Trump’s Day One: A Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
Trump's tariffs are actually nothing more than a corporate tax increase.... The impact or end result of increased tariffs are no different than that of the end result (according to most of you here) of an increase corporate tax rate.
Talk about Two-Faced.
First Trump cuts off aid to millions of people around the world and doesn't lift a finger to keep them alive (341,700 are estimated to have died from Trump shutting down USAID, 230,700 are kids), , but now he realizes Palestinians are starving to death and wants to do something about. I am happy the Palestinians might get (he has only talked so far, but not done anything) the food they desperately need, but see the terrible hypocrisy of his decisions to keep some people alive (it makes him look good) while helping hundreds of thousands of other die.
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/isr … 6oua5046h6
Source for the death toll is a real-time mortality Impact Counter modeled by Boston University.This Right-Wing ex-President was brought to justice, maybe, just maybe Trump can be brought to justice as well.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/28/americas … atamhttps:Helping Trump dismantle the federal gov't is the Conservative element of the Supreme Court.
In this analysis - Supreme Court shows unflinching regard for Trump - you can see the steps the Conservatives have taken to bring back the spoils system in the executive branch Congress spent decades trying to get rid of.
Fortunately, when the nation regains its senses and puts a Democrat in office, they will be able to use the same spoils system rules the Conservatives want to clean house and get competent, patriotic (as opposed to loyalists) people to staff those positions.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/29/politics … -for-trump"He’s the only president to never have an average approval rating of at least 50 percent in Gallup’s tracker." - The Hill
And his job performance ratings are tanking, especially with what Americans care MOST about - the Economy and Inflation.
In another Trump Victory FOR China - The US is sitting out the most consequential climate summit in a decade. It may offer a victory to China
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/29/climate/ … op30-chinaWho should pick up the cost of Trump's tariffs? Should corporations absorb the total cost? Should consumers absorb the total cost? Or should they split the costs?
Not aware of any new costs, or do I know or will I predict any costs due to tariffs. I will leave that to others. Get back to me in about a year. Because we have no real way of predicting how the new deals will pan out.
"Not aware of any new costs, or do I know or will I predict any costs due to tariffs.
What do you mean? Tariffs ARE a cost. They're a cost that has to be picked up by someone.. either the corporation pays the tariff or the consumer does. Possibly a combination of both but tariffs ARE most definitely an added costThis is what deep, dangerous denial looks like. These cognitive dissonance moments must be excruciating. Imagine the pain from being forced to write that a tariff is not a cost to America, a tax.
Here we go again. Why is it so hard for these people to understand that the importing company pays the tariffs and eventually passes that cost to the end consumer? It’s not rocket science and it’s the effect tariffs have ALWAYS had. It’s not a matter of opinion
I do not know, the mind of MAUGA is a mystery.
I don't have the luxury of ignoring reality for that long. Instead, I must rely on my own training and knowledge in economics and that of other experts to understand what has a high probability of happening. I am not the type of person to stick my head in the sand.
Can I ask... Do you believe that a tariff has no cost?? But if it does (and in actual reality, it does). Who pays the cost?
The EU promised a radically high level of US energy imports under Trump’s trade deal...it’s hard to believe they’ll make good on it....
Are you saying they won't keep their word? I guess one could also say --- the EU will keep their word. This is once again a wait-and-see, is it not? You immediately look to the negative, --- "The EU promised a radically high level of US energy imports under Trump’s trade deal...it’s hard to believe they’ll make good on it...." willow
In my view, they very well might keep their word. I mean why not?You've missed the point. The point of the chart was to show just how much more energy imports from the US would be needed to meet the "deal".
Bloomberg analysis shows it's nearly impossible for the EU to fulfill its pledge to purchase $750 billion of energy from US....
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … to-achieve
"energy experts have referred to that as a “wholly unrealistic,” and even “absurd,” number given that U.S. energy-product exports to the E.U. would have to more than triple to get there."
And
"Actual purchasing decisions are made by private firms or national entities, and in practice, market economics override political pledges "
There is just so much wrong with this "deal"
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-e … d-ac5de025I did not miss the point, nor did I miss your context. I did not address your charts because it has become very clear you diverted to an unknown. I DO NOT PREDICT, as a rule.
No one here on this forum has misrepresented how it pays the tariff when purchasing goods from another nation --- no one. I pointed out that in many cases, the tariffs could be less than what Biden's PROPOSED tax hike could have dealt companies.
I did respond to this part of your comment.
"Willowarbor wrote:
The EU promised a radically high level of US energy imports under Trump’s trade deal...it’s hard to believe they’ll make good on it...." Willow
My response
Sharlee01 wrote:
Are you saying they won't keep their word? I guess one could also say --- the EU will keep their word. This is once again a wait-and-see, is it not? You immediately look to the negative, ---
"The EU promised a radically high level of US energy imports under Trump’s trade deal...it’s hard to believe they’ll make good on it...." willow
I think my response was on subject. I have no way of knowing the future. Guess you are blessed in that respect. LOLDiverted to the unknown? Since you clearly understand the issue LOL how can the EU and the US complete the terms of this deal? Given the limitations noted. The KNOWN limitations...
This has nothing to do with predicting the future and everything to do with acknowledging the issues that exist on both sides that make this deal all but impossible to complete in reality...
Maybe just address one huge barrier to the completion of the proposed framework ...
the EU indeed lacks authority to enforce the 750b investment pledge...it depends on private companies.
And then address this one...
The EU imports about 415B in energy from other countries. It would have to redirect all of those imports to the US and would still be about 335B short.... How does this happen?
Let's cut to the chase. EU simply can't buy much energy from the United States because US doesn't have that much energy to export...
Also...
The EU has never spent 750billion on external energy - total ever. So this is another bullshit figure like the Japanese trade deal figures.
The EU’s ‘fantasy’ $750B energy promise to Trump – POLITICO https://share.google/335G2IaJWn0kBOfnF
Trump's EU trade deal based on huge energy purchases that are unrealistic, analysts say https://share.google/Wn6G7SYbieZ9zVVK9
Donald Trump’s EU oil and gas deal is ‘pie in the sky’, energy experts warn https://share.google/6qib2ZknvprflKplD
EU’s $750 Billion Energy Deal With Trump Looks Hard to Reach https://share.google/Q36riNj9xX09UPkG3
Trump’s E.U. Trade Deal Comes With Impossible Energy Promises - The New York Times https://share.google/fQsRAqpHkWHCsIWuFThe claim that the EU’s $750 billion energy purchase commitment from the U.S. is “all but impossible” reflects a misunderstanding of both the deal’s structure and how modern energy markets operate. First, this isn’t about the EU suddenly importing all its energy needs from the U.S. overnight; it’s a strategic diversification pledge over three years, aimed at reducing reliance on adversarial suppliers like Russia.
That shift is already underway, with U.S. LNG shipments to Europe hitting record highs and EU nations expanding port infrastructure to handle even more. Second, while it’s technically true the EU can’t “force” private companies to buy U.S. energy, that argument overlooks how governments influence markets through contracts, subsidies, and regulation, tools the EU is actively using to drive this transition. Importantly, the $750 billion figure covers not just LNG, but also oil, refined petroleum, nuclear fuel, and related energy technologies. The fact is, they made this agreement.
We have no way of knowing whether they’ll go back on their word, but we also shouldn’t assume they will. What's reasonable is to examine what they propose to purchase, which I’ve done, and based on that, even if the final total falls short, they’ll still be buying a hell of a lot more U.S. energy than they ever did before. That’s a strategic shift with real-world consequences, and it’s essential we deal with what’s actually in the agreement, not just assumptions based on skepticism.I only saw one question --- "The EU imports about 415B in energy from other countries. It would have to redirect all of those imports to the US and would still be about 335B short.... How does this happen?" willow
You should realize that as a layman, I can only offer what my research shows and my view. I feel my answer more than covered both.
I gave a very long answer. That shift is already underway, with U.S. LNG shipments to Europe hitting record highs and EU nations expanding port infrastructure to handle even more. Second, while it’s technically true the EU can’t “force” private companies to buy U.S. energy, that argument overlooks how governments influence markets through contracts, subsidies, and regulation, tools the EU is actively using to drive this transition. Importantly, the $750 billion figure covers not just LNG, but also oil, refined petroleum, nuclear fuel, and related energy technologies. The fact is, they made this agreement.
We have no way of knowing whether they’ll go back on their word, but we also shouldn’t assume they will. What's reasonable is to examine what they propose to purchase, which I’ve done, and based on that, even if the final total falls short, they’ll still be buying a hell of a lot more U.S. energy than they ever did before. That’s a strategic shift with real-world consequences, and it’s essential we deal with what’s actually in the agreement, not just assumptions based on skepticism.
What other questions?
At any rate, I am just basking in the AM's good economy stats.... Not sure I can say any more than I have on this issue. Once again, it's a wait-and-see if the EU keeps its word.
Again --- We have no way of knowing whether they’ll go back on their word, but we also shouldn’t assume they will. What's reasonable is to examine what they propose to purchase, which I’ve done, and based on that, even if the final total falls short, they’ll still be buying a hell of a lot more U.S. energy than they ever did before. That’s a strategic shift with real-world consequences, and it’s essential we deal with what’s actually in the agreement, not just assumptions based on skepticism.The EU cannot fulfill this deal, neither can we.... You do understand that the EU is not a block that purchases energy for all, right? Private corporations do that.... Again, that is just one of the major issues with this so-called deal.
Here are some back-up facts for you, Willowarbor according to ChatGPT.
1. As you clearly stated a couple of times, but was ignored, The EU is not a centralized purchaser of energy. Energy procurement in the EU is handled by private companies and utilities, not by EU institutions or governments acting as a singular buying entity. The bloc does not have authority to mandate purchases on behalf of all member states. (The Wall Street Journal, euronews)
2. The $750 billion purchase pledge is symbolic, not binding
The announced goal—that the EU will spend $750 billion in U.S. energy over three years (≈ $250 billion annually)—is viewed as aspirational. Analysts call it “highly unrealistic” and “outside market reality.”
(YouTube euronews, Reuters)
For context:
In 2024, total EU imports of U.S. energy (oil, LNG, coal) amounted to only ~$64–76 billion.
]b]To hit $250 billion per year would require tripling or quadrupling current trade volumes[/b], well beyond what existing infrastructure and U.S. output capacity can support. (New York Post, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, MarketWatch)
So, bottom line, it should now be clear to anybody that your assertion that the energy portion of the EU framework is impossible to achieve and, in my opinion, another example of Trump's overblown rhetoric.
I think you said something else that was clearly true - it is all smoke and mirrors.
Reality is that EACH EU country has to approve it. I can easily see the EU pulling a Trump and saying what is needed for the moment.
Am even bigger issue? In the European Union, energy is primarily purchased and managed by private corporations.
These private companies typically make decisions about energy purchases based on market prices, demand, and economic factors, rather than political directives from a bully.
Looks like the big Trump EU trade deal is not exactly what it appears to be. Analysts are pointing out the $750B energy investment numbers are "completely unrealistic" and "pure fantasy." The EU spent €76 billion on US energy last year – tripling that would require sidelining cheaper suppliers and diverting nearly ALL US oil and gas exports to Europe.
This one is even more ridiculous than his Japan "deal" debacle.
We should be incredibly skeptical when Trump announces big investment promises as part of his trade deals...when China promised to buy more US imports in Trump’s first term, they didn’t even meet baseline levels.
Smoke and mirrors...Then old Joe came in --- China laughed and more or less went back on agreements. And Joe, well, he was sleeping.
But China promised to buy more under Trump's deal DURING his term... They didn't.
Back to my thread's subject, Trump's Bold Agenda ---- Economy Stats--- Bring back our economy. Making America Rich Again. And all while some were wringing their hands, and predicting a doomsday economy due to the Tariff war. Pretty good report all in all.
Inflation increased in June 2025. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose to 2.7% on an annual basis, up from 2.4% in May.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – Q2 2025 (Advance Estimate)
Real GDP grew by +3.0% annualized in Q2, rebounding from a −0.5% contraction in Q1 2025 --- This beat economist forecasts of ~2.3–2.4% spending rose.
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Underlying domestic spending:
Final sales to private domestic purchasers rose 1.2%.
Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Consumer spending on goods and services increased by approximately +1.4%
Jobs-- Employment – ADP National Employment Report, July 2025
Private-sector payrolls rose by +104,000 jobs, well above the consensus forecast of 75,000
Federal Reserve likely to hold rates steady, despite President Trump's renewed calls for interest rate cuts. The Federal Reserve is expected to keep borrowing costs unchanged in its policy.
More stats due on Friday---
Friday, August 1
Nonfarm Payrolls & Unemployment Rate (July) – 8:30 a.m. ET
Average Hourly Earnings, Weekly Hours, Manufacturing Payrolls – 8:30 a.m. ET
ISM Manufacturing Index (July) – 10:00 a.m. ET
Construction Spending (June) – 10:00 a.m. ET
I'm keeping my fingers crossed, hoping to see progress on all accounts.One telling statistic: Consumer spending... the bedrock of the US economy,...grew at a 1.4% annual rate in the 2nd quarter, just half the 2.8% growth rate in spending in 2024.
Monthly Consumer Spending Recap
Month Change (Month‑over‑Month, Seasonally Adjusted)
Feb 2025 +0.3%
Mar 2025 +0.7%
Apr 2025 +0.2%
May 2025–0.1% (a slight dip)
Jun 2025 +1.4%
We saw a great improvement in spending in June, and stats show a great improvement over the past 5 months. Not sure why you have no optimism for the growth we are seeing, actually, in most economic stats. Question: Do you hope to see a failing economy? Thus far, I see steady growth, enough to be optimistic.Steady growth? Consumer spending grew only HALF the rate of 2024...
The EU deal is a ruse to confuse the unwitting. . We don’t make enough energy to give them what was agreed upon. The EU can’t even legally commit to buying that much because it’s private companies who purchase it. It’s all a facade. Stuff just got more expensive for no reason.
Well, Trump is at it again, telling other countries how to run their affairs. I hope you don't like coffee because it will get a lot more expensive with Trump's new 50% tariff.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/30/politics … tive-orderAnother trade deal comes in before the deadline-- South Korea officials, business leaders join last-ditch push for US trade deal. Not much is out about the details as of yet.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci … hatgpt.com
It's genuinely encouraging to see how many trade deals have recently been settled that are not only fair but also strategically smart for America's long-term growth. These agreements reflect a noticeable shift, one where fairness and reciprocity are front and center, helping level the playing field for American workers and businesses.
What's especially exciting is that many of these deals are tied to real investment from our trade partners, meaning it’s not just talk, there’s skin in the game from both sides. This naturally pushes manufacturers to ramp up production here at home, creating jobs and strengthening domestic supply chains. When it comes to energy, the commitment from our allies, especially the EU, is a powerful sign of trust and cooperation.
In fact, the push to purchase more U.S. energy wasn’t just something we proposed, it was actually the EU’s idea, driven by a desire to diversify away from less reliable sources. That demand creates a strong incentive to expand American energy infrastructure, from terminals to pipelines, while boosting our economy and reinforcing energy independence for our partners. And let’s be clear, the money will pour in from many parts of the globe. Trump has opened the road to fair trade, something Americans have been asking for for decades. We’re finally on our way.
Next, India has long been known for engaging in some of the most one-sided and protectionist trade practices.While that may be encouraging to you, it is a great discouragement to the rest of us.
If Trump insists on putting 15% tariffs on the rest of the world, this is what the experts think is the likely outcome:
A 15% global tariff would act like a massive regressive consumption tax—raising costs for consumers and businesses, while shrinking overall economic output and jobs. Benefits to certain manufacturing sectors may emerge briefly, but are outweighed by structural inefficiencies, supply chain disruptions, and FOREIGN retaliation.
This would likely be one of the most contractionary U.S. trade policies enacted since Smoot–Hawley, with long-term damage and steady erosion of household and business welfare if sustained over time. And we will have three years of accumulating damage to our national economy.
Enjoy your higher prices and lower GDP.
These aren't deals.
He's slapping a 15% tariff on American importers for everything they bring into the U.S. from South Korea
And just like with Japan, which already debunked his lies, he’s making up fantasy numbers claiming South Korea is giving him hundreds of billions to use as he pleases. He literally makes this stuff up....
South Korea’s entire GDP in 2024 was $1.82 trillion.
If you seriously think they’re giving a quarter of that, $450 billion, to the U.S., I've got a bridge to sell you.When will it dawn on her how much Trump is gaslighting her.
The South Korean deal includes...$100 billion in liquefied natural gas and other energy. LMFAO we are already exporting more than we can actually produce to the EU... He really does think people are that stupid...
Trump's Bold Agenda Economic Update.
The first report of 2 Qtr 2025 GDP is in - 3% growth.
While that is a good number, and in spite of all the glowing rhetoric from the Right, the facts behind it tell an entirely different story.
1. Where soaring imports had a lot to do with negative growth in the first quarter, plunging imports have a lot to do with this quarter's 3% growth.
2. The basic facts: GDP overall is up 3%. Components are: Consumer Spending: +1.4%, Gov't Spending: Flat, Investment: -15.6%, Net Trade Deficit: +150%
3. That translates to: Consumer Spending: +0.9 points; Gov't Spending: -0.2 points; Investment: -2.5 points, and Net Trade Deficit: + 4.8 points. Add those together you get the 3%.
NOTES:
1. Consumer Spending is very weak. The post pandemic average is +2.65%. 1st Qtr was 2.0% and the 2nd Qtr is a very anemic 1.4%
2. Gov't Spending even though is is negative had little impact.
3. Investment was the real killer, down 15.6%! This is after a 21.9% growth in the 1st Qtr. Average is between 3 - 4% growth. It is easy to see the terrible impact Trump's tariffs are having on a well functioning economy.
4. What drove the 3% in the 2nd Qtr is the massive decrease in imports as a result of equally massive increase in imports in the 1st Qtr - ALL driven by Trump's terrible tariffs.
5. IN FACT, if you substitute "normal" trade deficits that haven't been perturbed by Trump's tariffs, GDP in the first quarter would have been +3.0% and in the 2nd Qtr -2.0%!! This is proof how Trump is screwing with our economy.
6. FINALLY, had both Investment and Trade Deficits been "Normal", GDP for the 1st Qtr would have been +1.0% and for the 2nd Qtr it would have been 0.0%. Not good by anyone's measure. (this is what is called sensitivity analysis in the cost estimating world.)
It should be very easy to see now how Trump has turned America's once great economy on its head and made it very unstable..Ford reports Q2 net loss and predicts bigger impact from tariffs ahead...
"The automaker also reported it had $800 million in costs related to tariffs in the quarter. For the year, Ford expects tariffs to cost it $3 billion, but said it can "recover" $1 billion of that through pricing, production or other actions. That puts its estimated net tariff cost this year at $2 billion, which is slightly higher than Ford's initial $1.5 billion estimate, Ford CFO Sherry House told reporters. The higher estimate is due to tariffs such as those on steel and aluminum."
So are we supposed to celebrate because we're filling the coffers? Seems like Ford has shouldered some of this cost but the plan is to pass it on to us...
Ford reports Q2 net loss and predicts bigger impact from tariffs ahead https://share.google/C2BNpgJWjbitbAfh6The news just keeps getting worse and worse while MAUGA keeps living in la-la land.
And they complained about Biden yet keep silent about Trump -
"President Donald Trump told a story on Monday about how he “made a correct prediction” about the outcome of the United Kingdom’s 2016 Brexit referendum while he was visiting his golf course in Scotland “the day before the vote.”
“You remember?” he asked reporters.
They couldn’t have remembered. It didn’t happen.
Trump actually visited Scotland the day after the Brexit referendum, not the day before it. And while he did say about three months prior that he thought the UK would end up leaving the European Union, he made no public predictions in an interview the day before the vote – saying he personally favored Brexit but also that “I don’t think anybody should listen to me because I haven’t really focused on it very much.”
He is right in one respect, nobody should listen to him. It should be noted that research has shown that Trump, while appearing more wide awake most of the time, makes more gaffes, more memory lapses, more pauses trying to think of words, more made up stories, and many more incoherent strings of words than Biden ever did.
But commentors here will never own up to the Truth - it is too embarrassing for words.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/30/politics … nald-trumpUpdate on Trump's Big Bold Fiasco.
ChatGPT was able to find 7 US businesses (and 1 foreign business that completely closed) that had to severely curtail or pause operations because of Trump and his tariffs. And that was just using the surface look and not deep research. Common sense says that is just the tip of the iceberg.
https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/ … rump-dealsPCE inflation jumped to 2.6% in June, its highest level since February.
To go along with that is this bit of fact.
We know that Trump so perturbed the economy that you had wild swings in investment and trade deficits in the first and second quarters, so wild it may have never been seen before in the US economy.
But what happens when you look at Trump's first six months in office as a whole? Trump managed to squeak out a measly 1.23% annualized growth in GDP. The only good thing you can say about that is that it was barely positive.
Trump's tariffs poised for major test before federal appeals court today
federal appeals court is set to convene Thursday to consider President Trump's use of an emergency powers law to impose sweeping tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear arguments in the Trump administration's appeal of a ruling from a trade-focused lower court that found the president did not have the authority to hit foreign nations with 10% tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.
Trump's tariffs poised for major test before federal appeals court today - CBS News https://share.google/TMfRkXh5rXeWiBesSJudges expressed strong skepticism during questioning:
Some judges pointed out IEEPA does not explicitly authorize tariffs.
Chief judge Jimmie Reyna remarked: “IEEPA doesn’t even say tariffs […] doesn’t mention them.”
Politico
Reuters
+1
AP News
+1
Government lawyers argued the law grants broad emergency authority, including power to regulate imports in national crisis scenarios (e.g. trade deficits, drug trafficking), but judges found this rationale unconvincing.
If Trump loses:
The current emergency-based tariffs could be invalidated.
Importers might demand refunds of up to $200 billion in duties collected.
Wouldn't that be nice for all the hell and misery Trump has put them through.
More good news on the economy.
Spending is stable, with real consumption (adjusted for inflation) ticking up, which is a positive sign for economic activity. Core inflation is easing, both on a monthly and annual basis. That’s exactly what the Fed wants to see before seriously considering rate cuts.
This report points to a steady, mildly growing economy, with no immediate red flags from the consumer side. For policymakers and investors, it likely reinforces the Fed’s current “wait-and-see” approach on interest rates: the data doesn’t call for a hike, but also doesn’t justify a cut as of yet.
Personal Income and Outlays, June 2025. Personal income increased $71.4 billion (0.3 percent at a monthly rate) in June, according to estimates released today by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Disposable personal income (DPI)—personal income less personal current taxes—increased $61.0 billion (0.3 percent) and personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased $69.9 billion (0.3 percent).
Personal outlays—the sum of PCE, personal interest payments, and personal current transfer payments—increased $69.5 billion in June. Personal saving was $1.01 trillion in June and the personal saving rate—personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income—was 4.5 percent.
From the same month one year ago, the PCE price index for June increased 2.6 percent. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index increased 2.8 percent from one year ago.
Inflation has cooled significantly compared to the highs of 2022–2023, when core PCE was over 5%.
However, core PCE at 2.8% is still above the Fed’s 2.0% target.
The Conference Board’s index rose to 97.2, beating estimates; inflation expectations dipped to ~5.8% over the year ahead
The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index rising to 97.2 means that consumers in the U.S. are feeling more optimistic about the economy than they were in previous months, and more so than economists expected. This index reflects how people feel about current economic conditions as well as their expectations for the next six months. A rising index suggests consumers are more confident in their job prospects, income stability, and overall financial outlook, which often translates into more willingness to spend. At the same time, inflation expectations dipping to around 5.8% over the coming year signals that while consumers still expect prices to rise, they believe the rate of increase will be slower than it has been recently. That’s a good sign for both the Federal Reserve and the broader economy, because lower inflation expectations help keep actual inflation in check—people are less likely to demand higher wages or rush to buy goods, both of which can drive prices up further. Overall, this data suggests growing confidence in economic stability, with inflation fears easing somewhat but still lingering above normal levels.
Wage Growth
Employment Cost Index (ECI) — Q2 2025
For the quarter ending in June:
The Employment Cost Index increased by 0.9%, matching the pace seen in Q1 and slightly above economist expectations of 0.8%
MarketScreener
.On a year-over-year basis, total compensation rose 3.6%, with wages and salaries also up 3.6% and benefits increasing 3.5%
Bureau of Labor Statistics
In Q2, wages and salaries alone grew by 1.0%, including private-sector wages (1.0%) and state/local government wages (0.9%)
Reuters
Average Hourly & Weekly Earnings — June 2025
Average hourly earnings for private nonfarm workers rose by $0.08 (0.2%), to $36.30, marking a 3.7% annual increase
MarketScreener
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Production and nonsupervisory workers saw a $0.09 (0.3%) monthly gain to $31.24
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Average weekly hours dipped slightly, which, combined with modest hourly gains, resulted in real average weekly earnings rising about 0.7% year-over-year
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Summary — Wage & Cost Trends as of July 2025
Wage growth remains moderate and steady. The ECI shows labor costs rising 0.9% in Q2, and 3.6% year-over-year, with wage gains at 3.6% across sectors
Reuters
Monthly wage gains remain modest—0.2% overall and 0.3% for nonsupervisory staff—while workers’ hours slightly declined. When adjusted for inflation, real wages are climbing slowly, with annual real hourly earnings up ~1.0% and real weekly pay up ~0.7%
Bureau of Labor Statistics
What It Means: We are seeing a steady labor market:
Employers are increasing compensation, but not at an inflation-accelerating pace.
Real gains are positive—wage growth continues to be moderate.
This tight but balanced environment supports the Fed’s current stance of holding rates steady while watching incoming data.Spending?
Consumer spending in the has slowed down compared to a year ago, particularly when factoring in inflation....
The second quarter of 2025, U.S. consumer spending grew at a 1.4% annual rate, an increase from the 0.5% rate in the first quarter, but considerably less than the 2.8% growth seen in 2024.I want to clarify that in covering Trump’s new term, I have not made any direct comparisons to Biden’s policies. It’s important to note that Biden did not actively pursue a fair trade agenda like Trump did. Trump’s approach has been very different, and while his trade war certainly disrupted the economy and caused concern, I’m seeing promising signs in the latest economic statistics that suggest the predicted recession has not materialized as some economists feared. Not sure anyone would not have expected a turbulent economy with a trade war going on. I am just pleased it is not as bad as predicted. I hope this explanation provides clearer insight into why I believe the economy is heading in the right direction. Trump was transparent about his trade plans from the start, and I fully expected the economy to experience some setbacks and downturns, potentially lasting longer than we initially hoped. However, the data now show a turnaround happening, and at a relatively fast pace.
The sharp rebound in consumer spending from 0.5% growth in the first quarter of 2025 to 1.4% in the second quarter is historically significant, not because 1.4% is a record high, but because of how quickly the economy regained momentum. This rapid turnaround suggests a level of resilience that many economists did not expect, especially given the renewed trade tensions and tariff policies under Trump’s second term. While 1.4% still trails the 2.8% growth seen at the end of Biden’s term, the fact that spending nearly tripled in just one quarter signals renewed consumer confidence and adaptability. It also challenges the predictions that a trade war would trigger an immediate consumer-driven recession. Instead, the data shows a surprisingly stable economy adjusting faster than anticipated, and that in itself makes the rebound noteworthy in a historical context.
At any rate, next month's stats will show if we are on the path up or down. Hopefully, the stats will show the tariff war had little consequence on our growth. Thus far, it appears early on in Trump's term they did, and now we are seeing a speedy rebound, as we have seen this month.What has Biden's policies got to do with anything? Willowarbor simply stated a fact - that your positive spin on consumer spending is misplaced because it is DOWN significantly from 12 months ago.
NOW, here is what is REALLY happening.
"Leavitt said tariffs have added to America’s coffers, and even more money is set to flow to the Treasury as tariff rates go up tomorrow."
What he WOULDN'T say is the net effect of Trump's tariffs is terrible:
* As of July 2025, the tariffs have generated over $108 billion in net federal revenue in the first half of the year alone, making up roughly 5% of total government revenue, compared to ~2% historically. That translates to an estimated $2.4 T over 10 years using the Republican preferred Dynamic Scoring.
OFFSETTING THAT by a lot are:
* Trading partners imposed retaliatory tariffs, which significantly offset the benefits of tariff revenue. In many cases, those losses outweighed U.S. gains
* Tariffs raised manufacturing costs by 2–4.5%, hurting profit margins and prompting slowing hiring or layoffs in key industries including AI and construction
* Households saw real income losses of ~$1,200 to $4,900 per year. Consumer prices on tariffed goods rose sharply, with higher retail costs and fewer product choices
* Forecast models project 6% lower long-term GDP, 5% lower wages, and 0.6% higher unemployment, with 740,000 fewer jobs (MAINLY manufacturing) by the end of 2025
* Economists largely agree new tariffs create deadweight loss—the costs to consumers and businesses exceed benefits to government and protected producers
Why Trump supporters here keep trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear is beyond me.
https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/ … rump-deals"How Trump used America’s leverage to get exactly what he wanted from his trade war"
Yes he certainly did - A Ruined US Economy, small businesses going bankrupt, large businesses losing BILLIONS, and Americans (including the commentors on this page) paying a lot more. (my wife is certainly mad about the rising grocery prices.)
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/31/business … mp-tariffsExcerpt from the latest Atlantic monthly magazine
“Understanding why Trump would be sensitive about Bolsonaro’s prosecution, which stems from Bolsonaro’s attempt to cling to power after losing the 2022 election, is not difficult—the parallels between the two have been often noted—but that doesn’t make it a threat to the United States, much less an “unusual and extraordinary” one. Likewise, Canadian recognition of a Palestinian state is unwelcome news for Trump’s close alliance with Israel, but it poses no obvious security or economic danger to the U.S. A Congress or Supreme Court interested in limiting presidential power could seize on these statements to arrest Trump’s trade war, but these are not the legislators or justices we have.
Setting aside the legal problems, Trump’s statements about Brazil and Canada represent an abandonment of the realpolitik approach he once promised. Even if Carney were to back down on Palestinian statehood, or Brazil to call off Bolsonaro’s prosecution, the United States wouldn’t see any economic gain. Trump is purely using American economic might to achieve noneconomic goals.”
——-
This continues to pi$$ me off in regard to the arrogance of American foreign policy under the Trump regime. So, kissing America’s arse politically is the prerequisite to any pursuit of parity with other nations regarding trade imbalances? I don’t care what Trump wants or thinks, the Brazilian government is well within its right to prosecute Bolsonaro and the Canadian government has the right to support Palestinian statehood. Rightwingers may relish in that kind of power and intimidation, but I don’t want a part of it. I hope the leaders of the respective countries stand tall and give America the “finger”. Trump’s America is certainly not my America. I cannot ally myself with such attitudes an policies even though I may live here.In Trump world, there ARE NO rights - only Trump's warped, mentally ill will. The world as a whole needs to power through whatever pain their might be and tell Trump to stick his tariffs where the sun don't shine. Trump will quickly back down against a joint effort and America will be much better off.
Finally, reality is catching up with Trump's terrible Bold Agenda.
"Employment growth petered out in July and prior months’ gains were substantially weaker than initially reported, according to data released Friday from the Labor Department.
The US added just 73,000 jobs last month, and May and June’s payroll gains were revised down by 258,000 jobs, bringing those monthly net gains to 19,000 and 14,000, respectively.'
That is HORRIBLE although I expect a positive spin coming from Trump supporters.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/01/economy/ … eport-july
How Tariffs Are Cited as a Factor
- Policy Uncertainty & Hiring Caution
Economic reports and analysts specifically point to tariff-related uncertainty as a reason businesses are delaying hiring. The confusing rollout of successive tariff waves has made companies cautious about expansion.
MarketWatch
Investopedia
- Manufacturing Cost Pressure
A recent analysis estimates that tariffs are driving up factory input costs by 2%–4.5%, squeezing narrow margins and prompting some manufacturers to freeze hiring or delay expansion.
Investopedia
+4
AP News
+4
The Times of India
+4
- Job Gain Concentration
The only robust hiring was in health care and social assistance—which are less tied to global supply chains—suggesting sectors exposed to imported inputs or export disruption are slowing noticeably.
AP News
+1
MarketWatch
+1Did TACO Trump TACO again? Maybe. You know all those tariffs that were supposed to kick in today, Aug 1? Well, except for Canada, they didn't - he pushed them off another week to Aug 7, allegedly to give CBP time to get ready to collect them. My question is - what have they been doing the past three months? I suspect the is just another routine Trump lie.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/31/business … p-deadlineApple joins GM and Ford in billion dollar quarterly losses.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/31/tech/app … e-china-aiU.S. employers announced 62,075 job cuts in July, up 29% from June and 140% from last year.
Over 800,000 layoffs have been announced so far in 2025, the highest year to date total since the 2020 COVID crash.
What happened to the “Golden age”?Breaking from Forbes
2025 Job Cuts Have Already Surpassed All Of 2024—DOGE, AI And Tariffs Are Biggest Causes presented by Forbes (July 31, 2025)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroelof … st-causes/
Key Facts
** Private and public employers cut 62,000 jobs in July, according to a report from career services firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, an almost 30% increase from the month before and a 140% spike over the same month last year.
** More than 806,000 jobs have been cut to date in 2025, already above the 761,358 that were eliminated in all of 2024.
** The Department of Government Efficiency's cuts to federal agencies and grants, as well as implementation of artificial intelligence and concerns over Trump's tariffs, are largely responsible for the cuts, according to Andrew Challenger, senior vice president and labor expert for Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
** The government has cut 292,294 jobs this year—the leading sector in job reductions by far—followed by technology at 89,251 and 80,487 job cuts in retail.
"How Is AI Affecting Job Cuts?
Technology is the leading private sector in job cuts, with 89,251 eliminated in 2025 so far. Challenger says the advancement of artificial intelligence and ongoing uncertainty surrounding work visas have contributed to workforce reductions, which are up 36% in the sector over the same time period last year. So far in 2025, companies that have undergone large-scale layoffs so far this year include Intel (21,000), Microsoft (15,000 across two rounds of layoffs), PayPal (2,500) and HP (2,000).
This is what happens when you put the “king of bankruptcy“ back in charge of the economy… The man is an imbecile who does not understand basic economics.And he is probably very proud that he has cut the dollar's value by 8% so far in his term.
Here is the positive, which would be the ONLY thing his supporters will say while spinning this: Exporter love it because it makes American goods more competitive. The problem there is that only works IF demand holds up outside of the US. Given Trump's tariff war, that is problematic.
ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE IS THIS:
* It raises domestic prices for imported goods ON TOP OF the increases from the Trump tariffs.
* Strategically, the drop reflects rising uncertainty about U.S. fiscal policy, tariffs, and long-term debt.
* Ultimately, the economic pain from inflation, capital flight, and diminished investor confidence tends to outweigh the benefits of a weaker dollar.
Trump keeps proving daily how inept he is regarding our economy. But he makes up for it by being the UGLY AMERICAN to the rest of the world.This is typical Trump - don't like the message, shoot the messenger and LIE, LIE, LIE.
Trump fires a senior official over jobs numbers
From this point on, you cannot trust what the Trump administration puts out and must look for more reliable sources.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/01/business … umber-fire
Oh, did I mention that Trump is dangerously mentally ill - this is just more proof.Geez, just how dumb can you get?
======
President Trump said he will fire the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics after the independent government agency reported weak jobs numbers for July and the preceding month.
Why it matters: Trump is turning his ire about poor jobs numbers on the number-crunchers.
The big picture: Government statistics agencies are historically insulated from politics, so they can accomplish the deeply technical task of tallying up activity in a $30 trillion economy.
It came after BLS reported that the U.S. added only 73,000 jobs in July and sharply revised downward its May and June job growth estimates.
Without evidence, the president accused BLS commissioner Erika McEntarfer, a 20-year government veteran who was elevated to that job in the Biden administration, of distorting the numbers for political purposes.These are the worst three consecutive months for job growth since the pandemic. And what is Trump's response? Let's fire the person who tells the truth to the American people about the jobs numbers so we can put someone else there who will lie on his behalf...
JD Vance 4 hours ago: The jobs report is actually great.
Donald Trump moments ago: “Today’s jobs numbers were RIGGED”
Which is it? In any functioning country, he would be ousted from the White House...Are there any Republicans in Congress with the courage to stand up to Trump ever about anything, or will they just watch the Republic burn to the ground while they hide?
Assuming TACO Trump doesn't TACO again, this is what to expect if history repeats itself.
* Smoot-Hawley raised tariffs 5.4 points
* Trump raised tariffs 9.9 points
* Smoot-Hawley tariffs impacted only about 1.4% of GDP
* Trump tariffs impact a whopping 45% of GDP
* Smoot-Hawley started from a high tariff baseline of 35.7% in an relatively unconnected economic world.
* Trump started from a very low baseline of 7.4% in a very interconnected world
* Smoot-Hawley tariffs represented a 15% increase in the cost of production or retail
* Trump's tariffs represent a 134% increase!
* Smoot-Hawley made a bad situation worse, maybe adding the word "Great" to the "Great Depressions"
* Trump's tariffs are expected to turn what was a pretty good, resilient economy into at best a very fragile one and at the worst into a major stagflation economy.
* Smoot-Hawley intensified a bad situation in 1930, but tariffs were already a normal feature of the economic landscape.
* Trump’s tariffs are a dramatic reversal of 75 years of trade liberalization, imposing greater relative damage
Bottom Line: Starting from a higher baseline makes Smoot-Hawley more incremental, while Trump’s tariffs, though numerically smaller, are far more disruptive to the modern economy.Trump failing Bold Agenda hurts us in big and small ways. My wife was just complaining about the very slow delivery time for her refill of Tramadol - needed for a bad case of restless leg syndrome. So I asked ChatGPT (I have stopped asking Google anymore as I got tired of ads and nonresponsiveness) about it and got this response.
Has trump's doge cuts impacted mail delivery times?
ChatGPT said:
Here’s what the public record and reporting show about how Trump‑era DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) workforce cuts and USPS reforms have affected mail delivery times in 2025:
Workforce Cuts and Postal Staffing Trends
The USPS is planning to eliminate approximately 10,000 positions in 2025 through a voluntary early retirement program, aligned with DOGE directives to improve efficiency. These cuts come atop broader federal workforce reductions, with an estimated 26,000 federal civilian roles eliminated in 2025 (including USPS)
Wikipedia
+14
PBS
+14
Los Angeles Times
+14
.
USPS previously removed overtime, restricted extra delivery trips, and dismantled sorting equipment—measures that Postal leadership acknowledged were causing delays even as they aimed to reduce costs
Wikipedia
.
Service Standard Changes and Delivery Time Impact
In April 2025, USPS implemented revised delivery standards under its Delivering for America modernization plan:
Category Projected Change
First-Class Mail: 75% unchanged; 14% faster; 11% slower
Government Executive
+7
Investopedia
+7
The Sun
+7
2‑day delivery goal: On-time target lowered to ~87% (was 93%)
3–5 day delivery target: Reduced goal from ~90% to ~80%
Government Executive
These revised service standards explicitly align with workforce reductions and operational consolidation plans. Slower service is more likely in rural areas and across zip codes spanning longer distances, under a new hub-and-spoke routing model
Wikipedia
+12
kcur.org
+12
Investopedia
+12
.
Overview: Are DOGE Cuts Impacting Delivery Times?
Yes. While USPS did not directly attribute slower performance to DOGE cuts, staffing reductions are central to the rationale for lowering on-time delivery goals. Experts and internal assessments warn that reduced human capital—especially absent automation in rural areas—will slow average delivery times for both mail and packages
Los Angeles Times
+6
Inc.com
+6
Government Executive
+6
.
Expected delays: First-class letters may take up to 5 days, and some areas now face delivery times previously projected for longer windows. The standards overhaul projects a systematic slowdown affecting about 11% of first-class mail, with rural areas bearing the brunt
The Sun
+2
Investopedia
+2
The Sun
+2
.
In Summary
DOGE-backed cuts to USPS staffing are part of broader federal downsizing that has eliminated thousands of postal jobs.
Service standards were adjusted in April 2025 to reflect these staffing and operational reductions.
USPS now expects slower mail delivery for certain categories—particularly in rural areas and across longer distances. Most mail remains on time, but delivery variability has increased, especially for that 11% projected to take longer.What does the +## or +# mean. I don't understand.
I was about to give you what turned out to be the wrong answer. Then I had a 'brainstorm' - why not ask ChatGPT.
Here is the real answer:
The notation “[Source] +[number]” indicates that the information came from that source plus several additional corroborating articles — often found in the same search session or topic cluster.
For example:
“Reuters +5” means Reuters is the primary or anchor source, and 5 other reputable outlets (e.g., AP, WSJ, CNN, FT, Bloomberg) either:
* Reported the same facts,
* Confirmed the numbers or findings, or
* Added complementary context.
It helps convey consensus and depth, especially when a claim is backed by multiple independent reports, even if only one source is listed for brevity.Trump brings back manufacturing by putting a tariff on avocados...
go figure.!!!.
Well, the Trump so-called and failing Bold Agenda stooped to its lowest level yet in stupidity and recklessness, this is worse than the tariffs and deportation combined!!!
EPA administrator defends administration’s move to revoke 2009 finding pollution endangers human health
After the rigged public comment period, the EPA will end all transportation emission regulations dumping unimaginable tons of pollution in the the air. It is a scientific certainty that the amount of pollution is killing real people all over the world today. Trump and Zeldin want to increase the depopulation.
INCREDIBLE. Even more incredible will be the twisting and turning to defend such a stupid decision.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/03/politics … man-healthFor those of you who still believe in Trump's pipe dream of bringing manufacturing back to America in any significant way, this should burst your bubble and think twice about what Trump promises.
While this article is about Smartphones, it applies to any product whose manufacturing moved overseas because it is simply too expensive to make it in America.
"In 2013, Motorola tried to claw its way into a bigger share of a smartphone market dominated by Apple and Samsung with four words: Made in the USA.
“There was a segment of customers that said, ‘Hey, if you produce products in the United States, I’m more likely to consider them,” Dennis Woodside, the former CEO of Motorola and current CEO of enterprise software service provider Freshworks, told CNN.
But those efforts were short lived.
Motorola shut down the Texas factory the following year and abandoned domestic assembly of the Moto X, its then-flagship phone meant to compete with the latest iPhone and Samsung Galaxy device.
Woodside’s experience underscores why many tech products like smartphones are largely assembled in Asia and South America rather than in America. Proximity to crucial suppliers and lower labor costs are only part of the problem; it’s the gap in necessary skills and the difficulty in filling factory jobs that makes it so challenging to bring smartphone production stateside."
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/04/tech/sma … la-tariffsCompany advised by Trump sons said it hoped to benefit from fed money, then took it back
A public document filed by a company that just hired President Donald Trump’s two oldest sons as advisers included a sentence early Monday that said it hoped to benefit from grants and other incentives from the federal government, which their father happens to lead.
But when The Associated Press asked the Trump family business about the apparent conflict of interest, the document was revised and the line taken out.
Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. are getting “founder shares” worth millions of dollars in New America Acquisition 1 Corp., a company with no operating business that hopes to fill that hole by purchasing an American company that can play “a meaningful role in revitalizing domestic manufacturing,” according to the filing. The president has geared his trade policy toward boosting manufacturing in the U.S.
The original version of the securities filing said the target company should be “well positioned” to tap federal or state government incentives. That reference was taken out of the revised version.
New America is what’s know as a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC. It’s a publicly traded company that exists solely to use its funds to acquire another company and take the target public.
New America plans to raise money by selling new stock on the New York Stock Exchange at $10 a share. That will hand the two Trump sons a potential total of $50 million in paper wealth the moment the stock begins trading on the first day. The company hopes to sell enough shares to raise $300 million, which it then plans to use buying a yet unidentified manufacturer.
The filing to New America’s potential new investors to the Securities and Exchange Commission was explicit about what it was looking for in a target company. It said, among other things, it wanted a company that can ride “public policy tailwinds” by benefiting from federal or state “grants, tax credits, government contracts or preferential procurement programs.”Trump’s offspring are doing exactly what Republicans accused Hunter Biden of doing... Influence peddling. These two make Hunter look like an amateur when it comes to trading off your father’s name.
But the people here that support Trump will tell you it is OK for the Trump kids to do it. It is only Biden's kids that they criticize.
The claim that Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are doing “exactly what Republicans accused Hunter Biden of doing” is a misleading oversimplification that ignores key differences in the nature, timing, and scope of their respective situations. First, Hunter Biden's controversies center around his business dealings with foreign entities, including Ukrainian and Chinese firms, while his father was vice president. These relationships raised serious questions about potential national security risks and conflicts of interest, especially since Hunter had no evident qualifications for these high-paying positions and allegedly traded on the Biden name. In contrast, the Trump sons have long been involved in the Trump Organization, a business that has operated domestically and internationally for decades. The organization itself has done business with foreign nations for many years, well before Donald Trump took office, and as part of a consistent global business strategy. Donald Jr. and Eric Trump’s roles were not overnight appointments, they are highly educated in fields directly relevant to their roles in the company and have spent decades building experience within the family business.
Additionally, unlike Hunter Biden, the Trump children have no public record of drug abuse, something Hunter has openly admitted to and which could reasonably raise concerns about his judgment and reliability in sensitive business dealings. While the Trump sons' association with a SPAC that initially included language about benefiting from government incentives does raise valid concerns about optics and potential conflicts, the company quickly removed that language after scrutiny, suggesting a willingness to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Importantly, no foreign interests or national security concerns are at play in that scenario, unlike in Hunter Biden’s case. The SPAC is a publicly traded investment vehicle seeking to acquire a domestic manufacturer, which differs substantially from Hunter's private, overseas financial entanglements.
In short, while both cases may raise questions in the public eye, equating them as equivalent forms of influence-peddling fails to acknowledge the critical distinctions: one involves experienced, educated executives working in a long-standing American company with global dealings, and the other involves sudden foreign enrichment during a time of high-level political influence, coupled with admitted personal struggles that could impact professional behavior."Additionally, unlike Hunter Biden, the Trump children have no public record of drug abuse, something Hunter has openly admitted to and which could reasonably raise concerns about his judgment and reliability in sensitive business dealings.
Huh????
Should we embark on a crusade against all those involved in any sort of business who have a history of drug use or abuse? I don't understand at all how the drug use of a private citizen has anything to do with absolutely anything....
If one is drug-free then you get a green light to grift off of your father's name???It was just one fact I included to support my point, really a small one compared to everything else I shared about the differences between Trump’s children and Hunter Biden.
Hunter has been charged and found guilty of crimes. Have Trump's children ever been charged with crimes where charges were brought, and found guilty of? Hunter used the excuse that he was on drugs when he committed his crimes. So, in my view, it was very relevant for me to make mention of his drug use.But the personal characteristic differences between these children have no relevance to the comparison of the accusations of influence peddling made toward Hunter as they are now being applied almost word for word to the Trump offspring....
If we go back and look at the posts from maga folks on this forum, those posts would make my case that Junior and Eric are benefiting off of dad's office... Just go back and look and then apply the Hunter logic
We have yet another 180 happening here"If we go back and look at the posts from maga folks on this forum, those posts would make my case that Junior and Eric are benefiting off of dad's office... Just go back and look and then apply the Hunter logic" Willow
What specific facts can you present that suggest Trump’s children should be investigated? What deals are you referring to, exactly? And what, in your view, points to anything illegal in their business dealings? Because without evidence, it’s just innuendo, and frankly, that adds nothing meaningful to the conversation.
If you have some facts that Trump's children have broken any laws, I will be glad to initiate a conversation; otherwise, I suggest you find someone more like-minded to share innuendos.
I have come to realize some here truly get something thrilling from illogical back and forths. Just not up for that type of back and forth.The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, chaired by the comedic Representative James Comer, investigated Hunter:s business dealings, focusing on allegations of influence peddling related to his father
Using the exact same framework of Comer's committee, it is quite obvious that a junior and Eric should be investigated as well.And with a corrupt background like they have, no one should have to ask why.
I have shared all I feel pertinent, and it is obvious we need to agree to disagree. Maybe take this up with others here that share your views.
Well surely you would back and investigation into Eric and Don Jr? Using the same logic for the Hunter influence peddling investigation. Comer's document could be used almost word for word, just replace the names...
I am glad you asked.
* Participation in Proven Financial Fraud (New York Civil Case)
* Foreign Trademarks and Business Deals While in Government (Ivanka Trump)
* Trump Foundation Misuse of Charitable Funds (All Three Siblings)
* Foreign Business Ventures Tied to Government Power
* Crypto and SPAC Deals With Foreign Capital (Don Jr. and Eric)
* Use of the Presidency to Enrich the Family Business
* Congressional and Watchdog Referrals Ignored
You are right, they have managed to dodge being charged criminally, unlike their father. But they do have a history of civil findings of liability for things that could be a crime had they been charged that way.
* New York Civil Fraud Lawsuit (People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump et al.) (et al. includes his kids, although Ivanka was dismissed) (2022) They lost
* 2. Trump Foundation Lawsuit (People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump et al.) (2018). They lost.
Oh my....
"the other involves sudden foreign enrichment during a time of high-level political influence,"
How much has the personal wealth of these two increased LOL?! ExponentiallyAnd then there is this regarding the Trump kids foreign involvement.
Ivanka Trump: Foreign Trademarks & Licensing
China and Russia: While serving as White House advisor, Ivanka Trump continued to receive foreign trademarks. In China, her brand secured approvals for numerous consumer goods (e.g. baby products, coffins, furniture) in 2017–2018, notably at times coinciding with favorable U.S.-China trade or regulatory developments
Spectrum Local News
+1
U.S. News
+1
France 24
+2
Los Angeles Times
+2
Snopes
+2
.
Russia: Two trademarks relating to household goods were renewed in October 2016, just before her father’s election
Forbes
+2
CREW
+2
CREW
+2
.
Turkey: Ivanka played a visible role in marketing and launching Trump Towers Istanbul, developed through a licensing partnership with Turkish billionaire Adi Doğan. She participated in early promotional events between 2007–2012, including a high-profile launch with President Erdoğan present
Wikipedia
+1
CREW
+1
.
Though many trademark applications occurred before 2025, these foreign connections historically raised ethics concerns due to potential influence-peddling and timing aligned with diplomatic interactions.
Donald Trump Jr. & Eric Trump: Foreign Real Estate & Investment Ventures
Middle East (Qatar, UAE):
Their advisory roles include involvement in Trump Organization-linked luxury developments, such as a golf resort in Qatar and high-rise hospitality assets in Dubai, which have potential ties to state-backed entities like Qatari Diar and Abu Dhabi investment funds
New York Post
The Guardian
+1
Wikipedia
+1
The Washington Post
+1
The Guardian
+1
.
Cryptocurrency (World Liberty Financial):
In 2024–2025, Eric and Don Jr. played active roles in launching World Liberty Financial, a crypto company in which the Trump family holds a controlling interest. The business has received major investments from foreign sources:
A $2 billion UAE-backed stablecoin deal
Investments tied to Chinese entities, including Binance-linked billionaire Justin Sun and other crypto figures
cbsnews.com
+8
wired.com
+8
New York Post
+8
Wikipedia
.
SPAC Ventures (U.S.-focused):
The new SPAC, New America Acquisition I Corp., backed by the Trump sons, aims to acquire U.S.-based manufacturing firms. Although it's focused domestically, it emphasizes synergies with government subsidies—a point that raised conflict-of-interest scrutiny—especially given their roles as advisers
U.S. News
+6
reuters.com
+6
apnews.com
+6
.
Summary of Foreign Exposure
Ivanka Trump: Branded products in China, Russia, and longstanding licensing for properties in Turkey, with trademark approvals and branding ties aligned with political engagements.
Donald Jr. and Eric Trump: Business assignments that include Middle Eastern real estate ventures and crypto investments with UAE and Chinese stakeholders, potentially benefiting from political connections and foreign capital.
Ethics & Conflict‑of‑Interest Concerns
Ethics watchdogs have highlighted the troubling overlap between foreign government-linked investments, trademarks, and Trump family involvement in policymaking
CREW
cbsnews.com
+2
France 24
+2
The Washington Post
+2
.
Legally, the Trump Organization argues compliance with ethics protocols (e.g. trust structures, recusal policies), but critics say the scale and nature of foreign engagement exceed accepted norms and risk undue influence.
There’s nothing in your comment that clearly points to the Trump children doing anything illegal. What’s described is a typical SPAC arrangement, where Eric and Donald Jr. received founder shares, a common and legal practice. The initial filing did mention hoping to benefit from government grants and incentives, but that language was removed once questions were raised, likely to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
Revising the filing shows an effort to be cautious, not an admission of wrongdoing. Unless there’s evidence that they actually used their father’s position to secure funds or contracts, there’s no indication that laws were broken, only that the optics weren’t great.There certainly is as much "smoke" if not tons more than Comer claimed in the hunter debacle. And that was quite an embarrassing albeit comical debacle. Certainly warrants investigation. Junior and Eric are bringing in money hand over fist... All on daddy's name
Has Eric Trump been accused of business wrongdoings? Has he been accused of Tax evasion or any tax irregularities? Maybe, save your worrying until you have some evidence of wrongdoing.
Hunter was charged, found guilty of crimes, and pardoned by his dad, A dad who said openly, "I will not pardon my son... Get back to me when any of the Trump children are charged with a crime.
Maybe you missed "Company advised by Trump sons said it hoped to benefit from fed money, then took it back"
Why did they put it in there in the first place? Why did they take it back out. I do think it was caution, but not the type you are suggesting.
They are using their father's position the exact same way you accuse Hunter of using Joe's position.
Don't you agree that "Unless there’s evidence that they actually used their father’s position to secure funds or contracts, there’s no indication that laws were broken, only that the optics weren’t great." can also be said of Hunter Biden?
The Trump Bold Agenda FAILED again and is destroying this farmer's LIFE.
"Deportation fallout: This farmer lost half his workforce. Now he’s losing his crop too"
This is behind a paywall, so I will include some exerpts.
"The Dalles, Oregon
—
The cherries are rotting on the trees in Ian Chandler’s orchards. Branch after branch hang heavy with fruit the Oregon farmer calls “mummified” — dark, shriveled and unappetizing.
They should have been picked a couple of weeks ago to tempt shoppers at markets and stores, or processed to garnish Shirley Temple mocktails, shiny and fat, promising bursts of sweetness.
The lost harvest has hit almost a quarter of Chandler’s 125 acres of cherry trees — not because of bad weather, disease or blight, just because there was no one to pick the fruit." - BECAUSE OF TRUMP
"He said he’s built up a loyal seasonal workforce for his Wasco County operation called CE Farm Management, about 90 minutes from Portland, with the same people coming year after year and staying in touch with birth announcements and Christmas cards in between. But this year half of them did not arrive, and many of his neighbors were scrambling for pickers too. All told, Chandler said he will lose $250,000-$300,000 of revenue, left to rot on the trees.
“It’s lost revenue for the operation, which is one thing, but it’s also lost revenue for the workers that would have been able to pick them had they been here,” he said." - TRUMP DID THAT
"Chandler’s pickers are mostly Latinos who follow the harvests in the west and northwest. But with raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on cities and workplaces and detentions and even deportations ensnaring many with no criminal records, he has seen a dramatic drop-off in labor this year. ...
Since April, 1.4 million people have dropped out of the US labor force — 802,000 of whom were foreign-born, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Farmworkers are not tracked in the official monthly jobs reports, but analysts agree immigration policy is having an impact generally across the nation."
Even today, Trump can't stop lying about the farmers. "The issue has come to the attention of President Donald Trump, who promised help for the agricultural sector in a Tuesday morning phone interview with CNBC. “I take care of the farmers. I love the farmers. They’re a very important part of this country, and we don’t want to do anything to hurt the farmers,” he said." - HERE IS THE TRUTH, Trump is doing everything in his power to hurt the farmers. Just OPEN YOUR EYES and see.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/06/us/orego … r-shortage
BTW, where are all those hard-working White American natural-born citizens? Why aren't they out in the field working instead of - how did Trump put it - "“When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. "Thanks for posting the excerpt. Informative! It is a shame people, innocent or not, will be hurt because of the deportation effort. Here in San Diego county it has/is impacted the community at large as well as business.
If interested, from KPBS, now defunded . . .
Study shows impact of immigration enforcement on California’s overall workforce KPBS65 (Aug 6, 2025 6 am PDT)
https://www.kpbs.org/news/border-immigr … -workforce
"The economic impact of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign on the California workforce is comparable to the start of the Great Recession, according to a new study from the UC Merced Community and Labor Center.
The study analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau on Labor Statistics to measure labor participation in the private sector.
During the week of June 8-14, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted large-scale raids in Los Angeles and other parts of the state, California saw a 3.1% decline in its labor participation, according to the report. Meanwhile the participation rate grew by 0.5% throughout the rest of the country.
“This translates into roughly 465,000 fewer Californians reporting having worked during the week of escalated immigration enforcement,” said Edward Flores, the director of the UC Merced center and the report’s author.
By comparison, California’s labor force shrunk by 3% between December 2007 and January 2008, the first month of the Great Recession, the report said."
However, in all fairness . . .
"The UC Merced study has limitations. For example, it can only compare workforce participation between states — not individual counties or cities. Also, the data used in the study cannot be broken down by industry.
But previous research shows the food production and retail industries are particularly dependent on immigrant labor.
“Our entire food system is dependent on immigrants,” said Laura-Anne Minkoff-Zern, an associate professor at Syracuse University."My brother who lives in San Diego tells me of the defunding of the PBS affiliate in the area. And I detest Trump and his regime for this cowardly act of silencing disparate voices.
Yes, I remember it was not many months back you were here in 'Diego for a visit? Last year?
A little before this year I began watching KPBS for most of my news in the evening hours. They seemed to me to be less partial to a side and offered perspectives prompting curiosity. There interviews are thorough as well.
Did the Republicans take KPBS off the air?
Not off the air thankfully because of donors.
But, to offer an answer if curious . . .
San Diego's KPBS expects to lose $4M in federal funding by CBS8 News (Jul 18, 2025)
https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local … 6d75665ee4
"SAN DIEGO — Congress approved a bill early Friday morning slashing federal funding for public broadcasting and eliminating about $4 million dollars for KPBS.
"We have a community of supporters that deeply love the station and help support the work that we do, and we have reserves, but really all that buys us is a little bit of time," said Deanna Mackey, the General Manager of KPBS.
"Federal funding represents 12% of our annual budget, which is about $4.3 million and the challenge is that it's forever, so it's not just this year," she said. "I am glad San Diego can do that. Problem is the PBS stations in places like rural Texas, which is the only place they can get honest news, will go off the air because they don't have the listening base. Rural Texas will be in the same position as your average Russian, only getting one side (the wrong side) of the story.
It is true. It isn't "exactly what Republicans accused Hunter Biden of doing”. Then, Biden was vice president. Trump is the president.
Let’s be honest, if Trump’s children had broken any actual laws, they would’ve been charged by the appropriate authorities, just like anyone else. For example, if there were tax violations, the IRS would investigate and pursue charges. If they had committed fraud or financial misconduct in their business dealings, the state where the incident occurred would have jurisdiction and could bring charges. The fact that this hasn’t happened says something. We live in a country where Trump and his family have been under a microscope for years, yet no formal charges have been brought against his children. That’s a key difference from Hunter Biden, who has been charged by the appropriate federal agencies, including for tax issues and firearms violations. So to suggest there’s an equivalence without actual evidence or charges being filed is misleading. Assertions aren’t convictions, and if something illegal had occurred, there are plenty of agencies, both state and federal, that would’ve acted by now.
Another take.
This article is still cautious about Trump losing support but noted - "But about 1 in 10 Trump voters said either that they regretted their votes to some degree, had “mixed feelings,” or wish they hadn’t voted. That group has grown slightly since April."
Or this - "Since many of those stories were written earlier this year, Trump’s popularity has continued to wane – to the point where he now owns the worst early first-term and second-term approval ratings in modern history, according to Gallup."
If they had felt that way last Nov, then America would be riding high right now instead of facing down Inflation and Recessions as we are now with Trump's America Last policies.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/07/politics … t-analysis
Ex-Trump surgeon general: RFK Jr. vaccine move ‘going to cost lives’
President Trump’s first-term surgeon general, Jerome Adams, sharply criticized the decision by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Tuesday to pare back investments in mRNA vaccine projects, including those underway to help fight bird flu and COVID-19.
“I’ve tried to be objective & non-alarmist in response to current HHS actions – but quite frankly this move is going to cost lives,” Adams said Tuesday in a post on the social platform X.
“mRNA technology has uses that go far beyond vaccines … and the vaccine they helped develop in record time is credited with saving millions,” he continued.
Kennedy announced on Tuesday that HHS will wind down its mRNA vaccine development activities under the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and cancel contracts for 22 projects, worth a total of about $500 million.Here is the problem with that - MAUGA simply doesn't care! Their rhetoric proves that over and over again.
Are YOU ready to pay more money? (At least one here has bought into Trump lies so much that she doesn't mind everybody paying more for what they buy)
"Here’s what could get more expensive from Trump’s massive tariff hikes"
In truth the "could" should be "will"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/01/economy/ … -expensiveMore Trump failed Bold Agenda news.
"Toyota, world’s biggest carmaker, warns of unprecedented $9.5 billion profit hit from tariffs"
Also, e,l,f, Cosmetics' profits fell by 30% because of Trump and they raised the price of their cosmetics by $1 to cover the tariff costs.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/07/business … riffs-intl
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/06/elf-bea … -2026.htmlHave any commenters on this post or any others in Politics and Social issues noticed how few people participate any more?
Have any wondered how many we few participants have driven away?Yes, it is obvious they can't stand the TRUTH and have run off to be with people of the same viewpoints. That way they can chant "prices are coming down" and "Trump ended the Ukraine War" without fear of contradiction and being presented facts.
That said, those that comment aren't the only visitors, so I keep posting for their benefit.Trump says, He is only human and his feelings are hurt when others target him.
His criteria for pardoning known criminals is "If they are nice to me I pardon them." That's why he pardoned all the Jan. 6 people because they were nice to him. He is all about loyalty, but he is also very child-like.
Make no mistake, he is also a master con-artist. When they are caught in their con, they play the victim and and attack those who revealed the con.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … ocialshareBiden gave pardons to 37 murderers on death row.
How do you explain that one?As Willowarbor just said, Biden gave those 37 people a commutation.
Trump has issued a total of over 1,643 pardons across both of his presidential terms. Why? because I suspect those people were nice to him:
Pardon vs. commutation are key clemency options. A pardon erases a conviction and restores rights, while a commutation reduces a sentence but keeps the record intact.That is easy - Biden didn't Pardon 37 murderers on death row. You need to get your facts right before dropping bombs don't you think?
This topic really got me thinking—and when I looked into some of the worst examples of a president using the pardon privilege, one name stood out above the rest: you guessed it, Joe Biden. LOL
No U.S. president has ever issued such a broad set of preemptive pardons to individuals, especially family members or public officials, who were not charged, investigated, or even publicly accused of crimes in the way President Biden reportedly did. Biden issued pardons to people who weren’t even charged with crimes, including his siblings and their spouses, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Gen. Mark Milley, members and staff of the January 6th Committee, and several law enforcement officers. Oh, and we can't forget his son Hunter...
But then he was confused. Oh, and some right here defended his cognitive state. How does one ever live that down?No president ever had such a revengeful person taking office right behind him. Trump has proven he would have sent DOIJ after every one of the innocent people Biden pardoned. He clearly did the right thing given who Trump is.
Tell me, if Biden is so confused, why does Trump make so many more screw ups when talking than Biden ever did? That is a fact. Why do you ignore it?The type of actions only the guilty take... from the Clintons to Comey... The Biden crime ring to turd Milley... all traitors to America.
"I agree—just had to drop a fact, Ken. Sometimes it's the only way to make them scatter. LOL
The TDS here is out of control. It's getting harder to find comments worth replying to. Honestly, it's starting to feel creepy, like responding just feeds the obsession.Was Trump confused when he talked about his uncle teaching the Unabomber at MIT?
Here are more facts you can deny:
Confusing Charlottesville
In a speech in Savannah, Georgia, Trump mispronounced “Charlottesville” as “Charlottestown” while referencing the 2017 violent clashes there. He continued without correcting the mistake.
The Guardian
+15
AP News
+15
The Daily Beast
+15
Failure to Recognize People Nearby
During an Oval Office event, Trump failed to notice senior officials standing just feet behind him—being prompted with “I’m right behind you”—highlighting concerns about his situational awareness.
The Daily Beast
Bizarre Tangents and Memory Lapses
A speech expert observed increasing digressions and incoherence: at one point, Trump veered off into an unprompted rant about windmills that “kill birds” and make whales go “loco,” an unrelated, confusing detour during an international visit.
YouTube
+9
The Guardian
+9
newrepublic.com
+9
Gaffes at Campaign Events
At rallies, Trump made various odd remarks, from misplacing names (e.g., confusing countries or people) to bizarre statements—like asking the crowd to inspect the back of his head for “proof.”
The Daily Beast
+15
Newsweek
+15
Newsweek
+15
Speech Patterns Echoing Cognitive Concerns
Experts point to patterns like coherent breakdown, repetition, and obvious disorganized talking styles as signs of potential cognitive decline—noting that such behavior aligns with those causes of concern.
The Guardian
And I repeat - Trump does that much more than Biden ever did yet you stay silent."Pointing out facts isn’t obsession — it’s accountability. If that feels ‘creepy,’ maybe the problem isn’t the criticism."
I have also noticed this truism - ""Funny, calling it ‘TDS’ is a lot easier than addressing the substance." Of course when there are no facts to back one up, Fake TDS is all you have.What they miss, entirely, is the irony.
They cry Trump is abusing the DOJ and Alphabet agencies ...
That is exactly what was done to Trump, fabricated and false charges of treason, rape, theft, whatever they could think up ...literally changing laws and statutes just so they could go after him.
They want to claim Trump's mental capacity is on the decline after they spent four years defending a clearly incapacitated dementia patient and a drunk and drugged up VP.
I don't have the time to waste debating such lunacy ... Occasionally I get a laugh from a post ...but only because it comes across so hysterically ironic ... and then I remember we have a serious problem with a percentage of Americans that can no longer get a proper perspective... They've been driven insane.
Just read the posts here... who has the time, in a healthy life, to even know about half these things Trump has supposedly said or done?
They are consumed by it.Ken, I couldn’t agree more with your take. The irony is staggering, and yet it seems to go completely unnoticed by those who are the most guilty of it. For years, Trump was relentlessly targeted with fabricated charges, Russia collusion, impeachments built on shaky ground, and even absurd accusations like treason, often with the rules bent or rewritten just to fit the narrative. And now, the same crowd cries foul at the very abuses they themselves normalized.
Your point about defending a clearly incapacitated president while questioning Trump’s mental capacity is spot on. It reminds me of the endless coverage of Biden’s “folksy” gaffes being passed off as charming, while one Trump slip of the tongue was treated like a sign of cognitive collapse. The double standard couldn’t be more obvious.
And you’re right about the obsession; people seem to make a full-time job out of cataloging every word Trump has ever said. It’s like they’re watching his life on CCTV, waiting for a moment to pounce, while ignoring real issues staring them in the face. A healthy person simply doesn’t have the time or the desire to live in that kind of constant outrage loop. It’s not political engagement at that point, it’s an unhealthy fixation. It is sick. I’ve come to believe that some people live in a strange little world where they get a twisted thrill out of bashing Trump. That thrill, I suspect, is just another symptom of a deeper case of TDS, and I have no interest in fueling it.'I’ve come to believe that some people live in a strange little world where they get a twisted thrill out of bashing Trump.
Do you mean the same thrill that those on this forum got and continued to get with the bashing of Biden??
Trump deserves all the scrutiny and criticism that he's gotten.There is no bashing biden, there is only showing him on the debate stage against President Donald Trump. Showing biden wandering off when meeting with world leaders, showing his confused ramblings during many speeches. Showing him falling down on bicycles, going up steps, at a graduation of Air Force cadets, and more. biden bashing usually consists of showing the reality of biden and that seems to be enough to be considered bashing by the left.
Well I think many of us have shown the same thing.. Trump stumbling, jerking as he's walking, slurring, stammering and of course lying... And yes, we will continue to do so.
Trump has no cognitive problems. The man is doing a great job on so many fronts. Why get down in the mud with those that slander man that is working so very hard to make things better for Americans, and yes, the world.
Really?!
Here’s a structured, evidence-based look at why some observers believe Trump may be showing cognitive decline — without making a medical diagnosis.
Speech Patterns & Verbal Disorganization
Frequent incoherence – Increasingly long, meandering sentences that veer off-topic and fail to return to the original point.
Word-finding difficulties – Often uses vague filler (“thing,” “you know,” “this guy”) instead of specific nouns, or substitutes the wrong word entirely (“oranges” instead of “origins” in a House investigation comment).
Repetitive tangents – Returns to the same phrase or anecdote multiple times in a short speech, sometimes mid-sentence, suggesting trouble with working memory.
Unfinished thoughts – Leaves sentences hanging or changes topics midstream without logical transitions.
Memory Lapses
Confusing people & timelines – Has referred to world leaders by the wrong name (e.g., mixing up Obama and Biden in recent speeches), misdated major events, or confused which administration he’s talking about.
Inaccurate recollections – Claims events happened to him that are verifiably false (e.g., saying he won the popular vote in 2016, that people saw Muslims cheering in NJ on 9/11, that he talked to the President of the Virgin Islands — who is himself).
Forgetting previous statements – Contradicts things he said earlier in the same interview or rally.
Processing Speed & Comprehension
Struggling with basic reading aloud – Has misread teleprompters, skipped words, or replaced them with unrelated terms.
Inability to answer direct questions – Sometimes pivots to unrelated topics entirely, giving the impression of confusion or difficulty organizing thoughts under pressure.
Behavioral & Emotional Regulation Changes
Heightened irritability – Quick to anger at minor provocations during interviews or depositions.
Grandiosity & paranoia – Increasingly extreme claims about his own abilities (“nobody’s ever seen anything like it”) and frequent allegations that unseen forces are conspiring against him.
While these traits have been part of his persona for decades, many observers note an intensification since leaving office.
[i]Yes, Biden did all those things, except for the grandiosity. BUT, people counted and found Trump does them a lot more often
Expert Opinions
While no credible neurologist has examined Trump publicly, multiple speech and cognition experts (e.g., Dr. John Montgomery, Dr. Lance Dodes) have noted that his verbal patterns in recent years differ significantly from his interviews in the 1980s–2000s — showing reduced vocabulary complexity, more digressions, and slower pacing, which can be associated with age-related decline.
AND, as I have proved to you MANY times now, many, many experts in the field of mental health have written books and articles describing how Trump is dangerously mentally ill (of which that grandiosity is one of their examples).
You know what I find odd? That Republicans no longer seem to care or talk about gas prices or as Trump calls it "the grocery" anymore.... It was such an issue under Biden and now we have many of you folks telling us you welcome even higher prices...
Bull, their whole life and comments are about bashing Biden (who, by the way, screws up on stage much less frequently than Trump - yes someone went and counted). As some like to say - they are "obsessed" with it.
What could be lower than Republicans gerrymandering the state of Texas to produce 5 seats as ordered by Trump who says he is "entitled" to them.... Banana Republic stuff. Cheaters
There is nothing illegal about what the Republicans are proposing in Texas. They are covered by Federal law.
Under federal law, partisan redistricting is legally permissible. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause decided that courts cannot judge partisan gerrymandering unless it involves racial discrimination.
That means politically driven mid-decade redistricting, like what Texas Republicans are pushing right now, is legal unless it crosses into racial bias or violates specific state constitutional provisions.
From what’s public so far in 2025, Texas hasn’t been legally found to have crossed into racial bias or violated its state constitution. As of today, the courts have not yet ruled.
This matter is in the hands of the courts, and I trust they will apply the law as written. Tell me, who decided Democrats were somehow the only party entitled to gerrymander? Our laws permitted it. Not just for one party, but for all.
As usual, your logic baffles me. It seems you view gerrymandering as perfectly fine and legal when Democrats benefit, yet when Republicans do it, you call it a “banana republic” and accuse them of cheating. This kind of double standard doesn’t surprise me anymore, everything is acceptable if it fits your narrative. I find that attitude unacceptable, and frankly, it makes it difficult to respond to your comment. More often than not, you end up embarrassing yourself with these inconsistent and illogical arguments.As far as I am concerned, the Supreme Court erred in allowing redistricting on a partisan basis and that is from a neutral point of view. This restriction against gerrymandering based on race is just BS. Minority voters tend to vote Democratic, so the corrupt republican legislatures can continue to disenfranchise them and claim that their treachery has nothing to do with race but partisan preference. So, what of the “Voting Rights Act”, they get to have it both ways, but I am not fooled.
This is certainly not an illogical argument. It gives me just that many more reasons to dislike and distrust Republicans all that much more.Cred, I understand your frustration, but I think your position overlooks the fact that the Supreme Court’s ruling applies equally to both parties, and neither Democrats nor Republicans are legally entitled to an advantage in redistricting. Partisan gerrymandering has been used by both sides for decades; the only real difference is who happens to control the legislature at a given time. If minority voters tend to vote for Democrats, that is a political reality, but it doesn’t automatically make every district map drawn by Republicans an act of racial disenfranchisement.
The “Voting Rights Act” still applies in cases where there is clear and provable racial bias, but proving that in court requires more than a political correlation. My comment to Willow was solely to point out the legality of what Texas is doing, and that it lies in the hands of the court to figure this latest Texas wrinkle out. I have no problem with gerrymandering as long as it is done by the letter of the law. So instead of shooting the messenger, let's wait and see how the courts decide. I am more than willing to leave it in their hands. To claim Republicans are uniquely treacherous here ignores the fact that Democrats have used similar tactics when in power, sometimes aggressively. If the standard is going to be fairness, then it has to apply regardless of which party is doing the redistricting, otherwise, the argument becomes less about justice and more about preserving partisan advantage. Well, it seems those that are Democrats are not happy because, once again, the law does not suit their narrative. You must see this?
It has become difficult to ignore that some Democrats will argue against anything that doesn’t fit their narrative, without regard for the laws currently in place.Sharlee, I already know that both sides practice gerrymandering. I say that it is, on its very face undemocratic, as for example the desire for GOP to use gerrymandering to have all 7 of the South Carolina districts redrawn to the advantage of Republicans rather than the 6 that already are. There is still a sizable democratic vote in South Carolina, is that influence to be entirely eliminated?
It is a formula for trouble and should not be allowed by either side, do you agree?I can agree, gerrymandering is a formula for trouble, and has caused a great deal of trouble over decades.
Over the years, many were disturbed when Democrats appeared to misuse gerrymandering. To offer just a few examples --- because both sides have done this and both sides have been just as egregious.
Illinois Democrats controlled the state legislature and governor’s office, enabling them to draw the new congressional maps.
The 2022 Illinois congressional map was criticized for packing Republican voters into a few districts, effectively diluting their influence across many others. For example, Republicans received about 44% of the statewide vote but only won 6 out of 17 congressional seats (about 35%).
According to analysis by the Cook Political Report, the maps were designed to protect incumbents and maximize Democratic seats.
California uses an independent commission for redistricting, but Democrats have significant influence over the political environment. Still, the 2022 map showed signs of partisan bias.
In the 2022 House elections, Democrats won 40 out of 52 seats (about 77%) with roughly 56% of the statewide vote. Republicans won 12 seats, underperforming their statewide vote share.
Critics argue that district lines were drawn in a way that packed Republican voters into fewer districts and spread Democratic voters across more districts, enhancing Democratic advantages.
My comment to Willow was to simply point out hypocrisy. And that saying it is good for one but not the other is pure hypocrisy, to suit a narrative.Shar,
I think it is also worth mentioning that 36% of the voters in Massachusetts vote Republican and they have NO Republican representatives in congress due to gerrymandering the districts. None. Democrats really are hypocrites on this topic.Yes, I was amazed when I read that statistic. How do the Dems dare to complain about gerrymandering when they do it themselves. Have you seen the congressional districts in Illinois? They say they want to change the districts in New York, Mass, and Illinois when they are already almost all chopped up to send Dems to congress. How are they going to squash the voices of those voters even more?
I think we are seeing light at the end of the tunnel --- The Democrats, in my view, have come to look so foolish that there is no return. And we now have a newborn Republican party that is ready to fight, fight, fight at every turn. Something that Democrats never thought would happen... Thank you, Trump!
There used to be a hubber on here back before Trumps first term who would tell me of his hassles in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts. It must be hard to drag yourself to the polls every election knowing your vote has absolutely no effect. So much for the Dems being the voice of democracy!
Absolutely, that feeling of your vote not really counting can be really discouraging. In heavily blue states, the sense that one party dominates can make people feel like their voice gets lost, even though every vote matters in principle. It’s tough when friends in places like Chicago express that same frustration, it speaks to the broader issue of how political landscapes shape voter motivation and engagement.
Wait until you live in the fascist state of Florida like I do or the Fascist state of Texas.
Fortunately for Brazil, the voters decided against the march to fascism on Bolsonaro. Has he been convicted yet?Lula was in prison too but the person he appointed to the Supreme Court released him and made it against the law for his opponent to mention that in the last election. Neither one of them should have been in prison but that is what happens to ex-presidents here.
What does that prove?Who put Lulu there? Bolsonaro? Did Lulu commit insurrection like Bolsonaro did?
Lula was convicted of corruption in 2017. Bolsanaro did not begin his term of office until 2019. I have no idea what goes on behind those closed doors, of course, but he was not even in office.
Bolsanaro did not commit insurrection. He was not even in Brazil.You know as well as I, you don't have to be there, just lead it as he did.
Why? Because just cursory research will show
1. Here are the states known for their unfair gerrymandering:
* Illinois (BLUE)
* Texas (currently, it will just get worse) (RED)
* Wisconsin (which was done by Republicans)
* North Carolina (RED)
* Alabama (RED)
* South Carolina (RED)
* Ohio (RED)
* Florida (RED)
It is time the BLUE states catch up.
2. No, while that may be true on the face if it, it turns out the Republican voters are pretty much evenly distributed throughout the state, so the MA map is a fair representation. Here is what ChatGPT says about it.
Why Massachusetts Is Considered Fair Even Without Republican Members of Congress
Massachusetts earns “A” or “B” grades from nonpartisan groups like the Princeton Gerrymandering Project because fairness in redistricting is judged by whether the maps reflect the partisan preferences of voters—not whether both parties win seats.
In Massachusetts:
Statewide voting patterns consistently give Democrats 65–75% of the two-party vote in congressional elections.
This means that even under perfectly neutral, compact, and community-respecting maps, it’s likely all 9 seats would still be held by Democrats.
The maps don’t “crack” Republican voters into irrelevance or “pack” them into a single district — there simply aren’t enough geographically concentrated Republican voters to naturally form a competitive district.
Courts and mapping experts also note that districts are drawn to be compact and follow municipal boundaries, rather than using odd shapes to engineer partisan outcomes.
In short: Massachusetts has no Republican representatives not because of gerrymandering, but because Republicans make up too small and too dispersed a share of the electorate to win under any fair map. Gerrymandering is about distortion—Massachusetts’ delegation reflects the actual vote share.
Sources:
Princeton Gerrymandering Project – Massachusetts
Ballotpedia: Redistricting in Massachusetts
Cook Political Report Partisan Voting Index
So NO, it is only the Republicans who are the obvious hypocrits.Yes, both sides do it but I disagree that it is time for the Dems to catch up. I doubt you are perfectly happy being in a Republican state and I think you would be happier if you lived in an area with a congressional rep that you felt represented you. (I have no idea if you have a Democrat congressman where you live.)
Chat GPT still reflects the bias of its creators in many cases. Telling me that some leftist site or an AI program that was set up by a leftist does not prove anything.Your unsupported bias is showing again: Multiple independent and peer-reviewed studies have examined whether ChatGPT (and similar LLMs) simply “reflects its creators’ bias” or whether its responses can be shown to systematically favor one ideology. And that probably includes Grok, although is seems to be prone to the occasional nervous breakdown.
So long as the Republican's insist on cheating (it makes no difference if it is legal cheating, it is still unethical), then out of self-preservation for the Party and the Nation, the modern Democrats need to get on the ball and catch up so there are at least as many unfair Blue states as there are Red.Are you at least willing to admit that the Democrats cheated in Illinois in order to deprive voters of their voice?
You are incorrect on AI.Looks like they have 2 Republican districts left and the governor is ready and willing to eliminate those based upon the actions of Texas... It's odd that folks don't expect an equal reaction. If the citizens of Illinois didn't like or agree with Pritzker's actions... They'd vote him out. He is running for a third term.
The people of Chicago, not of Illinois, are the ones keeping him in office. I seriously doubt you have any idea of the degree of corruption in that city. I would hope that more people in the suburbs would recognize what they are doing, but it is a lot to ask to reject the graft.
SInce Chicago is going to go bankrupt soon, hopefully we will see change in our lifetime.The degree of corruption in Chicago is much less than the degree of corruption in the White House. Shouldn't you focus you attention to the worst offenders?
I have not lived in Chicago for many years but I do not think things have improved there. Yes, I am sure that if you leave a bag of cocaine around at the White House and the person who brought it in cannot be identified there is a lot of corruption there.
I guess you didn't do any research.
73% of Illinois's population lives in the Chicago or East Saint Louis metropolitan areas. You do the math.You do the math. Do you not realize where his voters are from.
As to corruption, since you aren't American, you didn't vote for the most corrupt presidential candidate in American history.
Given his history and his felonies and sexual predator findings, you would have had to be totally irrational and unpatriotic (or part of a cult) to vote for such a person.
Of course, have you been ignoring what I have posted?
As to AI, until you provide proof, I and everybody else will assume you must be wrong.No, I have not been ignoring what you have posted. I guess you are still unwilling to admit that the Democrats cheated. I am not surprised.
You just convinced me you cannot read, so I am done with this string.
Thanks for confirming you are that type of person. Keyed any Teslas today?
He is resorting to the old "we will assume you must be wrong"... OMG this is mean girl stuff! LOL
He is also trying to bait me into making a personal attack. Typical Tesla scratchers! They are afraid that their argument is poor so they resort to personal attacks in the hope that he can get me banned.
I am glad that the libtards have a place where they can complain instead of going out and attacking someone in person but it is very tiring having to deal with these mean girl attacks.I think you’re spot on, he just baits for no clear reason. There are so few people who post here, and I don’t bother reading his comments because there’s too much misinformation to waste time on. I’ve come to believe that ignoring him might make him go away. I’ve decided to engage only with those who are open to constructive conversations. As for all the noise from the left, it’s expected; they lost, and Trump is doing quite well, which only fuels their frustration. The “mean girl” behavior is really just a symptom of TDS; it can show up in anyone, male or female.
I mean, today, Donald Trump took decisive action to address rising crime and homelessness in Washington, D.C., declaring a public safety emergency in the city. He federalized the Metropolitan Police Department, placing it under federal control to restore order and safety. Additionally, Trump deployed 800 National Guard troops to assist local law enforcement and increased the presence of federal agents from agencies such as the FBI, DEA, and ICE to support crime-fighting efforts. He described this intervention as a “liberation” of Washington, aiming to make the city safer and more orderly.
I just so appreciate a president that addresses crime and homelessness, and tells it like it is. I mean, he certainly can juggle tons of problems. The best is yet to come."I mean, today, Donald Trump took decisive action to address rising crime and homelessness in Washington, D.C., declaring a public safety emergency in the city.
What emergency? What "rising" crime? Is this what "rising" looks like in Trump World?
Red states like Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama are America’s murder capitals and have had the highest three murder rates for 15 of the last 23 years....
Will National guard roll out in Mike Johnson's Shreveport LOL?
Speaker Johnson’s hometown of Shreveport, Louisiana had a murder rate 8 times higher (41.1) than Minority Leader Jeffries’ hometown of Brooklyn, New York (5.0), 6 times higher than Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco, California (6.6), and more than 7 times higher than the national average (5.5).
Trump's action today is pure revenge... But probably mostly distraction. The Epstein files must be absolutely horrifying.
He's doing everything he can to distract from the Epstein files, and nothing to lower prices.
FASCISM IS OFFICIALLY HERE"I mean, today, Donald Trump took decisive action to address rising crime ..."
Crime isn't rising in DC.
A fascist move.
Doesn't this crown jewel of murder deserve federal government take over???
I believe this is great big beautiful distraction to take the heat off of Trump and the Epstein Case. He is very good at creating distractions. His executive orders are framed in emergencies when their are no emergencies.
Psychological and Strategic Framing
Trump’s use of emergency declarations serves several strategic purposes:
Purpose | Description |
Expanding Executive Power | Emergency declarations unlock over 150 special powers under federal law |
Bypassing Congress | Allows Trump to act unilaterally when legislative support is lacking |
Mobilizing Public Support | Creates a sense of urgency and crisis to rally his base |
Delegitimizing Opposition | Frames critics as obstructing national recovery or safety |
Inventing Emergencies
Critics argue that Trump often manufactures or exaggerates crises to justify these moves:
- The Associated Press found that 30 of Trump’s 150 executive orders cited emergency powers—far more than recent predecessors.
- His “crime emergency” in D.C. was based on outdated or misleading statistics, prompting fact-checkers to accuse him of fabricating a crisis.
- Legal scholars warn that this pattern could erode constitutional norms and concentrate power in the executive branch.
Here is the outline for a typical emergency executive order
- Declaration of Emergency
"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America…”
- Explicitly states the emergency condition.
- Example: “I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with the threat posed by…”
- Directive Actions
- Specifies what agencies must do, what powers are activated, and what restrictions are imposed.
- Example: Freezing assets, deploying troops, suspending regulations, or redirecting funds.
- Legal Authority Cited
- Lists statutes that authorize the order (e.g., 50 U.S.C. § 1701 for economic sanctions).
- This is crucial for legal validity and judicial review.
- Implementation Instructions
- Directs federal departments (e.g., Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security) to carry out the order.
- May include timelines or reporting requirements.
- Publication and Effective Date
- States when the order takes effect and confirms it will be published in the Federal Register.Yes! Numbers don't lie....but Trump certainly does.
Trump mentions Baltimore as a potential next target for take over during his announcement of federal takeover to address DC crime...he said that the city is so far gone...lol
This topic is trending all over social media, and you can tell the Democrats are losing their minds over it. It’s such a blatant example of hypocrisy that it’s hard to believe anyone with common sense wouldn’t see it. But it seems common sense has gone missing for many. I must say, many Democrats have gone over the edge and lost all forms of reasoning; up is down, down is up. This kind of hypocrisy should be downright embarrassing. Honestly, the Democrats are acting irrationally just because Republicans might use the same tactics they do. And yes, thanks for pointing out Massachusetts!
No, Mike, while that may be true on the face if it, it turns out the Republican voters are pretty much evenly distributed throughout the state, so the MA map is a fair representation. Here is what ChatGPT says about it.
Why Massachusetts Is Considered Fair Even Without Republican Members of Congress
Massachusetts earns “A” or “B” grades from nonpartisan groups like the Princeton Gerrymandering Project because fairness in redistricting is judged by whether the maps reflect the partisan preferences of voters—not whether both parties win seats.
In Massachusetts:
Statewide voting patterns consistently give Democrats 65–75% of the two-party vote in congressional elections.
This means that even under perfectly neutral, compact, and community-respecting maps, it’s likely all 9 seats would still be held by Democrats.
The maps don’t “crack” Republican voters into irrelevance or “pack” them into a single district — there simply aren’t enough geographically concentrated Republican voters to naturally form a competitive district.
Courts and mapping experts also note that districts are drawn to be compact and follow municipal boundaries, rather than using odd shapes to engineer partisan outcomes.
In short: Massachusetts has no Republican representatives not because of gerrymandering, but because Republicans make up too small and too dispersed a share of the electorate to win under any fair map. Gerrymandering is about distortion—Massachusetts’ delegation reflects the actual vote share.
Sources:
Princeton Gerrymandering Project – Massachusetts
Ballotpedia: Redistricting in Massachusetts
Cook Political Report Partisan Voting Index
So NO, it is only the Republicans who are the obvious hypocrits.
You know if it were not clearly the conservative faction of the Supreme Court that supported partisan gerrymandering as opposed to the liberal faction, we would not have these problems at all from either political pole. It is the conservatives that are responsible for the current state of affairs now. It is bad from either side. Our side will now have to play “dirty” to counter Republican-Trumpian behavior.
Why would conservatives believe that a legislature controlled by one party has any incentive toward a fair apportionment of voters between political parties over all of the districts involved (democrat or republican).
———
The Court issued its decision in Rucho and Lamone on June 27, 2019. In the 5–4 majority opinion, the Court ruled that "partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts", vacating and remanding the lower courts' decisions with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.[20] Roberts made clear that partisan gerrymandering can be distasteful and unjust, but that states and Congress have the ability to enact laws to curb excessive partisan gerrymandering.[2]
Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Kagan's opinion was critical of the majority: "Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court's role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections. With respect but deep sadness, I dissent."[2]It’s important to acknowledge that partisan gerrymandering and political maneuvering are not new tactics exclusive to one party. Historically, Democrats have engaged in aggressive and, yes, often “dirty” political strategies to maintain power, whether through manipulating district lines, voter outreach tactics, or legislative power plays. What we are witnessing now is a shift where Republicans, long seen as more traditional and restrained in their tactics, have become a new breed in politics, taking off the gloves and matching or exceeding the intensity of their opponents’ strategies. The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause essentially said partisan gerrymandering is a political question beyond federal courts’ reach, placing the responsibility on states and Congress to police themselves.
This has created a political environment where both sides feel compelled to escalate tactics to defend their interests. While conservatives hold the current majority on the Court and thus bear responsibility for decisions like Rucho, it’s shortsighted to blame them alone for the dysfunction. Both parties have historically played hardball, but the Republicans’ recent embrace of more overtly aggressive strategies, what some call “Trumpian” behavior, has raised the stakes. The idea that Democrats must now play “dirty” to counter these tactics reflects a recognition that the political battlefield has changed, and that the old norms have been abandoned. If anything, Republicans have redefined what it means to play rough in politics, forcing Democrats into a reactive posture. The political arena today is less about fair play and more about survival and dominance, and that reality stems from both long histories of partisan conflict and the current aggressive posture Republicans have adopted.
Cred, you must have noted you have a real fight on your hands. This is no surprise, and I would venture to say Trumpism will not go away anytime soon. Many of us like the newfound power and strength it has brought to our party.“Cred, you must have noted you have a real fight on your hands. This is no surprise, and I would venture to say Trumpism will not go away anytime soon. Many of us like the newfound power and strength it has brought to our party.”
——-
Yes, I have, and as a result there will be no peace and that will have ramifications for us all that will prove not be of benefit to any of us.It’s true that both parties have engaged in gerrymandering and hardball politics at various points in history — but the claim that only one ideology did most of the gerrymandering. Using "parties" glosses over a crucial realignment in American politics. Before the 1960s, the Democratic coalition included both northern liberals and southern segregationist conservatives (“Dixiecrats”). Civil rights legislation fractured that coalition, and over the next several decades, most of those southern conservatives migrated to the Republican Party. So yes, many of the people who practiced the most aggressive anti-democratic tactics in the mid-20th century were conservative Democrats — but their ideological heirs now sit in the GOP.
As for the claim that Republicans were once “restrained” but now have simply matched Democrats’ intensity — that ignores measurable differences in the scale and scope of modern partisan gerrymandering. Analyses by nonpartisan experts like the Princeton Gerrymandering Project, FiveThirtyEight, and the Brennan Center show that since 2010, Republican-led states have drawn maps with far greater partisan bias and durability than modern Democratic-led states. This is partly because Republicans controlled more state legislatures after the 2010 Tea Party wave and used that advantage to lock in long-term power.
The Supreme Court’s 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision is indeed pivotal — but instead of both parties reacting equally, Republican-controlled states rapidly accelerated partisan gerrymandering, while many Democratic-controlled states (e.g., Colorado, Virginia, California, Michigan) adopted independent commissions or nonpartisan reforms
In other words, while Liberals can and do gerrymander, at least the last decade shows a clear asymmetry: Conservatives have pursued it more aggressively and resisted reform more consistently.[/i]
So the “both sides do it equally” narrative oversimplifies reality. Historically, partisan hardball tactics have shifted along with the parties’ ideological coalitions — and in the modern era, the imbalance in gerrymandering severity is well-documented.
I am hoping over time, these mountains of facts will create enough Cognitive Dissonance to overcome the avalanche of mis and disinformation you receive daily.‘The Supreme Court’s 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision is indeed pivotal — but instead of both parties reacting equally, Republican-controlled states rapidly accelerated partisan gerrymandering, while many Democratic-controlled states (e.g., Colorado, Virginia, California, Michigan) adopted independent commissions or nonpartisan reforms
In other words, while Liberals can and do gerrymander, at least the last decade shows a clear asymmetry: Conservatives have pursued it more aggressively and resisted reform more consistently.[/i]
So the “both sides do it equally” narrative oversimplifies reality. Historically, partisan hardball tactics have shifted along with the parties’ ideological coalitions — and in the modern era, the imbalance in gerrymandering severity is well-documented.”
AYE, AYE, That’s the point, thanks….Cred, I’d push back on that by pointing out that while the Rucho v. Common Cause decision in 2019 did open the floodgates for partisan gerrymandering, it’s not accurate to paint Democrats as somehow stepping away from the practice in any consistent, principled way. Yes, a few blue states like Colorado and Michigan have moved toward independent commissions, but others, like Illinois, New York, and Maryland, have doubled down on gerrymandering when it served their political advantage. These states have drawn maps so aggressive that courts in some cases struck them down for violating state constitutions. The difference in pace or publicity doesn’t change the fact that both parties will exploit the system when they control the levers of power. The narrative that Republicans are uniquely resistant to reform overlooks that Democrats in power often resist reforms that would limit their own advantage, just as Republicans do. In other words, this isn’t a matter of moral high ground, it’s a matter of who holds power where, and both sides have shown they’re willing to play hardball when it benefits them.
Yes, evidence shows that Republicans are engaging in partisan gerrymandering more frequently and generally more effectively than Democrats in recent years.
Republicans became more aggressive with gerrymandering after the 2010 “red wave,” when they gained sweeping control of state legislatures and used the REDMAP strategy to draw highly durable maps. Under Trump, that aggressiveness so intensified. His combative political style and base expectations pushed GOP leaders to reject compromise, while a more conservative judiciary made it less likely their maps would be struck down. After 2020, with demographic shifts and Democratic gains at the national level, Republicans had even more incentive to push redistricting to its limits, solidifying their hold on power.
I’m not sure many people today notice, but Trump often uses laws, sometimes very old ones, to pursue his agenda, and those laws are generally respected by the Supreme Court. Some might call it simple, but I’d say it’s somewhat genius. Trump seems to have learned that when the law backs him, the sailing is smooth and speedy.
Yes, we’re seeing it unfold in Texas right now. Encouraged by Trump, Republican officials are aggressively pursuing mid-cycle redistricting, and the battle is in full swing. It will be interesting to watch whether the Democrats return peacefully to vote or are ultimately forced into court.
Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton have taken legal action to compel their return. Abbott has requested that the Texas Supreme Court expel 13 of these lawmakers. This will be a very interesting battle. I mean this conservative-leaning court often rules in ways that align with Republican interests. Again, I point out that courts are being used in a speedy fashion to make sure laws are being followed.
By law, Texas state representatives are required to attend legislative sessions and perform their official duties, which include being present for votes like redistricting. Their absence to break quorum technically violates their responsibilities as elected officials.
In my view, this situation is really complicated. It’s not just a matter of “they did it first, so we’re doing it back,” or “they gerrymandered more than we did.” This seems to be the theme here on this thread.
What we’re seeing is one party pushing forward aggressively and now fighting to have some representatives removed. This could set a major precedent: basically telling lawmakers, “You do the job you were elected to do. or as Trump would say, ‘You’re fired.’” My goodness, this whole mess has caused such a stir, and it’s likely that some will actually lose their seats and be made examples.
It seems the Democrats should have learned by now that this kind of stunt can easily backfire—especially once the issue ends up in the courts.Which among the RED states have non-partisan commissions to prevent gerrymandering?
Democrats are not going to sit still while Texas, at the direction of Donald Trump, makes these changes to the maps in an unorthodox way, while expecting us to be willing to just continue to play by the rules. It is going to get ugly as we are not going to give Trump an advantage at our expense.
the Democrats that left Texas will eventually return and the GOP will get its gerrymander through, but a message will be sent to all blue states that the time for complacency regarding the GOP is over. Even our moderates are recognizing the battle cry of fighting fire with fire and not giving the Republicans so much as inch by now on….
The principle of partisan gerrymandering is unethical and anti-democratic and it was the conservatives on the SC that opened this Pandora’s box, deliberately. So, now there is going to be hell to pay…..When it comes to red states that have taken steps to curb gerrymandering with independent, non-partisan commissions, there are a few standouts. Arizona has a fully independent redistricting commission with a built-in partisan balance, and its members get the final say on how both congressional and legislative maps are drawn. Idaho runs things through a citizen commission made up of three Democrats and three Republicans, giving both sides equal footing when creating the maps. Montana has a similar setup, two Democrats, two Republicans, and a non-affiliated chair picked by the other four to handle both congressional and state legislative boundaries. Utah, on the other hand, does have a commission.
I get where you’re coming from, but I’ve shared before that, in my view, we’re no longer looking at the same Republican Party we once knew. Whether people like it or not, the GOP has become the party of Trump. That shift didn’t happen in a vacuum, it grew out of years of deep dissatisfaction with the direction many of us felt America was heading. Over the last couple of decades, the country began to feel unfamiliar to a lot of citizens, and that frustration eventually boiled over.
Yes, Democrats have long been known for digging in and fighting hard, but now they’re up against a Republican Party willing to fight back, often with some of the very same tactics Democrats themselves have used in political battles. Trumpism, for better or worse, has pulled in people who were never remotely involved in politics before, and these folks have realized they have real influence. Whether that support continues will depend entirely on what they see in the here and now. From my perspective, it’s hard to deny that so far, Democrats are taking a beating at almost every turn when going head-to-head with Trump.
In my view, it will be hard in the end to say Trump did not do a good job at making America better through his endless work on issues that touch most Americans. The rhetoric about his cognitive state and the Epstein stuff, to me, looks like the Democrats once again grasping for anything they can use to smear him. Wouldn’t you think they’d learn that these ploys have become transparent to citizens and start to look foolish? Shouldn’t they be working on issues that energize their base and attract new supporters with solid, realistic promises for a better America? To me, these kinds of tactics come across as desperate. People aren’t stupid; they can see that Trump works daily on a wide range of issues in an attempt to make things better for the American people.
"Democrats are not going to sit still while Texas, at the direction of Donald Trump, makes these changes to the maps in an unorthodox way, while expecting us to be willing to just continue to play by the rules. It is going to get ugly as we are not going to give Trump an advantage at our expense." Cred
Food for thought
As I mentioned in a previous comment, Trump has consistently used the courts to move his agenda forward. Regarding the Texas issue, the Democrats have already filed a case, and now the Governor of Texas has done the same. I’ve looked into the laws on gerrymandering and the legal rules governing the Representatives who fled the state, once again, Trump appears to have the law on his side.
What’s notable is that, if history is any guide, these cases will likely set new precedents, just as many of Trump’s past legal battles have. He’s leaving a long trail of such rulings in his wake. This is why I question whether Democrats should continue relying on a ploy they have used for decades, and relying so heavily on the courts; when it comes to Trump, they’ve lost more than they’ve won. He’s using the legal system to advance his agenda with remarkable speed. Just look at how he used the Supreme Court to pave the way for deporting migrants."Representatives who fled the state, once again, Trump appears to have the law on his side."
There is no federal law that can compel those Representatives back to Texas....
What law does Trump have on his side??"Just look at how he used the Supreme Court to pave the way for deporting migrants."
The court has yet to rule on ANY case that goes to the merits..... In any of his cases. Not one.And for stripping women of their rights.
That said, while the reproductive rights were severely curtailed, women did gain marginally on other fronts.
I. Reproductive Health & Autonomy
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health (2022) – Overturned Roe/Casey, ending federal constitutional abortion protections; abortion law now determined state-by-state. Impact: Major setback for reproductive rights.
Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson (2021) – Left Texas SB 8’s six-week “bounty” abortion ban largely intact on procedural grounds. Impact: Negative – limited pre-enforcement challenges.
NIFLA v. Becerra (2018) – Struck down California’s disclosure rules for crisis pregnancy centers. Impact: Weakens consumer information protections in pregnancy care.
Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania (2020) – Expanded religious/moral exemptions from ACA contraceptive coverage. Impact: Reduces access to birth control.
June Medical Services v. Russo (2020) – Struck down Louisiana admitting-privileges law restricting abortion providers. Impact: Preserves clinic access.
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) – Struck down Texas clinic restrictions. Impact: Strengthens abortion access.
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (2024) – Dismissed mifepristone challenge for lack of standing, preserving national access (for now). Impact: Maintains medication abortion availability.
Moyle v. United States (2024) – Left injunction in place allowing emergency abortions under EMTALA in Idaho while litigation continues. Impact: Protects emergency care rights (procedurally).
II. Violence, Guns, and Safety
United States v. Rahimi (2024) – Upheld federal ban on firearm possession by individuals under domestic-violence restraining orders. Impact: Positive for survivor safety.
III. Workplace Rights & Discrimination
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (2024) – Lowered the bar for proving Title VII discrimination in work transfers; harm need not be “significant.” Impact: Expands ability to bring sex-discrimination claims.
Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) – Prohibited firing someone for being gay or transgender under Title VII; bolsters protections for cis and trans women alike. Impact: Expands workplace protections.
Young v. UPS (2015) – Made it easier for pregnant workers to receive accommodations when others with similar work limits are accommodated. Impact: Strengthens pregnancy discrimination protections.
IV. Overall Trends
2015–2021: Mixed record — Court struck down several burdensome abortion laws and expanded some workplace protections, but also limited certain reproductive health mandates and speech regulations.
2022 (Dobbs) as a turning point: Major rollback of reproductive rights, shifting the battleground to states.
Post-Dobbs: Some rulings have preserved limited federal safeguards (mifepristone, EMTALA) and strengthened protections in employment and domestic-violence contexts.
Net Effect:
Reproductive autonomy: Significant decline post-Dobbs.
Workplace & safety protections: Incremental gains in discrimination law and domestic-violence gun restrictions.
Trajectory: Highly polarized; reproductive rights curtailed while certain workplace and safety protections modestly improved."Just look at how he used the Supreme Court to pave the way for deporting migrants."Shar
Every decision and ruling has truly been a win for Trump, and aids him in deporting migrants who have criminal records or orders to deport via having had their due process. Trump has used the courts to expedite his deportation plan by following the law to do so.
In the past 6 months Over the past six months, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued several rulings that have favored the Trump administration's immigration policies.
These decisions collectively have provided the Trump administration with significant legal victories, enabling the continuation and expansion of its immigration enforcement policies. If you would like more detailed information on any of these cases or their implications, feel free to ask.
Trump v. CASA, Inc. (June 27, 2025)
Issue: Whether federal district courts can issue universal injunctions that block government policies nationwide.
Outcome: The Court ruled 6–3 that such injunctions exceed judicial authority unless necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs. This decision limited the scope of lower court orders blocking Trump's executive orders on birthright citizenship, allowing the administration more leeway in enforcing these policies
Svitlana Doe v. Noem (May 19, 2025)
Issue: Termination of humanitarian parole protections for over 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
Outcome: The Supreme Court granted an emergency stay, permitting the Trump administration to end these protections and expose the migrants to potential deportation.
National TPS Alliance v. Noem (May 19, 2025)
Issue: Termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelan nationals.
Outcome: The Court issued an emergency stay, allowing the administration to revoke TPS for approximately 250,000 Venezuelans, making them vulnerable to deportation.
Trump v. J.G.G. (April 7, 2025)
Issue: Detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
Outcome: The Court vacated lower court orders that had blocked the deportation, enabling the administration to proceed with the removal of these individuals.
Supreme Court
D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security (July 3, 2025)
Issue: Deportation of eight men to South Sudan.
Outcome: The Court declined to intervene, allowing the deportation to proceed. The men were sent to South Sudan after weeks of legal challenges, despite concerns over their safety and the country's stability.
Supreme Court Rulings from Trump’s First Term
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. ___ (2018) — June 26, 2018
Upheld the travel ban under Section 212(f) of the INA, affirming presidential authority to restrict entry for national security reasons.
Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) — January 20, 2021 (Supreme Court action on MPP)
Allowed the “Remain in Mexico” policy (MPP) to continue during litigation, supporting the Trump-era asylum rule requiring migrants to wait in Mexico.
Wolf v. Cook County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020) — July 29, 2020
Allowed enforcement of the Trump administration’s Public Charge Rule while legal challenges were ongoing.
Texas v. Biden, 599 U.S. ___ (2022) — December 21, 2022
Upheld the use of Title 42 public health orders to rapidly expel migrants at the border.
Various rulings on asylum restrictions and safe third country agreements (2020–2023)
While no single landmark case covers all, multiple court decisions, including Supreme Court stays, have allowed enforcement of restrictions requiring asylum seekers to apply for protection outside the U.S. first.
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) — June 18, 2020
Blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to rescind DACA, but did not grant permanent protections.
Trump administration visa and entry restrictions cases (2017–2021)
Multiple cases, including Trump v. Hawaii and related challenges, upheld broad executive power over visa issuance and consular processing.
Trump v. Sierra Club, 589 U.S. ___ (2020) — December 10, 2019
Allowed Trump to redirect military funds for border wall construction despite congressional objections.Legal Asylum Seekers Targeted for Deportation
1. Courthouse Arrests After Case Dismissals
- ICE has adopted a tactic where it convinces immigration judges to dismiss asylum cases, stripping immigrants of legal protection.
- Once dismissed, ICE agents arrest individuals outside the courthouse and place them into expedited removal, a fast-track deportation process.
- Many of these immigrants had pending asylum claims and were following legal procedures, including showing up for court hearings.
2. Expedited Removal Despite Legal Entry
- A federal judge recently blocked the use of expedited removal against migrants who entered legally on humanitarian parole, but prior to that ruling, ICE had been targeting such individuals for deportation.
- These included asylum seekers from Cuba, Venezuela, and other countries who were granted entry under Biden-era parole programs.
3. Dismissals Due to Missing “Credible Fear” Interviews
- USCIS has dismissed asylum applications for immigrants who didn’t receive a mandatory credible fear interview at the border, often due to staffing shortages.
- This has forced many to restart their asylum process, leaving them temporarily without legal status and vulnerable to deportation.
Psychological Pressure and “Self-Deportation”
- ICE has also been accused of pressuring detainees to abandon their asylum claims, citing poor detention conditions and long wait times.
- Some immigrants with valid asylum cases have voluntarily accepted deportation out of desperation.
Legal Pushback and Advocacy
- Multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging these practices, arguing they violate due process and U.S. asylum law.
- A recent ruling by Judge Jia Cobb may protect hundreds of thousands of parolees from expedited removal, but the Justice Department is expected to appeal.
Psychological Warfare and Deterrence
- Deporting legal asylum seekers sends a message: “Even if you follow the rules, you’re not safe.”
- This tactic is part of a broader deterrence strategy aimed at reducing migration through fear and uncertainty.
International Consequences
- Violates non-refoulement, a principle of international law that prohibits returning refugees to danger.
- Damages U.S. credibility in global human rights forums and weakens leverage in migration diplomacy.Hi Mike, Your reply is quite a diversion. I was simply responding to a comment Willow left that I found questionable. That's why the a long list of Supreme Court cases.
Willowarbor wrote:
"Just look at how he used the Supreme Court to pave the way for deporting migrants."
The court has yet to rule on ANY case that goes to the merits..... In any of his cases. Not one." Willow
I always appreciate your posts, and welcome conversation, especially when it is expressed how you as a rule express your views and concerns. I will address your comment a bit later. You have shared a ton of food for thought.#1 - You and I agree that is probably illegal and certainly unethical, immoral, and reprehensible. The other side thinks such dirty tricks is laudable.
#2 - What is sad is that what Sharlee considers "wins" are simply administrative stays which have the effect of a win because Trump is allowed to continue his probably illegal actions.
#3 - Again, unethical, immoral, and reprehensible in god-fearing American eyes, but not to MAUGA - it is laudable as well.
And your last set of observations are the most unAmerican and unpatriotic of them all - imagine "we will deport you whether you follow the rules or not" - pure Trump.I get why it feels concerning that people seeking asylum and following legal procedures are getting caught up in these courthouse arrests. It’s important to remember, though, that the immigration system is extremely complex, and ICE’s role is to enforce the laws as they stand. When judges dismiss cases, it generally means the claim didn’t meet the legal requirements for asylum or other protections. At that point, ICE has a responsibility to act on those rulings to maintain the integrity of the system.
Also, expedited removal is designed to make the process more efficient and prevent backlogs that could delay decisions for thousands of others waiting for their cases. While it might seem harsh, it’s part of ensuring that those without legal grounds to stay don’t remain indefinitely, which could undermine the entire system.
The key point is that the Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of allowing broader use of expedited removal, which means ICE can deport certain migrants, even those who entered legally under humanitarian parole. While some lower courts have tried to block these actions, the Supreme Court’s decision is the final authority, so those deportations are legally supported now. That’s why many migrants targeted under these policies have been deported despite earlier court challenges.
I understand why all of this feels overwhelming and unfair; it’s a complicated and emotional issue with real human lives involved. At the same time, I think it’s important to remember that the immigration system has to balance compassion with the rule of law. When asylum seekers miss their credible fear interviews, often because of system backlogs or staffing issues, it’s unfortunate. But the system can’t just keep cases open indefinitely; it has to keep moving so it can serve everyone fairly, including those who do qualify for protection.
Regarding the pressure some detainees feel and cases of “self-deportation,” I see how those conditions can be tough, and no one wants to see people forced out unfairly. But ICE also has to enforce court orders and laws, especially when individuals have had their day in court and been ordered to leave but don’t comply. If the system let everyone stay regardless, it could encourage others to ignore the legal process, which wouldn’t be fair to those following the rules.
The lawsuits and legal challenges are part of a healthy system of checks and balances, and it’s good that courts keep agencies accountable. But it’s also clear the Justice Department believes strongly in upholding enforcement tools like expedited removal to protect the country’s borders and resources.
I get that the deterrence approach can feel harsh, telling people, “even if you follow the rules, you might not be safe,” is painful to hear. But from a policy standpoint, it’s meant to discourage people from making dangerous journeys or overstaying visas, which ultimately helps protect the system’s integrity and the safety of everyone involved.
The U.S. does take international obligations seriously, but it also must ensure its immigration policies serve national security and public interests. Balancing humanitarian concerns with enforcement is difficult, but enforcing deportation orders for those who’ve broken laws or overstayed helps maintain order and fairness for those who play by the rules.
This is a tough topic with no easy answers, but I think we both want a system that is fair, just, and humane, while also protecting the country’s laws and citizens.Stephen Miller and his 3,000 per day quota
His title is Deputy Chief of Staff. But don't let that fool you. He is very powerful with originating and controlling many of Trump's policies. He is also the head of the America First legal Group. He is involved in finding obscure laws that exploit the legality of his deportation process'
The motivation behind all of this is that Stephen Miller has issued an edict that he wants 3,000 people deported everyday.
Stephen Miller’s psychological and political framing of mass deportation is a calculated blend of fear-based messaging, ideological rigidity, and strategic disruption. His approach is not just about immigration enforcement—it’s about reshaping the national narrative around identity, sovereignty, and control.
Psychological Framing: Fear, Invasion, and Dehumanization
- Language of War and Invasion: Miller frequently uses militaristic and existential language—calling immigration an “invasion” and referring to protests as “insurrections”. This primes the public to see immigrants not as individuals but as threats to national stability.
- Dehumanization Tactics: His rhetoric strips immigrants of individuality. By focusing on mass numbers (“3,000 arrests per day”) and terms like “illegal aliens,” he fosters emotional detachment and justifies harsh treatment.
- Manipulation of Visuals: Miller amplifies footage of protests with Mexican flags or chaotic scenes to reinforce the idea that immigration leads to societal breakdown.
- Zero-Sum Framing: He presents immigration as a zero-sum game—where the presence of immigrants inherently diminishes American safety, culture, and opportunity.
Psychological Mechanisms at Play
| Mechanism | Description | Strategic Effect |
| Cognitive Dissonance | Forces Americans to reconcile national ideals (freedom, opportunity) with harsh policies | Justifies cruelty as necessary sacrifice |
| Moral Disengagement | Uses bureaucratic language and quotas to obscure human cost | Enables support for extreme measures |
| Group Identity Priming | Frames immigration as a threat to “real Americans” | Mobilizes nationalist sentiment |
Political Framing: Ideological Purity and Institutional Disruption
- Nativist Vision: Miller’s goal isn’t just enforcement—it’s transformation. He’s called mass deportation “greater than any national infrastructure project” and sees it as a moral imperative to “save the nation”.
- Institutional Overhaul: He’s pushed for using military personnel, revoking legal status, and even suspending habeas corpus to prevent legal challenges.
- Mainstreaming Extremism: Ideas once confined to the far-right—like ending birthright citizenship or deporting U.S. citizens with immigrant parents—have been “laundered” into mainstream policy through Miller’s influence.
- Disruption as Strategy: Miller intentionally creates legal and political chaos, forcing courts, agencies, and activists to react. This overloads opposition and shifts the Overton window.
I can give you my sources, if you want them.They simply won't believe you, sources or not. If it is against Trump, it is automatically classified as mis or disinformation designed to hurt their cult leader.
Everybody, here is a more complete and comprehensive picture of the mostly false claim that "Every decision and ruling has truly been a win for Trump, and aids him in deporting migrants who have criminal records or orders to deport via having had their due process. "
Challenging the Assertion of Unbroken Legal Wins
1. Trump v. CASA, Inc. (June 27, 2025) – Scope Over Substance
What it ruled: The Supreme Court limited the ability of federal courts to issue nationwide (universal) injunctions—that is, rulings that block enforcement of policies across the entire country—unless they are necessary to give complete relief to the actual plaintiffs involved. This was a procedural decision, not an endorsement of the policy itself
Why it matters: The ruling doesn't uphold Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—it merely constrains how lower courts can block such orders. The Court did not resolve the constitutional question of birthright citizenship
2. Distinguished Victories: Requirement for More Targeted Relief
Class-action workaround: Lower courts have issued class-wide injunctions that are not impacted by the universal injunction ruling. For example, a judge in New Hampshire granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the birthright citizenship order via class action
Similarly, another court in Maryland recently issued a fourth nationwide injunction against the same executive order, applying through the class action mechanism
3. Svitlana Doe v. Noem (CHNV Parole – Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, Venezuelan parolees)
What happened: The Supreme Court granted the Trump administration's emergency request to stay a district court order that had forced DHS to continue processing humanitarian parole benefits for around 500,000 people
Outcome and nuance: This ruling allowed DHS to proceed with terminating parole and ending the legal status of those individuals—but crucially, this was an interim procedural decision, pending appeals and final adjudication rather than a final ruling on the legality of the policy
4. D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security (June 23, 2025)
The Supreme Court stayed a preliminary injunction that had blocked deportation of eight men to South Sudan, allowing the process to move forward while appeals and potential further review proceed
Once again, this decision represents a temporary outcome, not a conclusive legal judgment affirming or reversing the policy.
So, the FACT of the matter is, none of these supposed "wins" for Trump "wins" at all - just tactical victories until the cases are adjudicated.
What these Conservative rulings have done, however, is ruin a lot of INNOCENT, not criminal lives. (A stat you WON'T be told above is that the most of those Trump is after are a combination of Immigrants that are here legally or were here legally until Trump changed the rules, are legal immigrants, and American citizens including many children.)
Here are some rulings you won't here about here either:
Alien Enemies Act Cases (April–May 2025)
The Court acted repeatedly to block rapid deportations of Venezuelan detainees using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, citing due process concerns:
W.M.M. v. Trump (April 19, 2025) – An immediate, unsigned order halted removals pending further review, prompting strong dissent from Justices Alito and Thomas
Supreme Court Injunction (May 16, 2025) – The Court blocked the administration's deportations under the AEA and remanded to the Fifth Circuit to evaluate proper notice and legal procedures
Alien Enemies Act – Refugee/Habeas Jurisdiction (J.G.G. v. Trump, April 7, 2025)
The Court vacated a lower court’s restraining orders, holding that challenges under the AEA must be filed in the detainee’s district (Texas), not D.C. The Court emphasized lawful process, requiring adequate notice for habeas petitions - which Trump did not want to hear.
Then there is this one you won't see here either:
Kilmar Ábrego Garcia – A Real Setback
What happened: Ábrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador despite a 2019 court order protecting him, then imprisoned in a harsh Salvadoran facility.
Supreme Court’s decision: The high court unanimously ruled that the administration must “facilitate” his return and respect due process. Justices emphasized that deporting someone under such circumstances without oversight or remedy would undermine immigration law itself.
This case stands out as a clear judicial check on executive overreach
I will always provide complete and factual information to the degree that I am able.
For others reading this, the following was left out.
1. Omission of Utah’s Actual System
The statement ends with “Utah… does have a commission” but fails to explain that Utah’s commission is only advisory.
The Utah Legislature retains final authority to draw the maps and is free to reject the commission’s recommendations—which it did in 2021.
This is a major distinction from Arizona, Idaho, and Montana, where the commission itself has final say.
2. Overlooking Court Involvement & Limitations
[u]Arizona’s “independent” commission has faced repeated political interference, including legislative and gubernatorial attempts to remove members by Republican. Courts had to intervene to preserve its independence.
Idaho’s bipartisan commission still operates under statutory rules that can limit competitiveness and favor incumbents.
Montana’s commission has been deadlocked in the past, forcing the chair to cast deciding votes that still led to partisan disputes.
That is the context that was missing.This country is becoming to feel very scary to many more Americans.
thanks for providing the “standouts” amongst red states, because I did not believe that there were any.
So, you are not uncomfortable having any one man be voice for your entire party, without any dissenting voices from within?
With a right wing oriented court, that the conservatives managed to acquire under less than honorable circumstances, the extreme right perspective now becomes front and center.
But there are many Americans, myself included, that are not keen on Trump, nor of the direction that I perceive he is leading us all. This fellow is a convicted felon who has said and done many things that brings into question his cognition and his knowledge of his role within the office that he holds. Retribution is more what I see defines Trump.
Since the courts are in Trumps back pocket, our only recourse is the retaliation regarding Trumps attempt to insure a victory in Congress against odds that indicate otherwise. We also have the economy, he had better keep his promise about controlling inflation and avoiding recession, or that will be the Achilles Heel that will undo him and his agenda.
It is illegal to use the FBI to pursue those Democrats that left Texas as it is not a federal crime. Will Trump weaponize the FBI to take on an assignment outside of its purview? The precedents that the right wing tribunal will set will prove dangerous in regarding civil rights and having law ruled upon through the sheer caprice of any one man, especially a man like Trump.
I have expressed early on my pessimism regarding the future of the country, I continue to see helter-skelter in its wake.I can agree that right now, there seems to be one voice dominating the conversation. While I’m not sure that’s entirely a good thing, I do support the agenda he’s pushing. It’s important to remember that Trump won’t be in the picture forever, and eventually, someone else will have to carry that agenda forward, if the people allow it.
I’m not quite sure what you meant by “the precedents that the right-wing tribunal will set will prove dangerous regarding civil rights and law being ruled on by the whim of one man, especially someone like Trump.” I don’t see the Supreme Court showing favoritism; their record shows they are focused on interpreting the Constitution and the law.
Regarding the Texas redistricting maps and FBI involvement, that likely relates to allegations of voter intimidation, election interference, or other violations of federal election laws, which fall under federal jurisdiction.
You also made a great point about the economy. This could be a real test for Trump; if he can’t improve the economy, it will be a major challenge for him moving forward.
Since you are talking about history, please be honest and use ideologies rather than Parties.
If you are talking pre-1940, people who read Democrat need to insert Conservative and when they read Republican, they need to think liberal.
And, because of those Conservatives, we now have a race to the bottom of the pig stye. Fortunately, if Democrats can act in unison, they will win the race.
I hope you are right, because this is a war that we dare not lose. If Trump’s miscalculations regarding the economy make for a disaster that is our best foot forward to dislodge him. You don’t have to be a political junkie to recognize continuing rising prices or a recessionary environment, that will resonate with the man in the street.
It's those rising prices and the possible recession that will pull the wool off their eyes and let them see what Trump really is.
BTW, I finish putting in the 21 chapter outline of my book. The next step is to put meat on the bones. I thought of two more chapters to add a couple of nights ago, now all I have to do is remember what they were.
Tsmog gave me the idea for a similar book "Liberalism in Practice in America; The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. It will follow the same format.
Actually, isn't Illinois the ONLY example?
Here are the states known for their unfair gerrymandering:
* Illinois (BLUE)
* Texas (currently, it will just get worse) (RED)
* Wisconsin (which was done by Republicans)
* North Carolina (RED)
* Alabama (RED)
* South Carolina (RED)
* Ohio (RED)
* Florida (RED)
It is time the BLUE states catch up.
Yes, Texas opened this can of worms and Dems will meet fire with fire. I say gerrymander them out of existence...I am surprised Utah didn't show up on ChatGPT's list as well as Illinois not showing up on your map.
Utah, like MA is about 33% of the voting population. Unlike MA, they are mostly located in Salt Lake City. That means, they should have one seat. That said, the Republicans gerrymandered SLC and split SLC Democrats among four heavily Republican districts leaving Democrats with one seat.
The voters, in 2020, voted to turn the process over to an independent commission. In 2021, the Republican legislature cheated and effectively voided the publics wishes and overruled the Commission drawn map. This is the way it is today, all four seats are Republican.
In 2024,however, the Utah Supreme Court, a very conservative court by the way, ruled that the Republicans violated the law. Here is where that ruling now stands (with the Republicans once more trying to cheat and override the judicial ruling).
In July 2024, the Utah Supreme Court unanimously ruled that voter-approved reform initiatives—like the 2018 “Better Boundaries” Proposition—are protected from legislative changes that impair them. The court reinstated the plaintiffs’ key claim and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings.
All About Redistricting
+15
Axios
+15
Utah News Dispatch
+15
Since then, the case has moved to the Third District Court. Final oral arguments were heard in early 2025, and a district court ruling is expected by November 2025, in time to affect the 2026 congressional district maps if legal remedies are granted.
Wikipedia
Meanwhile, Republican legislators attempted a constitutional amendment (Amendment D) intended to override citizen-led initiatives, but a judge invalidated its ballot language, declaring it void—even though the text still appears on printed ballots.
I am surprised you didn't remind her of Jim Crow and the Separate but Equal nonsense.
With the slight of hand of political maneuvering or moving the pea under another shell, the advocates of Jim Crow and Separate but Equal remain difficult to expunge from American society
It is not surprising, like the Taney court, they have been making a lot of reprehensible, unAmerican decisions. It is a shame we will have to wait so long (assuming there is an America left which neither of us think is a given anymore) to have them overturned like most of Taney's were.
And since it is not illegal ANYMORE, just reprehensible, the all the Democratic states need to get together an replicate what Texas is doing My math, rather ChatGPT's math says the Democrats will come out quite a bit ahead.
Those people she is referring to are called MAGA, aka MAUGA.
“That’s a nice soundbite, but the facts don’t really back it up.”
Here are the FACTS, please don't ignore them this time in your obsession to defend Trump
Russia investigation – The 2016 election interference probe wasn’t “fabricated.”
The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee (speaking of irony, Marco Rubio chaired that) confirmed that Russia interfered in 2016 to help Trump and that Trump associates had significant contacts with Russian officials.
The Mueller investigation documented multiple instances of potential obstruction of justice, but DOJ policy prevented charging a sitting president. That’s not “made up”—it’s in the official report.
Impeachments – Both impeachments were based on documented actions.
First impeachment: Trump withheld congressionally approved aid to Ukraine while pressing its president to announce an investigation into Biden—a quid pro quo that multiple officials testified to under oath.
Second impeachment: Based on Trump’s actions and rhetoric before and during the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, which led to bipartisan support for impeachment in the House.
You can disagree with the verdict, but they weren’t conjured out of thin air.
Accusations of treason – “Treason” was more a media/activist talking point than a legal charge. Trump was never formally charged with treason, and most serious commentators did not push for it.
Rule-bending – Oversight mechanisms like congressional subpoenas, special counsels, and whistleblower complaints existed long before Trump. They were used against presidents of both parties (e.g., Nixon, Clinton) and are part of the constitutional system of checks and balances.
False equivalence – If you believe some oversight actions against Trump were unfair, that doesn’t justify breaking norms or laws now. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Democratic accountability means applying the law consistently, not abandoning it because you think “the other side did it first.”
Bottom line: Investigating credible allegations is not “fabricating charges.” The fact that courts, congressional committees, and inspectors general documented much of this shows the system was functioning as designed—even if you disagreed with the conclusions. What’s dangerous is using that as a pretext to excuse genuine abuses of power today.When the Dems regain control after the midterms, I expect to see the Jack Smith investigation information released in full.
We don't "cry" it, Ken; that makes it sound like it doesn't exist. Instead, we "state it as fact".
What is NOT FACT is your fantasy that "That is exactly what was done to Trump," At the very least TRY to remember he has 34 felony convictions, one finding of defamation, one finding of sexual abuse (all three by juries), and two, I think, findings that he committed bank fraud (and he ordered DOIJ to investigate one of the people bringing true charges.)
That is not counting the one case still pending in Georgia and the VERY credible indictments for what amounts to insurrection and another for misuse of state secrets.
Exactly HOW does all that slip your mind, or do you rationalize it away as never happening.
I think it is you who are consumed with defending probably the most corrupt politicians in American history.
I think I asked this before, are you enjoying the taste of sand?
Here is another person Biden should have preemptively pardoned because Trump using a weaponized DOIJ to go after Latisha James was a no brainer
Now the State of NY will have to pay a lot of money to defend against a frivolous investigation.
So, TRUE TO FORM -
"Justice Department opens investigation into New York attorney general who won civil fraud case against Trump"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/08/politics … estigationThey're going after Adam Schiff also.
Does this DOJ do ANY of the people's business?
These investigations are nothing more than the most blatant and desperate examples of this administration carrying out Trump's political retribution campaign....Biden pegged him on that.
Interesting thought, it got me wondering: how are the other forums doing here on HP? So, I took a look. It’s the same across the board, little participation, barely any real conversation. Whether it’s the Garden forum, the Finance forum, or the Books and Literature forum, take your pick; there’s almost no chatter and only a handful of users stopping in, and even then, just here and there,not daily.
Have users been chased off? I can’t say for sure. Years ago, we definitely had more people around, and they were lively, to put it mildly. There was good back-and-forth, more sharing, and people seemed more tolerant of differing views.
Now? I mean, it can feel like talking to a wall at times here. Maybe the decline comes down to a society that’s shifted, one that’s less open to discussion and less willing to understand opposing perspectives.
What happened to the promise of cheap energy lol??
According to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the average price of electricity per kilowatt-hour has risen from $0.179 in January to $0.190 as of June—an increase of around 6 percent.... This is a good thing?
Apparently offering facts to back up ones claims is "going low".
I haven't seen any comments, especially from the right, on Trump testing out declaring marshal law in our Capitol (and threatening to in NYC).
Doesn't anybody care that even though crime has fallen 20 or 30% in D.C. recently, Trump sent in the feds anyway?Crime stats don't lie but Trump sure does!
As usual it's a power grab that has ZERO to do with violent crime or anything else. Just more BS & distraction to divert the followers.
Related Discussions
- 30
Why Drill, Baby, Drill Isn't Working
by kerryg 3 months ago
Contrary to what has been suggested in several posts here over the last few weeks, Obama's supposed imposition of "regulation after regulation, roadblock after roadblock" is not what's holding up domestic oil drilling, it's the oil companies themselves holding out for higher profits.This...
- 32
Oil spill result of corporate negligence and a lack of over sight.
by Stump Parrish 14 years ago
How do we make sure this doesn't happen again you ask? Deregulate further and open more of the gulf to drilling. That could only makes sense to those in the oil companies back pockets.
- 214
Obama's attacks on BP not going down well in the UK
by CMHypno 15 years ago
Obama's attacks on BP are increasingly being viewed in the UK as signs of his anti-British stance. Or is he just trying to pull attention away from his own administration's failures?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … itain.html
- 192
Global Warming is Socialist Propaganda
by Nickny79 16 years ago
Mississippi and Lousiana get snow: http://news.aol.com/article/rare-snow-c … 1200988198So much for global warming. I bet Al Gore was scheduled to give a speech in New Orleans.
- 59
What's the libertarian take on the BP oil spill?
by Don W 15 years ago
Would a free market have prevented this from happening?I'm guessing the libertarian argument would be that the failings of state regulation was a contributing factor. Those failings stemming from the fact that the regulators were in bed (figuratively and literally) with those regulated. Whereas...
- 47
Biden’s Dirty Oil Deal With Venezuela
by Sharlee 2 years ago
What do you think about becoming dependent on dictators for energy? Is this not all half-ass-backward?Wall Street Journal Biden’s Dirty Oil Deal With VenezuelaCaracas gets a sanctions reprieve while the U.S. vetoes a loan to Guyana, a rare U.S. ally in the region."At the United Nations climate...