unelected bureaucracies, censorship by tech companies, and even whether institutions deserve the public's trust became mainstream conversations during his presidency. Those discussions aren't going away when Trump leaves the stage.
I also agree that the constant "us vs. them" mentality is unhealthy. Social media rewards certainty and outrage, while real life is usually more complicated. We'd probably all be better off if we spent more time discussing ideas than attacking people.
So yes, I think the world has changed because of Trump—but not only because of Trump. Social media accelerated political polarization, and Trump learned how to use that environment more effectively than anyone before him. At the same time, he also exposed problems that many Americans believed had been ignored for years. Whether people see that as positive or negative depends on their perspective, but the conversations themselves are now out in the open.It would be "speculation"? Come on Sharlee, your TDS is making you too cute and blind to reality.
The evidence supports that Trump owns what used to be a mostly independent agency - DOJ. There are too many examples of him directing them to think otherwise.
Trump is the executive over the IRS and DOIJ - he is their authoritarian boss legally and more importantly in practice. When Trump, the person, sued the IRS, he sued himself.
When DOJ "settled" with their Boss, it was at Trump's direction. And the settlement was one Trump told them to make (hence the attempted payout to the felons who committed insurrection at his direction.
It does not take a rocket scientist to understand those real world dynamics. Certainly those of us without TDS see it.Just yesterday Trump was involved in an act of corruption. Have you followed the USA Red card scandal? A player of the USA gets a red card, meaning, the player (Balogun) is not allowed to play the next game.
Trump calls FIFA boss Infantinoto to nullify the card. An so suddenly, against all rules Belogun can play the next match against Belgium!
A president of a country should not interfere with the rules of sports events.That call was made by a judge from my country that obviously wanted to knock out the US for political reasons.It was a bad call. If some judge decided he wanted to give a red card to some Spaniard because he hates the monarchy would you not want the politicians from Spain to complain about it, or would you just accept the bad call from a dirty ref?
No, if a red card was given to a Spanish player, for whatever reason, it is not the head of states place to interfere.
The referees working at the most prestigious football tournament are the best in the world. They are chosen for what they have shown during their career. So to accuse a top referee of giving a player a red card for reasons of not liking the country is highly speculative.
A red card is part of the game. Everybody knows how the game is played. Sometimes a red card or a penalty is not given when it should, sometimes it is a harsh judgement. But either way it is part off the game and not Trumps place to interfere.
And well.... the USA and Spain could face each other... if they both win...
An interesting tournament so far with Brazil, Germany and The Netherlands out.It is his place to comment, not sure why you and the Dems think it is not. I do not know the King of Spain, but if you think Lula or any other president of Brazil would accept this unfair call you are mistaken.
I do not think the US is going any further but it is nice to see their effort.Unfair call? So you know better than a panel of referees who reviewed the tape?
Did you not see Messi do the same thing and not get a red card?
I can't remember any incident during the last couple of World Cups where the head of state contacted the FIFA president to request a change to a decision.
Trump, as in so many cases, does not understand these moral codes. He does not understand that as a head of state you should not interfere with the calls made on the pitch. A sports game can go in all different directions. And to call the FIFA boss Infantinoto to suspend the red card, is childish and basically an act of corruption.
Why obviously?? Are you saying the panel of referees who viewed the video are all pro-USA minions?
First - "Just yesterday Trump was involved in an act of corruption. "
Trump has publicly celebrated FIFA's decision, but he has not, as of now, publicly confirmed or denied the reports that he personally contacted FIFA President Gianni Infantino to seek a review of Balogun's suspension.
What evidence is there of this? Perhaps you have run across something I missed.
The undisputed facts are that Folarin Balogun received a red card, which ordinarily carries an automatic one-match suspension under FIFA rules. FIFA later suspended the implementation of that suspension under Article 27 of its Disciplinary Code, making Balogun eligible to play against Belgium. FIFA's decision has been criticized by UEFA and the Royal Belgian Football Association as unprecedented and damaging to the integrity of the competition.
Claims that President Trump personally influenced the decision are based on reporting from anonymous sources. Unless FIFA, the White House, or President Trump officially confirms the details of those communications, it is more accurate to say those reports exist rather than present them as established fact.
What I have concentrated on regarding this issue is facts and innuendos.
What is factual is:
Folarin Balogun received a red card.
A red card normally results in an automatic one-match suspension under FIFA rules.
FIFA lifted or suspended that automatic suspension, making him eligible to play.
FIFA's decision has been criticized as unprecedented by some officials and commentators.
What is not established as fact is:
That President Trump contacted FIFA.
That any such contact caused FIFA's decision.
The decision was the result of political pressure.
Those are allegations or reports based on unnamed sources unless officially confirmed. This does not cut it with me.We all know that anonymous sources used by creditable news organizations are almost always correct.
Name me 100 times out of the millions where they were not. That would be what .01%. If the rate were more like 10%, then you might have a point, but we all know it is not.No we do not all know anonymous sources used by credible news organizations are almost always correct.
Just a few ---
CNN examples involving corrections / retractions / major revisions
1) 2017 – Anthony Scaramucci Russia-investment story (expanded fallout)
Beyond the initial correction, CNN later:
Reviewed internal processes
Removed multiple related follow-up claims
Issued editor notes acknowledging sourcing was not sufficiently verified before publication
2) 2017 – Trump Jr. email reporting (initial interpretation corrections)
CNN reported on Donald Trump Jr.’s emails with evolving interpretations based on anonymous sourcing and document context.
Later updates clarified what the emails actually did and did not show
Some early framing was adjusted as more direct evidence became available
3) 2017 – WikiLeaks–Russia coordination narrative reporting adjustments
CNN published reporting suggesting stronger links between Trump associates and WikiLeaks activity based on unnamed sources.
Later reporting by multiple outlets (including CNN updates) softened or narrowed earlier claims as evidence did not fully support initial framing
4) 2018 – Michael Cohen “tape of Trump discussing payments” reporting correction
CNN reported on the existence of a taped conversation between Trump and Michael Cohen based partly on anonymous sourcing.
CNN later clarified details about the recording’s content and context
Some initial interpretations of what was said were corrected as the tape became publicly reviewed
5) 2019 – BuzzFeed-style Russia dossier claims echoed in coverage corrections
CNN’s reporting environment around the Steele dossier included repeated reliance on anonymous intelligence sources.
Portions of earlier narrative framing were later tempered or reworded
Some specific claims circulating in media ecosystems were later found unverified or not substantiated
6) 2020 – COVID intelligence reporting corrections
Early CNN reporting included anonymous intelligence assessments about COVID origins and spread timelines.
Later scientific and intelligence updates led to revisions of certainty levels and phrasing
Some early confident wording was softened as evidence remained inconclusive
7) 2021 – Cuomo sexual harassment reporting timeline updates
CNN covered allegations involving Andrew Cuomo with anonymous sourcing from multiple accusers and officials.
As investigations progressed, CNN updated reporting to reflect changing legal and investigative findings
Some early framing was adjusted as additional evidence contradicted or narrowed allegations
8) 2022 – Ukraine war intelligence reporting revisions
CNN reported on Russian military capabilities and internal Kremlin assessments using intelligence sources.
Later battlefield data led to updates and corrections to earlier estimates
Some anonymous-source assessments were shown to be overstated or incomplete
The list is very long, I concentrated on CNN, because it appears to be an outlet you uses frequintly. And I have no interest in proving my point any further regarding unsourced media reporting. One can research other news outlets and find examples of misinformation being reported using anonymous sources. Just not good policy not to offer a quote from a human being. I really feel this form of reporting is what has plagued our society and made it less factually informed and unable to make sound views.
What is factual is:
Trump and Infantino ar good buddies
Sources have told the Guardian that Trump made three calls to Fifa, starting from Wednesday, to ensure that the change was made.
The Guardian is a high quality newspaper, who needs to be absolutely sure before publishing news. If they use anonymous sources, they are trustworthy sources.
Fact: The decision is in direct contradiction with the provisions of the FIFA World Cup 2026 Competition Regulations, as set out in Article 10.5:
"If a player or team official is sent off as a result of a direct or indirect red card (second caution), they will automatically be suspended from their team's subsequent match. In addition, further sanctions may be imposed."
The automatic nature of such a suspension was also explicitly reaffirmed in FIFA World Cup 2026 Circular No. 16, which was distributed to all participating member associations on 12 May 2026.
-
As they say, this is highly unprecedented.The fact that The Guardian admits that they sometimes make mistakes shows that they do their best to get it right.
As Trump and the FIFA are the parties involved, their opinion is not really reliable.
In the end, I would say, let's enjoy the match USA-Belgium.Today, Trump offered a statement. "WASHINGTON, July 6 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Monday he asked FIFA chief Gianni Infantino to review a red-card foul against USA striker Folarin Balogun and that he did not think the foul called by the "horrible" referee was fair.
"All I did, I asked for a review, because I didn't think it was a foul," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office."
This is what I respect as evidence of what occurred. I see this as him overstepping his authority, unethical, and yes, it shows a true form of corruption.Thank you for agreeing with me Sharlee, that this is a form of corruption.
It put's the USA team in a difficult spot. As from now on, every decision made that gives the USA team a slightly advantage will be seen as suspicious. Even if the USA wins, it will be a win with a black mark on it. You can thank president Trump for that.
The best thing the USA team can do is to save face and not select Folarin Balogun.So much for unidentified sources being wrong, lol.
I agree that Trump’s involvement was not helpful and created a situation where every decision involving the USA may now face extra scrutiny. That said, blaming the USA players is unfair; they certainly had no control over the situation. The team didn’t make that call, and players should earn their place based on talent and performance. The focus should be on keeping politics separate from the competition. But, Trump let that cat is out of the bag...
I completely agree. It's not the team player's fault. I never thought in that direction, Sherlee.
Trump has basically made the referee's job ambiguous and suspicious. He also put the American team in a difficult spot.
But that's history now. Belgium won on quality, and the US team needs to reflect on their performance. (Just like my Dutch team, who were eliminated by Morocco.)Yes, it is history. I would like to know what the American team players felt about the issue.
A bit awkward I can imagine. Perhaps they will express their feelings in 10 years time in a Netflix documentary.
I hope that the USA team has made football more popular in the US. The tournament has definitively brought some good vibes from the US.Apparently, the defense of the US team played poorly, to be kind. A complete reversal from before Trump's interference and taking the spotlight away from our team. I wonder how much that played into their lackluster performance.
Doesn't that sound a lot like Trump talking about Biden, lol.
To your question, will non-MAGA be able to stop making Trump the center of every political conversation? That depends entirely on Trump. If he keeps his trap shut and stops trying to manage events to the detriment of America, than everybody will breathe a sigh of relief and start trying to put our country back together again. But, If HE CONTINUES TO DO WHAT HE IS DOING and between presidencies, then people will be FORCED to respond in order to try to save the country.
That assumes your conclusion is already true, that Trump is "destroying the country" and is "corrupt." Those are opinions, not established facts, and many Americans look at the same evidence and reach very different conclusions.
My point wasn't that people can't criticize Trump. It's that, for nearly a decade, he has dominated almost every political conversation. Whether the topic is the economy, immigration, foreign policy, education, or the courts, it almost always comes back to Trump.
So I'll ask the same question again: Three years from now, when Trump is no longer in office, what then? Will the country's problems suddenly disappear? Or will we finally have an honest conversation about the deeper issues that existed before Trump and will still exist after him?
If every problem is explained by one man, we're probably missing the bigger picture. That was the point of my post.Cone on, Sharlee. The "corrupt" is true on the face of it, I bet even you believe he is corrupt since he makes no secret of it. As to destroying the nation, I go with the majority it of Americans on that.
For example (these are numbers for Independents only since Rs and Ds are biased a lot:
* Virtually only MAGA approve of what he is doing over all (37% of everybody)
* 50% (midrange) of independents say Trump is a danger to democracy (10 - 20% of Republicans think so as well!!)
* 60% say Trump is overstepping his authority (30% of Republicans say so to)
* 55% say he is using the office for personal gain
* 55% also think he is weakening democratic institutions
* 55% say Trump has weaponized DOIJ. (only 40% thought Biden was)
* 60% say Trump has worsened America's standing in the world
* 50% say Trump has worsened our national security
* 50% sat Trump has weakened America's military
* 50% say Trump has made America less safe, while 45% say he has made America More safe
* Same results when talking about personal safety.
* 45% think Trump's policies have Hurt Americans while only 40% say it has Helped
* Historians already rank Trump last or next to last among all presidents
Those are not numbers that a successful President would hope for now is it. As I said, I go along with most Americans.Gosh, the words you use in your list of "Trump has..." statements give me pause. Those are interpretations and opinions, not evidence. You do realize there's a big difference between a view and evidence, don't you?
Polls and surveys can provide a snapshot of what people think, but they don't establish the truth of a claim or explain how or why people arrived at their conclusions. I prefer to base my opinions on verifiable evidence rather than perceptions or popular sentiment. That's simply how I choose to form my views.
I just don't consider what others are thinking when developing an opinion.
In my view, a nation is weakened when its long-established values and traditions are dismissed or deliberately undermined. I believe that a lack of common sense, along with a decline in widely accepted moral standards, contributes to that erosion.
When there is a push to tear down what previous generations built, and an open disregard for the principles a country was founded on, it risks damaging the very foundation that holds the nation together.You seem to be deflecting from my statement that "Most Americans Think". The only way to determine that is by polling, which you like to use a lot. So, all I did was present to you what most Americans thing using Independents as a proxy.
You write "In my view, a nation is weakened when its long-established values and traditions are dismissed or deliberately undermined." - I TOTALLY agree with that but need to point out the overwhelming evidence shows that it is Trump 1.0 and 2.0 who is responsible for almost 100% of that.
It is he and those who support him who are turning what our founders created on its head.I will disagree. I find the Democratic Party planted the seed, and there is an element of the party, in my view, that is very un-American. Now it has well overtaken that party. This element is virulent and hopes to bring in a form of communism. The Democrats actually have no party anymore; it has been taken over by a group that hopes to rip apart our nation. My money is not on the Democratic Party to right their own ship. It will be true Americans that will right our ship... The Democratic Party has no place in America any longer, in my view. It is my hope that more Americans will join me and share my view. In the end, I trust the people. We have seen communism poke its head up before and stamped out.
Oh, my God, sounds like the old time never ending “communist threat”.
The virulent and danger is coming from the GOP side.
Oh, yes, we have a party and we are unified against Trump and those corporate Democrats that are too much accommodationists under the current regime and will primaried out. It is not a “small group” but quite a sizable one. As far as I am concerned, Republicans are taking us down a dangerous path.
And WHO are the “true Americans”, Trumpers talk about that all of the time?
Your hope is a futile one, Trump becomes more outrageous with each passing day. We will show how much of a place Democrats retain next November.
I, too, trust the people, let’s see what they say?"I find the Democratic Party planted the seed, and there is an element of the party, in my view, that is very un-American." - I wonder if she means the Fascists and White Nationalists because there are certainly ZERO communists in Party leadership or anyone else influential.
You make my point for me. You don't address the concerns I raised; you simply redefine them as acceptable because they're coming from your side.
When I refer to "true Americans," I'm talking about people who put the Constitution, individual liberty, the rule of law, and the country ahead of party. That isn't exclusive to Republicans. There are Democrats, independents, and conservatives who share those values. It's about principles, not party labels.
I don't believe the Democratic Party today resembles the party of even 20 or 30 years ago. It has moved significantly to the left, and many of its own longtime members have acknowledged that. My concern isn't with honest political disagreement; it's with the growing acceptance of policies that expand government power, suppress dissent, and divide Americans into competing groups rather than uniting us as citizens.
As for elections, absolutely, let the people decide. That's how our republic is supposed to work. If voters reject my views, I'll accept the outcome. But dismissing concerns about ideological extremism as if history has nothing to teach us isn't a convincing argument. Every dangerous movement starts with people insisting there's nothing to worry about.
What are your feelings regarding those who are running under the Democrat Socilist party? Do you support the agenda of, for instance, Claire Valdez & Darializa Avila Chevalie or Melat Kiros? Are you comfortable with some of their radical idea's? I mean, a yes or no will do. Because I will not debate your views, you have a right to voice them.No, Sharlee, my defining principles are simply differ from yours.
Your definition of true Americans has not really been observed to the point that Trumpers seem to associate the label solely with themselves. I am not convinced. So, you will accept that there are many Democrats and Independents that support your definition without having a MAGA hat? They are not all just dyed in the wool Republicans. All i see in Washington these days is “party label”, one party with obeisance to one man and that is dangerous. Unfortunately, the Democrats are much more divided within their own tribe but not in their opposition to Trump and the GOP agenda.
Neither party resembles what it was 30 years, i consider the Republicans as moving starkly to the right. And the “right” always scares me more than the left. All the issues that you say is beyond political disagreement have been demonstrated by Trump and the MAGA Republicans. Because of the very nature of our society, I don’t see a united, cohesive existence amongst us here anytime soon.
Let the elections take place fairly with maximum participation from all corners of the electorate, i am not afraid. Your point is in error as from my side, Trump and the Republicans are the unprecedented example of ideological extremism. I take your comment and more comfortably apply it to your ideological pole.
Your question about Democratic Socialism is a good one. I am not radical but i am considerably left of the current status quo. I would fit comfortably in between the “bomb throwers” and the accomodationist Democrats. People i trust, like Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders represent my position.
the people have the right to elect whoever they wish for their mayor. I resent Trump speaking about interfering in that right which what i consider tyrannical overreach.
The wealthy oligarchs and plutocrats are going to fight to retain their unjust and inequitable advantages, I am for reducing that power and influence. This democrat-socialism in doing that is step in the correct direction. I do believe that some of their proposals are unrealistic in this capitalistic society. While, they may not work as desired, the electorate will ultimately make that determination and may well go with another candidate.
My problem is that I don’t trust corporatist and wealthy to not exploit the system to their advantage. Continued vigilance is necessary to limit the influence and power of their wealth. My English pen-pal speaks of their society where great wealth does not mean that you can control everything else, beyond their ability to acquire a Rolls Royce, compared with my Chevy. Moving in the controversial direction of Democratic-Socialists is fine with me, i just think that there will be a brick wall at some point. I guess that is my opinion, as clear as mud?It just occurred to me that there is more of a buffer going left than right. Going left, to get to communism, you have to progress through socialism.
On the right, you jump straight to fascism.For the right, could authoritarianism, that what we seem to have from Republicans, be the intermediate step toward fascism? The relatively mild introduction of democrat-socialism by left leaning Democrats remains quite different from a true socialist democracy based on the models in Northern Europe and a farther cry still from “communism”. We on the left have quite a few more steps before reaching critical mass.
The mild introduction of socialism will hit a brick wall of a fundamentally capitalist society where private property rights have always reigned supreme.You do have a point on authoritarianism.
This might be a surprise to those on the right but Democratic Socialist are still capitalists.
Thanks for answering the question. I appreciate that you were willing to state your position directly.
I think what your response really highlights is that our disagreement isn't about whether democracy should decide elections, it's about what kind of policies we believe strengthen or weaken our country.
You say you're comfortable moving in the direction of Democratic Socialism, even if you think some proposals won't work. That's where we fundamentally part ways. I believe history shows that when government continues expanding its role in the economy and people's lives, individual liberty is gradually diminished. That's not fearmongering, it's a lesson we've seen repeated in different forms throughout history.
You also say you're worried about wealthy people having too much influence. I agree that no one should be above the law or able to buy political power. But I don't believe the solution is giving even more power to government. Governments can abuse power just as corporations can. Our Constitution was designed to limit both.
You mentioned being more afraid of the political right than the left. I feel exactly the opposite, not because I think everyone on the left is extreme, but because I see increasing support for policies that centralize power, restrict certain viewpoints, and expand government control. We simply evaluate the risks differently.
As for Trump, I don't support any president interfering with elections or legal processes simply because they're politically advantageous. My position has been consistent on that, including when I said his call regarding the review was inappropriate. But I also believe decisions should be judged on the facts, not on who comments about them.
At the end of the day, neither of us gets to decide for everyone else. The voters do. I respect your right to hold your views, and I hope you can respect that mine are based on principles I've applied consistently, not on party loyalty.Explain why our economy historically does much better, meaning not a little better, under a liberal administration. You can go back to 1798 and find this to be true.
As my very well researched book and ChatGPT put it:
"generally, the economy has done better under the more liberal/activist economic regime than under the more conservative/laissez-faire regime — especially when you judge by stability, crisis prevention, employment, broad income growth, and financial resilience."“At the end of the day, neither of us gets to decide for everyone else. The voters do. I respect your right to hold your views, and I hope you can respect that mine are based on principles I've applied consistently, not on party loyalty.”
Understood, the voters will have the final say. We all talk about principles, but again those principles are subject to differences in interpretation. You have principles, i have principles.
My problem with you is while you say that the “system” and was resilient, what was the attraction to your fearless leader when he blatantly tries to circumvent the rules? You don’t find that to be a cause of concern, from the Chief Law enforcement officer? Who in any past electoral contest for the top job has ever tried to do that? Gore had the dignity to step aside when the courts ruled in favor of Bush in 2000. That, under conditions at the time that were far more controversial than Trump’s loss.
You have more often than once expressed nothing but dismay for the left, Democrats, its leaders and ideology. That does not sound non-partisan nor impartial to me.
Since you could not be there to witness any of the events we are talking about, is it possible that your “facts” may involved a prior biased interpretation? The Right for me represents intolerance and with our experience of racial strife in this society, that leads back toward unequal justice and Jim crow in practice, just like the days of old. Universal acceptance is better than selective exclusion in my experience and opinion.
I am for the government when it is the arbiter limiting the power of money over rights of people without it. Government is not inherently corrupt but necessary for the laying down and enforcement of ground rules. I prefer government in its role of keeping everyone honest regardless of economic or political advantage. The fact that the Government does not operate this way is due to the inordinate influence of the corporatist and oligarchs who generally despise the Democratic process and want things their own way without being held accountable. Sounds a great deal like Trump, your populist hero. The corporate and gilded classes need not be held accountable, but Government should be.
I see Socialism, that is far more pervasive in Northern European nations, as hardly something to denigrate. I support capitalism, but want its excesses curbed. My association with socialism is far more modest recognizing that much of the services we have here today include much of the principles. Let these cities give these Democrat-Socialists a run and they can determine how well these policies actually work within the rigid American capitalistic foundation. Most of the Western European democracies are hardly tyrannical in their makeup.
You are also right in the fact that we have a different view of what policies weaken or strengthen the country.
Sorry, Sharlee, "When I refer to "true Americans," I'm talking about people to put the Constitution, individual liberty, the rule of law, and the country ahead of party. "- The available evidence clearly shows your side, the MAGA part anyway, doesn't believe in any of that.
I know you don't want to see the proof, but here it is anyway, via ChatGPT. The question 'Provide examples where Trump and MAGA do and do not exhibit these qualities - put the Constitution, individual liberty, the rule of law, and the country ahead of party. '
Supports Your Side:
Individual liberty Trump signed the First Step Act, a bipartisan criminal-justice reform law that reduced some federal sentencing penalties and expanded recidivism-reduction programs. That is probably one of the better examples of his administration advancing liberty in a concrete way.
Rule of law - back-handed Some Trump-appointed officials and judges did follow the law even when it hurt Trump politically. Bill Barr said DOJ had found no widespread election fraud sufficient to change the 2020 result; Mike Pence said he had no unilateral power to reject electoral votes; and many Trump-appointed judges rejected election claims.
Country ahead of party Operation Warp Speed is probably the strongest example. It used federal power, money, and coordination to accelerate COVID vaccine development and distribution. One can criticize other parts of Trump’s COVID response, but Warp Speed itself was a national-interest project, not merely a partisan one.
Argues for my Point
Constitution Trump pressured Pence to do something Pence said he had no constitutional authority to do: reject or delay electoral votes. Pence’s Jan. 6 letter said he could not claim unilateral authority to decide which electoral votes should be counted.
Rule of law Trump pressured Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes,” enough to overturn Biden’s Georgia win. Raffensperger told him the claims were wrong. That is one of the clearest examples of party/personal power being placed above lawful election administration.
Country ahead of party After DOJ and state officials found no fraud sufficient to change the outcome, Trump continued promoting the stolen-election narrative. Barr publicly said DOJ had not found fraud on a scale that could have affected the result.
Respect for constitutional process On Jan. 6–7, 2021, 147 Republican members of Congress voted in some form to object to the Electoral College results even after courts, state certifications, recounts, and audits had not produced evidence sufficient to overturn the election.
Rule of law / equal accountability Trump’s 2025 clemency proclamation granted pardons or commutations for people convicted of offenses connected to Jan. 6. Whatever one thinks of the pardon power, using it broadly for political supporters who attacked the constitutional transfer of power cuts sharply against the idea that law applies equally to one’s own side.
Individual liberty MAGA rhetoric often emphasizes gun rights, speech rights, and religious liberty, but Trump’s own conduct has repeatedly included threats against political enemies, attacks on the press, and pressure on institutions to punish opponents. That is not a broad civil-liberties posture; it is liberty for allies and coercion for enemies.
If you want, I can make this list very, very long.Sorry, Sharlee, "When I refer to "true Americans," I'm talking about people to put the Constitution, individual liberty, the rule of law, and the country ahead of party. " Sharlee
The available evidence clearly shows your side, the MAGA part anyway, doesn't believe in any of that. ESO
I'm an independent thinker. I pride myself on being informed, intelligent, and open-minded enough to form my own opinions and speak them honestly. No one could accurately place me into a political box because I don't believe any party or ideology has all the right answers.
I don't follow any pied piper. I won't support or oppose something simply because a political leader or party tells me I should. I believe in thinking for myself.
I think people do themselves a disservice when they support everything a political party says simply because it's "their side." Blind loyalty and groupthink, whether on the left or the right, discourage critical thinking. I'd rather evaluate each issue on its own merits than let a party decide what I'm supposed to believe.
You make some fair points, but I think your list leaves out the other side of the coin. Since we're talking about principles, let's examine them consistently.
You credit the First Step Act, and I agree—it was a meaningful bipartisan criminal justice reform and one of Trump's better accomplishments.
But liberty also means protecting free speech, religious freedom, the right to bear arms, and limiting government intrusion. Many conservatives argue those liberties have increasingly been challenged by government mandates, campus speech restrictions, social media censorship efforts, and expanding federal regulation. If we're evaluating liberty, we should look at the entire picture, not just one area.
You cite Trump's pressure on Pence regarding the Electoral College. Pence ultimately followed the Constitution, as he understood it.
The other side is that there were also constitutional questions raised over executive actions by both parties, including student loan forgiveness attempts, COVID emergency powers, and the use of executive orders to bypass Congress. Constitutional concerns aren't unique to one party; they should be applied consistently regardless of who occupies the White House.
Trump's call to Brad Raffensperger has been heavily criticized, and I understand why.
At the same time, the rule of law also requires equal application. Many Americans questioned why investigations, prosecutions, and enforcement often appeared uneven depending on the political figure involved. Whether those perceptions are correct or not, equal justice under the law is a legitimate concern that extends beyond one person or one party.
Operation Warp Speed deserves credit. It was a national effort that produced vaccines in record time.
But putting country ahead of party also means securing the border, maintaining economic stability, addressing inflation, and protecting national security. Reasonable people can disagree about which policies best accomplish those goals. It's not accurate to suggest only one side believes it's acting in the country's best interest.
January 6 was a dark day, and those who committed crimes should be held accountable.
However, objecting to Electoral College votes itself is not unconstitutional. Democrats objected to electoral votes in 2001, 2005, and 2017. The difference is that January 6 turned violent, and that's where the line was crossed. Those are two separate issues and should not be conflated.
You criticize Trump's Jan. 6 pardons. That's a fair debate.
But presidents of both parties have issued controversial pardons. The constitutional pardon power has always been broad. The real question isn't whether a president *can* issue pardons—it's whether they *should* in particular cases. Reasonable people can disagree on where that line belongs.
Ultimately, my concern has never been about defending one politician. I've criticized Trump when I believed he was wrong, including his call asking for a review in the golf matter. I don't follow personalities—I follow principles. That's why I don't automatically defend Republicans any more than I automatically condemn Democrats.
For me, the Constitution, individual liberty, equal application of the law, and limited government aren't Republican principles or Democratic principles; they're American principles. I apply them to everyone, regardless of whose name appears on the ballot.
We have now shared our individual views on the issues you shared. I will leave it there. I respect yours; I have no intention of defending mine.
From the days when the Democratic Party was infected with the likes of George Wallace, you are certainly correct - the Party has moved Left.
1. It now fully supports gay marriage, which it didn't then
2. It fully recognizes the dangers of climate change, which it didn't then
3. It supports the idea that health care is a right, it wasn't sure then.
4. More emphasis on reform, police accountability (which is sorely needed), sentencing. 30 years ago that wasn't the case
5. More emphasis on immigrant rights, DACA, path to citizenship than previously
6. More focus on the skyrocketing income/wealth inequality, labor-management imbalance, and antitrust than they had 30 years ago.
7. Much more focused on human and civil rights and individual liberty than when George Wallace was in the Party.
In other words, the Democratic Party became more civil and humane.
Also, get back to me when the AOC's of the party gain anywhere near majority status so that I can take your worries seriously.
As to "As for elections, absolutely, let the people decide. That's how our republic is supposed to work. " - I agree. Only if Trump would and drop his push to rig the elections.
I answered your question - it depends on if Trump keeps his trap shut and his fingers off the keyboard.
Isn't it Happy 5th? The fireworks went off after midnight and my wife just told me that so many were shot from different places that the smoke interfered badly with people seeing them explode near the end. Typical Trump mismanagement again.
BTW, those are militia, are they not? The same militia the 2nd Amendment was written for?
Maybe. Or maybe they're citizens called to fight as a militia, the same ones the 2nd amendment was written for.
GA ;-)Now you are getting it, lol. It starts "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State". The second amendment's purpose was to make sure the citizenry had weapons to bring to the fight as a militia, no more, no less that I can see.
Today, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment has vanished in that we have a standing Army and no longer need armed citizens. That said, I still agree with the citizens right to bear arms - so long as they can show they won't be a danger to others by having them.
"Trump’s red card call stirs political storm around World Cup"
It is sad what Trump's huge ego did. If Team USA wins again, and with Balogun playing the next game, then their win will be forever tainted by Trump's interference and FIFA's acquiescence.
Team USA should bench Balogun for the game he was not supposed to play to show good sportsmanship.
Reminds me of the book by Rick Wilson - Everything Trump Touches Dies: A Republican Strategist Gets Real About the Worst President Ever
This is an example he could have included in his book.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/06/politics … o-analysis"He was Trump’s boyhood friend. Now he’s pushing Trump to declare a ‘national emergency’ and seize control of the midterms"
The boyhood friend is lawyer and election denier Peter Ticktin. He is a military academy acquaintance who claims to be Trump's "best friend". He apparently defended, poorly it seems, Tina Peters, the Colorado election official who tried to break into election equipment to help throw the state to Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/06/politics … tion-fraudWatch the Trump administration defend the white nationalist terrorist march on the national mall on the 4th. (Cowards all with their masks on, brings on visions of ICE)
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/05/us/video … tiona-vrtcI am saddened to say Platner has reached the Eric Swawell (D) and Tony Gonzales (R) for sexual misconduct that goes beyond the pale although he still has a ways to go to catch up to Trump
None of the other allegations occurred in the near term (save one) and were all linked to his PTSD. This is outside that window.
The only solution I see is for him to suspend his campaign and let second place take over against Collins.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/0 … n-00987737The men's Team USA lost resoundingly last night in soccer to Belgium, 4.- 1. As one lady put it skipping down Stadium Lane, "Our Spirits are Winners", and they are in spite of the cloud Trump put over their heads.
Now, to the REAL story about the Red Flag, according to AI, and it isn't the one Trump made up.
The two players crashed into each other and Balogun stepped on the other players ankle and Achilles heal. Initially, the ref DID NOT throw the red card. It was the people watching the slow motion replay (the VAR) that caught the possible foul. They informed the ref to review the play in slow motion, which he did. Only THEN did he change his mind and issue the red card because he say a serious foul.
So, it was the VAR that got the ball rolling and the ref simply verified it. Obviously all this character assassination by Trump, typical for him, was unfair.
What is apparently NOT in dispute is that Balogun fouled the other player for both the VAR and the ref saw it. What is in dispute is whether the VAR should have notified the ref in the first place because of the way the rules are written.
What should NOT have happened is Trump interfering and ruining both the name of the men's team and the amazing comradery that the World Cup had built up between America and the rest of the soccer world
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/07/sport/us … ite-defeatIsn't it great to see him squirm like this?
"A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the release of more than $5 million to E. Jean Carroll rejecting President Donald Trump’s attempt to delay paying the former magazine columnist a jury found he sexually abused and defamed."
A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the release of more than $5 million to E. Jean Carroll rejecting President Donald Trump’s attempt to delay paying the former magazine columnist a jury found he sexually abused and defamed.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/08/politics … an-carroll
A fellow sexual predator, Graham Platner, is probably going to resign from his Senate bid. Trump should resign as well. But Hey, it seems MAGA doesn't mind sexual predators so long as it is THEIR sexual predator.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/08/politics … an-carroll
Related Discussions
- 50
random thoughts please
by ByChanceTV 15 years ago
Please post your 'Random' Thought here please..."Sometimes I taste like Polkadots"
- 85
Random Thoughts and Words of Wisdom
by P1 SpareNone 16 years ago
Ever had a simple question pop in your head that defies common sense? Do you have random words of wisdom that you wish to share with others? Or have you heard someone else say/express something similar to this? I have these sorts of things happen all the time, and I would like to...
- 6
NBA Playoffs 2013 Random Thoughts!
by Julio E Olmo Sr 13 years ago
The first round of the playoffs this season is not looking good for any of the road teams at alll. Injuries have played a huge part on the no-drama!
- 46
Random Facts of the Day!!!
by pinkylee 16 years ago
I have these moments throughout my day that totally random things po into my head. as my boyfriend would call it "randon fact of the day" so I thought I would start sharing them with you all and see what other randon facts of the day people have. This could prove to be funny. so my...
- 11
Random Thoughts about HubPages
by Phyllis Doyle Burns 12 years ago
There has been a lot of complaining about changes, unfeatured hubs, ads, etc. I, too, have made some complaints -- yet, I do intend to stick it out and hang in here, for I have faith that HubPages is a good place to be, for me, anyway. I think HubPages will only grow better over time.I do,...
- 358
Trump's Big Beautiful Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
by Sharlee 8 months ago
President Trump is back in the White House as our 47th President, and let me just say: he’s not wasting a single second. From the moment he took the oath again, he’s been fighting to restore American strength, pride, and sanity. This second term isn’t about revenge; it’s about results. And we’re...