Americans are happy - media concealing it to 'slow support' for Trump
Americans are happier with their government than they been for a really, really, long time but that fact is being suppressed by the "liberal media" because members of that industry hope "to slow the support for President Donald Trump and his second-term agenda."
That's the verdict from Washington Examiner's columnist Paul Bedard, who explained that Americans now "have the best outlook for the nation they have ever had, a remarkable turnaround so far kept secret by much of the media and Washington," which is hoping to undermine Trump.
He reported the results are from Rasmussen Reports pollster Mark Mitchell who explained to the Washington Secrets column that for the last week, "likely voters who believe the country is headed in the right direction have been about even with those who believe it is headed in the wrong direction."
Then last week "right direction" came in a point higher than "wrong." And Trump's approval soared to 54%.
"Trump approval hit 54%, net plus-10, and on Thursday, right direction tied the out all-time high. But here's what's crazy. Right direction exceeded wrong track by 1 point, which has never happened in our polling, ever," Mitchell explained.
That, he said, is "pretty much as good as it gets."
https://www.wnd.com/2025/02/as-good-as- … for-trump/musk and trump are one month into this administration... I've never seen protest like yesterday happen so quickly. The fact is, they won by the smallest margin in history and a growing number are unhappy with what is unfolding.
Hear, hear! Even with all of the stealing from the people, via the Department of Dirty Tricks ++, which has been unearthed and revealed, optimism runs high in my circles!
What exactly has been unearthed and revealed. No one seems to be able to answer that LOL
This is fake news. The alternate fact is that the media is right wing.
This information is based on a Rasmussen Poll. It is consistent with other polling data. It even agrees with the recent CBS poll.
So, maybe you need to rethink what exactly is fake news.There is media on the right, left, and center. If you read several sources you will get the views of all of them. I highly recommend "Ground" that labels their articles based on the bias of the media.
Hi, I was actually being sarcastic. As people call everything biased that doesn't correspond to their own opinion.
The media I'm reading is European. (UK, Dutch and Spanish)
Thanks for the tip.
MAGAs really are living in an alternate universe. Must be from drinking too much Koolade.
Trump is doing what the MAJORITY of Americans want.
They don't want DEI... EGS... 25% inflation so we can spend trillions on foreign nations and/or migrants and/or wars.
The MAJORITY don't want anything the Biden Administration spent 4 years "championing" period. If anything, the Biden Administration was "championing" everything that the MAJORITY never wanted and/or reject.
That is why they channel billions thru USAID to fund those things through NGOs and Non-Profits that the American people refuse to support and/or accept.
It has become a Government that ignored the wants and needs of its citizens to pursue things that corporations and foreign nations wanted.
And now we will see what the government becomes when run by people that try and put the citizens and the constitution first.Ken,
Do you agree that the democrats are in denial of how bad of a position they have been put in by the biden administration.I think the Democrats ARE the Deep State... at least the ones with power and control, the ones that have been there for 30+ ... 40+ years...
Any who weren't completely corrupt were weeded out or are fringe (extreme) politicians.
Some Republicans are part of the problem as well, but many of them have been extracted from Congress and DC since 2016 and Trump's first term.
Remember when Ryan (then Majority leader of the House) and all those other sell-outs resigned in 2018 (the most in history) allowing for the Democrats to regain control?
Remember how right up until the last minute during the nomination process in 2015/16 they held out the idea that they may just shove Cruz in as the nominee and to hell with the voters?
Look... this has been a long process... you have corruption SO bad ... SO powerful even Presidents have had to bow down to it... or going back to Kennedy, get shot because of it... there is no easy fix... you are talking about corruption that funneled TRILLIONS to BlackRock and Vanguard that now dictate to corporations AND politicians what, how and when.
So of course the Media companies that get billions... and the NGOs and Non-Profits that get billions... and the corrupt bureaucrats... and the corrupt politicians... are all going to fight it, lie about it, and deny it.
What Is the Average Net Worth of the Top 1%?
https://www.investopedia.com/financial- … the-1.aspx
How did they get that money?
That is what we are finding out, aren't we?The corruption is so bad that Elon Musk could buy his position as second man in the white house.
Trump is doing what the MAJORITY of Americans want.
No he isn't. He wasn't elected by a majority. They either voted for one of several other candidates or not at all. You can look it up.
Do you really want to see the long list again?
I do good to get on here to comment now and then, I don't do redundancy very well. (yawn)The problem is that Republican (or better Trump) voters are at a point of no return. They have invested so much emotional bonding that any criticism against their own party is to criticize oneself. And to admit that you were wrong becomes more and more difficult. So you try to find all kind of excuses for yourself for why you still support lies. Even if these lies are so incredible obvious.
Those are lists of expenditures
They do not equal fraud by definition.
I have a husband and a son who both voted for the felon. They are no more happy than I am!
So in your world, Kathleen, the felon is not the one who steals from you, but rather the one who uncovers it?
Interesting!Uncovers what? Uncovers expenditures that were appropriated by Congress?? I mean you do realize that all of these expenditures on programs that Elon points to all went through Congress? Were all approved through the budget process?
Appropriated? Approved? Think again Kathleen(?)
From the Department of Government Efficiency:
"The Treasury Access Symbol (TAS) is an identification code linking a Treasury payment to a budget line item (standard financial process).
In the Federal Government, the TAS field was optional for ~$4.7 Trillion in payments and was often left blank, making traceability almost impossible. As of Saturday, this is now a required field, increasing insight into where money is actually going. Thanks to @USTreasury for the great work."Are you truly so naive as to think that every (or any) congressman has looked and examined every expenditure that was "appropriated" by Congress?
Or did they simply shovel money at special interest groups (whether interested on how much fuzz on a caterpillar or how to combat global warming) and let it go at that?"Uncovers what? Uncovers expenditures that were appropriated by Congress?? I mean you do realize that all of these expenditures on programs that Elon points to all went through Congress? Were all approved through the budget process?"Willow
This is not factual. If you follow what DOGE has been doing you would understand they have no power to fire, cancel ormake any changes without the heads ofnagencies approval.
Plus ---Not all government expenditures, programs, or contracts require direct approval from Congress. While Congress appropriates funds through the federal budget process, agency heads and department leaders have discretion over how those funds are allocated within their budgets. Once agencies receive their budgets, officials can issue grants, sign contracts, and approve specific projects as long as they stay within congressional guidelines. Many contracts go through competitive bidding, but some may be awarded under special provisions. This means that while every dollar spent originates from congressional appropriations, agency heads have significant control over how funds are used. Oversight bodies like the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Inspector Generals (IGs) monitor spending, but concerns about waste and mismanagement persist due to the broad discretion agencies have.I don’t see how that includes impounding funds and decimating agencies that Congress created from appropriations, as Trump has done. Just how much discretion to deviate from Congressional direction do agency heads have?
The argument that Trump is "impounding funds and decimating agencies that Congress created from appropriations" is misleading and does not accurately represent the DOGE plan. DOGE is focused on reducing bureaucracy, streamlining federal agencies, and ensuring executive control over the administrative state—not unilaterally withholding congressionally appropriated funds in violation of the law.
The claim about "impounding funds" misrepresents the legal framework. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 restricts the president’s ability to refuse to spend appropriated funds, except under very specific circumstances, such as congressional approval of rescissions. If Trump were simply refusing to spend appropriated funds without following this legal process, it would face immediate legal challenges. However, what his administration has done in the past—and what DOGE aims to do—is exercise executive discretion in how funds are spent within legal boundaries. Agency heads often have significant leeway in interpreting congressional intent, prioritizing some initiatives over others, and adjusting spending accordingly.
"Decimating agencies" is a subjective characterization of what is actually an effort to reorganize and reduce the size of certain federal bureaucracies. The executive branch has broad authority to restructure agencies, cut unnecessary programs, and consolidate operations to improve efficiency. Congress may appropriate funds for an agency, but how that money is allocated within the agency is often determined by executive leadership. For example, if an agency is overstaffed or redundant, streamlining operations is a legitimate use of executive authority.
DOGE is not about lawless governance—it’s about reining in what Trump and his supporters view as an unaccountable administrative state. This means shifting power back to elected officials rather than career bureaucrats who often resist the administration’s policy priorities. Instead of seeing this as "deviating from congressional direction," it's more accurate to describe it as using lawful executive discretion to implement policy within the framework of congressional intent.
In my view, Trump and Musk have recently made statements that, at times, seem not well thought out and even hyperbolic, which has overshadowed the work being done by DOGE. However, I believe the overall concept of what DOGE is doing is necessary, and the team is doing a commendable job. I wish more people would visit their new website to see the findings they are sharing almost daily, along with documentation. Additionally, they are making tangible improvements by fixing outdated software to enhance record-keeping, which is an important step forward.
The felon is the one who gets convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers.
Media is doing everything they can to torpedo his Admin... the people in it, especially Musk.
This is a WAR... much of the media exists because of the money doled out to them by the government to pump their messaging, their propaganda.
Musk, Gabbard, Kennedy are there to try and get control of this corrupt system which is no longer responsive to the American people.
The Media SHOWED they were complete FRAUDS... they covered for Dementia Joe, and then they tried to sell Harris as the savior we have been waiting for, how much more evidence does one need?Nah. Lil Marco had it right, the man is almost prophetic
https://youtu.be/wo3w5CeWGig?si=z17gn5Kc9eerokvWI see that you went back nearly a decade and pulled this one out of the mothballs.
Most of us understand how campaigns operate!
Obviously, they've moved on!He said what he said. I agree with him. Was he lying then? Or is he lying now? And the man has had that much of a change of heart? He pretty much thought Trump was the devil and now he's a savior? LOL
Lol Kennedy? We are in the midst of a measles outbreak.... Fingers crossed for the return of polio?
Normally, the media, is the forth arm of government. It exists to report specific to the poeple, the doings of the government of the day, what is apparently taking place in the assembly(s), and whether the courts are really dispensing justice. So the Press, was term the. WATCH DOG. The evil money bags or billionaires have bought them off, to do their politics. Truth is hidden. Much of what is publish are the biding of the politicians.
Ken, you're welcomed. And sad to say its no wonder that when Trump, came from nowhere, he scold such publishing as 'fake news'. The bottomline is that it's only a Press without any political apron that can tell the truth.
Trump does something destructive, illegal, or outrageous every day. What do you expect the media to cover?
Only one media source has had to pay $787.5 million for lying. I'll bet all the money I have in my wallet right now that is the main network you watch.
Many of Trump’s early actions are unpopular, Post-Ipsos poll finds...
57 percent say he has exceeded his authority since taking office.
If the claim is that the poll is biased... Please provide backing in terms of specific methodology that you find could have influenced the outcome. Otherwise, claims of 'bias" are meaningless in my opinion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/tablet/2 … psos-poll/I don't doubt that many find the actions bad. We still have people that think illegal aliens pay their own way...as sanctuary cites are crying that they are going broke supporting them.
We still have people that think money from government is "free".
We have people, a great many, that would feed off of charity forever, because the "rich" don't pay "their share" of supporting the poor.
In other words, putting it simply, ignorant people are complaining that Trumps actions are wrong because they don't understand the costs we have built up and/or don't want to support themselves or the country.Do you mean that people don't understand that the arguments about "illegal" immigrants are disingenuous? Such as musk and others claiming the FEMA funds hotel rooms for illegal migrants? When in fact a program, with funds appropriated by our congress, can be used for temporary shelter for those awaiting asylum? And let's remember that a lot of folks don't understand that waiting for asylum is legal in this country. So yeah people are ignorant on many facts. Many people are buying the garbage that elon posts daily with no evidence other than vague screenshots.
"Ignorant people". Yep we sure do have them. It is extremely disheartening to see and hear these people parroting Trump's claims that Ukraine's leader is a dictator and that he started the war... Ignorance is rampant these days.The people who are easily manipulated by the Media will continue to be manipulated by the media... thankfully that number is becoming a smaller and smaller percentage all the time in America, trust in Legacy Media is lower now than people's trust in Congress... and that is as low as it can go.
Have you read articles on "Ground"? They have a bias meter at the bottom of each article rating if it leans right, left or center and they list their sources showing to what degree they have a track record of bias one way or the other.
The real bias in journalism I believe is in what they chose to cover and what play they give it (front page above the fold? First story in a broadcast? Comprising a panel to discuss?) Once they make those choices, most - not all - but most cover the facts accurately. If you want to do your own test, watch three or four newscasts or read three or four print media every day for a week. The differences are interesting but I've found them to be rare.Great site, had not seen or heard of it before. Thanks Kathleen!
Yeah... WP... wouldn't wipe my arse with that rag.
Also...we know how accurate polls are... Clinton was going to win in a landslide, etc. etc. ... they are polling all the wrong people ... if they are really polling anyone at all."WP... wouldn't wipe my arse with that rag."
Where did you find fault with the methodology of the poll? Specifically
You know, I really try to see the good that politicians do, but the only metric by which I can measure it is anecdotal observations within my immediate life. This is due to media failing on all sides to deliver the actual freaking news, and instead engaging in a constant slew of anti-(insert perceived adversary/problem) propaganda. I'm growing more and more weary and hopeless in the face of the constant misdirection and vitriol.
Here's what I have noticed as far as good the president has done for my personal life:
-Provided a means by which to fight back against workplace discrimination without involving the court system, and making the justice system more fair and unbiased in prosecution/deliberation, essentially made discrimination equally bad again
Other than that, here's what is still a huge problem in my community here in Southern California:
-Communities are still predominantly products of past immigration policies
-Crime is still on the rise
-Inflation is still growing in severity
-War is more a tangible fear though the players in the next one seem odd bedfellows by the current maps
-Homeless/Transient population is still growing rapidly
-Housing crisis is becoming a main focus for even middle class folks with great incomes and previously unshakable stability
-Social infrastructure continues to deteriorate as immigrants continue to flood in and receive priority public care prior to assimilation with current citizens
-Wealth redistribution is still going upwards to the already well off at an increasing rate
-The job market continues to shrink with unrealistic corporate standards remaining the status quo and becoming more delusional
-Sociopolitical divides are more apparent than ever, especially in poorer areas where political violence occurs and goes unreported daily (my job revolves around this, among other things)
-The government has done nothing in the way of repealing the Smith-Mundt Modernization act national security ammendments while flaunting the very minor disestablishing of only one agency (USAID) that was the most obvious and small culprit in the massive issue of targeting American citizens with hostile social engineering
-The education system is still broken and props up poor excuses for teachers and curricula utilizing a system designed for a time where factory workers were the backbone of every community and we had to actively produce factory workers as a focus
Trump has done almost nothing for me, my people, nor anyone I am able to observe in their lives. One side touts him as a demigod, the other side calls him literally Hitler, and then outside of the delulu masses we are all still struggling with no light at the end of this tunnel in sight.
Like any other administration, there is no transparency as to end goals, but constant reminders without true substance that everything is going according to plan.
If I took everything at face value, Trump and all of his circle are doing their best for everyone, but if I look at how things play out around me, the tangible evidence anecdotal or otherwise, nothing has changed for the better. These polls seem like propaganda.Kyler, that's good to know. And you're welcome.
Lol maga's are risin' up and they're pissed...
They were hoppin' mad in Roswell GA yesterday. Let it be known that this area voted Trump 65%.
"Republican Congressman’s Rich McCormick town hall is being flooded with constituents who are outraged at Trump and Musk coming for their health care and earned benefits."
" In one instance, an attendee referred to recent cuts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by asking, “Why is the supposedly conservative party taking such a radical and extremist and sloppy approach to this"
Am attendee shot back that the administration was taking a “chainsaw approach” to dismissing its employees.
The town hall was also punctuated by constituents saying, “we’re pissed,” and “don’t bend over,” as well as chants of “shame!”
As McCormick struggled to respond to the interruptions from the crowd and suggested he was offering solutions and people didn’t “want to hear,” one person can be heard shouting, “We want to work with someone better.”
One person who raised budget concerns Thursday could be heard telling McCormick that he had done a “disservice” and had failed to “stand up for us.”
In another instance, an attendee asked McCormick how he plans to “rein in the megalomaniac in the White House” following Trump’s “LONG LIVE THE KING” post on Truth Social, a question that was met by cheers and some people rising to their feet.
Well golly gee folks. The various video footage is ALL over X of people care to look. Hundreds showed up and couldn't actually get into the town hall and were put in an overflow.
https://youtube.com/shorts/Pj8TgycF1oQ? … 33Aek0NIsJ
https://x.com/cwebbonline/status/1892768357209776259Lol fox couch creature Duffy facing boos whenever he opens his mouth ...
https://x.com/HeartlandSignal/status/18 … 7107902716With the House in recess, many members of Congress have held town halls and attended other events in their districts this week, giving their constituents a chance to confront lawmakers in person to express their discontent about budget cuts and the layoffs of federal workers by DOGE.
Rep. Rich McCormick, a Georgia Republican, clashed with constituents throughout a packed town hall in Roswell on Thursday. One attendee pressed McCormick on why the administration was taking "such a radical and extremist and sloppy approach" to the layoffs, noting that the administration has tried to rehire some employees working on bird flu and the nation's nuclear weapons programs after they were fired.
Another, who said she was a descendent of Patrick Henry's sisters, said "tyranny is rising in the White House" and Mr. Trump has "declared himself king." She pressed McCormick on what he would do to "rein in the megalomaniac in the White House."
McCormick, who received loud boos for his response, then compared the crowd to the rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, seeking to overturn Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. That led to another round of boos, with some attendees yelling, "Shame!"
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre … rcna193164The implosion is coming...
In Oklahoma on Thursday, Republican Rep. Kevin Hern's constituents told him they were concerned about Musk's influence and asked whether Congress would conduct oversight of Mr. Trump and Musk. Hern deferred oversight of the Trump administration to the judicial branch.
In Wisconsin, Republican Rep. Scott Fitzgerald told constituents Thursday he has never been briefed on DOGE, as he faced pushback on the task force and calls for Congress to subpoena Musk to testify.
Republican Rep. Nick Begich of Alaska held a telephone town hall on Monday, where a constituent told the congressman his top priority should be the "strength and resilience of our democracy" and began asking him about checks and balances on the executive branch before the call went silent.
I'm a lifelong Republican," the man said. "But I am in the majority, I think, with a lot of Americans, a lot of Alaskans, that are really concerned that we have an executive branch that is more than willing to push or remove the guardrails that are on the executive branch and what we need from Congress and from the courts is to play that checks and balances role, not not to oppose obviously —"
At a town hall in Baker City, Oregon, on Wednesday, Republican Rep. Cliff Bentz heard this..
A woman in tears told Bentz that Congress should take responsibility for the "unsustainable" budgets that have been passed since Mr. Trump's first term "instead of expecting us working-class folks here to pay for your mistakes."
"And then blaming it all the Democrats and expecting the judges to bail us out, when you have plenty of power yourself," she said, noting that she is an independent voter. "I'm all for fiscal responsibility and downsizing the government. We've been through downsizing before and you can do it in a way that is humane and treats people with dignity."
In Wisconsin Republican congressman Fitzgerald was similarly booed and pelted with comments and questions...."How can we be represented by you if you don't have a voice in Congress?" asked Lorraine Henrickson.“I'm a lifelong Republican," the man said. "But I am in the majority, I think, with a lot of Americans, a lot of Alaskans, that are really concerned that we have an executive branch that is more than willing to push or remove the guardrails that are on the executive branch and what we need from Congress and from the courts is to play that checks and balances role, not not to oppose obviously —"
Exactly
——————-
And then blaming it all the Democrats and expecting the judges to bail us out, when you have plenty of power yourself," she said, noting that she is an independent voter. "I'm all for fiscal responsibility and downsizing the government. We've been through downsizing before and you can do it in a way that is humane and treats people with dignity."
Precisely, but I would add to that saying that cuts should be conducted by a surgeon rather than some goofy guy running around with an indiscriminate chain saw.There is but one problem with this idea. Our country does not have that long before the financial picture turns to mud. Liberals don't believe that, putting forth the picture that we can forever charge our children for what we want but don't want to pay for, but it is not true. It won't be that many more years until our country falls apart financially from the gross overspending by Congress and liberals.
So...if Trump (Musk) slows down and allows the Democrats to fight over every dollar saved - to wait for the surgeon rather than front line operations - we will not survive. We will go the way of the dodo bird, albeit kicking and screaming all the way. True, one half of the country will be screaming "Leave it alone! It's MY money, not yours!" and the other half screaming "Give it to me! I know better than you how to spend it!", but that will not change that the economy WILL fail if we do not rein in our gross overspending, and do it soon.Well, Wilderness, I have been hearing the same sky is falling stuff from Republicans and the Right for almost a century,
As I said before Republicans are not the fiscally responsible Party. Is it more than a rumor that GOP budgets proposals on the drawing board would increase the deficit? I dislike them and their sacred cows to a far greater degree than that of the Democrats.
So, don't blame the Left for overspending, your side has its own problems with spending excesses.
I and Democrats will resist reckless spending cuts that preserve GOP sacred cows while otherwise decimate the economy. There will be continued challenges and resistance. You can expect that ......Money saved and spend in favour of all American citizens is good. Both the Republicans Democrats, shouldn't make an issue outod this scenario. The bitter trvh is that the Ddms at this hard time should co-operate withe Republicans,encourage the moves, for the Dems will come to powdr again.
No, Trumpism and the threat that it poses need to be eliminated, reasonable people can not compromise with the Trumper…..
And the cycle continues; first Republicans, then Democrats, then repeat. And nothing truly gets accomplished.
It is truly amazing the number of people today that do not understand that compromise is the bedrock that democracy is built on. Today we seem to feel that if we can't get it all something is wrong and we must work harder. No compromise is ever possible. And we spend our time and resources undoing what others have done so that they can, when they get into power, undo what we have done.There is a faction within DC that is not interested in compromise...
They have drained the coffers of 36 Trillion dollars (much more but that is the debt we are left with in addition to the trillions of tax dollars misspent).
They are running a 2 trillion dollar deficit a year...
We spend 1 trillion dollars a year on the interest...
Half the government, agencies, some judges, are in open revolt against the President of the United States and his appointees.
There is a war ongoing for the soul of the Nation... will we be governed by a government that treats its citizens like chattel, that does not answer to the people, that is not accountable to the people... that treats them as deplorables whose rights need to be extinguished?
There is no compromising with that is there?
You either root it out and destroy it, or it destroys the country, the Constitution and all that America was created to represent." . . . will we be governed by a government that treats its citizens like chattel, that does not answer to the people, that is not accountable to the people... that treats them as deplorables whose rights need to be extinguished?"
That is a question you will have to ask Trump or maybe Musk. Who knows these days. The keyword is will. That projects to the future not the past, which conceivably was your intent with the question.
For me, I am still watching Chaos unfold while entropy seeks to predict the future.We were very close to being a government that treats its citizens like chattel.
If not for Trump many more Americans would have been blind to how bad it had become... the efforts to destroy Trump and his ability to expose how corrupt the system is, how unanswerable it is to the people, is why he has such support today.
This is one month in... in a year we will see what difference they are making, it is too early to judge.
If they fail, America is doomed to decline faster than most imagine it can.
""They are running a 2 trillion dollar deficit a year..."
And how much does the Musk Trump'budget plan add to that deficit?
IPSOS/Reuters
The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll, released Thursday, shows that many Americans, 58 percent, are worried that programs like student financial aid and Social Security payments could face delays.
Also,
"Most U.S. adults in the latest survey, 62 percent, disagreed with the notion that the president is authorized to terminate federal employees who do not align with his views or agenda. About 23 percent said he should be entitled to make that decision."
Just over 70 percent of respondents said the wealthy have way too much influence over the current White House. About 69 percent also argued that those individuals are profiting off of their connections and proximity to the current administration, per the poll.
The concerns are present even among Trump’s die ardent supporters, with 44 percent of them claiming the richest executives and billionaires are making more money, according to the survey.
The backlash is brewing."The implosion is coming..."
Yes it is, finally and at last. Not all understand why a collapse of the deep state, is essential for America to flourish and thrive, but they will!The Deep State is the enemy of Democracy
Not Donald Trump...
https://youtube.com/shorts/8dijtXxSUVU? … oUdJJknx4X
Americans are not happy...
Stocks Notch Worst Week Since Trump’s Inauguration...
Fueling the decline was an unexpected drop in the University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index, which slumped to its lowest level in more than a year in February. The index showed consumers more worried over the path ahead for the economy than economists had expected.
The survey showed consumers expecting that prices for goods and services would rise at an annual rate of 3.5 percent over the next five to 10 years, the most since 1995. Consumers are wary of spending on big-ticket items, and more than half of the survey respondents expect the unemployment rate to rise over the next year.
For investors, inflation expectations have taken on renewed importance as the Federal Reserve has signaled that it is unlikely to lower interest rates again unless inflation falls closer to its 2 percent target.
The Trump administration’s policy priorities, especially those targeting tariffs on U.S. trading partners and the deportation of immigrants, have raised concerns about reigniting inflation, leading to higher prices at the supermarket and higher interest rates on mortgages and other debt.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/21/busi … trump.htmlAmericans are not happy...
After a month long honeymoon for the G.O.P. at the start of President Trump’s term, lawmakers are confronting a groundswell of fear and disaffection in districts around the country.
And in Texas...
"Some came with complaints about Elon Musk, President Trump’s billionaire ally who is carrying out an assault on the federal bureaucracy. Others demanded guarantees that Republicans in Congress would not raid the social safety net. Still others chided the G.O.P. to push back against Mr. Trump’s moves to trample the constitutional power of Congress.
When Representative Pete Sessions, Republican of Texas, arrived at a crowded community center on Saturday in the small rural town of Trinity in East Texas, he came prepared to deliver a routine update on the administration’s first month in office. Instead, he fielded a barrage of frustration and anger from constituents questioning Mr. Trump’s agenda and his tactics — and pressing Mr. Sessions and his colleagues on Capitol Hill to do something about it."
One constituent stating...
"Louis Smith, a veteran who lives in East Texas, told Mr. Sessions that he agreed with the effort to root out excessive spending, but he criticized the way it was being handled and presented to the public. you need to tell more people,” Mr. Smith said. “The guy in South Africa is not doing you any good — he’s hurting you more than he’s helping,” he added, referring to Mr. Musk and drawing nods and applause from many in the room.
I'm thinking these folks won't be doing many town halls in the future lolAmericans aren't concealing it...
February consumer confidence posts biggest drop since 2021 in latest sign of slowing economy..
The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index slipped to 98.3 for the month, down nearly 7% and below the Dow Jones forecast for 102.3. It was the largest monthly drop since August 2021.
Consumers grew more pessimistic about the economic outlook in February as worries brewed about a slowing economy and rising inflation, the Conference Board reported Tuesday...
And more for Americans to be happy about?..Shoppers still suffering from the skyrocketing cost of eggs will soon see similar price hikes on beef
Biden had this country on the road to recovery from the pandemic... Trump could have come in and just let the trend continue rather than be a bull in a china shop
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/25/februar … onomy.htmlAmericans are so happy that Republicans need to cut their Town Halls....
"Party leaders suggest that if lawmakers feel the need to hold such events, they do tele-town halls or at least vet attendees to avoid scenes that become viral clips, according to GOP sources."
You can run but you can't hide.
Republican congressman in a blood red districts that cant have a good town hall... 1 month after Trump takes office...LOL
https://x.com/MalcontentmentT/status/18 … 8804760672
https://x.com/TheTNHoller/status/1893153160165835154
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre … rcna193766More Americans concealing their happiness...
https://x.com/Fritschner/status/1895910348882133109
I give this guy points for bravery...Unhappy in Kansas..
Republican Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall ended a rural town hall meeting early after people angry about budget cuts, funding freezes and other actions by President Trump shouted the senator down. Trump won the rural northwest Kansas county of Logan with 85% of the vote.
As soon as Marshall entered the meeting, people booed and started peppering him with questions and comments about the war in Ukraine, the hollowing of federal agencies and rural health care....
https://lawrencekstimes.com/2025/03/01/ … ll-oakley/I am writing to as many Democrat representatives as possible suggesting that they hold town hall meetings in republican districts...
This war is at the grass roots, Willow. Living in Florida, my mission is to undermine the GOP at every opportunity, supporting this states Democratic Party and to whack a mole where and whenever the Right rears it head to the extent that I have influence across the nation.
Vance try to slink off for a little vacation and Vermonters lined the street to show him just how "happy" they are LOL
https://x.com/NAFORaccoon/status/1895916398649753920Well got to give these Republicans points for these Town Hall meetings LOL
"town hall audience has now completely turned against Republican Rep. Diana Harshbarger:
“There’s been a mandate to the president from the American people. Am I correct?”
Crowd: “NO!!”
https://x.com/CalltoActivism/status/1896015487852822839No, Americans aren't happy...
54% of U.S. adults believe the country is moving in the wrong direction
56% of Americans, including 65% of independents, think President Trump has been rushing to make changes without considering the impact.
55% of U.S. residents, including 61% of independents, believe the staff and funding cuts to federal government agencies will do more harm than good.
60% of residents believe most federal government employees are essential to the functioning of the United States
58% of Americans are not very confident or not confident at all that President Trump will follow court rulings if the courts block his executive orders.
Now that's what I call a majority.
https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/the … arch-2025/
Rating of marist? Least biased.. high credibility
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/marist-p … edibility/
For those who want to label this bias, please point out these specifics in the methodology...Maybe, Trump was right, you Trump voting veterans are “suckers”.
What else can explain cutting 20 percent of VA staffing and expecting it to keep its promises and maintain its standard of service regarding responsiveness to our veteran population?
https://apnews.com/article/veterans-aff … 592e165712Yes, Credence Just when you thought the Trump administration’s denigration of the federal workers it's sending to unemployment lines couldn’t get worse, one official decided to demean the many veterans who work in government offices....
Alina Habba, counsel to Trump, was talking about the Musk-led firing of federal employee when she suggested some workers who are veterans might not be “fit to have a job.”
Habba was asked about the thousands of veterans who’ve lost their jobs in the recent federal purge and “what the administration can do to at least help salvage their lives.”
She responded: “We have a fiscal responsibility to use taxpayer dollars to pay people that actually work. That doesn’t mean that we forget our veterans by any means. We are going to care for them in the right way, but perhaps they’re not fit to have a job at this moment, or not willing to come to work.”
Not fit to have a job? Not willing to come to work?
This administration is tone deaf. Federal workers don’t deserve such dismissive treatment. And veterans absolutely don’t deserve demeaning comments from a two-bit lawyer who happened to fail up.
This is the administration Republicans wanted. So I assume they're going to stand behind this insult to veterans?
Here she is...
https://bsky.app/profile/rexhuppke.bsky … l4cwv7bs2dWillow, is this guy nuts. People can't see how he despitefully uses constituencies to get what he wants?
He sells 60 dollar bibles and appeals to the Christian Right, when Satan himself would have nothing on him.
Now its the Vets, he talks about supporting the military and the men and women in uniform, but dispenses with them one he has acquired their votes. Beyond being stupid, he is dangerously treacherous and duplicitous.
This has all been beyond the pale, I hope people wake up and pay attention.
The Republicans, the Congress in particular, are so mesmerized and afraid of this beast, Trump, that he could shoot the Pope on 5th Avenue and they would manufacture some sort absurd of spin to explain and support it.
Trump is a petty, amoral man who I don't think believes in anything or anyone beyond saving his own hide, with not so much as an ounce of intergrity. And this is the sort of man we have as President?
Veterans march to happen February 14th in Washington DC... I don't think it's to show how happy they are.
More than 10,000 people turned out for a rally with Bernie Sanders in Warren Michigan as part of his national “Fighting Oligarchy” tour....
Protests in big cities and small towns continue to grow throughout the country while Republicans receive guidance to shut down plans for their Town Halls...
Never seen anything like this. Trade wars, rising prices, falling confidence, and sinking stock markets are not what wall Street or main street voted for.Looks like the GOP town halls are turning into a slug fest... if this is pattern, it looks like the people are not happy. Just yesterday....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/north-caroli … 02482.html
I see that you have already noted the story, sorry...
Well they were told not to do Town Halls anymore...a lot of anger in North Carolina. These asshat republican reps thought they had fooled the people. Nope...
https://x.com/ArtCandee/status/1900316698244247595Americans are actually growing more furious by the day with Elon and Trump
https://x.com/ABC/status/1900527097644187657Not sure why they keep going out to public gatherings? Gosh, why does his wife go a long?
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1900347095069917540Some are becoming informed/educated on the stages of totalitarianism taking hold. Just look at how they are erasing the history of minorities and women under the disguise of combating DEI.
Arlington Cemetery website drops links for Black, Hispanic, and women veterans by Task Purpose (Mar 13, 2025)
The website for Arlington National Cemetery "unpublished" links to lists of notable graves, walking tours and educational material pertaining to Black, Hispanic and women veterans, as well as some Medal of Honor recipients.
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/arlingt … Vw28Fyw_Mg
Task & Purpose is an American online news and culture publication founded in 2014 that focuses on the United States Armed Forces, defense industry, and the military community, serving millions of readers monthly
"But in recent weeks, the cemetery’s public website has scrubbed dozens of pages on gravesites and educational materials that include histories of prominent Black, Hispanic and female service members buried in the cemetery, along with educational material on dozens of Medal of Honor recipients and maps of prominent gravesites of Marine Corps veterans and other services.
Cemetery officials confirmed to Task & Purpose that the pages were “unpublished” to meet recent orders by President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth targeting race and gender-related language and policies in the military.
Gone from public view are links to lists of dozens of “Notable Graves” at Arlington of women and Black and Hispanic service members who are buried in the cemetery. About a dozen other “Notable Graves” lists remain highlighted on the website, including lists of politicians, athletes and even foreign nationals."Cemetery officials confirmed to Task & Purpose that the pages were “unpublished” to meet recent orders by President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth targeting race and gender-related language and policies in the military.
Gone from public view are links to lists of dozens of “Notable Graves” at Arlington of women and Black and Hispanic service members who are buried in the cemetery. About a dozen other “Notable Graves” lists remain highlighted on the website, including lists of politicians, athletes and even foreign nationals."
------
Who wouldn't have a problem with that policy, is it now that Black and female contributions are now not considered notable? What message do you think that I would receive about the purpose of such a policy?
Trump continues to be my enemy at every turn.The war on DEI is iffy. But, a fact is a consequence is the writing of revisionist history. All one has to do is look at the list of words that are prohibited to be used by federal agencies.
Trump’s List of Banned Words: It’s Worse Than You Thought! published at Diane Ravitch's blog / source New York Times
https://dianeravitch.net/2025/03/08/tru … u-thought/
"Reporters at The New York Times pored through 5,000 pages from various federal agencies and found that the following words had been removed from government websites and publications. As the article points out, Trump and Musk frequently claim to be champions of “free speech,” but they have no problem censoring words and ideas that offend them."
The action taken to remove the so called offensive words are an outright attack on 'Free Speech'. See the complete list at the link shared above. Be prepared to scroll.Is that not the behavior of a bigoted tyrant, who is he to say what words can be mentioned by others?
This man is going to cross the line and we will wait for him with truncheons in hand to remind him that he is not just free to do as he likes, this is not Trump, Inc."Is that not the behavior of a bigoted tyrant, who is he to say what words can be mentioned by others?"
It surely is, and it behooves us the remember that the whole PC concept (created, grown and demanded by liberals) falls squarely in the center of that idea.
In my view--- Erasing history—whether by renaming Military bases, removing statues, or scrubbing military records—undermines the ability of future generations to learn from the past. Regardless of ideology, history should be preserved in its entirety, not selectively altered to fit current political trends. Arlington National Cemetery holds the stories of those who served, and every aspect of that history—whether it aligns with today’s views or not—deserves to remain intact.
Once history is erased or rewritten to fit an agenda, it becomes easier to manipulate public perception and control narratives. It’s a dangerous precedent, one that echoes the very censorship and revisionism that free societies should resist. There’s a difference between contextualizing history and trying to erase it. What’s happening now isn’t about understanding history—it’s about silencing parts of it. That’s unacceptable.So, now, Sharlee, you are cookin with gas....
It is not erasing history to not extol members of the treasonist Confederacy by giving them honor in naming our military bases after them. The Germans do not name any of their facities after Goebbels or Goering.....Is it "erasing history" to destroy/eliminate that truth that millions of Americans found that (for instance) Robert E Lee was a true hero, serving his country in an unforgettable fashion? Is it "erasing history" to destroy/eliminate the memory that Jefferson Davis was a great man, also serving his people?
Shall we set aside the feelings and thoughts of everyone in the South so as to demonize them better? Shall we pretend that they were not a part of this country, shall we hide that they were children of our forefathers just as we are?From the positions of Germany they could have said the same about Hitler or Himmler. Because Goebbels served his people, too. These heroes you extol prosecuted a war that killed hundreds of thousands, and advocated succession and the break up of the Union, how were they great men after 1861? I live in the South and I don't have those feelings..... they were children of YOUR forefathers, I have nothing to respect or honor them for.
Germany has never tried to hide its history. You ask if they name facilities after Goebbels—no, they don't. They've preserved concentration camps to ensure that history remains factual. In the U.S., we've kept reminders in the form of statues, and yes, some military bases are named after figures from the Civil War. We also have history books that depict the shameful chapters of our past, showing the roles these men in the statues played. After all this time, don't you think those who stand atop these statues, many of whom were on the wrong side of justice, are aware of their place in history? Yet, they remain part of it, and I believe it is crucial to acknowledge how far a society can fall if the right propaganda is spread and adopted through hate speech. History shows us, most strikingly with the Holocaust, how easily humanity can become hateful and accept atrocities when they are glorified and normalized. The same was true with slavery. Do we need to plant a seed in America that discriminates against Israel? I ask you to remember that 1,200 Jews were slaughtered in despicable ways. How can we condone someone who asks a university to sever ties with Israel? It is odd how so many can pick a side in this situation, when both sides have committed the killing of innocents. But our history shows us well—we are very capable of justifying almost anything.
It has been said that history is written by the victors. The problem with the Palestinians and Netanyahu is there are no victors. I used to believe that war was about economics, but with the recent world conflicts, it is more about land.
The Palestinian sided with Hamas because Netanyahu will never want a two state solution,. He pushed Jewish settlements further into Palestinian territories' and made refugees out of the people living in their own houses.
There is a price to pay for that kind of violence and Hamas doled out that price.. Netanyahu then turned Gaza into rubble and killed thousands of Palestinian men women, and children under the guise of looking for Hamas,
He used American made bunker buster bombs to demolish not only tunnel complexes but also tall buildings and public infrastructures. In my book, both sides have created crimes against humanity, but as they say, "war is hell."The Palestinians have rejected multiple proposals for a two-state solution throughout history. Here are some key instances:
1937 – The Peel Commission Plan:
The British Peel Commission proposed partitioning Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The Jewish leadership accepted it as a basis for negotiation, but the Arab leadership, including the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, rejected it outright.
1947 – United Nations Partition Plan (Resolution 181):
The UN proposed dividing Palestine into a Jewish state (55% of the land) and an Arab state (45%). The Jewish Agency accepted the plan, but the Arab Higher Committee and surrounding Arab states rejected it, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
1967 – After the Six-Day War (Khartoum Resolution):
Following Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War, the Arab League issued the “Three No’s” in Khartoum: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.
2000 – Camp David Summit (Clinton Parameters):
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, with U.S. President Bill Clinton as a mediator, offered Yasser Arafat a Palestinian state covering nearly all of the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. Arafat rejected the offer without making a counterproposal, leading to the Second Intifada.
2008 – Olmert-Abbas Negotiations:
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed a Palestinian state with nearly 94% of the West Bank, land swaps for the remaining 6%, and a shared Jerusalem. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas did not accept the deal and later admitted he "turned it down."
There have been other missed opportunities, but these five are the most notable historical rejections.
Israel has generally been open to the idea of a two-state solution but has rejected specific proposals under certain conditions. Here are key moments in history where Israel either refused or had reservations about a two-state solution:
1937 – Peel Commission Plan
The Zionist leadership, led by David Ben-Gurion, expressed willingness to consider the plan despite concerns about the small size of the proposed Jewish state. However, some Jewish factions rejected it. The Arabs, on the other hand, outright refused the plan.
1947 – UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181)
The Jewish Agency accepted the plan, while the Arab leadership rejected it and launched a war. However, some Zionist groups, like Menachem Begin’s Irgun, opposed the partition, wanting a larger Jewish state.
1979–1980 – Autonomy Talks Post-Camp David Accords
Israel, under Prime Minister Menachem Begin, agreed to Palestinian autonomy but resisted full statehood. The Palestinian leadership (PLO) rejected the framework because it did not include full sovereignty.
1993–2000 – Oslo Accords and Camp David Summit
Israel engaged in negotiations and signed the Oslo Accords, recognizing the PLO. At Camp David (2000), Israel offered significant concessions for a Palestinian state, but Yasser Arafat walked away without countering.
2009–Present – Netanyahu’s Stance
In 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated conditional support for a demilitarized Palestinian state.
However, in 2015, he declared there would be no Palestinian state under his leadership, though he later softened this stance. More recently, Israel's policies, including settlement expansion and opposition to Palestinian UN recognition, have been seen as roadblocks to a two-state solution.
In summary, while Israel has largely supported the concept of two states, it has opposed specific plans due to security concerns, territorial disputes, and Palestinian leadership's rejection of prior agreements.
How can one fight a war without casualties? How can one live in fear of a neighbor in perpetuity? How can one get to a two state solution when the other side will not even consider it, now for many, many decades. This conflict is about religion and land, and this is the very worst kind of conflict.Throughout history, the Arab people are war-mongers.
Here is what I found as a result of my research. I was just curious as to understanding the other side of the story.
The rejection of two-state solutions by Palestinians has been influenced by a variety of historical, political, and social factors. Here are some key reasons:
Historical Grievances: Many Palestinians view the two-state proposals as unfair, often allocating less desirable land to them while favoring Israel. For instance, the 1947 UN Partition Plan was rejected because it gave a significant portion of the land to the Jewish state, despite Palestinians being the majority population at the time.
Right of Return: A major sticking point has been the Palestinian demand for the right of return for refugees and their descendants who were displaced during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Accepting a two-state solution often means compromising on this demand, which many Palestinians see as a fundamental right.
Distrust and Security Concerns: Decades of conflict have fostered deep mistrust between both sides. Palestinians often fear that a two-state solution would not guarantee their security or sovereignty, while Israelis worry about potential threats from a neighboring Palestinian state.
Leadership and Internal Divisions: Palestinian leadership has sometimes been divided on accepting two-state solutions. Leaders like Yasser Arafat rejected proposals like the Camp David Summit in 2000, citing concerns over the terms offered, including issues related to Jerusalem and borders.
International Influence: External pressures and alliances have also played a role. Some regional and international actors have supported alternative solutions, such as a single democratic state, which aligns with certain Palestinian factions' visions.I appreciate the effort you put into researching this topic. In my view, it's always valuable to understand the different views on such a complex issue, and you, sir, have outlined some of the key reasons behind Palestinian rejection of a two-state solution very well.
The historical grievances are definitely a major factor, especially with the way land was allocated in past proposals. From the Palestinian perspective, the 1947 UN Partition Plan seemed unfair given their majority status at the time, and their rejection of it set the stage for decades of conflict. The right of return is another critical point—many Palestinians may see it as a non-negotiable issue, while Israel views it as an existential threat, making it one of the toughest barriers to peace.
The deep distrust on both sides also can’t be overstated. Decades of violence, shifting political leadership, and failed peace talks have left both Israelis and Palestinians wary of each other’s intentions. Even when serious negotiations have taken place, like the Camp David Summit in 2000, unresolved issues like borders and control over Jerusalem have led to breakdowns in talks, and both sides walked away.
The influence of external actors is another crucial point. Some Palestinian factions push for a one-state solution instead, while regional players have historically influenced Palestinian decision-making. And then there’s the internal division—without a unified leadership, reaching a consensus on a two-state solution becomes even more difficult.
Your summary captures a lot of the core reasons why a two-state solution has been rejected at different points in history. It’s a complicated issue, and I think looking at both sides is important to really grasp why peace remains so elusive.Thank you and thanks for understanding the other side of a very complex situation.
I agree with Sharlee; your efforts are much appreciated.
But I'm not sure that anyone can truly understand the "other" side of this situation, whichever side that "other" is. I think it quite possible that the is little but a matter of hatred, hatred that goes back long before anyone alive to day was born. Perhaps long before civilization came to the region. Miebakagh57 is right; it is a deeply set religious matter, based on hatred by both sides.So very complex, and has been for decades. I just hope for a peaceful solution. The killing and destruction must stop. There are two sides to a coin. Both sides at this point are long tarnished due to history.
One silient factor mostly over-looked here is religion. God, in wisdom told. Israel to do away with the Palestine people. Instead, Israel, befried them, and the friendship got sore, which is the root of the problem.
You are right, many Israeli settlers believe it is their God given right to take over the Palestinian territories.
Finding a solution to the challenge is even harder than the issue itself. It's due to the complexity of human nature.
I completely agree. When a conflict is deeply rooted in religious beliefs and territorial disputes, it becomes nearly impossible to resolve because it isn't just about land—it’s about identity, faith, and history. Unlike political or economic conflicts, which can sometimes be negotiated through compromise, religious wars over land tend to be far more entrenched.
People see their claim as divinely ordained, making concessions feel like a betrayal of their faith. This makes peace talks incredibly difficult, as neither side wants to be seen as giving up something sacred. The emotions tied to these conflicts run so deep that even if leaders sign agreements, deep-seated resentment can last for generations. The war in Israel is a tragic example of how historical grievances, religious devotion, and territorial disputes combine into a cycle of violence that resists easy solutions.
The hardest part isn’t just stopping the current fighting—it’s breaking the mindset that fuels it. And when both sides see their cause as righteous, finding common ground becomes a monumental challenge.
Are Americans happy?
It's still about the economy...
Just 1% rate the economy as “excellent” and 17% as “good,” with 39% calling it “only fair” and 43% rating it “poor.”
Asked to gauge their satisfaction about how much Trump is doing to battle inflation, a majority say they aren’t satisfied — 46% say they are “not at all satisfied”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- … rcna195860March 16 -More registered voters say the U.S. is heading in the right direction (44%) than at any point since early 2004, though a majority (54%) still say the country is on the wrong track, according to an NBC News poll out this morning.
Why it matters: President Trump has enjoyed some of his highest approval ratings in the early days of his second term — though the specifics of his aggressive policies have begun to irk Americans in recent polling.
But as the president rolls out a cascade of controversial actions, Democrats are the ones hitting new polling lows — underscoring frustration within the party that lawmakers are being flattened by a GOP steamroller.
Driving the news: Trump's job approval rating in the new NBC News poll (47%) matches his all-time highs in NBC News polling throughout his political career (37% "strongly approve," 10% "somewhat approve").
1,000 registered voters were polled March 7-11, with a margin of error of ±3.1%.
The other side: The Democratic Party reached an all-time low in popularity in NBC polling dating back to 1990.
A net 27% of those polled said they have positive views of the party (20% positive and 7% very positive).
CNN's latest polling also found that the Democratic party's favorability rating among Americans is now at just 29%, a new low in in the outlet's polling dating back to 1992.
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/16/trump- … w-new-poll
More happy folks!
https://x.com/MAGACult2/status/1901105484171522518
https://x.com/PaulRieckhoff/status/1901106353323528531
The number of protests we are seeing in this country both big and small is really just incredible.Grand Rapids, Kent County, Michigan, has experienced a political shift in recent years. Historically a Republican stronghold, the county has become more competitive between Democrats and Republicans. In the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump secured 48.3% of the vote, while Hillary Clinton received 45.2%. By 2020, the dynamics changed, with Joe Biden obtaining 51.9% and Trump 45.8%. and in 2024 Harris received 51.8 %. It would seem that the protesters are mot at all happy with Trump.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e … nt-results
Seems like veterans don't like being screwed over by Elon and Trump either...
https://youtu.be/RJ2l7caQa2c?si=4auFMRqmqXoyn_pqTucson Arizona
https://x.com/maddenifico/status/1901330960001413501
Gosh I never remember this level of protest or really any protest during the Biden administrationAmerica is very dynamic in her politics. Political parties are marching.
It is awesome to see. The protests grow in size and area every weekend. Americans haven't been this unhappy in a very long time.
A small town in rural Illinois... Why would people get out and spend their time doing this???
https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/1900990065435898169Western North Carolina showing up...this is awesome.
https://x.com/Suzierizzo1/status/1900953543357460699Willow, it looks like you made your point. People are beginning to see what it is that they warmly embraced.
Helter Skelter: and this is just the beginning, it has not even been 100 days.
Trump in his war against a free press and opposition to any dissent will eventually use force to remove all dissenting voices not just the ones with green cards….. Then there will remain no doubt as to who this man is and what he represents, will people wake up then?
This. They can certainly vent. They can lie, they can make assumptions, they can repeat what they have not checked. They can certainly call names (a favorite today).
But they cannot reason, they cannot think rationally, they cannot think critically."They can certainly call names (a favorite today)....
You're talking about Trump here right??I agree with you.
At 94, Thomas Sowell remains one of the greatest minds of the 21Century.
He wrote an excellent book called "Black Rednecks and White Liberals." It is one of my all-time favorites.Things are going great... better than I had hoped...
The White House is in full blown F_the_Judges mode, which it very much needs to be if they want to accomplish anything. In other words, low level Judges will no longer be heeded when it comes to anything that the Administration wants to do.
This is what Trump was missing in 2016-2020... he had not surrounded himself with capable people willing to get the WILL OF THE PEOPLE done. Now he does... plenty more than Kennedy and Gabbard.
The next critical component is ignoring ALL judges and ALL rulings where there is ANY reason to doubt the jurisdiction of that judge in relations to the Executive Office and having ANY authority in interceding.
If its not the Supreme Court or one of the handful of Federal/Regional Courts, then they can go f themselves... it was ludicrous that there were minor judges halting everything the Trump Administration was attempting to do in his 1st term... looks like this time they are going to do what should be done, ignore them like they don't have any authority over the Executive Office or what it orders be done.
Democrats PANIC After Trump IGNORES Judge Order To RETURN Criminal Aliens To US Soil, Trump Said NO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY6oCTteceoSo you are completely in favor of subverting the constitution in terms of three co -equal branches of government at this point?
Please cite the part of the constitution that is being subverted.
I'd like to know.To quote Ken...
"The next critical component is ignoring ALL judges and ALL rulings where there is ANY reason to doubt the jurisdiction of that judge in relations to the Executive Office and having ANY authority in interceding."
"looks like this time they are going to do what should be done, ignore them like they don't have any authority over the Executive Office or what it orders be done."
You really think that squares with the Constitution? Obeying court orders is not optional...I guess you really can't quote the US Constitution to make your point.
I wish you would have attempted it.
I would've taken great pleasure in pointing out that executive actions by a president in the course of performing his duties are not subject to judicial review. Such judicial review is NOT mentioned in the US Constitution.
A judge can't stop troop movements they do not agree with or prevent American jets from bombing foreign locations. This is the power given to the executive branch and not the judiciary.
Defending the United States is not a topic for judicial review.
The judge subject to impeachment overstepped his authority. He is a local district court rogue judge trying to interfere with the actions of the executive branch. I hope when he is put on trial he is found guilty and removed from office.
Here is a good example to watch. A low-information CNN reporter tries to get the better of a President Donald Trump's White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. I hope she learned from this exchange and remembers it. This exchange is something everyone should watch and learn from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDhy3gYfQXw'I would've taken great pleasure in pointing out that executive actions by a president in the course of performing his duties are not subject to judicial review...
You cannot be serious??
Yes, presidential executive actions, including executive orders, are absolutely subject to judicial review, meaning federal courts can review their legality and strike them down if found unconstitutional or in conflict with existing laws.
The power of federal courts to review the actions of the executive branch, including presidential executive orders, is a cornerstone of the our system of checks and balances.
Do you actually believe that president's power to issue executive orders is not limited and shouldn't be consistent with the Constitution and existing laws?? That's not the way it works.
The Constitution's principle of separation of powers means the judicial branch, through judicial review, has the authority to interpret the constitutionality of laws and actions of the legislative and executive branches, serving as a check on their power.... Pretty basic.
If maga has learned anything over Trump's first administration it's that Courts can invalidate executive orders if they find them to be unconstitutional or in conflict with federal law.
I'm quite confident that the other maga posters on this forum completely understand this but will stay silent.
Or maybe not, I challenge the other maga folks to join in support of your statement that a president's executive actions are not subject to judicial review...You need to watch the video I provided.
The president conducting the defense of the United States is not subject to judicial review.
Please, prove what you're claiming.You once again chose to take only a small part of a paragraph and did not address the context of the comment.
"I guess you really can't quote the US Constitution to make your point.
I wish you would have attempted it.
I would've taken great pleasure in pointing out that executive actions by a president in the course of performing his duties are not subject to judicial review. Such judicial review is NOT mentioned in the US Constitution" Mike
Did you find the judicial review mentioned in the Constitution?
The principle of separation of powers is established in the U.S. Constitution, but judicial review—the judiciary’s power to determine the constitutionality of laws and executive actions—is not explicitly mentioned in the text of the Constitution.I'll repeat....
The Constitution's principle of separation of powers means the judicial branch, through judicial review, has the authority to interpret the constitutionality of laws and actions of the legislative and executive branches, serving as a check on their power.... Pretty basic.
Article III of the Constitution establishes the judicial branch, the power of judicial review... the ability of the court to declare laws or actions unconstitutional.
And as Credence has added...Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review, allowing the courts to declare laws unconstitutional, thereby solidifying the judiciary's role in interpreting the Constitution and ensuring a balance of power among the three branches of government.
Are you folks really trying to redefine the role of the judicial branch??The Constitution does not explicitly grant judicial review, Marbury v. Madison only established it as a core function of the judiciary. Judicial review is not mentioned in the Constitution, in practice, executive actions can still be challenged in court.
Your statement that "Article III of the Constitution establishes the judicial branch, the power of judicial review... the ability of the court to declare laws or actions unconstitutional" is partially accurate, but not entirely correct in its interpretation of Article III.
Here’s why:
Article III does indeed establish the judicial branch and defines its powers and jurisdiction, as outlined in the sections I provided earlier. However, the power of judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in Article III.
Judicial review, the ability of the courts to declare laws or actions unconstitutional, was not written into the Constitution directly. Instead, the principle of judicial review was established by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803), when Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that it was the judiciary’s role to review the constitutionality of laws and executive actions. This case solidified the concept of judicial review, but it was not outlined in Article III.
To summarize: Article III establishes the judicial branch, but it does not directly grant the power of judicial review—that power was inferred by the courts, particularly through Marbury v. Madison.
Article III: The Judicial Branch
Section 1:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.How about you go ahead and tell us the role of the judicial branch... Specifically article III
Is maga actually trying to say that the judicial branch has no role in determining the legality and the constitutionality of an executive order? Are you kidding me...
https://www.fjc.gov/history/administrat … substance.I added the information in my comment that offers directly what Article III states. Can't get any clearer than the actual word-by-word from the Constitution.
Sharlee01 wrote:
The Constitution does not explicitly grant judicial review, Marbury v. Madison only established it as a core function of the judiciary. Judicial review is not mentioned in the Constitution, in practice, executive actions can still be challenged in court.
Your statement that "Article III of the Constitution establishes the judicial branch, the power of judicial review... the ability of the court to declare laws or actions unconstitutional" is partially accurate, but not entirely correct in its interpretation of Article III.
Here’s why:
Article III does indeed establish the judicial branch and defines its powers and jurisdiction, as outlined in the sections I provided earlier. However, the power of judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in Article III.
Judicial review, the ability of the courts to declare laws or actions unconstitutional, was not written into the Constitution directly. Instead, the principle of judicial review was established by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803), when Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that it was the judiciary’s role to review the constitutionality of laws and executive actions. This case solidified the concept of judicial review, but it was not outlined in Article III.
To summarize: Article III establishes the judicial branch, but it does not directly grant the power of judicial review—that power was inferred by the courts, particularly through Marbury v. Madison.
Article III: The Judicial Branch
Section 1:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
It seems that once again, you're picking a few sentences that align with your perspective, which causes you to lose the full context. By selecting only the parts that support your view, you miss the complete picture. This kind of selective content doesn't allow for a full understanding of the information, whether it's a news report or the Constitution.I can make this real simple...
Your statement .."the power of judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in Article III".
So if we want to get down to explicit language of the Constitution...
the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention the power of the President to issue executive orders, but it is generally accepted as part of the President's authority to execute laws, as outlined in Article II....
In the same manner the power of judicial review is widely understood to be an implied power derived from the Constitution's principles, particularly Article III.
The Constitution, It's language, while foundational, is not always explicit. It often uses general terms that allow for interpretation and adaptation over time.... We've based an entire legal system on a document lacking in explicit language.Yes, The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention the power of the President to issue executive orders. However, the authority for executive orders is generally accepted as part of the President's constitutional powers under Article II, which outlines the President's role and duties.
Here’s a breakdown of the facts:
Article II of the Constitution grants the President several powers, including:
The executive power (Section 1): This is the general grant of power to enforce and administer federal laws. The duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed (Section 3): This has been interpreted as the basis for the President to issue executive orders to carry out and enforce laws passed by Congress.
Commander-in-Chief (Section 2): This grants the President authority over the military and national defense.
Appointment powers (Section 2): The President can appoint judges, ambassadors, and other high officials, with the consent of the Senate.
Authority to Prioritize Deportations: While Trump’s Commander-in-Chief powers are focused on military matters, he used his role to prioritize immigration enforcement, including targeting criminal gangs. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and other immigration laws, the President, through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), can direct agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to focus on the removal of individuals linked to criminal organizations, including those considered national security threats. This is an executive function, and Trump used executive authority to prioritize the deportation of individuals associated with MS-13 and other criminal gangs.
Executive Action and Immigration Enforcement: Trump’s administration issued several directives to focus on the deportation of criminal migrants, including those connected to gangs like MS-13. His executive orders called for enhanced border security, increased deportations of criminal migrants, and a greater focus on individuals who were convicted of serious crimes. In practice, this meant a higher priority on deporting gang members and those considered a national security threat.
Designation as National Security Threat: While the Commander-in-Chief power does not directly govern immigration enforcement, the Trump administration used the legal tools available, such as terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds (TRIG) and material support of terrorism provisions, to classify certain migrant gang members as threats to national security. This gave the administration legal grounds to deport these individuals based on their criminal activities, especially if they were involved in violent gangs or activities that posed a broader security risk.
So while the Commander-in-Chief powers are generally linked to military and defense matters, the Trump administration did use national security arguments in its immigration enforcement policies. He categorized certain gangs, such as MS-13, as national security threats and made their deportation a priority, using his executive authority to direct immigration enforcement agencies to focus on such individuals. This approach aimed to address the perceived threat that these gangs posed to public safety and national security.Shar,
I wonder if the democrats are even aware of the horrible optics of this for their party.
President Donald Trump is seen deporting dangerous gang members from a foreign country who have committed rapes, murders, child molestations against American citizens.
The left is seen as trying to stop such a thing. They have rogue judges overstepping their authority to prevent the deportation of dangerous gang member criminals.
I wonder if democrats are able to see how bad this makes them look and explains why they are the most unpopular they have been in decades.Trump is deporting immigrants without due process, based solely on their nationality and tattoos...
Courts determine whether people have broken the law.
Not a President acting solo and not immigration agents cherry-picking who gets imprisoned or deported.
Trump openly defied a federal judge and is deported people without due process. I get it. Republicans are salivating because "suspected Venezuelan gang members" are not sympathetic. But you either have the rule of law or you don't.
Under what authority is the U.S. government paying a foreign government to imprison and subject to hard labor individuals who have not been subject to normal immigration law proceedings or charged with any crime in the United States? I simply don’t see any legal authority for that. The Alien Enemies Act certainly doesn’t authorize it. Normal immigration law certainly doesn’t authorize it either."deporting immigrants"
The proper term is "Illegal Aliens" People who have broken the immigration laws by coming here illegally.
"Tren de Aragua (TdA) is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization with thousands of members, many of whom have unlawfully infiltrated the United States and are conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States. TdA operates in conjunction with Cártel de los Soles, the Nicolas Maduro regime-sponsored, narco-terrorism enterprise based in Venezuela, and commits brutal crimes, including murders, kidnappings, extortions, and human, drug, and weapons trafficking. TdA has engaged in and continues to engage in mass illegal migration to the United States to further its objectives of harming United States citizens, undermining public safety, and supporting the Maduro regime’s goal of destabilizing democratic nations in the Americas, including the United States.
TdA is closely aligned with, and indeed has infiltrated, the Maduro regime, including its military and law enforcement apparatus. TdA grew significantly while Tareck El Aissami served as governor of Aragua between 2012 and 2017. In 2017, El Aissami was appointed as Vice President of Venezuela. Soon thereafter, the United States Department of the Treasury designated El Aissami as a Specially Designated Narcotics Trafficker under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, 21 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. El Aissami is currently a United States fugitive facing charges arising from his violations of United States sanctions triggered by his Department of the Treasury designation.
Like El Aissami, Nicolas Maduro, who claims to act as Venezuela’s President and asserts control over the security forces and other authorities in Venezuela, also maintains close ties to regime-sponsored narco-terrorists. Maduro leads the regime-sponsored enterprise Cártel de los Soles, which coordinates with and relies on TdA and other organizations to carry out its objective of using illegal narcotics as a weapon to “flood” the United States. In 2020, Maduro and other regime members were charged with narcoterrorism and other crimes in connection with this plot against America.
Over the years, Venezuelan national and local authorities have ceded ever-greater control over their territories to transnational criminal organizations, including TdA. The result is a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States, and which poses a substantial danger to the United States. Indeed, in December 2024, INTERPOL Washington confirmed: “Tren de Aragua has emerged as a significant threat to the United States as it infiltrates migration flows from Venezuela.” Evidence irrefutably demonstrates that TdA has invaded the United States and continues to invade, attempt to invade, and threaten to invade the country; perpetrated irregular warfare within the country; and used drug trafficking as a weapon against our citizens.
Based upon a review of TdA’s activities, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, on February 20, 2025, acting pursuant to the authority in 8 U.S.C. 1189, the Secretary of State designated TdA as a Foreign Terrorist Organization."
President Donald Trump is well within his rights as president to perform such deportations.
"Pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, consistent with applicable law, apprehend, restrain, secure, and remove every Alien Enemy. The Secretary of Homeland Security retains discretion to apprehend and remove any Alien Enemy under any separate authority."Your post side steps the issue.
This bunch is openly defying the judiciary, ignoring court rulings on deportation flights and other executive actions. When a federal judge demanded proof that they weren’t deporting people without due process, trump’s so-called “border czar” homan sneered, “I don’t care what the judges think.” The DOJ followed up by refusing to provide any information and trying to cancel the hearing altogether...
This isn’t just about immigration. it’s about maga's outright rejection of the rule of law. trump, and bondi are treating the judiciary like a nuisance rather than a constitutional check.
That’s completely false. Tom Homan and ICE don’t arrest immigrants just because they have tattoos. ICE conducts arrests based on criminal records, prior deportation orders, and immigration violations. When it comes to gang affiliations, they don’t just rely on tattoos—they use intelligence from law enforcement agencies, criminal databases, and actual arrest records. Every individual taken into custody is checked against DHS, FBI, and international databases. Many of the criminals ICE targets have convictions for violent crimes, drug trafficking, or human smuggling. If someone with gang-related tattoos is arrested, it’s because of their documented criminal activity, not just their appearance. Saying Homan arrests people solely based on tattoos ignores the actual enforcement process and the public safety threat posed by criminal illegal aliens.
I have to ask bluntly—why would you take issue with deporting criminals? Do you really support allowing this element to stay in our country? Why would you defend preventing the deportation of criminals? Biden has allowed in many dangerous individuals, including murderers, pedophiles, rapists, and violent gang members. How can anyone justify or even want such criminals to be accepted into our nation—especially when we already have a serious crime problem caused by our own citizens?I have to ask bluntly—why would you take issue with deporting criminals? Do you really support allowing this element to stay in our country? Why would you defend preventing the deportation of criminals?
------
But there is a lawful way of dealing with the issue and another way that flouts our laws as written. The danger posed by those that dismiss the rule of law and due process are of a greater danger for me than any criminal element.I do not believe any information was given as to who these people are who were deported. I've read several accounts already from family members and attorneys that at least some of these folks were not gang members. At least one wasn't asylum seeker. I don't have an issue with lawful deportation under our current system but this alien enemies nonsense is a bridge too far. His invoking of the act and using it to deport these people is likely unconstitutional. Why can't he act within the law?
I have to ask bluntly—why would you take issue with deporting criminals?
This actually has nothing to do with deporting criminals and everything to do with Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act as an unconstitutional power grab. Those who are focusing on the individuals who were deported are missing the point and the larger issue of this whole debacle.
Maga seems to be a group that generally overlooks the unconstitutionality and illegality of Trump's moves. It's almost as if anything he wants to do or any idea that he has is just fine regardless.Again ---- That’s completely false. Tom Homan and ICE don’t arrest immigrants just because they have tattoos. ICE conducts arrests based on criminal records, prior deportation orders, and immigration violations. When it comes to gang affiliations, they don’t just rely on tattoos—they use intelligence from law enforcement agencies, criminal databases, and actual arrest records. Every individual taken into custody is checked against DHS, FBI, and international databases. Many of the criminals ICE targets have convictions for violent crimes, drug trafficking, or human smuggling. If someone with gang-related tattoos is arrested, it’s because of their documented criminal activity, not just their appearance. Saying Homan arrests people solely based on tattoos ignores the actual enforcement process and the public safety threat posed by criminal illegal aliens.
You continuously make unfounded accusations, which is misleading. I could care less what you read, I trust ICE is abiding by the law when they go after criminals.Again, sidestepping the issue of the illegality and unconstitutionality of the alien enemies act invoked by trump
I think I will wait and take a higher court's opinion on that. You seem to feel Trump's authority to use our laws is not acceptable. I think you may be not doing the right research on the law, and the powers of the president. Hey, let's let the higher court handle the constitutional parts of this case. I think they do a good job weeding out facts.
You do realize if Trump can do this, then any president can do it? What if Biden did this? You would be screaming to holy heaven.
If there is no separation of powers, there is no democratic republic. That is the purpose of the separation of powers. If the president can defy the Judicial branch. Then we don't have a representation by the people. We have a monarch who can do as he pleases.
Why did Chief Roberts do this?
The court recently ruled on a case involving the Trump administration's freeze on foreign aid payments. Roberts joined the majority in a 5-4 decision, which required the administration to pay nearly $2 billion in overdue foreign aid. However, the broader dismantling of USAID and cuts to foreign assistance were part of the Trump administration's "America First" agenda, aiming to reduce what it considered wasteful spending.
My point wasn't to argue if the Constitution gives the president power to issue executive orders. It was simply too point out that much of the Constitution is not explicit. The case that your post makes for executive powers being sanctioned through the Constitution can also be made for the use of judicial review.
I understand and respect your point. The Constitution is difficult to discuss because it is both foundational and open to interpretation. Written over 200 years ago, its language can be broad and subject to changing societal values, legal precedents, and political ideologies. People often disagree on whether it should be interpreted as it was originally intended (originalism) or as a living document that evolves with time (living constitutionalism). Additionally, different branches of government, legal scholars, and citizens all have their own perspectives on its meaning.
So, yes I agree with your sentiment regarding your comment.
Bravo Ken! Let's just hope he keeps up shoving it down their throats, and that the Democrats just stay stuck on what they failed at over the past 8 years. Trump is on fire, and they do not have any way of putting the fire out without using the same old same old that helped Trump win. He is crushing them and sooooo---- quickly.
What I appreciated seeing this morning was the new polls out on the lack of the Democrat's favorability Yikes pretty dam bad--- how low can they go?
CNN Poll: Democratic Party’s favorability drops to a record low
Ariel Edwards-Levy
By Ariel Edwards-Levy, CNN
Among the American public overall, the Democratic Party’s favorability rating stands at just 29% – a record low in CNN’s polling dating back to 1992 and a drop of 20 points since January 2021,Well, Ken, if trump continues to ignore the court rulings there will be a Constitutional crisis and then things will take a turn for the worse.
I don't care for Trump and the voters did not give him permission to circumvent separation of powers belonging to the Congress and the judiciary.
It is not for the executive to make law unto himself, that is the mark of a tyrant and despot. The fight against him and his regime will continue.
There will be Helter-Skelter as a result.
Uncle Thomas Sowell is great as an apologist and accommodationist. He gives the Right comfort in blaming the African American community solely for race relation shortcomings and progress or lack thereof. I will give him credit where it it is due, but his assessment does not explain everything.
But that is just half of the story what about the assault by the majority community both by law and custom basically placing their feet
on the napes of their necks.
He is only "great" because he says what you all desperately want to hear.....
I don't buy it and it certainly is not good enough.Thomas Sowell has more intelligence in one molecule of his mind than most of those on the left combined.
His articles and books are quite enlightening.
You might want to do some reading of his work before passing judgement.
That would be the enlightened thing to do.Deleted
This country was founded on three guiding principals. There are three co-equal branches of government. The judicial, executive, and legislative. One branch shall not have power over the other branch.
When Trump and company can ignore and defy the judicial branch, we no longer have a democratic republic. We have a monarch who can do as he pleases, including dividing and conquering other countries. He already has the richest man in the world answering to him.
The only one who can stop him is God. The Evangelicals have taken care of that because they believe that Trump is here as a divine intervention..
Here are the documents that guide those principals.
1. **The U.S. Constitution (1787):**
- The Constitution explicitly sets up the three branches: legislative (Article I), executive (Article II), and judicial (Article III). Each article outlines the powers and duties of its respective branch.
- The system of checks and balances is woven throughout the document to ensure no branch becomes dominant.
2. **The Federalist Papers (1787–1788):**
- These essays, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, advocated for the ratification of the Constitution.
- Federalist No. 47 (by Madison) explains the principle of separation of powers, emphasizing the need to distribute government functions among distinct branches.
- Federalist No. 51 argues for checks and balances, highlighting how these mechanisms protect liberty.
3. **State Constitutions (Preceding 1787):**
- Early state constitutions, such as Virginia’s (1776), often included frameworks for separated powers, serving as models for the federal Constitution.
4. **Judicial Opinions:**
- Landmark Supreme Court cases like *Marbury v. Madison* (1803) reinforced the role of judicial review, solidifying the judiciary’s place as a coequal branch.
End of Story
I course I expect you to be effusive about praise to Dr. Sowell. It is that "desperation" that I had mentioned earlier.
Because I don't believe rightwing oriented BS, what makes you think that I have not followed Sowell's editorial columns over the several years he has been featured? Is it just because we don't come to the same conclusions as to what he says? Dr. Sowell is an expert at telling one side of the story. Of course, the Anglo rightwing type will sing his praises while I withhold mine.
Dr. Sowell basically speaks of how AA can make the best of a bad situation while ignoring the role of the perpetrator that caused the situation in the first place. It may well be woke, but it won't do.
So, I have read his position and that of other "black conservatives" and had passed judgement while you were in grade school.
Dan, Misinformation spreads as it's repeated, growing into a tangled web of falsehoods. But there’s a silver lining—when the lies become too outrageous, people start to question them. That’s why Trump won the election and why Democrats are struggling in the polls. As the old saying goes, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time." In other words, deception has its limits—you might mislead everyone for a while or certain people indefinitely, but in the end, the truth always comes to light.
Too bad that doesn't apply to Trump. Not with Trump, the truth never comes out. He and his high paid lawyers are masters at avoiding his accountability.
the Alien Enemies Act’s powers are available in response to a literal armed attack, not a figurative or purely rhetorical “invasion.”
"Trump appears to be relying on a longstanding and widely accepted interpretation of the Constitution under which presidents have inherent constitutional authority—and can act on a temporary basis without congressional authorization—to repel invasions of the United States. Like the Alien Enemies Act, however, this power is reserved for armed attacks. During the Constitutional Convention, the Founders explicitly referred to this presidential prerogative as “the power to repel sudden attacks” or “repel and not to commence war.”
Nothing in the Constitution remotely contemplates a presidential power to direct a military campaign against civilians entering the country without documentation.
The idea that this bunch would ignore what judges say threatens the most basic building blocks of constitutional government that every American kid learns in civics class...
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ … ion-theoryMost of us pick up this kind of stuff in high school...... well, most of us do, anyway...
https://www.britannica.com/event/Marbury-v-MadisonThanks you guys for increasing my knowledge bank, about the American executive order and its relation to the judiciary.
Question, did Biden throw a temper tantrum every time one of his orders was blocked by a judge? Did he, even once, call for the impeachment of a federal judge? Did he call any judges lunatics because he did not agree with their ruling?
Does maga ever get tired of the victim schtick??The former president was a cognitively impaired individual who struggled to walk and speak.
He only did what his handlers told him to do.
The real questions is how many district federal judges exceeded their authority and involved themselves with challenging executive authority.
The former president wouldn't have known, understood, or cared.If people can be deported without due process it is not a democracy, it's an autocracy. That may be what maga wants, but I'd guess the Founding Fathers would disagree. Wouldn't they? |
I believe this issue is now in the hands of the courts and will most likely make its way to the Supreme Court. Rubio has officially designated them as a terrorist group, and I think the courts will focus primarily on that.
Given that, I expect the judge’s ruling to be overturned fairly quickly. It is that simple—Trump has the legal authority to keep Americans safe from terrorist organizations legally, and in doing so, he has rightfully identified them as a threat to the nation, and is removing them to protect the nation's people. Now he will have problems deporting asylum seekers who do not have records to prove they have committed crimes... He will need to go by the book and offer hearings. This could be a problem due to overcrowded courts.
In February 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio officially designated several international criminal organizations, including the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs).
FEDERAL REGISTER
This designation allows the U.S. government to impose financial sanctions, freeze assets, and restrict entry into the United States for members of these groups.
The designation of Tren de Aragua as a terrorist organization reflects the administration's commitment to addressing the threats posed by international criminal organizations. By classifying these groups as FTOs and SDGTs, the U.S. aims to disrupt their operations and reduce their influence both domestically and internationally.Their efforts to slow/stop the ability of this Administration from protecting its citizens and the interests of America is telling.
The Left's focus is literally on protecting foreign criminals and insane people who demand others accept their insanity... The Democrat Party is no longer a party for American Citizens... nor those who are sane.No, the "left's" focus is on the rule of law. And due process.
I think the issue is that the Alien Enemies Act cannot be used during peace time for regular immigration enforcement. We have actual immigration law.
Also in questione is whether the hundreds deported to El Salvador were in fact gang members.
These individuals did not get a hearing to show they're not members of a gang. There was no due process.
Ultimately Trump cannot seize 'wartime powers' to circumvent the Constitution, especially not based on misleading claims .
Neither immigration nor drug smuggling are acts of war, an invasion, or a predatory incursion and certainly not one by a nation or government.
Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act is a gross abuse of presidential power."Alien Enemies Act cannot be used during peace time for regular immigration enforcement."
According to who? Name the statute that prevents such a thing.Under its terms the Alien Enemies Act can be invoked through a Presidential Proclamation on two bases:
Basis 1: "...whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government," or
Basis 2: When "any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government..."
Regarding basis 1. The president may invoke the Alien Enemies Act under basis 1 only if war against a foreign nation or government has been declared. Only Congress has the power to declare war.
Regarding basis 2. Under basis 2, the president may invoke the Alien Enemies Act without getting Congressional approval based on an attempted, ongoing, or even threatened "invasion or predatory incursion" by a "foreign nation or government."
Under either basis, the law requires the hostility to be perpetrated by a "foreign nation or government."
This will absolutely not stand. Again we have immigration laws. Invoking the Act in peacetime to circumvent standard immigration laws would be a significant abuse of power.
Does right-wing media never explain or address these issues in any sort of depth or genuine manner?
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ … -explained
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?pat … ion=prelimGood research.
"When "any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government"
"Tren de Aragua (TdA) is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization with thousands of members, many of whom have unlawfully infiltrated the United States and are conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States. TdA operates in conjunction with Cártel de los Soles, the Nicolas Maduro regime-sponsored, narco-terrorism enterprise based in Venezuela, and commits brutal crimes, including murders, kidnappings, extortions, and human, drug, and weapons trafficking. TdA has engaged in and continues to engage in mass illegal migration to the United States to further its objectives of harming United States citizens, undermining public safety, and supporting the Maduro regime’s goal of destabilizing democratic nations in the Americas, including the United States."
President Donald Trump did the right thing in deporting these people and protecting American lives. The leader of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, is engaged in a covert war against the United States.
Why is the left so against protecting American people? I often wonder why the left hates America and Americans so badly.But this is not an invasion by a foreign nation or government. Why can't Trump work within the laws we already have?
Sorry, it is the text book definition of a predatory incursion.
It very simple. President Donald Trump rightly invokes a statute that gets bad people in the United States illegally harming America and Americans out of the country. This is good. Getting upset about it is bad.Please prove they were all bad people and committed crimes here that required them to be deported.
Please do your own research on the story and if you can't it's not my problem.
The problem is it can't be proven one way or the other. Therefore, it's inconclusive, but you are going on the assumption that all of those who were deported committed crimes here.
I've said this before and I'm going to say it again.
The Trump administration has admitted in federal court documents that “many” Venezuelans it accused of being dangerous gang members and deported through presidential wartime powers have no criminal records in the United States, but argued it was only because they had only been in the U.S. briefly.
The identities and status of the deported men have not been disclosed by the Trump administration, making it unknown what portion of the over 200 noncitizens had criminal records in the U.S. or abroad.The process of arresting and deporting migrants who are suspected of being gang members, like those connected to the Venezuelan group Tren de Aragua, involves several steps. While the media sometimes simplifies the issue, suggesting that migrants are being picked up without cause, there’s a more detailed procedure at play. Authorities rely heavily on criminal and intelligence databases such as the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC), ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) system, and gang tracking databases maintained by local law enforcement. If a migrant has a criminal record in their home country, officials may verify it through Interpol or intelligence-sharing agreements with foreign governments.
In many cases, deported individuals have been arrested after committing crimes in the U.S., even if those crimes were minor, like drug offenses, robbery, or violent acts. Even if these arrests didn’t lead to convictions, they can still be used as justification for deportation. Authorities also look for known signs of gang affiliation, such as tattoos, clothing, or connections to known criminal groups like Tren de Aragua. Social media monitoring is another tool, as law enforcement tracks posts and images that may suggest gang ties. Sometimes, victims or informants provide information identifying individuals as gang members, and ICE works closely with local police to observe suspected gang activity.
Even if someone doesn’t have a criminal record in the U.S., they can still be deported if they entered the country illegally or overstayed their visa. Legal measures like the Alien Enemies Act and Title 42 expulsions allow for their removal without the usual due process if they’re deemed a national security threat. Some deportations happen quickly, but others go through immigration courts where judges assess the evidence before ruling on removal. While some migrants challenge these deportations, claiming they were falsely labeled as gang members, proving their innocence can be difficult, especially without legal support.
The media can sometimes give the impression that deportations are happening randomly, but in reality, many of those deported have prior criminal records, are known to law enforcement, or have ties to dangerous gangs. It’s challenging to prove gang affiliation, especially when there’s no U.S. criminal record to reference. Nevertheless, immigration enforcement typically prioritizes criminals over non-criminals, and gangs like Tren de Aragua are skilled at exploiting the system, often crossing the border without being flagged immediately.
For a factual government source on these matters, you can refer to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) website for more details on deportations and enforcement processes: www.ice.gov.
Here is the process as it relates to immigration law, the vetting of migrants, and the role of ICE in arresting and deporting individuals based on criminal records from their home countries. Here’s a breakdown:
Vetting Upon Entry: When migrants arrive at the U.S. border, they are often vetted by U.S. authorities, including checks against various databases that include criminal records from their home countries. This is a standard part of the immigration process. If an individual has a criminal record in their home country, that information can be shared with U.S. authorities through international law enforcement networks like Interpol. In some cases, U.S. authorities may also rely on records provided directly by the home country.
Immigration Laws and Detention: Under U.S. immigration law, individuals who are deemed to have serious criminal records or who have committed certain offenses (either in the U.S. or abroad) can be detained during the immigration process. The U.S. has specific criteria for when individuals can be detained, especially if they are considered a threat to national security or public safety.
Catch and Release and Court Hearings: As you mentioned, due to policies like those under the Biden administration's "catch and release" approach, migrants who enter the U.S. illegally or under asylum claims often wait for their court hearings while being released into the country. This system has come under scrutiny, especially when it comes to individuals with criminal records from other countries, as they may be released despite posing a potential risk.
ICE Arrest and Deportation: If migrants who have been released or who have overstayed their visas are later identified in U.S. databases or flagged through law enforcement coordination, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) can arrest and deport them. This typically happens when the individual is found to have committed crimes either in the U.S. or in their home country, or if they are members of violent gangs like Tren de Aragua, ICE uses criminal databases and intelligence to identify individuals who pose a threat to national security or public safety.
In summary, the deportation process for these individuals is not arbitrary. They are being tracked based on criminal records from their countries of origin, which were flagged during the vetting process upon entry. While there are ongoing concerns about the "catch and release" policy and its effectiveness, the process you're describing—detaining individuals based on their criminal records and later deporting them—is consistent with how ICE handles immigration enforcement.A whole lot of information that completely misses the point that Boasberg temporarily blocked the deportation of hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members due to concerns that the trump administration's actions might be unconstitutional due to the invoking of the alien enemies act... We're not talking about actions under normal immigration law here. He subverted law.
A local district federal judge does NOT have the authority to make decisions concerning national foreign policy. He overstepped his authority and needs to be impeached and put on trial.
We need to eliminate rogue judges overstepping their authority.Can you provide some backing source for your opinion? And when should judges be impeached? Just when a party disagrees with their decision?
A rogue judge is any judge that defies Trump extralegal policies and practices? Let's have more of them.
I never did understand what the problem was. Trump deported a bunch of illegal aliens, aliens that were vicious, violent gang members. What is the (legal) problem with that?
The problem is that Trump plays fast and loose with the law, and arrogantly interprets them beyond its clearly stated intent. The attacks on other legal residents with deportation merely due to their opinion and related speech is hardly justified as national security threat, rather more of a muzzling of dissenting voices. Based on The law as referee, I and others do not believe that Trump would acknowledge any boundary to his actions. That, in itself, is the danger.
Trump has established a ominous precedent of blatantly resisting court orders which he is required to do. There are rules and boundaries as to HOW things are done and I expect Trump to adhere to them.
--------
Legal challenges to enforcing the Act remain
The Alien and Enemies Act is the last of the four Alien and Sedition acts, the other three which have been repealed or expired. It allows the president to detain, relocate or deport non-citizens from a foreign nation or government considered an enemy during wartime.
The last time the act was invoked was WWII, during which 31,000 suspected enemy aliens of mostly Japanese, Italian and German descent were placed in internment camps and military facilities. The law requires war to be formally declared — which only Congress has the authority to do.
George Fishman, senior legal fellow at the conservative Center of Immigration Studies and former deputy general counsel at Department of Homeland Security during the first Trump administration, has been a strong proponent of the act. Still, he has acknowledged the legal challenges in defining illegal immigration as an invasion and labeling gangs as foreign nations.Didn't ask for a rant about how Trump violates the law every hour.
DID ask for why it was considered illegal. According to the news, we bombed Syria just a couple of days ago - is that not an act of war? Are we not at war there?
No, of course not - that would mean Trump followed the law - but it is true nevertheless. We are at war. We have (had) a border that was porous in the extreme, with violent events happening every day. We are at war in Syria, in Gaza, in Ukraine and in an economic war with China, Canada and Mexico. Better find another reason to hang Trump.Did I hear someone in the forum said Trump is Cromwell's King Charle recarnated?
I did not provide a rant but an explanation, that is if you listen?
Nations at which we are formally at war, those described as enemy anemy aliens can be deported.
Did you get the Memo?
Are we at war with Venezuela or MS-13 or this Tren de Aragua. Can we detain, relocate or deport their nationals residing here just for who they are? MS-13 is a criminal gang but each of its members need to be proven as committing a crime and treated according to due process of law? Or did Trump just put a knapsack over the lot of them and have removed? I said HOW are things being done is my concern. He abused the intent of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. And yes, I will hound Trump into the ground. If he keeps on toying with the courts, I will just wait for him to hang himself.
The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution protects the right to a grand jury. “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,” it states, adding that wartime is one of the few exceptions to this.
Has a WAR being formally declared? So, we bombed Syria, Iran, Cambodia are we or were we at war with any of them?
Trump is abusing the “Act” and its intent as he does everything else. If you consider that as a rant, that is too bad.
He did it by going around our immigration laws and invoking the alien enemies act. Further action under that act has been temporarily halted due to the very real possibility that it violates the Constitution.
And just right wing media really not present any of this?Wait. The act violates the Constitution? Or Trump is accused (again) of violating the Constitution?
Hard to see a 150 year old law that is not Constitutional - almost as easy as it is to watch leftists claiming the right is being unconstitutional again. That's a pretty pervading refrain any more.The Alien Enemies Act can be invoked under two primary conditions:
Declared War: When Congress has declared war between the U.S. and a foreign nation or government.
Invasion or Predatory Incursion: When any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government...
Neither condition is met.
Trump's attempt to apply the Alien Enemies Act in peacetime to bypass normal immigration law is an abuse of power.Oh, yes it was met.
"Tren de Aragua (TdA) is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization with thousands of members, many of whom have unlawfully infiltrated the United States and are conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States. TdA operates in conjunction with Cártel de los Soles, the Nicolas Maduro regime-sponsored, narco-terrorism enterprise based in Venezuela, and commits brutal crimes, including murders, kidnappings, extortions, and human, drug, and weapons trafficking. TdA has engaged in and continues to engage in mass illegal migration to the United States to further its objectives of harming United States citizens, undermining public safety, and supporting the Maduro regime’s goal of destabilizing democratic nations in the Americas, including the United States.
TdA is closely aligned with, and indeed has infiltrated, the Maduro regime, including its military and law enforcement apparatus. TdA grew significantly while Tareck El Aissami served as governor of Aragua between 2012 and 2017. In 2017, El Aissami was appointed as Vice President of Venezuela. Soon thereafter, the United States Department of the Treasury designated El Aissami as a Specially Designated Narcotics Trafficker under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, 21 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. El Aissami is currently a United States fugitive facing charges arising from his violations of United States sanctions triggered by his Department of the Treasury designation.
Like El Aissami, Nicolas Maduro, who claims to act as Venezuela’s President and asserts control over the security forces and other authorities in Venezuela, also maintains close ties to regime-sponsored narco-terrorists. Maduro leads the regime-sponsored enterprise Cártel de los Soles, which coordinates with and relies on TdA and other organizations to carry out its objective of using illegal narcotics as a weapon to “flood” the United States. In 2020, Maduro and other regime members were charged with narcoterrorism and other crimes in connection with this plot against America.
Over the years, Venezuelan national and local authorities have ceded ever-greater control over their territories to transnational criminal organizations, including TdA. The result is a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States, and which poses a substantial danger to the United States. Indeed, in December 2024, INTERPOL Washington confirmed: “Tren de Aragua has emerged as a significant threat to the United States as it infiltrates migration flows from Venezuela.” Evidence irrefutably demonstrates that TdA has invaded the United States and continues to invade, attempt to invade, and threaten to invade the country; perpetrated irregular warfare within the country; and used drug trafficking as a weapon against our citizens.
Based upon a review of TdA’s activities, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, on February 20, 2025, acting pursuant to the authority in 8 U.S.C. 1189, the Secretary of State designated TdA as a Foreign Terrorist Organization."The gang is not a foreign nation or a government.
The gang gets their funding and takes orders directly from Venezuela's president Nicolas Maduro. This makes them part of the Venezuelan government.
"TdA operates in conjunction with Cártel de los Soles, the Nicolas Maduro regime-sponsored, narco-terrorism enterprise based in Venezuela"
I will never understand the left's obsession with protecting foreign criminals harming Americans. I often wonder if they know what they look like to most Americans. Not good.
Do democrats have any idea why their popularity with the American people is the lowest it has been in over 15 years?
I think not."The gang gets their funding and takes orders directly from Venezuela's president Nicolas Maduro."
Says who?
"To invoke wartime deportation powers, President Trump asserted that Venezuela’s government controls a gang. U.S. intelligence analysts think that is not true. American intelligence agencies circulated findings last month that stand starkly at odds with Mr. Trump’s claims, according to officials familiar with the matter. The document, dated Feb. 26, summarized the shared judgment of the nation’s spy agencies that the gang was not controlled by the Venezuelan government."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/20/us/p … emies.html
LOL this has nothing to do with Democrats popularity and everything to do with Trump acting like a dictatorCan't comment as I won't pay to read an article from the NYT liberal rag.
So, why do you think the democrat party is so massively unpopular?
"Do democrats have any idea why their popularity with the American people is the lowest it has been in over 15 years?" Mike
Maybe this could be one reason why--- Dem clown of the week! Tim Walz cheers Tesla stock tumble, but Minnesota state employees' pension owns over 1M shares
Walz has been touring red states with town halls and is thought to be considering a 2028 presidential run/ Weeeee--- Does he have one or two brain cells?
"More than 1 million Minnesotans own Tesla shares in their retirement funds, but that didn't stop failed Democratic vice presidential hopeful and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz from mocking Tesla and CEO Elon Musk for its recent downward trend in the stock market.
During a Wisconsin town hall this week, Walz remarked that he checks Tesla's stock value when he wants to feel better.
"Some of you know this. On the iPhone, they’ve got that little stock app. I added Tesla to it to give me a little boost during the day — $225 and dropping," Walz said as the audience erupted in cheers. "And if you own one, we’re not blaming you. You can take dental floss and pull the Tesla thing off." And this guy could have been our VP-- in his case, VP would have stood for, Vaguely Present
A picture is worth 1000 words.
"A local district federal judge does NOT have the authority to make decisions concerning national foreign policy. "
Absolutely, unequivocally false.
"Federal courts can review executive orders to define the scope of presidential powers, serving as a check within the American constitutional system. Courts may strike down executive orders if the president lacked the authority to issue them or if the order is unconstitutional. This review ensures that the president does not exercise legislative power that belongs solely to Congress."
"Since the early days of the republic, the federal judiciary has reviewed the constitutionality of legislation enacted by Congress. The Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) implied, and later cases confirmed, that federal courts also possess authority to review the actions of the executive branch."
Does maga really not understand the idea of three co-equal branches of government??
https://www.fjc.gov/history/administrat … 0Congress."review executive orders"
The deportation of gang members had nothing to do with an executive order. It was done as part of established law.No it was not. It was done under the alien enemies act....
I see it the same way... His ruling will be tossed out at the filed appeal or SC.
Just my view--- Boasberg's ruling will be tossed out, most likely in the filed appeal, if not in the SC.
Shar,
Let me ask you. Do you believe the democrats just don't know or understand how the optics of this is destroying their party? They're polling at all-time lows and not changing anything.
President Donald Trump is viewed by the American public as a president who is deporting dangerous gang members from a foreign country that harm American citizens. democrats are seen as defending these dangerous gang members.
Their obsession with showing preference for illegal aliens over American citizens boggles the mind.
They willingly loose federal funding to keep men in women's sports. An issue where 80% of Americans support President Donald Trump.
They go after DOGE, who is saving the American public from government waste, fraud, and abuse. Americans see how cutting many of these democrat programs will save them money.
Now, Elon Musk sends a space craft to rescue stranded astronauts and democrats and the main stream media are virtually silent.
I hope democrats continue down this path as it will keep Republicans in power for a long time. I'm just stunned they don't see the need to change.
I do believe that TDS is a very real thing and is destroying the democrat party.The Democratic representatives in Washington are clearly at a loss for what to do next. They’re smart enough to realize they’ve taken the wrong path, embracing a brand of liberalism that’s out of touch with many Americans. But they also know they’ve dug themselves into a deep hole that’s going to be hard to climb out of. Meanwhile, Trump is on a roll, delivering on his promises and more. More and more Americans are jumping on board, saying they like what they see. Many, who were once hesitant to speak out for fear of being ostracized, are now moving toward the side of common sense. This is how I see it. Who wants to be part of a group that’s made such a fool of themselves?
I couldn’t agree more. It’s incredible that Democrats are so focused on defending dangerous gang members while Trump is out there deporting them to keep Americans safe. Their obsession with prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens is truly mind-boggling. I could use the word sickening --- oh I guess I did.
They willingly lose federal funding to support men in women’s sports—a stance that 80% of Americans oppose, yet they double down. Meanwhile, they target people like Elon Musk, who is literally saving Americans from government waste, fraud, and abuse. Cutting these Democrat-run programs would actually save us money, but they just don’t seem to care.
And let’s not forget the silent treatment Musk gets for sending a spacecraft to rescue stranded astronauts. If this is the path Democrats want to stay on, I’ll happily sit back and watch them hand Republicans power for years to come. I’m honestly stunned they don’t see the need to change. And yes, TDS is real—it's like a slow-motion train wreck for their party. And can't say I am not liking what I see.I would like to know the percentage of Musk's billions comes from selling Tesla's and the percentage from government contracts. I would lay you odds, a large percentage comes from government contracts. But yet he is slashing and burning Federal employees. When he himself is a federal employee.
Elon Musk isn’t just a businessman—he’s a game-changer who has transformed multiple industries and pushed America to the forefront of technology. His wealth, estimated at around $486.4 billion as of late 2024, comes mostly from his ownership in Tesla (58.3%) and SpaceX (26.6%). Stats (People)
While Tesla dominates the electric vehicle market, benefiting from incentives like Biden's offer of $7,500 federal tax credit per car (Tesla), SpaceX is where Musk’s impact on America’s future really stands out. The company has secured about $20 billion in government contracts, but that investment has paid off tenfold in innovation and progress.
Without SpaceX, the U.S. space program would be years behind. NASA, while still vital, has struggled with high costs and delays, while SpaceX has revolutionized space travel with reusable rockets and more efficient launch systems. Thanks to Musk, America regained the ability to send astronauts into space after the retirement of the Space Shuttle. But perhaps his most groundbreaking contribution is Starlink, the satellite internet system that has changed global communications. Starlink has launched thousands of satellites, providing high-speed internet access to remote areas worldwide—including war zones, disaster-stricken regions, and rural communities that previously had little to no connectivity. It has helped Ukraine maintain communication during the war, bridged the digital divide in underserved areas, and even provided backup internet for governments and emergency responders.
Beyond business and technology, Musk has shown a deep commitment to humanitarian efforts. Through his Musk Foundation, he has donated millions to disaster relief, education, and renewable energy projects. He has helped fund clean water initiatives in Flint, Michigan, supported hurricane and wildfire recovery efforts, and provided free Starlink internet to areas hit by natural disasters. Collectively, these companies provide jobs to over 138,000 people, contributing substantially to the U.S. economy.
Musk has done more than just build successful companies—he’s changed the way we live, work, and connect. Whether it's making electric cars mainstream, cutting the cost of space travel, bringing internet access to those in need, or donating millions to important causes, his innovations and generosity have benefited not just America, but the entire world. While some criticize the government contracts he’s won, the reality is that Musk has given back far more in technological advancements, humanitarian efforts, and strengthening America’s position as a leader in innovation. Love him or hate him, there’s no denying that Elon Musk is one of the most important figures of our time.
I see Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) as an ambitious but much-needed initiative to cut waste and modernize federal operations. With so much government bloat, it makes sense to have someone like Musk—who has built his career on efficiency and innovation—take a crack at it. He’s even stated that DOGE has a real shot at cutting $1 trillion in waste, with a best-case scenario of $2 trillion. That kind of savings could go a long way in fixing some of the country’s biggest financial issues.
I get why some people are skeptical, especially since any talk of cutting government spending tends to set off alarm bells. But Musk isn’t just slashing for the sake of slashing—his goal is to make the government run more like a well-oiled machine, using technology and smarter management to get more done with less.
the law requires the hostility to be perpetrated by a "foreign nation or government."
This Venezuelan gang is neither.
It doesn't mean they need to remain in this country though because we do have immigration laws that allow for deportation.
We already possess the authority to arrest, detain, and remove undocumented immigrants. The challenge lies not in the legal authority, but in the limited resources to identify, track, and remove all undocumented immigrants... but do you know who could fix that? CONGRESS
Trump prides himself on transparency, but those deportees were all dressed in white and had hoods over their heads. They literally could not be identified.
The Trump administration has admitted in federal court documents that “many” Venezuelans it accused of being dangerous gang members and deported through presidential wartime powers have no criminal records in the United States, but argued it was only because they had only been in the U.S. briefly.
President Donald Trump used a centuries-old law, the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, to deport the Venezuelans without due process in the U.S., saying they were members of the feared Tren de Aragua gang.
Biden is Biden, and Trump is Trump. Biden is a classic politician—scripted, careful with his words, and guided by what advisors believe he should say. Trump, on the other hand, is transparent and unfiltered, unafraid to share his unvarnished views on nearly any topic.
Does he do this intentionally, hoping to be respected for his blunt honesty, or is it simply his natural way of speaking? That may never be fully answered. However, his style captured attention, making people take note of his every word. Many appreciated it, which likely contributed to his first victory and his ability to come back for a rematch—and win.
I see he came in like a bull in a china shop, and in my view, he’s delivering—making real changes that he promised while campaigning. When he leaves, I believe he’ll leave the country in a better place. But personally, I was all in on the disruption and the change. I knew from the start he would shake things up.
Trump’s agenda is ultimately a straightforward, common-sense one—fix the problems Americans have been complaining about for decades, the ones politicians endlessly talked about, and made promises on, but never actually addressed. It’s such a simple yet brilliant platform to run on. Of course, there’s a vocal minority that outright opposes both him and his agenda. But he pulled off a victory the Democrats never saw coming. They stuck to their same old playbook, hitching themselves to far-left liberalism—an ideology that, in my view, has always been embraced by only a small minority in this nation.
Americans are funny birds. When it comes down to it, they tend to stick with what made this country great—individualism, free markets, capitalism, and a deep-rooted belief in opportunity over handouts. It’s why America has always stood apart. Unlike nations that have succumbed to heavy government control, we’ve thrived on the principles of self-reliance and innovation. And that’s what Trump tapped into.
If he delivers real, positive change, I believe Trumpism will shape American politics for decades to come. I could write a book on why this country is unique, and it would start with the very things that built its greatness—capitalism, personal liberty, and a government that serves the people, not the other way around.Trump is wrong. America is ruled by laws that are written down. That is how the people make the rules. In order for rules to be binding, someone must decide what they mean. That is what the Framers of the Constitution meant by “the judicial power,” which they vested in the courts. Voters hire the executive to carry out the rules, in the course of which the president must form views of what the laws mean, but longstanding American constitutional tradition has treated the word of the courts on the meaning of laws as final.
Attacking judges, calling them lunatics who need to be impeached when they don't rule in your favor is wrong and dangerous. Biden clearly knew better. Trump's judgment is horrendous.
Laughable question--- Biden was rarely seen, he never opened his mouth unless he was told to, or got in trouble when he did open his mouth off script. We have a president who is available to the people, he shares his thoughts almost daily and never minces words. This is something I appreciate.
Related Discussions
- 158
Trump and GOP to slash Medicaid just to line pockets of Fat Cats?
by Credence2 2 months ago
In the ongoing war Trump and Republicans wage on the poor, here is the next installment.After listening to Trump whine endlessly about "Obamacare" saying it needs to be repealed for something better, all we received was a "nothing burger". Now he shows us all what his ideas of...
- 75
Majority Say Biden Seeking to Jail Trump to Stop His Reelection
by Readmikenow 12 months ago
In our new national poll 56% of all voters think Biden really wants to stop Trump from winning by putting him in jail.Democratic constituencies also have a negative view of Biden's actions with African Americans at 41%, Hispanics at 53%, and women at 53% agreeing.Here are more findings of our poll...
- 1071
Thinking about how to vote in 2024? I Am!
by Tim Mitchell 8 months ago
We all know it will be party-line loyalty for most voters. According to Pew Research, six percent of voters for the 2022 elections crossed party lines. For the mythical independent voter, it is a binary choice for the President. We are fortunate to be able to assess two Presidents based on criteria...
- 17
Pete Buttigieg has been on paternity leave amid supply-chain crisis
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
I read this, and then I read it again, and then I laughed. My how things have changed from when my wife and I had our children. I saw what happened to my wife for 9 months and then what occurred when she gave birth. I was in the room. I believe she needed paternity leave to...
- 116
Danger: Biden's Presidency akin to the Weimar Republic redux?
by Credence2 14 months ago
I was disturbed by an article I had recently read. The main theme emphasizing similarities between the current administration and the period during the 1920's after WWI and before the deluge of Hitler's ascendency in Germany. Yes, the article is from Salon but its content is still food for thought....
- 109
Partisan Divide in Media Trust
by Ken Burgess 14 months ago
Average of various sources over the last 20 months:75% of Democrats trust National MSM news sourcesLess than 25% of lean/Republicans have any faith in MSM news.Roughly 50% of independents say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence.https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads …...