The inability to see what is right in front of us
No one is questioning the fact that gerrymandering itself has a long history in the US. But Trump's recent actions represent a huge shift in presidential involvement in a specific aspect of the process: urging states to conduct mid-cycle redistricting for partisan advantage because of unpopular policies . It's an unprecedented level of presidential involvement.
If the country is as "hot" as he says it is, voters of all political persuasion would vote to continue the course.... But we all know the reality.Why do you think Trump’s policies are unpopular? He won the election based on those very policies. He has only been in office for six months, yet many of his initiatives have already made an impact. Do you think some people will overlook his accomplishments? I understand that you may not agree with my views on Trump, but it’s important to recognize that many people do support him.
Interestingly, some suggest that Trump shouldn't have encouraged gerrymandering even when it could benefit Republicans. But it’s only natural for a president to work to increase his party’s power in Washington; this is something all presidents have historically done. Why would it be surprising for Trump to do the same? It has nothing to do with the country being “hot” or not. Trump represents the Republican Party and his agenda, the agenda that got him elected. Consider that he hopes to leave office, setting the stage for a new Republican president to continue his policies. He will most certainly fight with every tool at his disposal."Why do you think Trump’s policies are unpopular?"
because the american public is loudly saying so?
Have you looked at the polls? He doesn't crack 50% approval on anything.
It's interesting that previously your posts were very on top of every single one of Biden's poll numbers.Oh, who are those people?
I have not looked at polls; I listen to what the majority are saying on social media. I think I can say comfortably, the polls have been wrong more than right as of late. I have shared this before, and charts will prove my view--- Trump has never ever enjoyed good polls. Check the polls on the very days he won his elections. I think Tim put together a good point about Trump never doing well in the polls, and enjoying better polls this time around.
I only post polls during a presidential election pr if someone asks me a question to make a point. I think others here might verify that. I have used them if the conversation or thread was concerning polls.You used polls HEAVILY and frequently in making a case against Biden during his entire term. But now polls don't matter? All the Biden polls were stellar in their execution and accurate result but Trump's aren't? Nah.
I have shared this before-- Trump has never enjoyed high polls. I mean, check out a chary, or check his very poor polls on the days he won his elections.
I only post polls during a presidential election or if someone asks me a question to make a point. I believe others here could verify that. I use them when the conversation or thread specifically involves polls.
"this is something all presidents have historically done. Why would it be surprising for Trump to do the same?"
What? Can you give a historical example where a president ordered congressional seats? And I mean a direct call for seats.
There's no evidence of previous presidents making such an explicit and public request for states to undertake mid-decade redistricting solely to secure more seats for their party.
Am I surprised? No because it's the only thing he has left. He knows he can't win on the strength of his ideas and performance."this is something all presidents have historically done. Why would it be surprising for Trump to do the same?"" Willow
I did not suggest that all presidents have asked for gerrymandering. Context matters. I have not, and do not intend to, claim that any other president openly requested it—I actually have no idea if that ever happened. My point was clear: it is natural for a president to work to increase his party’s power in Washington, which is something all presidents have historically done. I simply wanted to note that Trump used this tool to strengthen his party’s position, which is precisely what gerrymandering can do.
"Why do you think Trump’s policies are unpopular? He won the election based on those very policies. He has only been in office for six months, yet many of his initiatives have already made an impact. Do you think some people will overlook his accomplishments? I understand that you may not agree with my views on Trump, but it’s important to recognize that many people do support him.
Interestingly, some suggest that Trump shouldn't have encouraged gerrymandering even when it could benefit Republicans. But it’s only natural for a president to work to increase his party’s power in Washington; this is something all presidents have historically done. Why would it be surprising for Trump to do the same? It has nothing to do with the country being “hot” or not. Trump represents the Republican Party and his agenda, the agenda that got him elected. Consider that he hopes to leave office, setting the stage for a new Republican president to continue his policies. He will most certainly fight with every tool at his disposal."Shar
Taking a break from replying to your comments. Don't want to be impolite, but I have shared my view, and am done with the subject. I think it's better to just say we don't agree.
And the question continues to go unanswered, is the United States the only country to use mail-in-voting???as Trump has clearly and repeatedly stated.
A majority minority state and Republicans believe that this map gives black and brown people a voice? This is the worst racially gerrymandered maps since the Jim Crow days.
What’s happening in Texas isn’t redistricting, it’s a disgraceful chapter in the state history of rigging.
This isn’t about fair maps or representation. It’s about clinging to power by slicing up communities, silencing voters, and sabotaging democracy in broad daylight.
If your survival strategy is to redraw the scoreboard, you’ve already lost the game.
Quite appalling, Willow
Thanks for the map:
This is what I think, in spite of conservatives claiming both sides gerrymander, it appears that only one side (Rightwingers, Conservatives and Republicans) wanted to maintain the advantage of being able to cheat. it is interesting to note that in this Supreme Court decision, all the right wing jurors and none of the left wing ones supported gerrymandering based on the following synopsis:
Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering.[1]
The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.[2]
——-
So, a practice that undermines democracy by its very definition is outside the Courts purview? All this after watering down VRA 1965?
It was the jurors on the Left that ruled for a fair slate for everyone, that would have applied to Democrats in Democratic controlled states as well.
Republicans seek to gain and maintain more and more control with less accountability to the voters. Texas has discussed the idea of equal representation for its counties similar to the principles for allocating senators. So, some virtually empty tumbleweed county in that loathsome state would have the same representation as Harris County Texas, which includes the city of Houston. They are taking the principle of allocation used for the House of Representatives, based on population and giving each of their counties equal representation as what is found in the Senate. This was never intended and is a dirty, unprincipled form of disenfranchisement.
How can Democrats in the state be so underrepresented in the face of this information:
Total Registered Voters: 17,485,702; Democrats: 8,133,683 (46.52%); Republicans: 6,601,189 (37.75%); Unaffiliated: 2,750,830 (15.73%). .
https://independentvoterproject.org/voter-stats/tx
Tyranny and despotism is part of every conservative or GOP DNA. For the enlightened Left, this must be a fight to the finish…Cred, I think it’s important to separate partisan frustration from legal realities. In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court didn’t endorse gerrymandering; it simply ruled that federal courts lack authority to resolve disputes over partisan maps. That’s not a partisan “win,” it’s a constitutional principle about the role of the judiciary. Both sides of the Court recognized that political questions are meant to be addressed through legislation and elections, not courts.
Regarding Texas, the proposal to give counties equal representation isn’t inherently about suppressing Democratic votes, it’s a structural question about balancing rural and urban voices. While it can have political consequences, it mirrors the principle behind the Senate, which gives states with smaller populations equal weight. Calling it “tyranny” overstates the case; it’s a policy choice that can be debated and reformed through state law and voter participation.Sharlee, the Supreme Court did not need to endorse gerrymandering, it allowed it to persist. I believe that this is a convenient excuse to resolve them of responsibility in this issue
That was the rightwing corner of the court take on this issue, but Justice Kagan eloquently reflected my view of the matter and it does not reveal some sort of Constitutional absolute as conservatives claim but mainly and unfortunately an ideological tendency of the Right. One, where the few can rule over the many.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court's four liberals, noted in an impassioned dissent: "Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court's role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections." Her voice trembling, she concluded, "With respect but deep sadness, Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and I dissent."
As for Texas, why should an empty hayseed county be given the same weight electorally as one heavily populated? We count people for votes, not tumbleweeds. There is nothing wrong with balance, but that cannot come at allowing a handful of votes to have the weight as the other side having considerably more voters.
That is undemocratic, voting is based people not regions or geography. I tolerate the Electoral College as it is prescribed in the Constitution, but if we took that concept to the state level, Cook County (Chicago) with its millions of people that could lose to a handful of comparative vacant counties in the south of the state, do you think thats fair? Why should 1 rural vote be equal to 100 urban ones? Why are they entitled to disproportionate representation in their favor?
I see that as an imminent danger of the few controlling the many and that is not democracy…the ruling from the Rightwing corner of the court opened a Pandora’s box that allow 1 ruthless and unethical party to maintain its control regardless of the number that vote against them.With very limited understanding of this matter...
I give you the win for what it's worth.
Based on the facts you presented, and not having the desire to dig... The very same thing you are upset over I saw put into practice many years ago in MA... https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/reforms/MA
And as you can see in that report it is still very much a reality.
Wrong is wrong... Texas may be copying the game book of places like MA and CA ... But that doesn't make it right.I will take the win, Ken, and I wont even ask for the Nobel Peace Prize, show me where any Democratic run state dare even consider what Texas is proposing?
The link provided explains how it is done in MA... Different stripes, same animal.
Just another sign that States are separating into more extreme bastions for their particular controlling parties.
I'm not sure why anyone would expect otherwise, millions have fled CA and NY for reasons that should be apparent... those States cannot continue as they are without going bankrupt financially and in terms of Law and Order failing as well...You better hope they don't go bankrupt... Most of our ass backward red states depend on the welfare of California and New York for their very existence.
California is and thank God they are. What McConnel did to the Supreme Court by not following the rules and getting away with it, Trump is trying to do to the House of Representatives.
He won't be happy until there is not one stone sitting on top of another at any institution that makes America what it was before he got his hands on it.
Ken, It doesn’t make it right, but the truth is Congress is perfectly fine with gerrymandering. They are the only ones who could put an end to it, yet they refuse because it’s simply too powerful of a tool for them to give up.
So here we are. Should conservatives just step aside and let only the Left take full advantage of it, locking in power in Washington? In my mind, gerrymandering never should have been allowed in the first place, but since it exists, ignoring it would be political suicide. Why should we sit on our conservative pedestals and allow ourselves to be steamrolled by a party whose policies and ideologies we find dangerous to the future of this country?
I think the days of pedestals sitting for Republicans is a thing of the past.It's a corrupt system...
This is taking another step in the wrong direction.
I would be agreeable to arguing the merits of democracy... Giving the insane or idiotic amongst us equal voice to the most enlightened and educated is really no recipe for the best government.
But when the educated elites are themselves completely out of touch and pushing a bunch of insane agendas (global domination) or an ideology as bad or worse than any religion out there... What can you do?What do you call the style of government that we are under Ken?
Does it lean more toward fascism, communism, crony capitalism, Marxism or is it just a special blend of authoritarian that Trump has concocted? Because it's sure isn't democracy or capitalism...
Cred, I must disagree with this comment because I think it misrepresents what the Supreme Court actually did. The Court didn’t endorse gerrymandering; it decided that the Constitution doesn’t give judges the authority to step in and set limits on how much partisanship is “too much” when drawing districts. That’s a tough pill to swallow because gerrymandering does threaten fair elections, but the majority’s view was that this is a political problem that has to be solved through legislation, not by unelected judges creating their own standards. I can understand why Justice Kagan’s dissent resonates with people. She made a powerful case that the Court has a duty to protect democracy, but I also see the risk in letting the judiciary take on roles that were meant for lawmakers.
On the rural versus urban vote issue, in my view, it also oversimplifies the principle behind our system. If representation were strictly based on population, urban areas would control nearly every decision, and rural communities would have no meaningful say in government. That might sound fair if you only focus on numbers, but I think it ignores the purpose of our republic, which is to balance majority rule with protections for minority voices and regions. The Electoral College and similar systems aren’t perfect, but they were designed to keep power from being concentrated entirely in big cities while the rest of the country gets ignored.
To me, the bigger problem is that partisan legislatures don’t have much incentive to change gerrymandering rules that benefit them. That creates a cycle where reform is almost impossible without outside pressure. I don’t think it’s fair to frame this solely as the “Right” trying to let the few rule the many; there’s a real constitutional argument here about judicial restraint, and both sides of the aisle have engaged in gerrymandering when it suits them. The real question is how we as voters push legislatures, not the Court, to fix it.
Cred, Do you feel Congress is up to remove gerrymandering? I certainly don’t. This tool is powerful, and both sides wait to see all in alignment to use it. This is just a fact. They don’t use it unless they know it’s a done deal. So if anyone is to blame for the continuation of gerrymandering, it is Congress. Maybe it's just time to put out the hair on fire because Texas happens to have all the right conditions to gerrymander. Just saying, it shines of hypocrisy.Again missing the point...
"cracking"...splitting a group of voters across multiple districts to dilute their influence or "packing" (concentrating a group of voters into a single district to reduce their impact elsewhere) dilutes targeted voices in those areas.
It is nothing more than allowing politicians to manipulate district boundaries to choose their voters, rather than the other way around. It has absolutely nothing to do with balancing voices, quite the contrary.Your right to disagree is respected, but consider this
In the past, it was acceptable for state legislatures to deny the right to vote to entire blocks of people based on race. I refer to the South just some 60 years ago. Sorry to be woke, but it the clearest example of where there are overriding issues that will not be addressed by partisan legislatures. The Supreme Court, at least until recently, was to interpret the Constitution free of the influence of partisan bickering. Do you really think that legislatures were going to desegregate schools or allow equal access to public accommodations on their own? I refer directly to southern state legislatures, and the national legislatures were fearful of how touching a “hot potato” would affect them politically. Establishing principle over politics is what the court HAS been about, and most of the rights WE should have always had but didn’t was reaffirmed only by court orders.
This issue of gerrymandering, as the left wing of court in their dissenting opinion says, is just one of those concepts. The principle of one man/one vote is the foundation of a democracy. This cannot be left in the hands of partisans of either side to exploit, as this principle is more important than politics. I believe that the duty to protect democracy at its most basic level is more important than partisan lawmakers in control.
The principle of our system is one man/one vote. Rural areas are entitled to representation commensurate with their population, what else is fair? Why should a county with 150 people have the same voice as a county with 6 millions? That is the principle of the House of Representatives and a fair and correct one by me. I understand the principle on a national level to give small states a stake. But it is not a concept to be employed universally as this government would cease to be a representative democracy.
It is always conservatives that want to think that the urban vote is so monolithic that they have to tip the scales unethically to win. So, indirectly, conservatives are attacking minorities and diverse populations who tend to dwell in cities and vote Democratic, that is the message I am getting as Republicans are terrified of urban dwellers and diversity. It is their enemy yet, my comforter and friend. This support is my assurance that things stay fair for everyone.
With the conservatives ideas of judicial restraint, I would have been left sitting on the back of the bus. Legislators are never going to fix it, Sharlee, why should they? Amongst the bickering, no one has agreed to a level playing field as the rule, except the dissenting justices in the aforementioned Supreme Court decision. That is why, in my opinion, the Left is always that much more preferable for me.
As I said, Congress is polarized and with such close partisan margins that no one wants to give up an advantage regardless of how unethical. This has all degenerated into a slugfest, one side cannot afford to allow the other any space at all. That is unfortunate, but that is where we are now. I have advocated that the Democrats get more proficient at hitting below the belt as the Republicans have had no aversion in doing so.I understand the historical point about the South and disenfranchisement, but it’s important to recognize that using this as a blanket justification for judicial overreach today misses the nuance of our representative system. The Constitution is designed to balance power between states and the federal government, and part of that balance is allowing legislatures, elected by the people, to make policy decisions. While courts have historically intervened in extreme cases, assuming that legislatures cannot act responsibly underestimates the role of voters and the principle of self-governance.
Regarding gerrymandering, the principle of “one person, one vote” does indeed guide representation, but the example of a community of 150 versus one of six million illustrates why proportional representation is essential. In the U.S. House of Representatives, seats are apportioned based on population, not equal land areas or counties. A county of 150 people does not get the same voting power as a county of 6 million; that would violate the very principle of proportional representation. Rural areas are represented through their state legislatures and nationally, smaller states are protected via the Senate, not by giving minuscule populations equal weight in the House. This is factual and foundational to how our democracy operates.
As for the claim that conservatives try to tip the scales against urban voters or minorities, it’s more accurate to say that conservatives often advocate for fair, population-based representation and for rules that prevent any party from gaming districts. Judicial restraint is not about denying rights. It’s about respecting the roles of elected officials and maintaining a system where citizens vote for those who make laws. It’s not an attack on diversity or cities; it’s about keeping elections fair and respecting the constitutional structure that balances rural and urban interests differently in the House and Senate.
The idea that the Left automatically represents fairness because legislators cannot be trusted ignores the risk of courts imposing partisan policy under the guise of protecting rights. Democracy functions best when voters choose their representatives, and when courts step in as permanent lawmakers, it undercuts the very system designed to reflect the will of the people. Conservatives simply want the rules applied evenly, not to subvert representation.We agree to disagree, here is the situation in Texas based on a Republican proposal that has not become law, but the very thought of introducing such an idea is anathema in itself. Sounds, anti-democratic to me.
—————
No, Texas is legally required to give its citizens equal representation by population, not by county. While the Texas Republican Party platform has supported an extreme version of an Electoral College system that would give equal weight to each county, this has not been enacted into law.
Here is a breakdown of the key factors:
Legal requirement: The "one-person, one-vote" principle from the Fourteenth Amendment, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims (1964), mandates that state legislative districts must have roughly equal populations. This prevents the votes of rural residents from having more weight than the votes of urban residents simply due to geography.
Texas's practice: In compliance with federal law, Texas draws its state legislative and congressional districts to have equal or nearly equal populations based on census data. In fact, the Supreme Court specifically upheld this practice in the 2016 Texas case, Evenwel v. Abbott, confirming that states can use total population for redistricting purposes.
Republican Party platform: The Texas Republican Party platform has included a proposal for a statewide electoral system similar to the federal Electoral College, which would give equal voting weight to each county regardless of population. Candidates for statewide office would have to win a majority of counties, not a majority of voters. However, this idea has not been implemented as law.
Historical context: The historical roots of this conflict can be seen in the U.S. Supreme Court case Avery v. Midland County (1968), which applied the one-person, one-vote principle to local government. The case involved a Midland County commissioners court where districts had vastly different populations, which the court found unconstitutional. This demonstrated that equal representation by population applies at both the state and local levels of government.
"it’s a structural question about balancing rural and urban voices.
Lol, according to who?
Texas Republicans who concocted the map have been forthright that their primary goal was to improve Republican political performance and increase their chances of winning more seats in Congress.
But the map absolutely benefits rural voters at the expense of urban voters. They've moved more conservative voters into their districts and they've created districts where these communities are divided and then merged with largely white rural areas... Crack and pack.
They've shifted urban areas into rural districts. Just look at the map. They've carved up primarily urban and suburban districts and attached them to large rural swaths. Example? parts of Austin, a Democratic stronghold, is sharing a district with rural texans hundreds of miles away.... What kind of balance is that?I think it’s important to recognize that gerrymandering in Texas, like in many other states, is not unique to Republicans nor to rural–urban tensions, it’s a tool used by whichever party holds power. Yes, Texas Republicans have been open about drawing maps to improve their political advantage, but Democrats have done the same in states they control, such as Illinois and Maryland. So to frame this solely as “rural voters exploiting urban voters” misses the bigger picture: both sides use redistricting to cement their power when they get the chance.
Now, on the claim that this map unfairly benefits rural areas, there’s more nuance here. Texas is not just Austin, Dallas, and Houston. It’s also vast regions of rural and small-town communities that feel overshadowed by urban political dominance. The very purpose of representative government is to make sure minority voices aren’t completely drowned out by majority blocs. Urban areas have sheer numbers on their side, but rural Texans have legitimate interests, land use, agriculture, energy, water rights, that deserve a fair say in Congress. Merging urban areas into broader districts doesn’t automatically mean “disenfranchisement”; it can mean rural issues still get representation in a state where city populations would otherwise overwhelm them. They have every right that urban dwellers enjoy. You have made it clear that you feel differently. Noted. My view all citizens deserve a voice.
Yes, cracking and packing happens, it’s ugly, and I’d prefer more independent commissions drawing lines, but calling this purely an “attack on urban voters” ignores that Democrats play the same game when they can, and that rural communities have a right to structural protection from being politically erased. The problem here isn’t balance; it’s that redistricting is always weaponized by the party in charge. If we’re going to condemn Texas Republicans for doing it, we should also condemn Democrats when they carve up their own maps. Otherwise, it just sounds like outrage when the other side wins at a game both sides play. It's the definition of hypocrisy.your post argued that Texas gerrymandering was done to balance voices.... Clearly not the case.
"it can mean rural issues still get representation in a state where city populations would otherwise overwhelm them."
And now we will have the reverse situation and that's okay? The Urban areas have been completely diluted. They have been cracked and packed to oblivion... So where is the support for "balance? "
"Trump fired off a post via Truth Social hailing the state for "never letting us down," saying the victory was more than a state win but a national turning point. He went on to urge other Republican-led states to follow the Lone Star State’s lead.
"Big WIN for the Great State of Texas!!! Everything Passed, on our way to FIVE more Congressional seats and saving your Rights, your Freedoms, and your Country, itself. Texas never lets us down. Florida, Indiana, and others are looking to do the same thing. More seats equals less Crime, a great Economy, and a STRONG SECOND AMENDMENT. Imeans Happiness and Peace," he said." Trump
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- … nationwide
It's about time Republicans offer up a fight with every tool available to them. In my view, the country is screwed up. It is clear Trump has taken the Gloves off...
"Four of the five new seats will be Hispanic," Gov. Greg Abbott
It really doesn’t seem to show any clear sign of racial bias. From what I can tell, that’s the main accusation the Democrats are making. I’m not so sure this is something they’d actually want to argue in court.when you have to rig seats because the public actually doesn't support the agenda.... Disenfranchising voters for purely partisan motives.
These maps pack and crack Latino communities into new congressional districts to dilute their political power.
This is a clear example of racial gerrymandering and is simply unlawful.
Why is Trump so afraid of voters??In Texas, as in every other state, new congressional seats created through redistricting aren’t appointed, they’re filled through regular elections. Voters ultimately decide who they send to Washington. That means nothing is guaranteed for either party, even in states where heavy gerrymandering shapes the odds. The majority will usually win out. So, in many ways, the complaints ring a bit hypocritical. Yes, the new maps may drown out one party, which is exactly what gerrymandering is designed to do. But this is politics, and right now gerrymandering is front and center, being used as a pretty powerful bunker buster.
It’s worth pointing out that Donald Trump performed very strongly in the Texas districts that have been redrawn. In the 2024 presidential election, he won approximately 75% of the vote in the 1st Congressional District, about 61% in the 21st District, and likely carried the 13th District comfortably, which is rated R+24 on the Cook Partisan Voting Index,one of the most Republican-leaning districts in the state. These results show that these districts were already solidly Republican before the redistricting. Trump’s strong performance, along with his ability to pick up additional votes in areas included in the new maps, highlights that the voters in these districts have historically aligned with the GOP.
The redrawn districts may amplify their representation by combining them with heavily populated Republican areas, but these voters’ voices were already consistent with the party’s preferences. This perspective suggests that complaints about gerrymandering in these cases may overlook the fact that the partisan lean of these districts has been long-standing, and the new lines largely reinforce an existing trend rather than create it. Plus, the party will benefit by picking up seats. It's a win for Republicans, and the voters' voices will be heard due to the new seats.
It is very obvious what Texas is doing. The new Texas maps are set up in a way that makes it harder for Democrats to win as many seats. Basically, Republicans drew the lines to either pack Democratic voters into a few districts where they win big or spread them out across several districts to dilute their impact. Some suburban areas that were leaning more Democratic are now combined with more Republican neighborhoods, which tips the balance. So while Democrats can still win in certain districts, the overall number of seats they can realistically take goes down. In short, people can still vote, but the way the districts are drawn makes it harder for Democratic votes to translate into actual representation. But the flip side the Republicans who were living in Democratic districts will now be heard. I mean, they can now vote, and not feel, their vote just does not matter.
If unlawful, the courts will deem it so. We disagree on the legality.I guess we’ll see what the courts decide. I’ve laid out everything I can about the districts that were redrawn, but it seems like you’re missing who actually lives in these districts, and the fact that they voted Republican. Yes, it might bother you, but more Hispanic voices will be represented because of the redistricting. It’s strange that you don’t recognize that these districts have a large Hispanic population that leans Republican. You haven’t addressed the facts I’ve presented. Hopefully, people are paying attention and will see the fairness in giving voters the chance to have their voices heard in a district that truly reflects their party, rather than being lost in a small Democratic district where their vote barely mattered.
"Do rural people's votes not matter? I don't see your logic".
Under the gerrymandered map these voices matter more in urban ones.. I don't see your logic... Again look at what they've done to Austin... They've been absorbed into a district almost 300 miles away... Tell me again which voices don't matter.Sooo... Putin bombs an American factory in Ukraine & Trump shows everyone a picture of him and his bestie Putin... and brags about wanting to invite him to the World Cup in America?
This is sick.
Newsom's all-caps, mean-girls social media posts mocking Trump in Trumpian style have triggered Fox News hosts who never seemed bothered by the original.... Are these people REALLY that stupid???
They think it's perfectly acceptable when your boy does it, but someone shows them how asinine it all is, they get triggered & offended!
Fox Host: I don't know what he's trying to do but it comes across as childish and you are the governor of the biggest state in the union, what are you doing?
LOL
Fox News hosts are clutching their pearla because Gavin Newsom's social media posts "come across as childish."
So rich and thick with irony.He has truly perfected the art of irritating some... LOL He does a bang-up job, in my view. I have never witnessed a president with this ability. Never boring.
If it's so great, why are Fox News hosts so outraged when Newsom does it?? Calling it childish LOL... IDENTICAL TO THE BLATHER AND STYLE TRUMP POSTS
Why? Surprised anyone would ask --- Because Fox is a right-leaning Republican outlet. Odd question. They will go after just about every human that they feel is a Democrat or even maybe a Democrat. And it has made them the top-rated cable outlet. So, I don't think they will change their attitudes. Why would they? I mean, would CNN? O,h maybe one only needs to consider the ratings they get.
He was trying to be sarcastic...
He doesn't know his voter base well...
They will take that literally...either way it comes across idiotic.
He is so desperate to be President it oozes out of his pours... Political envy ...he tries everything but believes in nothing.What is idiotic is that Fox saying Gavin Newsom needs to stop with "the Twitter thing" and that he is making a fool of himself with his unserious all-caps posts....
LMFAO .... the Fox News hosts aren't smart enough to realize that as they criticize Newsom's posts they are also criticizing every post and picture Trump has made.
Oh yeah... Tell me these are idioticI think more people look at leaders based on job performance. I do. I am not sure how Gavens' job performance could hold up at a primary debate. I mean, AI rips him from one side to another. I would think the other, more experienced Dems would truly quickly bury him in a primary. Just saying
A commentator made an interesting point that Newsom tries to be like President Donald Trump because he can reveal who he really is to people.
One thing about President Donald Trump, he imitates nobody and is 100% himself. What you see is what you get. He is authentic.Trump is 100% "authentic" Mike, no doubt about that!
In reflecting on a word which best describes Newsom, Mamdani, etc. (aka: the face of the Democratic Party) I cannot come up with the right one. But I do know that authentic doesn't even come close to making the list of contenders.I'd suggest that one word for consideration might be "fake."
We can only hope the Dems back him. However, just picture him in the Dem primary. He would be destroyed quickly, as Harris was by her own.
Well, the scary Marxist and socialist stuff isn't really going to work this time is it? Since Maga has embraced those ideologies 100% under trump
"Well, the scary Marxist and socialist stuff isn't really going to work this time is it? Since Maga has embraced those ideologies 100% under trump" Willow
Your view strikes me as a bit odd, though I can understand how you might have arrived there. As a Republican and supporter of the President, I see elements of projection in your thinking. From my perspective, I’ve watched the Democratic Party increasingly embrace socialist and Marxist ideas, especially in their blue cities. Again, in my view, the Democratic Party seems to be flailing without much to offer Americans, perhaps not realizing that many Americans actually like the country as it is and don’t feel the need to adopt failed political visions that haven’t worked anywhere they’ve been tried. To fully grasp what I see, one really has to understand socialism and Marxism. It’s clear to me that Trump came in like a wrecking ball to stop that movement. I get that those who supported the Democratic far-left agenda would be upset, worried, and yes, angry. But in my view, accusing the other side of what your own team is actually doing isn’t the smartest strategy.
Regarding Newsom mimicking Trump in that sarcastic way, I think it comes down to common sense. Trump won twice and never tried to hide who he was, his brash demeanor and the way he shared his views openly were part of his transparency. Gavin might want to consider that Trump’s victories were likely due to the full package he offered. So, making sport of such an authentic man can come off as a bit silly. Newsom may want to consider that some may not be laughing with him, but at him.You don't think that military boots on the ground in our cities is fascist? You don't think that government invading private corporations is marxist? Calling out individual companies and exerting pressure on them to change business decisions??
Vicious personal targeting of individual business leaders?
Attempting to dictate the curriculum of private universities? Moving Prager University propaganda into classrooms?
The trade and tariff policies that disrupt free-market capitalism, including government insertion into private-sector decision-making....
It all smacks of MarxismI think you have mischaracterized these things and not put them in proper context.
With a total lack of understand of what the word "Fascist" or "Marxist" mean or their history, I can see how it would be easy to label anything fascist or marxist.
I hope you and the democrats keep down this path as it only benefits Republicans. There is a reason it was recommended that democrats stop constantly using these terms.Do you support government control of private corporations, for example?
Sorry....trump's current policies and actions significantly diverge from core tenets of free-market capitalism, particularly regarding trade and government intervention.
Republicans used to believe in free markets and free enterprise... LOL not much anymore
Trump’s assault on free-market capitalism is anything but conservative,"Trump’s assault on free-market capitalism is anything but conservative"
As someone who deals with the stock market daily and reads everything associated with business, I can tell you this is wrong.
The Trump administration has done away with stifling regulations, he has gotten many large companies from around the world to invest in businesses in the United States. The lowering of tariffs has resulted in many companies being able to sell their goods overseas for larger profit margins. They have also resulted in an increase in American businesses selling goods with less foreign competition.
No, President Donald Trump has been very good for American businesses. His administration is the essence of free market capitalism.So you are in agreement with government intrusion into private corporations? For example his Intel and Nvidia deals.
"Intel and Nvidia deals"
The intrusion was to purchase a non-controlling stake in the company. I think the number is 15%. The government, no matter who is president, will closely monitor these companies as they sell computer chips to China.
The US government wall always be involved with this high tech. The government has always required these companies to pay for export licenses, and put regulations on them. This is common.
I don't think the SEC will permit the government to purchase a stake in these companies. It hasn't been attempted yet. This is what President Donald Trump does, like all good business people, he makes a proposal and floats an idea. If it's popular, he'll move forward with it. If not, he backs off.
He did the same thing with Coca cola and cane sugar. He got major push back and backed off.
This is how business is done at those levels.LOL...you really think that having a government own an equity stake in a private corporation is an example of free market capitalism???
No. It represents a significant departure from the fundamental ideas of minimal government intervention."equity stake"
I never read what class of stock was proposed to be purchased.
I don't think it will happen.
I'm not worried.
Too much push back is happening.Mike, I notice Willow skips over the fact that the Biden administration, and even Obama’s before him, engaged in the same kinds of investments. Yet she zeroes in on criticizing Trump’s administration for doing what nearly every administration has done for decades. Isn’t that a bit odd, and, in my view, very biased?
What the Government Did Do. Facts matter, ALL legal transactions.
The U.S. did not take an equity stake in Nvidia. Instead, Nvidia (and AMD) made deals to pay the government 15% of revenue from sales of certain AI chips to China. These are revenue-sharing agreements, not ownership stakes
Status of the NVIDIA Revenue-Sharing Deal
Agreement agreed but not fully implemented: NVIDIA (along with AMD) has indeed agreed to hand over 15% of revenue from AI chip sales to China as part of a deal to secure export licenses for the H20 (Nvidia) and MI308 (AMD) chips
What the Government Did With Intel—and Possibly Others
The U.S. is acquiring a 9.9–10% equity stake in Intel, using funds originally granted under the CHIPS Act. This means the government will own a minority share of the company—but it’s structured as a passive stake without control over operations. Deal completed.
I see these deals as supporting Capitalism as we know it--- Capitalism is built on private ownership and competition, yet the government sometimes steps in when an industry is critical to national security, economic stability, or future growth. Examples include investments in defense, semiconductors, or AI, where national competitiveness is at stake, or temporary stakes in banks and automakers during the 2008 financial crisis to prevent collapse. The government has also funded infrastructure and innovation, like railroads, energy research, and early internet development, projects that private capital might have avoided due to risk. The difference from socialism is that the government usually does not hold these investments permanently or manage the companies; the private market continues to drive competition and innovation. In this way, government investments can support and stabilize capitalism rather than replace it.What is ODD is that some seem to not grasp the reasons underlying Obama's previous decisions... THE RECESSION.
"What is ODD is that some seem to not grasp the reasons underlying Obama's previous decisions... THE RECESSION." willow
The Biden administration has played a significant role in facilitating private sector investments across various industries, particularly in clean energy, semiconductors, and advanced manufacturing. Through strategic legislation and partnerships, the administration has catalyzed over $1 TRILLION in private investments, aiming to revitalize American manufacturing and infrastructure
Really, what about your guy Joe? One must wonder why you post some of your replies. It's like you never look into the entire picture.
https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/br … hatgpt.com
You just never look at the entire picture before you try to move along.The Biden Administration... THE GOVERNMENT... never held an equity share in a private corporation....
What are you talking about? Again, you insinuate this administration is doing something illegal. Do you ever do any research before you make accusations?
The U.S. government has invested in businesses, but the primary objective is policy, national security, or economic stability, not profit. Occasionally, a financial return happens, but that’s usually a secondary benefit, not the main goal. Nvidia can offer the U.S. a number of strategic, economic, and technological benefits — especially in areas critical to national security.
Actually, the Intel and Nvidia deals were completely legal. The government’s stake in Intel came through the CHIPS Act, (Chips Act was Biden's Baby), which authorizes funding for domestic semiconductor production and allows for equity arrangements. Intel remains privately owned and independently managed; there’s no illegal takeover. Similarly, any review of Nvidia by the Department of Justice is standard regulatory oversight, which exists under every administration to ensure competition. Why would you assume something was wrong with this transaction? Nothing about these actions constitutes illegal “intrusion” into private corporations.
Under President Biden's administration, the U.S. government has made investments in various private companies, particularly in sectors deemed critical for national security and economic competitiveness. These investments have been facilitated through legislation such as the CHIPS and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Key Investments
1. Semiconductor Industry
Intel: The government has provided Intel with substantial funding through the CHIPS and Science Act to support the construction and expansion of semiconductor fabrication facilities in states like Arizona, Ohio, Oregon, and New Mexico. These investments aim to bolster domestic chip manufacturing capabilities and reduce reliance on foreign sources.
The Verge
TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company): TSMC has received significant support to establish and expand semiconductor manufacturing plants in Arizona. This move is part of a broader strategy to enhance U.S. semiconductor production and mitigate supply chain vulnerabilities.
Micron Technology: Micron has announced plans to invest $100 billion in building a semiconductor manufacturing campus in Syracuse, New York, with additional facilities in Boise, Idaho. The federal government has provided grants to support these initiatives, aiming to strengthen domestic chip production.
Wikipedia
2. Clean Energy and Infrastructure
Private Sector Investments: The Biden administration's policies have catalyzed over $1 trillion in private sector investments across various sectors, including clean energy, electric vehicles, and advanced manufacturing. These investments are distributed across all 50 states, contributing to the revitalization of American manufacturing and infrastructure.
Infrastructure Projects: The administration has allocated funds for numerous infrastructure projects, including road repairs, bridge replacements, and the expansion of broadband access. These initiatives aim to modernize the nation's infrastructure and create jobs.
Transportation.gov
3. Clean Energy Manufacturing
Energy Manufacturing Investments: The administration has supported the establishment and expansion of clean energy manufacturing facilities, including those focused on solar panels, wind turbines, and energy storage solutions. These investments are part of a broader effort to transition to a clean energy economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
4. Biomanufacturing and Heavy Industry
Biomanufacturing: The administration has provided support for the development of biomanufacturing facilities, aiming to enhance the production of biologics and other advanced medical products. This initiative seeks to strengthen the U.S. biomanufacturing sector and improve public health outcomes.
Factor This™
Heavy Industry: Investments have been made in heavy industry sectors, including steel and aluminum production, to bolster domestic manufacturing capabilities and reduce reliance on foreign imports. These efforts are intended to enhance the resilience of critical supply chains."What are you talking about? Again, you insinuate this administration is doing something illegal. Do you ever do any research before you make accusations?
I stated that a government taking a financial piece of a private corporation is a hallmark of fascism... Never did I mention legality.This is the comment I replied to, and there is no mention of "fascism".
"So you are in agreement with government intrusion into private corporations? For example his Intel and Nvidia deals."
.
I proved my point. The government has been dipping its hands into private corporations for well over a century, often under the cover of “regulation” or “protection.” From the heavy control over railroads in the 1800s, to government buy-ins during the banking crises, to outright bailouts of Wall Street and automakers in 2008, the pattern is clear. Each time, Washington claimed it was temporary or necessary, yet it set precedents that blurred the line between free enterprise and government ownership. To me, that’s the problem; we’ve allowed this practice to become normalized, even though the government was never meant to take a financial stake in private corporations.
I suggest you ignore my posts; I will be ignoring each one of yours. We are just too far apart regarding mindset. Hey, just over our back and forths.The proposal was not for the government to "take" a piece of a private corporation, it was going to "purchase" a piece of a private corporation. At only 15% the government would have no control or influence on how the company is operated. It would simply be an investment.
Fascism would be in the government took over the company and started operating it.The government will be the largest shareholder in a private corporation.
"The government will be the largest shareholder in a private corporation." Willow
That is misinformation--- First, this deal has not been completed. It's an if come...
Second --- That statement is false. The U.S. government is not becoming the largest shareholder in NVIDIA. What actually happened is that NVIDIA agreed to a revenue-sharing deal, paying 15% of its AI chip sales to China as part of export licensing agreements. This is not the same as the government buying shares or taking ownership.
You need to do research or add a link when you make such an allegation.Why would you believe that your leader wouldn't complete a deal???
"That statement is false. The U.S. government is not becoming the largest shareholder in NVIDIA.
I was addressing Intel."Why would you believe that your leader wouldn't complete a deal???"Willow
Maybe reread my comment... You certainly messed up the context. My main concern was the fact that you seem to feel 15% would own the majority.
Copy/ paste "That is misinformation--- First, this deal has not been completed. It's an if come...
Second --- That statement is false. The U.S. government is not becoming the largest shareholder in NVIDIA. What actually happened is that NVIDIA agreed to a revenue-sharing deal, paying 15% of its AI chip sales to China as part of export licensing agreements. This is not the same as the government buying shares or taking ownership." Shar
"I was addressing Intel." WILLOW
Really, well, your math seems to be getting worse.
As of now, the U.S. government has not acquired additional shares in Intel beyond the initial 9.9% equity stake announced on August 22, 2025. This stake was obtained by converting $8.9 billion in unpaid CHIPS Act grants ( Bidens bill) and $3.2 billion from the Secure Enclave program into Intel common stock at a price of $20.47 per share.
I actually feel bad to need to continue to point out the inconsistency in your posts. All you need to do is do some research before posting what you are attempting to post as facts.'My main concern was the fact that you seem to feel 15% would own the majority. YOUR STATEMENT
Trump Administration government currently holds the largest single equity share in Intel....AIStock ownership in Intel will naturally fluctuate over time as shares are bought and sold, and it can change sporadically depending on market activity. Saying the U.S. government “holds the largest single equity share” can be misleading. While it owns 9.9% of Intel, other institutional investors — like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street- collectively hold larger portions when their stakes are combined. This means the government is a significant shareholder, but it isn’t a controlling or dominant one in practice. The stock remains widely distributed among many large investors, and ownership levels can shift frequently.
My source is from a press release from the Company Intel. You are continuing to post misinformation.
https://newsroom.intel.com/corporate/in … hatgpt.com
Here’s a concise summary of the Intel press release regarding the deal:
The U.S. government acquired a 9.9% stake in Intel through the conversion of CHIPS Act grants and the Secure Enclave program funding into 433.3 million shares at $20.47 per share.
This makes the government Intel’s largest shareholder, though it has no board representation or voting rights.
The agreement also includes a five-year warrant to buy up to an additional 5% of Intel shares at the same price, contingent on Intel reducing its foundry ownership below 51%.
The government’s role is strictly financial and passive, with no operational control over Intel.
This is the deal in purely factual terms, without commentary or opinion.
I would think you would drop this; you are clearly wrong. And attempting to cover up your comments with word semantics really is just digging you in deeper.This deal makes the U.S. government the largest single shareholder in Intel....TRUE STATEMENT
Attempting to throw AI spaghetti at the wall in every direction doesn't change that.That's not telling the entire story.
The US Government has no operational control over the company.
It's acting like any other government entity, like state & local governments that invest in the stock market, the purpose is financial gain from the success of the stock.
The government retirement funds invest heavily in the stock market but don't have any controlling interest.The Trump Administration’s government currently holds the largest single equity share in Intel, but that does not mean it has control over the company. The 9.9% stake was structured as a passive investment, meaning the government has no voting rights, NO board seats, and NO role in day-to-day management. It was done this way to provide financial support for Intel’s manufacturing expansion without crossing into direct ownership or corporate governance.
Control of Intel remains in the hands of its board of directors and management team, while major institutional investors such as BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street continue to exercise voting rights through their large collective stakes. Since Intel is a publicly traded company, influence comes through shareholder votes and board representation, areas where the U.S. government has no authority under this deal.
In short, the government is a significant shareholder, but not a controlling shareholder. Its stake is designed to stabilize and support Intel’s role in U.S. semiconductor production, not to direct the company’s strategy or operations.
Plus, why overlook the fact that our government has been investing in private businesses for decades? Do you really believe that every administration engaging in these long-standing, common investments should be labeled as fascist?"Plus, why overlook the fact that our government has been investing in private businesses for decades?
Not in this manner and not for these reasons. looking at the entirety of the decisions Trump has made since he's coming to office, it is abundantly clear that we are currently living under a fascist regime.
Mike, as you know, the U.S. government has a long history of investing in private businesses and other ventures, from energy and tech to banks during the financial crisis. The Biden administration alone has poured billions into green energy, EVs, chip manufacturing, and infrastructure projects. So if someone finds it “morally wrong” only when Trump’s administration does it, they’re overlooking the fact that nearly every administration, Republican and Democrat, has done the same.
She may not understand. These investments strengthen critical sectors like energy, defense, and semiconductors, encourage innovation in areas the private sector may shy away from, or to protect jobs and stabilize markets, as seen with past auto and bank bailouts. And can have successful returns. The returns come back in several forms, direct profits if the government holds equity, loan repayments with interest, increased tax revenue from stronger companies, and the broader economic benefits of more jobs and competitiveness. This is why administrations from both parties, including Biden’s with his large spending on green energy, EVs, and chip manufacturing, have followed the same approach. Hey, the chip industry is the place to be. I got in early and rode out the bumps, and now. Oh, am I glad I did. I think Trump’s chip investments are really smart.So what you support socialism / fascism? This move, this action is a core principle of such, no doubt about it
I need to put some more work into your understanding of fascism.
Government entities purchasing shares of stock in a company doesn't quite meet the definition.Fascism for an administration to invest in private businesses is common in our history. It appears she only feels it is fascist under Trump. I gave her the long list of the Biden administration's investments. She does not address that fact.
"I gave her the long list of the Biden administration's investments. She does not address that fact.
The examples are in no way even similar to what is happening under this fascist Administration .
Which company did the Biden Administration have the largest equity share of that company?You do realize that this view or take on policy that the government has that sort of involvement in the private sector is a VERY far left ideology LOL
Fox Business’s Larry Kudlow expressed concern on Friday over the Trump administration’s move to take a 10 percent stake in mega chipmaker Intel.
“I am very, very uncomfortable with that idea. I’m very uncomfortable with that one,"
I guess so, Fox News doesn't usually support Bernie Sanders positions!Crucially, the Intel equity stake is passive: The government receives non-voting shares, specifically without board representation or governance rights. That is all one needs to understand. You are making an implication that holds no water. I have no interest in what Kudlow said; he shared a view. One thing I don't agree with after looking deeply into how this deal was set up legally. He may not have been up on how the deal was set up, for all I know.
"If microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment,"
Agree?
The idea was Sanders’ in the first place, under Biden. LOL credit where credits due"If microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment," Willow
You need to research the difference between "grants" and equity investment.
Biden invested via grants and loans --- grants are often just free money. However, not all grants are purely “free money.” Some come with strings attached to ensure the funds are used as intended. I have no idea how the Biden administration set up the grants and loans from the Chips Act. The only indirect way the Treasury benefits from grants a as a rule, is through economic spillover: companies paying taxes, employees paying income taxes, and increased economic activity. Trump's administration made an equity investment.
Some loans under the CHIPS Act could generate small returns if repaid with interest, but overall, grants themselves do not produce federal revenue. I have no idea if the Biden administration added any form of positive outcomes from the Chip Act Loans and grants.
Biden’s CHIPS Act: The federal government gave grants and loans to private companies to encourage domestic semiconductor manufacturing and R&D. These funds are spending programs, not investments, meaning the government does NOT own any part of the companies. There’s NO direct financial return to the Treasury beyond INDIRECT benefits like taxes, job creation, and economic growth. Some projects have faced delays, financial pressures, or even legal issues, but the money is still spent to support industry expansion
Trump’s Intel Deal: Instead of a grant, the government took a 9.9% equity stake in Intel using previously allocated CHIPS Act funds. This means the government can earn dividends and capital gains if Intel performs well, directly adding to federal revenue. If Trump’s Intel investment pays off, any dividends or profits from selling the government’s 9.9% stake would go to the U.S. Treasury. Congress controls how that money is spent; it becomes part of the general federal budget, not earmarked for Intel or semiconductor projects. No agency or official can directly direct the funds; they are used like any other federal revenue.
So if the investment pays well, citizens could see a reward through congressional spending.Missing the point... This isn't about grants versus equity. This is about the taxpayers of America having a "right" to a reasonable return on that investment.
Do you agree with Bernie and the far far left ideology that citizenry should be entitled to a chunk of measurable public returns from that corporation? Rather than enriching executives and shareholders?
For better or worse, these are Bernie's ideas. They are Democratic socialist ideas."Missing the point... This isn't about grants versus equity. This is about the taxpayers of America having a right to a reasonable return on that investment." Willow
As my comment highlighted, there are possible advantages to both grants and equity investments for taxpayers to realize a return on both.
However, I believe using CHIPS Act funds as an investment rather than as grants is a smart and forward-thinking strategy. By putting the money into equity stakes, the government has the potential to generate returns for taxpayers, rather than simply distributing funds with no direct financial benefit.I don't know if any of this effort to dip into corporate profit will translate into anything tangible for real people but I can agree,.. I've always been on board with having corporations pay their fair share. I've always been called a "socialist" for it though.
What is considered "fair share?" Nobody on the left can define it as their lack of business knowledge is what leads them to say such things.
I believe corporations should pay NO federal corporate taxes. This will result in more corporations setting up in the United States. This will result in more jobs, higher tax revenues being paid to state and local governments by the workers, local businesses benefiting in many ways. Local companies selling the corporation its goods and services. Restaurants will open or increase their business as workers with money will be able purchase meals, stuff from stores, buy houses, etc.
Why are the basic aspects of business beyond the left's ability to comprehend?How do you reconcile Trump's socialist move with Intel?
If a Democrat were demanding a stake in Intel or special fees from Nvidia, the GOP would be screaming.
Most of your party are saying it’s another step toward “socialism” that undermines the free market... Certainly has nothing to do with capitalism. Like I said, this was originally Bernie's idea LOL. A Democratic socialist.
No doubt about it that Trump's willingness to use government power to influence the economy and corporations echoes socialist ideas,"Trump's socialist move with Intel"
Again, 15% is not a controlling interest. It means that 85% of the company is owned by other investors. A 15% stake won't give an investor any influence in how the company operates.
IF it was a controlling stake, it would be socialism. At this point, the government is just an investor.
If these intel companies don't want this purchase their bords can refuse to permit the sale.Whether or not the government has a controlling interest is irrelevant. LOL just a little socialism is okay then huh?
A cornerstone of capitalism is the PRIVATE ownership of the means of production. By acquiring an equity stake in Intel, the government gained a DIRECT ownership interest in a private corporation. This blurs the line between public and private sectors, moving towards socialist principles or what some call state capitalism ..
Plain and simple, This arrangement stands in stark contrast to the principles of a free market."A cornerstone of capitalism is the PRIVATE ownership of the means of production."
Again, if the government doesn't have a controlling interest in the company, it is "Private" ownership.
Using your logic, I guess all the government employee retirement programs that invest in the stock market is socialism. It isn't. These retirement programs, like the government, are simply investors.
"This is about the taxpayers of America having a "right" to a reasonable return on that investment."
Yes, and anyone with any level of business acumen understands that a corporation will pay back the American taxpayer by making more money, which means they will pay more in taxes thus increasing the country's tax revenue. They will be paying property taxes, corporate taxes, taxes on goods and services they purchase, local, state, federal taxes, etc. Money corporations pay for goods and services will support many companies that provide these goods and services. Again, this will increase the income of these companies and increase tax revenue as these companies will pay property taxes, corporate taxes, etc.
The American taxpayer will get jobs and possibly a career provided by corporations. Income, benefits, retirement plans, medical plans, etc. And again employees will be paying state, local, and federal taxes. This will increase the tax revenue.
Yes, the American public benefits greatly from corporations and experience quite a good return on an investment.
B. Sanders is a business nit wit.
The Democratic Party under Biden has leaned heavily into policies that reflect socialist and even Marxist ideas, particularly through the influence of its far-left wing. Marxism is built on class struggle, redistribution of wealth, and the belief that government should engineer equality, and you can see shades of that in Biden’s approach. His push for student loan forgiveness, massive climate spending, endless social program expansion, and promotion of higher taxes on businesses and successful individuals all line up with a socialist model where the state decides how wealth should be carved up. The DEI agenda also echoes Marxist thinking by reducing people to group identity rather than individual merit, and the constant rhetoric of “equity” goes beyond equality of opportunity into forced equality of outcome, one of Marx’s central aims. While no one is openly seizing factories or abolishing private property, the trajectory is clear: more power concentrated in Washington, less freedom for individuals, and a creeping normalization of collectivist ideas that chip away at capitalism. The far left isn’t shy about this; they call for rent control, wealth caps, and redistribution schemes that punish success in the name of “justice.” So while Democrats may claim these policies are just about fairness, the truth is they carry the fingerprints of Marxist ideology, and ignoring that only helps normalize it further.
In my view, this is what has sunk the Democratic Party.
I have no need to defend Trump — I support the very issues you’re criticizing. Holding corporations and universities accountable, using regulation and trade policies, and even challenging aspects of the free market are all necessary actions to keep capitalism functioning fairly and responsibly.But you didn't address the marxist, fascist aspects of the Trump presidency? I believe you previously claimed to be a capitalist but all of the things I mentioned in my previous post have nothing to do with capitalism.
"Holding corporations accountable?". Accountable to what? A dictator? You believe that his Intel deal had anything to do with accountability?
"the trajectory is clear: more power concentrated in Washington,
You support the concentration of power Trump is amassing in washington? That is certainly commonly seem in fascist regimes.
It's very clear we are now a fascist country with an authoritarian leaderI see nothing in Trump’s agenda or policies that even remotely suggests Marxism or socialism, quite the opposite, in fact. What I do see is a president working to keep the promises he made, which makes it all the more odd that some people feel otherwise. To me, these accusations show very little common sense. They come across as a kind of blind hysteria, one I’m grateful to have no part in.
I don’t feel any need to defend Trump himself; what I support are the issues you’re criticizing. I believe holding corporations and universities accountable is essential because unchecked power in either space leads to abuse and corruption. I support the use of trade policies because without them, capitalism can easily tilt into exploitation, harming workers, families, and small businesses. Even challenging certain aspects of the free market, when it becomes distorted or rigged, is necessary to keep the system fair. To me, these are not Marxist ideas at all; they are practical steps to preserve capitalism. and ensure it benefits the American people.
Trump is the president; he is the most powerful man in the world. As were all before him.
"The DEI agenda also echoes Marxist thinking by reducing people to group identity rather than individual merit,
Again, using an erroneous definition of what DEI is in reality..
Have you consulted artificial intelligence?
Scholarly sources and experts on fascism frequently cite Trump's rhetoric and actions as aligning with core concepts of fascism and authoritarianism.I shared my view on the subject, and again, you are being repetitive. Not taking any more time on this subject. Bye
Thank you Mike— I mean, we’ve seen the results of DEI in our own society firsthand. We don’t need anyone to point out how poorly it has been implemented. For example, schools sometimes prioritize quota-based admissions over merit, some workplaces promote individuals based more on identity than qualifications, and corporate trainings can foster division rather than inclusion. Add to that men in women’s bathrooms and competing in women’s sports, and in some states, migrants who entered the nation are being given extensive benefits while awaiting their asylum hearingsdr, draining tax dollars that could be spent on American citizens—and honestly, I could write a whole book on the unintended consequences of poorly applied DEI.
I am so thankful the Trump administration is attacking DEI at every front.
Expanding social safety net programs is not considered socialism by most economists and political theorists. The primary distinction lies in the ownership and control of the means of production, which socialism seeks to socialize, versus the use of taxes to fund social welfare within a market economy, which is the mechanism of a safety net....
Rand Paul did call the government's stake in Intel a "step toward socialism," I concur. I don't think you're properly characterizing socialism.
He isn't trying to be like trump.. he is mocking Trump...using Trump's exact stupid language and posting style....and it's extremely funny that the irony is completely lost on Fox talking heads and maga lol
He doesn't do cute well, does he? In fact. Look what a mess he has made of California. I must agree, he is desperate, and it shows.
Missing the point...
Fox is making fun of Gavin's posts and Gavin's posts mimic trumps posts..... COMPLETELY
The fox folks totally miss the irony and apparently some of my followers do also...There’s only one Trump. Gaven can play cute and mimic him, but in my view, citizens are tired of the silliness, fed up with endless phone games, and sick of what some call greasy politicians. I think, in doing this, Gaven isn’t doing himself any favors.
Newsom is parodying Trump online and the reaction from Trump’s followers is proof that Newson is on to something,...
It's a bold strategy: hold up a mirror and watch the subject recoil in horror at their own reflection. The outrage isn't about the parody; it's about the sudden, unwelcome self-awareness of a style they've championed for years.
The admin's playbook is on full display. When Fox News' talking head Dana Perino told Newsom to "stop it with the Twitter thing" on Aug 20, she validated the critique... a style unfit for a governor is somehow presidential.
OH THAT'S RICH DANADana was right—Newsom’s parody was flat-out foolish, the kind of thing you’d expect from a kindergartner trying to irritate the kid next to him. I don’t grade politicians on gimmicks; I look at their records, and Newsom’s is nothing to brag about. If he ever stepped into a Democratic primary, he’d get shredded just like Harris did. Silly antics won’t carry him, voters will zero in on his failures, his decisions, and his past. And when that happens, Gavin won’t just be on the stage; he’ll be on the chopping block.
"Dana was right—Newsom’s parody was flat-out foolish, the kind of thing you’d expect from a kindergartner trying to irritate the kid next to him.
The irony of the parody is flying over the head of some Maga isn't it?
Foolish and like a kindergartner?
YET PRESIDENTIAL BEHAVIOR
Like a kindergartener?
How many "truths" should I pull up of Trump's that are absolutely identical and maga folks think are absolutely high brow...LOLShe is right.
"President Donald Trump, he imitates nobody and is 100% himself. What you see is what you get. He is authentic."
"Trump is 100% "authentic"...
They are right.
What Newsom is doing is "Like a kindergartener"..., Trump IS the kindergartener.Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...
or is it envy?Missing the point...
IT'S NOT IMITATION. IT'S MOCKERY
https://www.salon.com/2025/08/24/fox-ne … -trolling/
Yes, I have to delve deep into humanity’s lowest common denominator to find people that allow themselves to be guided by such rubbish as found in these meme messages.
However, war is war, what ever it takes to bring down the Trump regime and punish Texas, Trump and the Right for inappropriate redistricting, then we have to meet these people where we find them.
The Democrats abandoning Texas was not all for naught. It has created a national controversy motivating many in our party to stop pussyfooting around with a clear enemy.
Newsom, as a determined leader in this fight, is a man that I cannot spare. He may well prove to be presidential timber in 2028, against the crusty old orange bum or his heir apparent.
If we can stick a tack in the chair of Fox and its diddo heads, let us create and provoke every sort discord and confusion amongst the enemy. So lets get Fox and the Rightwingers running scared! Instead of TDS, lets make TBS front and center before the voting public?
I have sent my few dollars to Newsom supporting California, my launch point in pride as the first state amongst equals, in my support to the cause and encourage other blue states to work together to FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE."Newsom is like the court jester pointing out how stupidly the king is acting. The inability of Trumpists to see it makes it even funnier..."
Invariably, by Newsom holding up the mirror to Trump, he has caused others beyond MAGA media to reflexively flinch. The medicine dispensed by the governor tastes especially bitter to those who suffer from a lack of self-awareness."
I am very pleased that Gavin Newsom is shining a light on Trump's daily odd and delusional rants. The media, too frequently "sanewashes" them.
Gavin is willing to fight and I'm 100% behind that. Where he goes over the next few years, we will just have to say.
I appreciate the Salon perspective.I appreciate newsom as well.
He's no real threat and is entertaining at his attempts to become relevant.Mike, it’s odd how thrilled the left seems with Newsom’s antics. Yet none of the left-leaning media are pointing out that he may be eyeing a presidential run in 2028, and they’re ignoring the real story: how he has run California into a serious mess. Under his leadership, the state faces skyrocketing homelessness, soaring housing costs, rising crime in major cities, persistent power outages, and a broken infrastructure system, all while offering migrants generous benefits like free housing, food, healthcare, and other social services. At the same time, California is grappling with a significant budget deficit, following previous deficits of nearly $32 billion in 2023–24 and projections of $73 billion for 2024–25. Meanwhile, high taxes and strict regulations continue to push residents and businesses out of the state, further compounding the fiscal and social challenges. My, what a great president he would make.
People love that he is holding up a mirror to dear leader...mocking his ridiculous behavior. The all caps posts, filled with hyperbole, filled with lies, and who can forget the ridiculous photos. Yeah. It's hilarious
You keep repeating yourself, and I’m finished entertaining the Newsom sideshow. From now on, my focus is on his record, not his theatrics. Newsom has made a spectacle of himself, desperate for attention. But when you strip away the act and look at what he’s actually done, the picture is clear: he’s not a leader, he’s the man who ruined California.
Always up to talk about Newsom's job record. But other than that, you share your view. And so did I.If you think Newsom is a sideshow then it logically follows Trump is as well..
Trump wants the FCC to revoke the licenses of ABC and NBC because they don’t praise him enough
MAGA calls that “free speech”
The rest of us call it fascism
You really have to look at the words.
"According to many"
"I would be in favor of that"
He never directly said any broadcast license would be revoked.
I'm sure he knew the news agencies would run with this and that the left would run around screaming about it. President Donald Trump is in such control of the left, it's entertaining.This is what autocrats say and do. Some threats he intends to carry out, others are just meant to intimidate to produce a change in behavior caused by fear. this is autocracy. This is fascism.
Bernie Sanders came out and praised the move, so I guess at least you guys have that!
Remember when Trump said he thinks of the economy as “a giant, beautiful store,” I own the store, and I set prices, and I’ll say, if you want to shop here, this is what you have to pay.”
He is orchestrating the functioning of the private sector rather than allowing markets to function independently.
Yeah that's fascism.I believe Trump speaks from real experience, given his long history of dealing with the media. It’s easy to see how he formed his view, and I share it. What frustrates me is how quickly some people brush aside the full context. Just glad I escaped this odd phenomenon.
Yes, in my view, it’s become a real phenomenon in our society where people grab a word or two, maybe even a single sentence, and the larger context is ignored. That’s exactly what much of the media does, which is why Trump took a couple of media outlets to court and won. From what I’ve seen in my own research, his reasoning was solid, especially considering how often the media twists things by pulling just a line or two out of context. I do think some outlets are starting to clean up their act. And let’s not forget the late-night hosts who were fired after playing the same game, dragging their networks down to rock-bottom ratings.
ABC News & George Stephanopoulos
Filed: March 2024, claiming defamation over a statement by Stephanopoulos that a jury had found Trump “liable for rape,” when legally it was sexual abuse.
Outcome: Settled in December 2024. ABC contributed $15 million to Trump’s presidential library, paid $1 million in legal fees, and issued a statement expressing regret.
CBS / Paramount (“60 Minutes”)
Filed: October 2024, alleging deceptive editing of a Kamala Harris interview to mislead viewers under Texas consumer protection laws. Initially demanded up to $20 billion.
Outcome: Settled mid-2025 for $16 million to Trump’s future library; no admission of wrongdoing. CBS also committed to releasing transcripts of future candidate
Step by step, right in front of our eyes...
And no one is trying to stop them. The country is numb. And his sheeple only know how to clap.
SMH
CNBC: So we should expect the US government to be taking more equity stakes in businesses around the country?
KEVIN HASSETT: It's possible, yeah. That's absolutely right.
LOL FASCISM...don’t want to hear a single word about Democrats and socialism ever again. EVER
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1959974041751576796
Going to be FUN when a DEM POTUS takes a 75% stake in Sturm Ruger “for free” in 2029. RIGHT??"Today it’s Intel, tomorrow it could be any industry,” Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) said Friday...Socialism is literally government control of the means of production....socialism with an R next to its name’
"Trump has never been a doctrinaire free-market believer, and his longtime embrace of protectionism has upended the GOP’s longtime emphasis on the ideals of small government and laissez-faire capitalism. In an interview with Time magazine earlier this year, the president said he thinks of the economy as “a giant, beautiful store,” I own the store, and I set prices, and I’ll say, if you want to shop here, this is what you have to pay.”
SOUNDING LIKE A BIG BEAUTIFUL AUTHORITARIAN.
WELL AT LEAST YOU HAVE A FRIEND ON THE LEFT
"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), who praised the move... he said Friday, urging the administration to go still further."
Trump’s Intel Move Blurs Party Lines on Economic Intervention - WSJ https://share.google/0xohbBH9nna8pWZ7YTrump blathering currently in the oval office, strategically hiding his spackled hand.
Trump: "A lot of people are saying maybe we'd like a dictator.". MY GOD
HE'S GOT YOUR NUMBER MAGA
Trump LIES and claims 11 days without murders in DC is a record.
FACT: we’ve had 11 days without murders in DC numerous times in 2024 and 2025. We’ve had spans of 15+ days in 2025 alone.
Trump lies and MAGA believes it.
HE IS INITIATING A POLICE STATE IN AMERICATrump signs an executive order: "If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail."
Our constitutional republic does not have any provision which allows a president to enact a criminal statute by executive order that would put people in prison.
SO MUCH FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC...I am still waiting for you to explain your math --- 15% 9% how you have calculated that is a majority ownership.
I haven't calculated anything but lots of other people have...
"The investment makes the U.S. government the largest owner of Intel, based on an Investor's Business Daily analysis of ownership data from S&P Global Market Intelligence as of Aug. 21."
S&P 500: 5 Private Intel Investors Get Shafted As U.S. Takes 10% | Investor's Business Daily https://share.google/xkK4kk9V1cHYwpmOK
"Under the deal announced Friday, the U.S. government will become Intel’s largest shareholder*
Trump’s Intel Move Blurs Party Lines on Economic Intervention - WSJ https://share.google/eVHz54FEvY31yy0j7Like I said before, it will probably not happen.
The US government would be a shareholder, but it won't have a controlling interest. It won't control the company. Depending on the type of stock that is purchased, they may or may not have voting rights.
I haven't seen the SEC weigh in on this yet.
They may not permit the purchase.
You do know that foreign governments buy stock in US companies.
Yikes -- for anyone following the back and forth regarding the Government's investment in Itel --- Here are the facts from the horse's mouth. And yes, I used AI to quickly offer me an Intel statement on the deal.
https://newsroom.intel.com/corporate/in … hatgpt.comTrump’s federal stake in Intel prompts GOP complaints
President Trump’s announcement that the federal government would take a 10 percent stake in Intel, once the nation’s most successful chip manufacturer, has raised alarm bells with conservative Republicans, who see it as part of a bigger trend under Trump of the federal government asserting itself in corporate decisionmaking.
Trump announced his agreement with Intel after he reached a separate deal earlier this month with two other U.S.-based chipmakers, Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), that will see them pay the U.S. government 15 percent of their revenue from AI-chip sales to China.
Trump rankled members of his party in June when his administration agreed to Japan’s Nippon Steel acquisition of U.S. Steel in exchange for the U.S. government getting a “golden share” giving it broad authority over U.S. Steel’s governance.
Conservative Republican critics of the Intel deal warn it’s another step toward “socialism” that undermines the free market and sets a precedent that Democrats could exploit when they return to power.
Some prominent Republican lawmakers and former officeholders are questioning Trump’s rationale and whether Intel is likely to benefit or suffer from partial federal ownership, invoking comparisons to state-owned enterprises in China, Russia and other government-run economies.
“I don’t care if it’s a dollar or a billion-dollar stake,” Tillis told journalist Major Garrett. “That starts feeling like a semi state-owned enterprise à la CCCP,” referring to the acronym for the USSR.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) called it a “terrible idea.”
“If socialism is government owning the means of production, wouldn’t the government owning part of Intel be step toward socialism?” he posted on social media.
Mike Pence, Trump’s former vice president, however, told Bloomberg that he has “great concerns” about the U.S. government having “golden shares” in Nippon Steel or “taking a percent of Intel.”
"The limitations on the ability of Nvidia to sell chips to China was on the basis of our national security. Simply taking 15 percent of those sales doesn’t serve our national interest or our national security, I would argue,” he said.
“If I was speaking to the president, I’d encourage him: It’s time to think twice. State-owned enterprise is not the American way. Free enterprise is the American way,” he added.
Larry Kudlow, who served as Trump’s National Economic Council director during his first term, said during his show on Fox Business that he is “very, very uncomfortable” with the government taking a 10 percent stake in Intel, while conservative economist Stephen Moore, who appeared as a guest on the program, argued the government should “divest of assets, not buy assets.”
The conservative National Review warned in an editorial that the “government shouldn’t get into the chip business,” arguing that if the government isn’t getting involved in Intel’s business decisions, “there would be little point in becoming a shareholder.”
The criticisms appear to have bounced off Trump, who declared on Monday that he’s willing to make deals like the one he struck with Intel “all day long.”
Brian Darling, a GOP strategist and former Senate aide, said Trump’s decision to take a stake in the semiconductor company is puzzling given that it’s a major departure from conservative economic principles.
“It’s head-scratcher, it really is. When you get the government involved in owning private enterprise, you are creeping toward managed capitalism, a model that China has used,” he said. “It’s not something that free market-oriented conservatives like. They’re horrified by the idea of the government trying to control corporations,” he said.
A second Republican strategist and former Hill leadership staffer who requested anonymity to speak warned that Trump could be setting a bad precedent that Democrats will use to push their own agenda in the business sector when they regain control of Washington.
“It’s socialism. It’s nationalizing the means of production. You think the horrifying things that a Democratic administration could do when they’re in power,” said the strategist."The U.S. government is likely to take ownership stakes in more companies — just as it did with Intel — toward the goal of building a sovereign wealth fund, National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett said Monday."
Oh well... Free market capitalism is so yesterday LOL
This is one of the biggest "bait and switch" in politics I've seen.
Run as a capitalist, govern as a socialist and have your "conservative" base cheer it on.
Wild. Just wild.Fed Governor Lisa Cook pushes back with a strong statement after Trump claimed to fire her...
“President Trump purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so. I will not resign and will continue my work to support the U.S. economy, as I have since 2022.”
For the first time in 111 years, a President is planning to fire a sitting Fed governor and of course, it’s the first Black woman, Lisa Cook.Note-- I am not addressing this to anyone--- I am sharing my view.
Once again, we see the media and politicians steering the public with misinformation, creating confusion about how investments actually work, and even labeling this as a step toward socialism. Let’s be honest, we already face plenty of policies from our representatives that lean toward socialism, but a simple stock investment is not one of them. This is a textbook example of “let’s see how many people will buy into the narrative,” rather than dealing with the facts. In my view, this does show that the general public will just about buy into anything.
The key misunderstanding here is the idea that simply buying stock or making an equity investment equates to government control or socialism.
That is not how capitalism works. In a capitalist system, ownership of shares is open to anyone, an individual, a pension fund, a university endowment, or, yes, even the U.S. government. What matters is not who invests, but whether that investment gives them control over the company’s decisions or operations. In this case, the Intel deal does not hand the U.S. government the ability to dictate management choices, production goals, or hiring practices. The government is essentially just another investor, no different than you, me, or Wall Street institutions buying Intel shares.
Let's define Socialism. It's defined by government control of the means of production, where the state owns and operates industries, directs output, and overrides private decision-making. None of that is happening here. Intel remains a private company, competing in the free market, run by its own board and executives. The government, like any other investor, has no more influence than its proportion of stock allows, and in this deal, the arrangement was structured so the U.S. acts as a passive partner, not a controller.
If anything, this deal reinforces capitalism in the fullest definition. Because it relies on the private sector to innovate, compete, and grow, while the government plays a supportive role as an investor, ensuring America remains technologically competitive. Calling that socialism would be like saying your 401(k) or state teachers’ retirement fund is “socialist” because it owns stock in private companies. The distinction is clear: investment control, and control is the defining feature of socialism.Quite a pretzel.
"Intel remains a private company, competing in the free market, run by its own board and executives. "
No influence??
"The CEO of INTEL is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately," Trump wrote. "There is no other solution to this problem. Thank you for your attention to this problem!".". DJT
LOL "a supportive role"?As an investor, he is entitled to his opinion.
I'm entitled to voice my opinion on the companies I own stock in. I can even go to meeting and express my views if I want.
Trust me, investors express themselves about the companies they've invested in all the time.
It's part of owning stock.
and here I thought Republicans
wanted smaller government and for states to govern themselves...guess they mean only red states?
Trump says he plans to sue California over redistricting...BUT Texas is apparently OK .Come on, Willow, are people really that dumb to accommodate such a glaring example of double standards and hypocrisy? I suspect that California republicans are going to the state’s Supreme Court, claiming that the Democrats are power grabbing. Would they dare visit the US Supreme Court looking for relief from that august body that ruled not so long ago, that gerrymandering problems are in the purview of state legislatures. The Court certainly do not want to reveal themselves as totally partisan and in Trumps back pocket, letting North Carolina and Texas get away with it while castigating California?
Yup.
But these are not longer republicans. MAGAs want and cheer whatever their king says or does.
I didn’t see anyone here speaking up when Biden’s administration handed Intel one of the biggest corporate giveaways in U.S. history, $8.5 billion in taxpayer-funded grants plus up to $11 billion more in low-interest loans. Funny how that part gets brushed aside. To me, that looks like a very real conflict of interest, yet I keep seeing the word “hypocrite” tossed around in the wrong direction. Maybe take a closer look at what your guy did, because if we’re talking conflicts, that one was hard to miss.
You know, the media really twisted this whole Intel thing to make it look like Trump just woke up one morning and started throwing around accusations with no reasoning. But if you actually look at what’s going on, it makes sense why he called Intel’s CEO “highly conflicted.” Under the Biden administration, Intel got one of the biggest handouts in history, $8.5 billion in direct taxpayer-funded grants and up to $11 billion more in low-interest loans through the CHIPS Act. That money is supposed to be about national security and keeping chip production in America, but let’s be real, when you’re taking that kind of cash from Washington, you’re automatically tied to politics and the people writing the checks. On top of that, Gelsinger has been tight with Biden officials while building out these deals, which to Trump looks like a CEO putting globalist and political interests over America-first priorities. So no, Trump didn’t go into a long legal case about it, but there’s reasoning behind his point. The media just pretends there isn’t because it’s easier to say he’s “ranting” than to talk about why taxpayer billions are being shoveled into corporate pockets without much accountability.
I’ve already seen people throw out the line, “Well Trump did the same thing.” But no, it’s not the same. When Trump pushed for investments in U.S. companies, it was structured differently, things like tax incentives, deregulation, and creating a competitive climate so companies wanted to build here. What Biden did with Intel is an outright massive handout of taxpayer dollars, $8.5 billion in grants and $11 billion in cheap loans. That’s not the government stepping back and letting the market thrive; that’s the government writing checks and hoping the company plays ball. Trump’s focus was always about making America attractive for investment without Washington pulling the strings. So when he points out that Intel’s CEO is “conflicted,” it’s because with billions in government handouts, you’re not just a private company anymore, you’re tied directly to politicians. That’s the difference, and it matters."it’s because with billions in government handouts, you’re not just a private company anymore, you’re tied directly to politicians. That’s the difference, and it matters"
They're still getting the handout it just comes with the actual hand of the government"They're still getting the handout it just comes with the actual hand of the government" willow
I disagree, Due to there is a great difference between giving grants and loans versus a financial investment.
Both approaches involved forms of investment. Biden, through grants and loans, aimed to generate job growth and increase federal tax revenue. Trump’s approach was a direct investment, with the potential to earn money that could be added to the Treasury at any time.
The U.S. government acquired its 9.9% stake in Intel on August 22, 2025, through an $8.9 billion investment. This deal was part of a broader strategy to support domestic semiconductor manufacturing and national security. The investment was funded by $5.7 billion in remaining CHIPS and Science Act grants and $3.2 billion awarded to Intel under the Secure Enclave program.
Since the purchase, four days ago, Intel's stock price has appreciated from the acquisition price of $20.47 per share to approximately $24.35 per share as of August 26, 2025. This increase represents a paper gain of about $1.65 billion on the government's investment.
Biden’s grants and CHIPS Act loans to Intel don’t generate significant direct revenue for the U.S. Treasury. Grants are essentially free money, providing indirect benefits like boosting domestic manufacturing, jobs, and tech capacity. Loans can earn some interest, but the terms are designed to encourage investment, so the financial gain for the Treasury is modest compared to the strategic goals. The problem since the grants, and loans
However, workforce changes have occurred. Despite the expansion, Intel is undergoing significant workforce reductions: The company plans to eliminate approximately 25,000 jobs by the end of 2025, representing about 15% of its workforce.
https://fortune.com/2025/07/25/intel-la … hatgpt.com
Additionally, over 5,000 jobs have been cut across four states as part of a broader restructuring effort. https://siliconangle.com/2025/07/16/int … hatgpt.comShar,
I would like to point out that what biden did is not uncommon.
All administrations have done the same thing. The biden administration's grants just didn't make a lot of sense.
Don't get me started on the "green energy" companies the biden administration basically funded. Companies that dissolved months after getting the grants. What a fiasco.So if it made no sense for Biden to award a grant to the Intel corporation, why does it make sense for Trump to give the money?
I mean it's really interesting that Trump would pick up a plan that was first floated by Democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders..."So if it made no sense for Biden to award a grant to the Intel corporation, why does it make sense for Trump to give the money?
I mean it's really interesting that Trump would pick up a plan that was first floated by Democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders..." Willow
I’d respond by pointing out that the situations aren’t the same. Trump’s support for Intel wasn’t a “grant” in the same sense that Biden has handed out to failing green-energy startups; it was tied to a broader national security and competitiveness strategy. Semiconductor manufacturing is critical to everything from defense systems to consumer electronics, and the U.S. had fallen dangerously dependent on Asia. Trump backed the CHIPS framework because it was a way to bring cutting-edge production back home, something no administration had ever done before.
As for Bernie Sanders, yes, he talked about industrial policy, but his vision was rooted in government control and redistribution, while Trump’s push with Intel was about incentivizing private industry to invest in America’s future. It’s less about ideology and more about protecting supply chains and ensuring we don’t get left behind in a global technology race.The Sanders plan and the Trump in reality are no different. Most conservatives recognize that point.... That's why they've been speaking out against it LOL
I shared my view and noted yours. No need for me to repeat.
Here is an interesting take, funny how so different perspectives can be:
https://youtu.be/hnqf1mu0WHM?si=sxGCr-Fa74gCztTmKen, I’ve followed Susan Kokinda on YouTube for some time, and I have to say she has a way of laying things out so clearly that it makes sense of what we’re all seeing unfold right now. For a long time, I hesitated to use the word, but I believe she’s right; it really does feel like we’re in the midst of a third revolution. When I watched the three-hour cabinet roundtable, I didn’t just find it exciting, I found it reassuring. It showed me that we truly have the right people aligned and the right President with the calm, steady, no-quit attitude needed to win America back from the weakening grip of the elites. Yes, the fight ahead is real, and the Democrats and their allies in power are scrambling as their hold slips away. But like Susan, I’ve kept my faith in the people, just as I did when Trump ran again, knowing deep down he would win because of “We the People.” They may throw everything at us with their noise and rhetoric, but to me, they look finished, a small minority clinging to a failed agenda and un-American ideologies. The coming midterms will, I think, reveal just how wounded and hollow the Democratic Party has become. There was a time, decades ago, when they stood for something, but now they’ve lost themselves to Marxist-style thinking and a bloated version of socialism. Susan’s clarity helps remind me that we are not only in the fight, we are on the winning side of history.
Thanks for sharing the YouTube... I hope others here will have a look.
"I would like to point out that what biden did is not uncommon." Mike
Yes, I have pointed this out over and over. Trying to offer a non-biased view of what both administrations have done as well as the differences.
There are differences for sure; however, this is not the first time our Government has invested in a private business. It was done under Obama, for good reasons.
In my view, Trump pushed for investment in Intel because he saw the need to bring semiconductor manufacturing back to the U.S. and reduce dependence on foreign supply chains. This type of federal support for building advanced chip plants had never been done before, making it a first-of-its-kind move to secure America’s technological future and national security.
I know what you mean regarding the "green energy" businesses Biden funded with grants and loans. There were several
Summary List — Green-Energy or EV Companies That Closed or Went Bankrupt Soon After Receiving Government Support
Sunnova Energy – $3 billion DOE loan guarantee; filed for Chapter 11 (2025)
Li-Cycle Holdings – $375 million green-energy loan finalized late; filing for bankruptcy, high doubts on going concern
Plug Power – $1.6 billion loan guarantee; layoffs of 200+ workers
Lion Electric – ~$160 million federal support; declared bankruptcy, ceased production within ~18 months
Proterra – Electric bus maker; bankrupt August 2023 after prior administration praise
Fisker Automotive, ECOtality, Vehicle Production Group (VPG) – Received tens to hundreds of millions in government funding, later collapsed
Odd to support a liar.
Trump:" I watched a man from Maryland who said to me, sir, you are the greatest president. Governor Moore. Has anybody heard of him? They have it on tape."
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1960382458777808938
Moore never said this. It's not on tape. Fox News played the tape Trump is referring to, and it showed Moore did not say this. But no one in the administration will correct him about anything when he lies or misspeaks, so he keeps blissfully saying things that are not true....Bessent doing his part at the North Korean style cabinet meeting yesterday...
It just really feels like there is no lie that Maga won't accept. No number of lies that crosses some sort of ethical threshold...
Gee, I wish there was a way to check sources.
Most on this forum never seem to react or respond to the lies this man tells daily..they are just ignored. Folks should probably just start saying that they really don't care how many egregious lies he spews...ethics or morality just aren't a priority for maga
Why didn't the left do say "they don't care how many egregious lies he spews...ethics or morality just aren't a priority" when biden was president?
That would be honet.You’re exactly right. If the left was being honest, they would’ve said the same thing when Biden was in office. He repeatedly lied about key issues, but there was no outcry about “ethics” or “morality” from the media or his supporters. For example, Biden claimed over and over that inflation was “temporary,” even as prices kept climbing and families felt the squeeze. He also insisted the border was “secure,” while millions of illegal crossings and record levels of fentanyl proved otherwise. And let’s not forget his repeated stories about his past, from being “arrested” in South Africa to claiming he drove an 18-wheeler, things that were simply not true. Yet, those lies were brushed aside while every word Trump says is magnified as though it’s the end of the republic.
All his mistruths as well as illogical stories that could be determined as lies --- I could write a coffee table book.
Said he was “at Ground Zero the day after 9/11.” He visited on Sept. 20, 2001—nine days later.
AP News
Said he was arrested in South Africa trying to see Nelson Mandela. No evidence; he later walked it back.
FactCheck.org
PolitiFact
Repeated an anecdote about being “arrested” during a civil-rights protest as a teen; records don’t support it.
FactCheck.org
Claimed he “used to drive an 18-wheeler.” No record he ever drove a tractor-trailer.
PolitiFact
Told the “Amtrak conductor Angelo Negri” story to illustrate his train miles—timeline doesn’t add up.
FactCheck.org
Said he taught “political theory” at the University of Pennsylvania. He held a paid post but did not teach regular semester classes.
The Washington Post
Claimed he visited Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue before the 2018 shooting; the congregation says no.
The Washington Post
Recounted a house “burned down with my wife in it.” Fire officials said it was a small kitchen fire, quickly contained.
Linknovate
Said he’d been to Iraq and Afghanistan “over 40” times; count is off (includes some non-visits/overlaps).
New York Post
“My son died in Iraq.” Beau Biden died in 2015 of brain cancer in Maryland, not in Iraq. (He did serve in Iraq.)
WTAE
Claimed inflation was “9% when I came to office.” It was about 1.4% in Jan. 2021; 9.1% peak came in June 2022.
PolitiFact
Suggested gas was “over $5” when he started. National average crossed $5 in June 2022, not Jan. 2021.
Yahoo News
Boasted he “cut the deficit by $1.7 trillion.” Deficits fell largely as pandemic spending expired; claim earned a WaPo “Bottomless Pinocchio.”
The Washington Post
FactCheck.org
CRFB
Left a misleading impression on U.S. debt growth by blaming it all on his predecessor’s tax cuts. (COVID relief was a big chunk.)
FactCheck.org
Said he “created more jobs than any president,” omitting that much of the gain was post-pandemic rehiring; context missing.
FactCheck.org
Claimed “wages are up” without noting inflation outpaced nominal gains for long stretches.
FactCheck.org
Said “no one making under $400,000 will pay a penny more in taxes,” despite independent analyses noting indirect effects (e.g., corporate tax incidence).
FactCheck.org
Suggested the border was “secure” while illegal crossings were hitting records; context highly misleading.
FactCheck.org
Said his policies “reduced the debt.” The debt rose each year; deficits fell from COVID highs but remained elevated.
CRFB
Claimed he “cut the deficit more than any president in history.” Misleading for the same reason—baseline effect after COVID.
PolitiFact
Said insulin would be $35 for “everyone”; the cap applied first to Medicare, not all privately insured until later changes by some manufacturers.
FactCheck.org
Claimed “no soldiers died” during a period in his presidency; fact-checks flagged this as incorrect (e.g., 13 service members died in Kabul, Aug. 2021).
The Times
Said “America’s economy is the strongest in the world” while cherry-picking selective metrics; fact-checkers called it spin.
FactCheck.org
Claimed he “restored Roe v. Wade” protections via executive action—overstates authority; can’t undo Dobbs by EO.
FactCheck.org
Said Republicans want to “cut Social Security and Medicare” as a whole; overgeneralized from proposals by some members.
FactCheck.org
Repeated that he was the “first in [his] family to go to college,” which he’d admitted decades ago wasn’t true.
The Washington Post
1987: Said he finished in the “top half” of his law-school class; he was 76th of 85.
AP News
The Washington Post
1987: Said he had “three undergraduate degrees” and a full academic scholarship; records didn’t match those boasts.
PolitiFact
1987–88: Plagiarized parts of speeches (Neil Kinnock, RFK/JFK), then withdrew from the race; his campaign later acknowledged unattributed lifts.
The Washington Post
+1
Claimed he “came out of the civil-rights movement” and “marched,” a story he has contradicted over the years.
The Washington Post
Said he “worked as a professor” after the vice-presidency; his Penn role involved no regular teaching load.
The Washington Post
Claimed he’d “reduced the price of gas by $1.60” from when he took office—comparisons to peak prices are misleading.
FactCheck.org
Touted “the most significant border deal in decades,” implying passage; the bipartisan bill failed in Congress.
FactCheck.org
Claimed “shrinkflation” was illegal or that he had banned it; the administration criticized it but didn’t outlaw it.
FactCheck.org
Said there was “no evidence” that deficit reduction came from expiring COVID programs; fact-checkers said the expiration was the main driver.
FactCheck.org
CRFB
Suggested corporate tax hikes would have “no effect” on anyone under $400k; economists note some burden can fall on workers/consumers.
FactCheck.org
Said U.S. had the “lowest inflation of any major economy” during periods when it did not.
FactCheck.org
Claimed record manufacturing job growth uniquely due to his laws, glossing over cyclical rebound from pandemic lows.
FactCheck.org
Implied student-debt cancellation was fully legal by statute after the Supreme Court said otherwise; subsequent plans used different legal authorities.
FactCheck.org
Said all “junk fees” were already banned after his actions; many proposed rules were still pending or limited in scope.
FactCheck.org
Claimed the truck driver who hit his wife’s car had been drinking – For years, Biden suggested Curtis Dunn, the driver in the 1972 crash that killed Neilia Biden and their daughter Naomi, had “drank his lunch.” Investigators found no evidence of alcohol use, and Dunn was never charged. His family publicly asked Biden to stop repeating the false claim, calling it deeply hurtful.
Pledged he would “not pardon” his son Hunter Biden—then did just that.
President Biden repeatedly said he would neither pardon nor commute Hunter Biden’s federal convictions. In June 2024 at the G7, he stated: “I abide by the jury decision. … I will not pardon him.” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre continued that line—in November: “Our answer stands, which is no.” Yet on December 1, 2024, Biden issued a full and unconditional pardon for Hunter, covering all federal offenses from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024—including gun and tax charges and any other crimes within that timeframe
PBS
Additional Misleading Claims About Hunter Biden’s Business
Claimed he “never spoke” to Hunter about his business dealings
Across multiple occasions in 2019 and beyond, Biden insisted he had never discussed business with his son. Yet evidence shows otherwise:
Xi spoke by speakerphone over 20 times with Hunter’s foreign associates.
He dined with oligarchs funding Hunter.
He possibly participated in a CEFC meeting.
House Oversight Committee
Denied Hunter ever made money in China
At the 2020 debate, Biden stated, “My son has not made money … in China.” This was false. By mid-2023, Hunter admitted receiving hundreds of thousands in payments from CEFC, and records show nearly $5 million went to Biden family entities.
Politico
Asserted Hunter’s business was “ethical” and had “nothing unethical”
Biden claimed that nothing about Hunter’s business dealings was unethical. However, testimony from Devon Archer depicted Hunter using his father's “brand” to signal influence and access. He also admitted Biden was the reason behind the “brand.”
House Oversight Committee
Politico
Repeatedly said he had “no involvement” in his son’s affairs
Both Hunter and Biden have said the elder Biden never discussed or was involved in Hunter’s business. But evidence—like dinner invites, phone calls, and email revelations—contradicts that claim.
FactCheck.org
Check Your Fact
Claimed no payments from China to the family
Asked about $1.3 million allegedly paid to the family via a third-party, Biden denied it. House GOP documents later confirmed those payments occurred.
House Oversight CommitteeAs I said, comparing a murderer, Trump, to a jay-walker, Biden.
To get even close to equivalency, you need to come up with another 18,000 to make your point.There is so much here that falls into the "context needed" category.
Trump's lies are blatant... Who is enjoying $1.99 a gas right now? I've posted his daily lies
His oval office pressers as well as his cabinet meetings are just packed with wall to wall lies.... Well actually anytime he opens his mouth lies seem to fly out
You've got to be kidding me... Even if that were true. Why would that stop you from addressing Trump's daily lies now??
This country has never had a president who has lied so often and so egregiously as Trump. The man is a pathological liar.That is comparing a murderer, Trump, to a jay-walker, Biden. And in any case, Biden got plenty of blow back from the Left for some of his better gaffes.
No—some seem to just count the number of lies, then decide that whoever tells fewer lies somehow isn’t a liar at all.
I like to take a close look at what’s being labeled a lie and then judge it by its gravity, the consequences. By that standard, Biden wins hands down. Honestly, I can’t fathom how anyone, like some do today, could suggest that telling fewer lies somehow makes a person less of a liar. What kind of mindset does that even represent?
I’ve come to recognize—and I truly believe it’s accurate- that those suffering from TDS see everything through a skewed lens. If their guy lies, it’s often overlooked or excused, no matter how serious. But if the other guy slips up, even slightly, it’s blown way out of proportion. Essentially, what’s good can be labeled as bad, and what’s bad can be spun as good, so long as it fits their narrative. Has this not become very evident?
You don't need to source the obvious unless we are speaking to are ignorant (non-pejorative) of what has happened and is happening in America.
For example, unless you have been totally out of the loop, it is well documented that Trump lies a lot. It has been well documented, even in this and related forums, by reporting and videos that MAUGA buys into those lies almost 100%. Therefore, it makes total sense to conclude that "there is no Trump lie that MAUGA won't accept."
When Mamdani says it, it’s socialism. When Trump does it, it’s genius.
The Trump GOP: Mamdani must be stopped. Also the Trump GOP: Government wants a piece of the action.
Remember, Republicans: It’s important that we stop Zohran Mamdani from becoming the next mayor of New York. The man is a socialist!
Mamdani talked about “the end goal of seizing the means of production” during a live-streamed conference of the Young Democratic Socialists of America in February 2021, and declared that “we have to continue to elect more socialists, and we have to ensure that we are unapologetic about our socialism.” (As much as one might be tempted to attribute that to youthful naiveté, Mamdani was 29 years old at that time, and he’s 33 now.) Mamdani wants the New York government to open and run its own grocery stores.
It’s a good thing we have President Donald Trump and his administration to stop the spread of Mamdani’s socialist agenda. Instead of having the government take greater control of private companies the way Mamdani wants, the administration is having the government take greater control of private companies the way Trump wants.
In the spring, Trump negotiated “golden shareholder” status for the government in U.S. Steel in exchange for approving its takeover by Nippon Steel. With the golden share, the administration has the power to outvote all other shareholders on the issues of relocation, transferring production or jobs outside the United States, closing or idling plants, employee salaries, and sourcing raw materials outside the United States.
It’s a free market as long as U.S. Steel executives and board members get a permission slip from the president. Then they’re perfectly free to do whatever he wants.
That’s hardly the end of it. In July, the Trump administration announced that the Defense Department was using $400 million in taxpayer money to purchase a 15 percent stake in the rare earth mineral mining company MP Materials and became the company’s largest shareholder.
Okay, that sounds kind of Mamdani-esque, but there’s a national security interest, even if it’s hard to square with Trump’s allowing U.S. chipmakers Nvidia and AMD to sell advanced chips to Chinese companies, as long as 15 percent of the money from those sales goes to the federal government. It’s perfectly normal for the federal government to demand a cut of foreign sales that had previously been barred for national security concerns. That’s just smart business, right?
Unlike the previous administration, in this presidency, it’s 15 percent for the big guy. Think of it as an agent’s fee. He’s repping America, after all.
After Trump unleashed his shock-and-awe tariff policy, he demanded that Walmart “EAT THE TARIFFS.” He had no problem in May telling Apple CEO Tim Cook that Apple should no longer make iPhones in India, and threatened tariffs against Apple products.
And then, on Friday, Trump announced on the social media platform he owns — isn’t capitalism great? — that “the United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future. I negotiated this Deal with Lip-Bu Tan, the Highly Respected Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars. This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL.”
Once upon a time, Republicans detested the idea of using taxpayer money to bail out a troubled company such as Intel. But that was before the GOP had a savvy dealmaker in charge.
Remember, Mamdani wants the government to intervene in the decision-making of private corporations in the bad ways, but Trump wants the government to intervene in the decision-making of private corporations in the good ways. Mamdani wants to control the means of production; Trump just wants to be the largest shareholder in the means of production. It’s totally different!
Some conservative thinkers about economics, who are usually big Trump fans, are having a hard time with the Intel deal. Stephen Moore joined Larry Kudlow’s Fox Business show on Friday, and when Kudlow asked, “How about the U.S. government owning 10 percent of Intel?,” Moore threw his head back and erupted in laughter.
“I hate corporate welfare!” Moore said. “That’s privatization in reverse! We want the government to divest of assets, not buy assets! So terrible, one of the bad ideas that’s come out of this White House.”
Kudlow concurred: “I am very, very uncomfortable with that idea.”
But remember, Republicans: We’ve got to stop Mamdani because he’s a socialist — because the last thing we need is someone in power calling for even greater government intervention in the private sector. People might start to get ideas.
-Jim GeraghtyIs there anyone left at FEMA capable of reacting to an emergency?
"FEMA workers put on leave after signing letter warning of Trump’s overhaul of the agency"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/26/politics … tion-trumpMy God...RFK JR wants us to believe school shootings are caused by medication, not the fact that we’ve made weapons of war easier to access than healthcare.
For context, plenty of countries use the same medications. But none of them have mass shootings like the U.S. The only reasonable difference is our gun laws.
Blaming pharmacology for policy failures is peak deflection and dereliction of responsibility. RFK Jr. continues to bring SHAME upon his family name.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1961129519630483708Public health theater reaches its final act...Trump’s admin replaces CDC scientists with political ventriloquists. Today’s episode? Firing directors who dare consult facts instead of fantasies.
Monarez lasted 28 days...shortest CDC director ever after refusing Kennedy’s June 2025 purge of vaccine experts & August’s $500M mRNA project cancellations. Three top officials resigned yesterday, joining 10,000 HHS staff axed in March. Kennedy’s “advisers” now include anti-vaxxers who think measles is childhood nostalgia.
AMERICA'S NEXT PANDEMIC WILL BE POLITICALAnd then there is this fool...
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1961141364294656416
Three years ago, Republicans killed a bill to expand mental health services in schools. Then, the Trump-Vance administration defunded school counselors and social workers....Tell me again how popular Trump is and how happy people are with the agenda LOL??
https://x.com/factpostnews/status/1961126831580479595It literally never ends does it? Just a constant stream of BS...
"Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy touted a new generation of trains as part of Donald Trump’s “vision” Wednesday—leaving out a key fact: They weren’t.
The former reality star was at Washington D.C.’s Union Station to take an inaugural journey on one of public railroad Amtrak’s new high-speed trains, to New York’s Penn Station.
He touted the new NextGen Acela 160mph high-speed trains on X, as “part of @POTUS’ vision to Make Travel Great again"
In fact, the trains were first ordered by none other than President Donald Trump’s nemesis: former President Barack Obama. And Duffy had voted against the bill which set their production in motion....
In reality, the $2.4 billion investment into next-generation trains and related infrastructure was initiated by Obama in August 2016, according to a press release from the company at the time.
WOMP WOMP. I THINK THE WHOLE ADMINISTRATION ARE LIARS.You certainly left out tons of context---
You’re leaving out key context. Yes, the original contract with Alstom was signed in Obama’s last year, 4 months before he left office (Aug 26, 2016), but those trains didn’t magically appear then. The actual construction didn’t even start until 2018 under Trump, with the first trainsets completed and rolled out for testing by 2020.
And here’s the kicker — despite Biden being a lifelong Amtrak cheerleader, the trains still never entered passenger service during his entire term because he dropped the ball. They were supposed to launch in 2021, yet here we are in 2025 just now seeing them carry passengers. So, if we’re being honest, the only administration where the trains physically existed, were built, and rolled out for testing was under Trump, in his first 8 months in office.
So, saying Duffy is a “liar” ignores the reality: Obama approved the idea, Trump’s years saw the construction and rollout, and Biden did what he does best: nothing. Gosh, the context looks a bit different when some facts are added.
Bottom line, Obama in 2016 ordered them —but ordering trains and actually getting them built, tested, and in service are two very different things. The truth is, those trains were delayed for years under Biden, with cost overruns, safety issues, and red tape holding them up. It’s the Trump administration that kept Amtrak funded, cut through regulations, and actually got these trains to the point where they could run today.
Trump doesn’t just talk—he delivers results."The train’s route, from D.C. to Boston via Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York, is also benefiting from legislation Trump opposed. Biden’s 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act allocated $66 billion to rail — the largest investment in Amtrak since it began receiving federal funding over 50 years ago....
Of that, $22 billion went directly to Amtrak to repair crumbling infrastructure, replace aging assets, and fund capital projects like the new Acela trainsets.
At the time, Trump tried to derail the legislation after repeatedly failing to pass an infrastructure bill of his own during his first term."
Initial Contract and Delays: Amtrak signed a $2.45 billion contract with Alstom in 2016 for the NextGen Acela trains. The initial funding package, consisting of federal loans, was announced during the Obama-Biden administration. However, the rollout of the trains was delayed due to issues during testing and the need to meet new safety standards.
FROM AI....
The Trump administration did not significantly contribute to the funding or development of the new NextGen Acela trains. In fact, it often pursued policies that conflicted with major Amtrak and rail infrastructure projects. While the trains entered service during his second term, the project itself was initiated under previous administrations and propelled by the Biden administration.
So no, Trump has nothing to do with this... He didn't fund anything... That was Biden. Did Trump sweep away the safety standards? That would seem about right....
And then there is this crank...
RFK JR:...." I’m looking at kids as I walk through the airports today...and I see these kids that are just overburdened with mitochondrial challenges, inflammation—you can tell from their faces, movements, and lack of social connection"
No—you can’t diagnose complex metabolic disorders by sight. Let me remind folks that this is the man who took his grandchildren swimming in a creek of shit.... This man is lunatic who does not belong in government. Should have never been appointed.
He is also moved to limit the availability of the covid vaccine... Something he stated at his confirmation hearing that he would not do.... Just another Trump Administration liar.
https://x.com/DrNeilStone/status/1960945385867743300And I don't think anyone has even touched Trump's attempted power grab of the Fed... I'm sure maga can sing the praises of that move too... Pure authoritarianism
One day, we’re gonna look back in amazement that charlatans and cranks like this were in positions of prominence...
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/19 … 8930560188Watch this for a few moments (timestamped to start at 6:07):
https://youtu.be/zirCFrvU7dc?t=368
Such a shame, a tragedy really... that we reached that level of unity and acceptance of one another, in believing in America... the Nation... to be where we are now.That was powerful---- Oh my. I hope more people here will watch.
Understanding what we are fighting... within... here in America, is the most important thing.
Knowingly or not, everyone who supports the Democrats today, Progressivism, and what they have taught our children, especially in our Universities... is supporting America's destruction, to become something far worse:
UTII | An American Odyssey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoEUV_UzOL8
More powerful and more important for people to watch.How ironic. Most of our universities have been teaching what you think of as "leftist" thoughts since Harvard was founded a couple of centuries ago. For the most part, America has prospered because of it.
It seems to me America started on its most recent downward path with the rise of social conservativism and has culminated in the anti-American caricature of Donald Trump - the very person our liberal founders tried to exclude from ever coming to power.
So it was a film about a few Black people who work against the interests of other Black people and, if they voted for Trump, the interests of a democratic America.
I suspect back in the day, there were a few Blacks who supported slavery or, not very long ago, the coordinated suppression by Whites or Blacks freedom and liberty.
But, as far as I know, the only one of us that can comment from experience is Credence, if he cares to.
Let's see if I can find a similar video of conservatives going after liberals calling them names - shouldn't be too hard.It is an interesting video, and I can’t say that I don’t have affinity for those that speak about relentless drive, excellence and achievement overcoming the negatives. It is a long documentary, I have to take time to listen to it all. Our history is replete with “Uncle Thomas” and the difference today is that I can drive through what opposition I once had in the face of my determination to succeed and live with the adage “the entire world will stand aside for a man who knows where he is going”. The people who attempted to get in my way ultimately proved to be insignificant and I was able to swat them away like flies.
Dr. King is right, there has been improvement. But, it has come at a great cost, too great to allow it to be cavalierly reversed by MAGA and the current political climate.
My issue today is about TRUMP and the deliberate attacks on people of color, turning back the clock on progress and calling in “woke”.THAT IS AMERICA... YOU SAID IT:
"the difference today is that I can drive through what opposition I once had in the face of my determination to succeed and live with the adage “the entire world will stand aside for a man who knows where he is going”. The people who attempted to get in my way ultimately proved to be insignificant and I was able to swat them away like flies."
Opportunity... the Freedom to be able to do that... to be able to succeed on your own merits and efforts.
That is all America should be... it shouldn't be about free handouts to the needy, at taxpayer expense... it shouldn't be about reparations for crimes to ancestors long past... it shouldn't be about Equity.
Equal opportunity based on one's merit and ability... where the government does not stand in the way, or punish one person based on race, nor should it "even the playing field" for race or sex.
If you have the ability to overcome the obstacles life throws in your way... you succeed. That freedom to succeed was the promise of America... that has now been opened to all people regardless of race or sex.
What we have seen the Progressive movement (especially during the Biden years when it became openly obvious) attempt is to destroy that... to re-create racism, sexism, and to elevate the weak and incompetent into places of power and prestige.“Opportunity... the Freedom to be able to do that... to be able to succeed on your own merits and efforts.”
My concern is that it continues to stay that way for everyone for all time
How does gender roles and DEI designation fit in with that idea?We share the same concern...
We see different threats to it.
Not sure it will matter... the world is changing ... I suspect 50 years from now will look to those people as different as 250 years in the past looks to us.
We have no idea... no conception of what it is like to worry about famine or failed crops... to have to hunt for our food, fight for our survival... to go without running water in our homes or without electricity.
In fifty years most people will have no idea what privacy is, what being disconnected from the internet (or whatever it evolves into) is like... they will have no concept of freedom in the way we have today. ...If some form of disaster doesn't knock civilization back into a new dark-age or worse.I doubt that 50 years hence can be compared to 250 years ago. If you gave George Washington a cell phone 250 years ago what would he have made of it? Even the simplest function on the phone was scientifically impossible at the time. A century or two might produce technologies and techniques that are unfathomable today.
But your point is well taken, robotics, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence able to actually mimic the processes of the human mind. I like to be more optimistic about the future if man can avoid destroying the planet and himself , technology could eliminate people living on the margins, famine for example.You are not taking into consideration the compounding speed of technological breakthroughs... The speed of advancement has surpassed human ability to adapt.
What was new technology last year is already being surpassed today.
AI ... Genetics ... Interfacing the human mind with Blue tooth like neural inks allowing for direct interface with AI ...controlling the nanobots in your body to rid it of disease... Rewriting the genome to make aging something that occurs over centuries not decades.
This is all occurring now... not decades from now.
Look at your cell phone ... Two decades ago they didn't exist ...today a new cellphone has the memory and ability of the most advanced computers of twenty years ago...and it runs on a rechargeable battery.
There are cars being driven by AI today on city streets. One hundred years ago people were still using horses as the primary means of transportation in most parts of the world.
I'm being conservative when I say 50 years... It might not be 15.
NO, equal opportunity is NOT based on merit or ability. It is simply equal opportunity and is something our gov't used to try to guarantee under our Constitution.
What is based on merit and ability is what you do with the opportunity once it is provided. You are putting the cart before the horse.Reading Comprehension...
Try reading my post again, instead of reinforcing what it says, in supposed correction... as if you believe in Equal Opportunity rather than Equity.Stop being insulting. I read your post and know what I read.
So agree --- I’ve seen some truly unbelievable takes on what equal opportunity means, and a few of the most backward interpretations imaginable. Equal opportunity, by definition, is rooted in merit and ability, because without those factors, it ceases to be equal; it turns into forced equality of outcome. The entire point of guaranteeing equal opportunity is to ensure that every individual has the chance to succeed or fail based on their own effort, talent, and determination, not on arbitrary traits like race, gender, or class. To argue otherwise isn’t just a rejection of common sense; it’s also a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Constitution and American ideals are built on. Claiming that merit only comes after opportunity is given is like insisting you can build a house before pouring the foundation. The foundation of opportunity is the freedom to rise through merit. Remove that, and you don’t create fairness; you create a system where opportunity is handed out regardless of ability, which is the exact opposite of equal opportunity. It’s a cart-before-the-horse argument that falls apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny.
"Equal opportunity, by definition, is rooted in merit and ability, because without those factors, it ceases to be equal; it turns into forced equality of outcome. "
"The entire point of guaranteeing equal opportunity is to ensure that every individual has the chance to succeed or fail based on their own effort, talent, and determination, not on arbitrary traits like race, gender, or class. To argue otherwise isn’t just a rejection of common sense; it’s also a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Constitution and American ideals are built on."
Exactly.
DEI is racist, sexist and un-American.
Progressivism as promoted today within the Democratic Party is racist, sexist, and un/anti-American.
Open Borders ... selective application of the Law based on being a legal citizen vs illegal migrant (sanctuary cities) maybe the Democratic Party should be relabeled the Destroy America Party.I've been around politics for many years.
I've never seen opposition like today's individuals on the left.
There was a time when if a democrat won or a Republican won, you still believed they would do what was best for the United States.
NOW...the left...doesn't want to destroy America. They will destroy America being completely oblivious to the harm they are creating. Their ability to comprehend cause and effect doesn't exist. I believe the left has created their own reality and refuse to let facts and truth change it.
I've never seen anything like today's opposition.It is amazing how the Right can twist something meant, and succeeding, in preventing racism into something they misname as "racist".
Wouldn't doing something like that be the definition of racism? What do you think Credence, Willowarbor, Kathleen?
That was my response. Here is what AI had to say about it after some research:
Here’s a tight, fact-based rebuttal you can drop in:
1) “DEI is racist/sexist.”
Only if it’s done illegally. U.S. law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) forbids making employment decisions because of race or sex—full stop.
The EEOC’s 2025 guidance explicitly says any DEI program that uses protected traits as a factor in hiring, pay, promotion, training access, etc., can violate Title VII. Lawful DEI focuses on equal opportunity infrastructure (broader recruiting, job-relevant criteria, structured interviews, accommodations, open-to-all mentorship, pay-equity audits)—not quotas or preferences. Quotas have been illegal since Bakke (1978), and the 2023 SFFA v. Harvard/UNC ruling tightened the bar in college admissions, not workplace compliance.
2) “DEI is un-American.”
Our core legal ideals are equal treatment and opportunity: the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and—famously—Truman’s Executive Order 9981 desegregating the armed forces (“equality of treatment and opportunity”). Properly run DEI programs are practical ways organizations live up to those American commitments; they are not a departure from them.
3) Does DEI even help?
There’s a robust (if not perfectly causal) business record: large cross-firm studies associate well-managed diversity/inclusion with stronger innovation and better financial performance. The effect shows up most clearly when inclusion practices are real (leadership support, fair processes, accountability).
Bottom line: Calling all DEI “racist, sexist and un-American” conflates illegal preferences (barred by law) with lawful equal-opportunity practices that align with American civil-rights principles and, when done well, are linked to better outcomes. If someone objects to DEI, the precise question should be: which practice, and does it violate Title VII? That’s the line the law already draws.As to labels - the Ds can't take the label you suggest, the Rs have already implemented it.
In my opinion, modern progressivism, as promoted by the Democratic Party, increasingly prioritizes identity over merit and often favors certain groups over others in ways that can be seen as discriminatory. Programs like corporate and university DEI initiatives, for example, sometimes give preference in hiring or admissions based on race or gender rather than qualifications, which critics argue is effectively racist or sexist in reverse.
Policy proposals that tie scholarships, federal funding, or college admissions to specific racial or gender categories reinforce this focus on identity, creating what some see as a double standard and a departure from the American ideal of equal treatment under the law. Additionally, progressive-led sanctuary city policies, which limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, result in the selective application of the law, where legal citizens may face harsher consequences than illegal migrants, further undermining foundational American principles.
Perhaps most glaring is the way many progressives have framed the Israel-Hamas conflict: they quickly labeled Israel as committing “genocide,” while largely ignoring the horrific attacks, the factual genocide of Jews on October 7, when innocent civilians were deliberately slaughtered in a barbaric manner.
At the same time, the suffering of Palestinians in the conflict is widely treated as purposeful genocide by progressives, when in reality, much of it is the tragic result of a horrific war, not premeditated mass murder, true genocide.
In my view, this selective outrage, condemning one side as genocidal while ignoring the atrocities committed against Jews and mischaracterizing the Palestinian casualties, highlights a broader trend in modern progressive politics: policies and public positions are often guided more by ideology, misplaced emotions, and more by perception than by facts or consistent moral reasoning. Taken together, these trends suggest to me that today’s progressive policies can be seen as racist, sexist, selectively moralistic, and at odds with both fairness and the rule of law.The statement that "progressive-led sanctuary city policies... result in the selective application of the law, where legal citizens may face harsher consequences than illegal migrants" is false.
Fact checks and multiple studies show no evidence that sanctuary policies cause harsher penalties for citizens. These policies restrict local cooperation with federal immigration authorities but do not prevent prosecution for local crimes committed by anyone, citizen or not.
AI
Source: Vera Institute https://www.vera.org/news/what-is-a-sanctuary-city
sanctuary_policies_an_overview.pdf https://share.google/kjRxVuXiQ5ZcruTWNPlease read the first three words of my comment. Context matters. You can fact-check until your heart is content... I shred my truth, my view. I have no interest in AI fact-checking my view.
So "views" that don't match fact or reality are okay now?
So if I wrote, "In my opinion Trump is a pedophile", nobody should challenge that and just let it go? Have I got that right?
I don't think I got a response so I must assume I was right.
Is trying to prevent whites, in your view, from discriminating against blacks, "prioritizing identity over merit"?
But once that opposition was declining. Now, under a resurgent conservatism, it is growing again.
Also unsaid is the fact that only a small percentage of people have the drive or talent to push through has you have.Thanks, ESO, but i cannot take the credit in total, i came from another era, if you had the choice of cleaning toilets for the rest of your life verses finishing school, the decision was not that hard. Unlike whites, who always seemed to have all the money when I was growing up, we got only one bite at the apple and if we missed the train when it was in the station it may well never return. What was left was premature death, imprisonment or an otherwise marginalized existence eternally in a state of constant want.
The problem is not everyone is born wealthy, in an oligarchy only the rich get the opportunities. So what do we see, a society where only the well heeled have access to upward mobility? We all know how difficult it is to transcend a social class/status of your immediate forebears. While in reality that cannot be perfectly attained, people should have the ability to attain to their objectives regardless of their social status, race or even economic disadvantage to demonstrate talent, effort and merit. That has always been the lure and attraction of America. I had to consider how long a first class ball player like Jackie Robinson was kept out of the major leagues regardless or his talent or merit because of sheer prejudice.
This issue now is that with all of the talk about DEI and proper gender roles, the right wing approach is to automatically assume that either minorities or women have not earned it. That is contrary to this idea that we can all pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. History has shown many talented people that were never given to opportunity to shine. I was of the belief that we would by pass this aspect of society for a more egalitarian outlook. The foul stench of the Trump phenomenon is bringing back all of those ugly aspects, concealed in DEI, which has almost been exclusively directed toward minority groups. Ask Trump about his determination to rewrite history and blot out the contribution of people of color from the Smithsonian museum? Is that reflective of the true spirit of excellence and merit earned regardless of the color of your skin, your gender or even your sexual orientation? Should not merit be the only standard. I have had confidence that we were moving away from all of the negatives, until now…..And to use your metaphor, the train returned several times to save my white ass even though I tried hard to ruin myself. Finally, after 40 years and many failed attempts, I finally got it together.
Conservatives seem to think that every person "ought" to be a superman and if you are not, too bad - die. That is how their words and actions play out.To add to that, mediocrity is more than acceptable by their own, look at Trump’s cabinet? It is only those that are not of their own that are supposed to be possessed of superpowers to leap tall buildings with a single bound…
I told a classmate from high school reunion 3 years ago that even though I was a geeky nerd during those years, fortunately we do not stay 17 forever…
You should take some time traveling to some of the country's trailer parks.
I think you would quickly realize that the opportunity provided whites as you see it in your mind, needs an adjustment.
That is the major beef I have with your perception of the world... you, and most Progressives see the world in terms of race.
You need to ditch that crap if you ever want to be taken seriously by anyone outside the Progressive Left ... Democrats... sphere of existence.
Our country today is filled with millions of Black millionaires... not a few... millions. In a country that bases everything on race, you don't get those types of results... you wouldn't have black Supreme Court Justices and black Presidents and black elite Athletes... and your Oprah and Denzel Washington types.
Only those that refuse to see that reality... to remain blind to it... can support your extreme Progressive ideology... otherwise its a hard sell to those of us who can see that reality flies in the face of your complaints.We see it in terms of race because it is about race. It is a FACT that non-whites in America face a lot of discrimination. Full Stop. It is only many of you on the Right that refuses to see what is right in front of you.
Those on the Left want to prevent discrimination regardless of who is being discriminated against.. Those on the Right appear to only want to prevent efforts to stop Whites from discriminating. (You call that reverse discrimination, lol)Another fallacy those on the Right try to fool people with is the "if one can do it and didn't face discrimination, then there is no reason ALL can't do it to" You know and I know that is BS.
Point 1
“If you look at the Biden Administration, they’re sort of against anybody depending on certain views,” Trump tells TIME in an interview when asked about his supporters who believe anti-white racism now represents a greater problem than anti-Black racism. “They’re against Catholics. They’re against a lot of different people… I think there is a definite anti-white feeling in this country and that can’t be allowed either.”
Read More: Donald Trump Says Political Violence ‘Depends’ on ‘Fairness’ of 2024 Election
“I don’t think it would be a very tough thing to address, frankly,” Trump says. “But I think the laws are very unfair right now. And education is being very unfair, and it’s being stifled. But I don’t think it’s going to be a big problem at all. But if you look right now, there’s absolutely a bias against white [people] and that’s a problem.”
I think that this is a pretty strong focus on race as an official announcement by Trump himself. Because of the focus on race that is why most of you voted white people voted for him and in my opinion you would have supported him even as he rises from the depths of hell. The explanation of an anticipated improved economy was just a convenient excuse. That is my opinion, anyway.
Point 2
The introductory header of the article says that the article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Yes, Trump has a rap sheet that runs miles on end. It is so voluminous that no one can get through it in a single sitting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_vi … nald_Trump
Since you never responded to my question regarding the why of the expurgating of prominent non-whites from the Smithsonian, your comments and opinion has to ring hollow from my point of view.
So, who is telling me it is not about race? Of course it is.
Is everything left of tyranny and authoritarianism extreme progressive ideology for you, Ken?
1.79 million is not “millions”, Ken. I did not say that progress has not been made, my point is that Trump, the man and his administration has been the very contradiction of that progress. The first really overt example since Woodrow Wilson, 110 years ago. Trump has had to work to earn this distinction and designation, but it is quite real.
Nobody can fool me regarding these matters, Ken, I have been around long enough to clearly see what is before me.
You do understand, don't you, that the pejorative "Uncle Tom", meaning traitor, was coined around 1910 by a Black preacher. It was a total mischaracterization of the "real" Uncle tom who was a Christ-like hero in Beecher's antislavery book Uncle Tom's Cabin.
White minstrel shows then perpetuated the lie for years afterward. Apparently, that is still being done today by whites and blacks alike.
Not sure why this is new?
Good morning and Happy Sunday to everyone who agrees that if the media were half as curious about trump's bruises, cankles, and deteriorating cognitive state as they were about Biden's, people wouldn't have assumed he croaked yesterday.
WHERE'S THE CONCERN ESPECIALLY FROM THOSE THAT TOLD US ABOUT EVERY ABNORMAL BREATH BIDEN TOOKCan you spell - H Y P O C R I T E S?, lol.
Just a coincidence that JD is recently talking about being ready to take over in the case of a tragedy while Trump is talking about getting into heaven?
Heaven? I don’t know, Willow, it might well be that “other place”.
I am confident Saint Peter would reject Trump just as he would the Devil himself should he have the audacity to show up at heaven's gate.
It could very well prove to be the last escalator decent that he would ever make…
Ken--- Regarding TDS. Keep in mind this is my opinion, and not meant to direct it at any one person. The subject, in a way, sort of circles back to the words in the heading. "The inability to see what is right in front of us." Some in our society can, while others cannot. When one can no longer assimilate facts or respect others' views, it is a major symptom of TDS
I use the term TDS because nothing sums it up better than watching people froth at the mouth the second Trump’s name comes up. It’s like flipping a switch, logic shuts down, emotions crank to max, and suddenly I’m not having a conversation anymore, I’m babysitting a big old meltdown. The recycled talking points start flying, like a parrot stuck on “Orange Man Bad,” and any attempt at reason gets drowned out by outrage. At that point, why waste my time? Dropping “TDS” is my way of cutting the cord, saves me the migraine, and spares me from explaining the same thing for the hundredth time. TDS is a real phenomenon, in my view.To those that come on here and think they can tell the rest of us about TDS:
TDS is when you spend six or eight hours a day writing about Trump on the forums, typing on your computer into the night on the terrible things going on in Washington DC, going off on long drives across the country to get in on an anti-Trump protest...need I go on? You people with TDS know what is involved.They certainly do not apply those same obsessive standards to other politicians.
A picture is worth a thousand words, no doubt rigor is setting in. With those ankles, vapor lock may be around the corner for him. As for his hands, I have seen “stiffs” with better manicures.
An "esoteric" question. Why is it called manicures instead of womanicures? :-)
It as always amazes how people keep making things up. Case in point: ‘No—some just count lies and decide whoever tells fewer lies isn’t a liar at all.’ That might’ve been a debatable point about scale, but the finale product is pure hyperbole—so extreme it cancels the argument entirely. Worse, it also flattens proportion: as if 1 = 10 = 100 = 38,000.”
How does this comport with "limited gov't"
Trump tells certain people they can't protect themselves from Covid.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/31/health/v … nts-digvidOh yes, limiting eligibility and access to a vaccine.... Does that fall more under Marxism or Fascism?
Apparently RFK JR subscribes to eugenics...Both!
Jr. has suggested:
* Setting up an Autism database - Historic “registries” of disabled people enabled coercion (segregation/sterilization). Advocates warn a national list without tight consent/limits is a “slippery slope to eugenics.”
* Set up "Wellness Farms" for addicts. - Echoes 20th-century custodial institutions used to remove the “unfit” from society; if coercive, it tracks classic negative eugenics (segregation under state control).
* Senior CDC officials resigned after clashes with RFK Jr.; one resignation letter warned that “eugenics plays prominently in the rhetoric being generated,” predicting a world where “only the strong will survive.”
* Suggested that Covid was manufactured to by-pass certain Jews and Chinese while harming all others. Framing policy so the “strong” thrive while others are left behind mirrors the fitness/selection logic long associated with eugenics.
* Compared Covid policies with the Holocaust. - While not a eugenics policy, invoking Nazi persecution while pushing anti-public-health positions normalizes the rhetoric space where eugenics historically operated.
TRUMP IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS
"Xi and Putin stand shoulder to shoulder as China casts itself an alternative global leader"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/01/china/ch … s-intl-hnkTo those who continue to be lazy and wrongly use the term TDS.
Labeling criticism as “TDS” isn’t an argument—it’s a way to dodge evidence. My points are about policies and outcomes, not personalities: receipts over vibes.
If I’m wrong, name the specific claim, present evidence that counters my claim, and I’ll revise; if not, accountability ≠ obsession. Calling the TRUTH “derangement” doesn’t make the facts go away. And, I apply the same standard to every politician, including Trump.Another Billionaire sees what is right in front of us -
"The US is transforming into a 1930s-style autocracy, says billionaire Ray Dalio"
He is talking not only of Germany but of Italy (Mussolini), Japan (militarist rule), Spain (Franco), Portugal (Salazar), the USSR (Stalin), and much of Eastern Europe (Hungary, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Greece) all who saw their democracies shrink or collapse.
Today, it is America (Trump), Hungary (Orban), India (Mosi), Turkey (Erdogan), El Salvador, Nicaragua, Serbia, Georgia, Indonesia, Tunisia, Thailand
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/02/business … dalio-intlI repeat my view; it seems to have become lost in translation. ---Equal opportunity, by definition, is rooted in merit and ability, because without those factors, it ceases to be equal; it turns into forced equality of outcome.
The entire point of guaranteeing equal opportunity is to ensure that every individual has the chance to succeed or fail based on their own effort, talent, and determination, NOT on arbitrary traits like race, gender, or class. To argue otherwise isn’t just a rejection of common sense; it’s also a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Constitution and American ideals are built on.I asked the following question of ChatGPT 5:
Are there ANY presidential or political historians or substantive survey's of experts that rate Trump anywhere but in the bottom five of all presidents?
This was the answer:
Short answer: among serious expert surveys, no. Every major historians/political-science ranking places Trump at or near last, never above the bottom five.
* C-SPAN Presidential Historians Survey (2021): Trump ranked 41st of 44 (bottom four).
* Siena College Research Institute (2022): Trump ranked 44th of 45 overall (second-worst; Buchanan last).
[sri.siena.edu]
*Presidential Greatness Project (2024)—154 presidency experts (many in APSA): Trump ranked last; even self-identified Republican respondents, on average, still put him in the bottom five.
[University of Houston, Axios, Wikipedia]
Then I asked if there were any 2025 polls yet. The answer was no; C-SPAN postponed its poll in order to not seem like it was "punditry".
I then asked the same question about Biden:
Are there ANY presidential or political historians or substantive survey's of experts that rate Biden anywhere but in the bottom five of all presidents?
This was the answer:
Expert/historian surveys that include Biden put him well above the bottom five:
* Presidential Greatness Project (2024): Biden ranked #14 (top third) in a survey of 154 presidency specialists.
*Siena College (2022): Biden ranked #19 in its historians/political‐scientists survey.
* C-SPAN Historians Survey: Latest (2021) did not include Biden; they typically rate presidents after a term, so there’s no C-SPAN rank for him yet.
C-SPAN
Bottom line: there are multiple substantive expert surveys that rate Biden far from the bottom five—indeed, mid-pack or better.
SO, my question to MAUGA is - What do these experts know that you don't? Why are you so wrong?I would not expect a rational response to this from the
Right who continue to deny exactly what is front of them
Hopefully, you do not have an aversion to “crickets”Whenever I offer facts, I don't expect a response from them because they know they are beaten.
I’ve already explained why I don’t usually respond to your comments, and what you’ve written above actually illustrates one of those reasons. The rest of my reasoning is more personal and, in my view, not appropriate to share here on HubPages. I do my best to stay within the site’s rules and keep discussions on track.
Oh lordy, lordy, MyEsoteric, your comment is just the hook, so don't take it personally, but . . .
It's been like watching a train wreck. The devil's been on my shoulder for weeks. I was able to resist most of his snark, but repeated blows, thread after thread, wore me down. I fell.
AI seems to be the go-to now (imagine the snark that could have been implied here ;-) ), so I have an AI contribution:
GADo you take issue with the answers given by AI or just the fact that people are using it?
I take issue with folks using AI to speak on their behalf, particularly in forum-type discussions. That's like using surrogates instead of doing it yourself. It's lazy and gives AI more trust and authority than it has earned (so far).
Specifically to its use in these forums: First, we had discussions devolving into link-wars (including blind http link posts), then it was full-article posts (let someone else say it for you), then it was the establishment of the sanctity of a view ('I'm entitled to my story and I'm sticking to it.'), and now it's becoming an arena for AI prompts instead of discussions.
*I frequently use Grok for AI answers to get specific data or help form or inform an opinion. AI should have no more authority than that. It should be a tool, not your voice.
GAIndeed.
AI will be biased based on the parameters of its programming and what it is told to accept or discard as valid sources of information.
Then compound that with the way a question is worded, in effect, as was the case of the question in question that was posed, leading it to give a biased and restrictive answer from the outset... or as you noted, a perfect tool for a lazy mind looking to reinforce its own biases.You have yet to prove it, you only say it. At least when I ask ChatGPT to prove something it said, it tries very hard to do so. You don't try at all.
What was wrong with the question? It was very fair and I asked it of both Trump and Biden.
I know for a fact that Trump rates at or near the bottom in all reliable expert polling. I simply gave ChatGPT an opportunity to prove me wrong - which it has no problem in doing.
So to ask if my assumption is correct is a very fair question. So, you are clearly wrong in saying the question was biased, it wasn't in the slightest.
And you rely on what - highly biased YouTube?A deeper 'natural' bias is a frequent concern with AI deep thinkers: a natural cultural bias, ie. Chinese AI is trained on data from Chinese cultural sources interpreted by Chinese cultural norms. Same with the other big players and their nations. Sounds right to me.
As to your 'prompt question' thought. AI looks comparable to statistics to me: Frame the question right and get any answer you need.
GAYes, and there is a definite growing gap between what we can call Conservative vs Progressive.
The Conservative still tries to work off facts, ones based on verifiable and trustable sources... Progressives now base things on feelings, what they consider is the 'right' thing to do (I wanted to say 'moral' but when you discard Christian foundations, I'm not sure anything can be 'moral') and their approved sources of 'correct' information... without getting down that rabbit hole, this is how I see most of the 'debates' in here (and why I am often so cavalier):
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5NwgD_268P8
Anyways... great point on how the AI themselves will vary drastically based on which civilization develops it... China ... Russia ... America...
Makes it hard to imagine we will have one global Collective from which all minds can draw information... in fact, it makes the concerns of AI seem all the more legitimate, as China's AI may come to believe America's AI is a threat to its existence... hmmm.There is that YouTube again. Talk about biased. Are you sure it is authentic?
And isn't that true of everything? So, by that measure, nothing is reliable, even our brains.
Everything? No, but generally, yes. You skipped ahead, the point isn't about reliability or the Descartes question; it's about assumed fundamentals.
It's not a nefarious or even purposefully negative bias; it's just a thing that "is," and is so basic that no one thought to consider its impact.
That's not my studied position; it's simply the gist of what the mentioned "AI deep thinkers" are saying. *shrug*
GA
I see where you're coming from, with concern about AI being used as a “surrogate” in forum discussions, and I agree that simply passing off AI output as one’s own thoughts isn’t ideal. No one loves sharing a view, than me. However, in my view, on a political forum, that can only go so far, opinions are far more impactful when backed by facts. AI can be a useful tool for gathering data, summarizing sources, or clarifying complex issues so one can make informed arguments.
The key is responsible use: as long as the human behind it is still thinking critically and contributing their view, with original analysis, AI doesn’t assume undue authority; it just helps strengthen the discussion with facts.
If some of the information isn’t backed by facts, we risk becoming like the media, twisting and turning our own views into fake news to suit a narrative. AI can be a good tool to keep the conversation honest and informative, if used correctly. In my view, AI’s value depends entirely on how responsibly and skillfully humans use it.
I have to admit, I really prefer chats where people share their own views instead of just repeating Google or mainstream media spin. There are definitely a few folks here who consistently bring real food for thought by offering their own opinions rather than the usual recycled takes.
I think putting up current political news and then hashing it out by sharing different perspectives makes for a much more engaging conversation. On top of that, it’s a good way to learn a little more about each other.I can agree with you if someone is blinding using AI and transferring the answers with no intervening brainpower.
That said, I haven't seen any evidence of that happening. One way I use it, to be efficient as possible, is to put claims by others with which I doubt are true or incomplete and see what response I get. I then edit what is necessary to make sure it reflects my thoughts (assuming it didn't agree with the claim in the first place), and post that.
As I get older, I have a harder and harder time formulating clear and concise answers (that presumes, of course, that I was ever able to do so Just like Trump using a ghostwriter for his books. I rely on ChatGPT to help make sure I am getting my point across clearly.
In my opinion, that is one of AIs greatest uses.
One thing I always do with ChatGPT is give it a "reasonableness test". If it seems off, I ask again slightly differently or, most often, tell it I think it is wrong and see how it responds.
Generally, I am right to question it, but more than once it as corrected a pre-conceived notion or two that I had.
AI simply saves a lot of time. Couldn't you just as easily said "Google seems to be the go-to now." Or, in an earlier day "The newspaper seems to be the go-to now." Why is one accepted and the other not?
Yep, that's a fair question. My response to Willowarbor is the answer I would give to your question. AI should inform your voice, not replace it.
GA
Yes indeed. And it has been funny to watch those who flock to using ChatGPT, and its kin, to advocate/prove their position(s) here in these forums.
I can think of two in particular. Same two who would consider anything that CNN has to say as gospel.
Make of that what you will
Are you saying that chat GPT and other AI bots aren't factual?
I'll let you do the 'making of'. I'm keeping my 'pointing fingers' confined to the birth of the concept, not the players it might touch. ;-)
The issue is just as much a pet peeve as a legitimate complaint. It started with Grammarly. Folks gave up bits of their 'voice' until now, AI is taking it all.
GATaking SOME... not all...
The same voices who question... the same minds who see something impossible and refuse to accept it as possible because the government/media says it is so...
Like those 'foil hat conspiracy nut' types who found it strange that a lone gunman shot Kennedy... and then got shot dead himself... those critical thinkers aren't likely to succumb to giving up their mistrust and allowing AI to do the thinking for them.Whew! You're way past my initial point. I can't even see you from there.
It wasn't a 'deep' or political jap point. It was simply a 'style' complaint, at root. I think my 'voice' thought is sound, but it's no biggie.
GA
As I said, like all other sources of information you might use (assuming you use something), AI is not to be taken blindly. There as been enough testing to convince me that at least ChatGPT is as neutral as anything else. I can't speak to the others because I haven't researched it. But, properly used, as with any took, it proves its use.
My point wasn't to denigrate the use of chatbots; it's simply a perception thing about how they are used. — In my view. ;-)
GA
Wondering where all the charges are that Pam promised to bring? The investigation LOL....
Tish james, Adam schiff, Obama.. and on and on and on... And where is the investigation in terms of the accusations this regime has made against DC and its crime stats?
AND WHY ARE THE EPSTEIN FILES STILL SITTING ON THE WOMAN'S DESK???HARVARD $2 BILLION FUNDING FREEZE BY US WAS ILLEGAL, JUDGE SAYS.
And..
Appeals court blocks Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans..Now let's see if Harvard can get it. I suspect Trump will break more laws to keep that money away from saving people.
The Conservative still tries to work off facts, ones based on verifiable and trustable sources...
What?!
Job growth slows sharply in August: only 54,000 jobs added vs. 75,000 expected ADP says...
What happened to the “golden age”- tsmogposted 2 months ago
0Not to quash this or that, yet of importance is the data sources that AI uses for training purposes and formulated answers/commentary to inquiries. Take it as a grain of salt.
IMHO, one would think those listed are the most logical considering what is available online for the bots to crawl. I would think academic sources, perhaps, is not as easily accessed such as JSTOR since they require a membership while some $$$. Maybe google.com includes google.scholar. I don't know.
Maybe research the AI service you are using if any.It's only as good as the person at the keyboard.
When I use ChatGPT for political or government-related questions, I focus on understanding where the information comes from and being deliberate about my sources. For government data and statistics, I rely on official websites because they are usually the most trustworthy. For example, I go to the U.S. Census Bureau for population and economic data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics for employment and wages, the CDC for health statistics, the Congressional Research Service for nonpartisan policy reports, and govinfo.gov for official federal documents. When I ask ChatGPT about these topics, I make sure to specify that I want information only from government-published stats or official sources.
When it comes to political statements and quotes, I stick to primary sources like speeches, press releases, interviews, congressional testimony, and official social media accounts. I always ask for direct quotes with context, including who said it, when, and where. I know news articles and media reports can be biased, so I cross-check major points with multiple sources. I also use independent fact-checkers like FactCheck.org, AP Fact Check, and Snopes, especially for disputed claims, and I pay attention when ChatGPT notes that something is disputed or provides context rather than presenting it as fact.
To keep my research factual, I make sure my prompts are specific,I specify the type of source, the context, and the date. I ask for sources to be cited or linked whenever possible, and when dealing with controversial topics, I request both sides’ factual claims instead of interpretations. By being precise and deliberate in how I ask, I can make sure the information I get is as accurate and reliable as possible.Yes... but the bigger concern is for younger generations, that don't know of any other way to get information, other than to ask Google or ChatGPT.
Fed-up teacher quits with shocking warning: 'These kids can't even read!'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOszJuGXyUc
You and I grew up having to go to the Library to find books related to a subject we wanted to research or do a report on.
We learned how to compare opinions of different authors, different newspapers, etc. to think critically... to problem solve...
Today's youth are often being taught by teachers that are much more 'activist' ... in schools that may believe testing is racist.... and where going to the library and researching a topic is becoming a lost art...
Elite University Students who can't read books
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3wJcF0t0bQ"Today's youth are often being taught by teachers that are much more 'activist'
Says who? Your opinion or you have something to back that up?Except for things like nature documentaries, mathematics, people performing, and other things along those lines, I find YouTube more or less useless as a source of reliable facts.
It certainly has little or any scholarly basis, it is often not much more than people just “sounding off”.
If you can’t see the difference between professional journalists and “plain old joes” venting on the internet, then we hail from two different galaxies.
I never noticed any 'professional journalists' on CNN...
Paid talking heads... sure...
Biased full of themselves idealogues (ie - Don Lemon)... yeah...
There hasn't been 'professional journalism' from CNN in decades... if ever...
And if you think there has been, well, I feel sorry for you... you are being brainwashed to think things that are simply untrue.
CNN? Are you kidding? They are going down the drain quickly. As of mid-2025, CNN's nightly programming continues to experience significant declines in viewership across both total viewers and the key 25–54 demographic. In May, CNN's primetime lineup (8–11 p.m.) averaged approximately 538,000 total viewers. By July, these numbers worsened, with primetime viewership plummeting to 497,000 total viewers, a 42% decrease in total viewers and a 55% drop in the demo year-over-year.
So, you can figure out why. It would seem that if a network loses all its viewers, the viewers have good reasons for not tuning in.I believe that Fox is a clarion of lies and false hoods. My point to Ken is that I am not going to believe every crackpot that wants an audience on the internet and give them automatic credibility, we are going to have to do better than that.
And I believe you are right (about Fox). Along with ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS and virtually every other "news" broadcaster on the air. Even the new one, NewsMax, is going downhill fast.
Here is the difference - there is opinion and plenty of evidence that Fox and its ilk lie and otherwise twist the facts (in Fox's case, they even admitted it) while with the others it is only opinion.
Just out of curiosity, why not compare ratings to show viewer preference between Fox, ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS, and MSNBC? I mean, would this not reveal a lot about people's opinions?
CNN is just as full of BS... bias and fabricated falsehoods as FOX.
You want to believe CNN while also believing FOX twists facts... and therefore you are a dupe for one bias and blind to the faults and falsehoods they themselves present.
CNN not only has a bias but is a mouthpiece for Big Pharma and the Democratic Party... they sell you the 'news' that supports those interests.We understand that is your unsubstantiated opinion is just that an opinion - totally devoid of evidence.
MUHAMMAD: THE BAD
Yet Muslims tend to focus solely on the good characteristics of their prophet, and to completely ignore less admirable qualities. We have already seen that Muhammad began robbing caravans after leaving Mecca. As a result,greed soon became one of the primary factors in people’s rapid conversion to Islam. Indeed, Muhammad deliberately used the spoils of war to lure people to Islam. When he was criticized for the way he distributed his newfound wealth, he replied, “Are you disturbed in mind because of the good things of this life by which I win over a people that they may become Muslims while I entrust you to your Islam?”iv
Although Muhammad patiently endured persecution in Mecca, his attitude quickly changed when his numbers grew in Medina. Soon he would tolerate no criticism whatsoever. According to our earliest biographical source, a man named Abu Afak—who was more than a hundred years old—wrote a poem criticizing people for converting to Islam. Muhammad demanded he be killed, and Abu Afak was murdered in his sleep. When a woman named Asma heard that Muslims had killed such an elderly man, she wrote a poem calling for people to take a stand against Islam.Ibn Ishaq relates what happened next:
When the apostle heard what she had said he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he said, “You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!” When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her,” so Umayr went back to his people.v
Muhammad’s violence was directed towards groups as well. Muhammad once said to his followers, “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims.”viThe Jews of Qurayza resisted Muhammad and attempted to form an alliance against him. When the alliance faltered, Muhammad acted quickly. His armies surrounded them and “besieged them for twenty-five nights until they were sore pressed and God cast terror into their hearts.”
Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina. . . . Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. . . . There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900.vii
Every male who had reached puberty was killed. Muhammad divided the women, children, and property among his men (taking a fifth of the spoils for himself).
MUHAMMAD: THE UGLY
But things get worse. As the Muslim armies raided town after town, they captured many women, who would often be sold or traded. Yet, since the Muslim men were a long way from their wives, they needed wisdom from Allah to guide them in their treatment of their female captives. It wasn’t long before Muhammad received a revelation allowing the soldiers to sleep with the women:
Allah’s Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah’s Messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: “And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)” (i.e. they were lawful for them when their ‘Idda period came to an end).viii
This verse of the Qur’an (4:24), along with others (23:1-6; 33:50; 70:22-30), granted Muslims the right to have sex with their female captives and slave girls, even those who were still married or who were going to be sold or traded.
Perhaps most disturbing of all is the fact that Muslims could have sex with girls who hadn’t even reached puberty. The opening verses of Chapter 65 of the Qur’an present Islamic rules for divorce. According to 65:4, if a Muslim divorces a girl who hasn’t yet reached puberty, he must wait three months to make sure she isn’t pregnant.
Muhammad himself had sex with a prepubescent girl. His courtship of Aisha began when she was only six years old.ix Muhammad had a dream about her, which led him to believe that God wanted him to marry the young girl.x Fortunately, Muhammad waited three years before having sex with her; nevertheless, Muslim sources report that Aisha still hadn’t reached puberty.xi Since Muhammad is the moral exemplar in Islam, his actions are still affecting young girls today.Here is a more accurate, neutral observation about Muhammed the man:
Tied to Muhammad personally (well-attested in early sources)
* Leading/ordering campaigns against the Meccan Quraysh, including caravan interdictions and the major battles Badr (624), Uhud (625), the Trench (627), Khaybar (628), Hunayn (630).
* Distributing war spoils, including large gifts after Hunayn to “reconcile hearts” (the muʾallafah qulubuhum category in Qur’an 9:60).
* Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah (628) — negotiated and signed by him and turned out to be a good thing.
* Conquest of Mecca (630) — commanded by him; generally remembered for a broad amnesty, with a short list of exceptions.
* Medinan Jewish tribes: Jews and Christians did similar thngs
** Banū Qaynuqāʿ — expelled (624).
** Banū Naḍīr — expelled (625/626).
** Banū Qurayẓa — besieged (627); an agreed arbiter (Saʿd b. Muʿādh) imposed execution of fighting-age males and enslavement of others; Muhammad approved and oversaw the sentence’s carrying out.
* Rules of engagement he set/endorsed (e.g., no killing women/children), alongside the 7th-century norms he did not abolish (slavery/concubinage) And neither did Jews or Christians.
* Sex with female captives: Qur’an 4:24 and related reports allow capture-to-concubinage after a waiting period; in his lifetime this was practiced (e.g., Ṣafiyya was freed and married; Māriya was a concubine). There are similar Jewish laws in the Bible
* Marriage to ʿĀʾisha: Classical Sunni hadith report marriage at 6 and consummation at 9; some modern writers argue for an older age, but the traditional report attributes the consummation to him. Similar to Jewish and Christian scripture
Statement about removing other faiths from the Arabian Peninsula is attributed to him in hadith; BUT the broad implementation (expulsions from the Hijaz) occurred under Caliph ʿUmar.
That presents an unbiased view.That is not a "view", it responds directly to false claims that were made.
What other "facts" do you have?
Now, compare what you wrote with the following and then tell me who is bad and ugly: (1 Samuel 15:3 was particularly memorable)
Leviticus 24:13–16 — blasphemy
“He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death… all the congregation shall certainly stone him…”
Numbers 15:35–36 — Sabbath-breaking
“And the LORD said… The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones…”
Leviticus 20:2 — Molech worship
“Whosoever… giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him…”
Deuteronomy 13:6–10 — enticing to idolatry
“Thou shalt surely kill him… thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die…”
Deuteronomy 17:2–7 — proven idolater
“…then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman… and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.”
Deuteronomy 21:18–21 — persistently rebellious son
“…all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die…”
Deuteronomy 22:22 — adultery
“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die…”
Exodus 22:18 — witchcraft
“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”
Commands in war / the ban (ḥerem)
Deuteronomy 7:1–2 — Canaanite nations
“…thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy…”
Deuteronomy 20:16–17 — cities “of these people”
“Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them…”
1 Samuel 15:3 — Amalek
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have… slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
Specific episodes/commands
Exodus 32:27–28 — golden calf punishment
“Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side… and slay every man his brother…”
Numbers 25:4 — Baal-peor crisis
“And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up…”
Numbers 31:1–2, 17 — Midianite war
“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites… Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and every woman that hath known man…”
Ezekiel 9:4–6 — vision of judgment in Jerusalem
“Slay utterly old and young… but come not near any man upon whom is the mark…”
Of course, lest we not forget where God ordered all, including the unborn, but a select few to die
The decree to wipe out life
— Genesis 6:13, 17: “And GOD said unto Noah… behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.”
Who is spared (Noah’s household)
— Genesis 6:18: “But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with thee.”
(Eight persons in all; cf. Genesis 7:7, 13; 1 Peter 3:20.)
The destruction itself
— Genesis 7:21–23: “And all flesh died that moved upon the earth… every man… and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.”
Aftermath / covenant not to repeat
— Genesis 9:11: “Neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.”
The New Testament is not without violence and death although Jesus is not involved, only God.
A) Divine judgment deaths (God acts; no human killing commanded)
Ananias & Sapphira fall dead after lying (Acts 5:1–11).
Herod Agrippa I is struck down by an angel (Acts 12:23).
Paul notes some in Corinth had died under divine discipline (1 Cor 11:30).
Jesus warns, “I will strike her children dead” (Rev 2:23).
B) Apocalyptic commands to angels / visions of mass death
The fourth horseman given authority “to kill” (Rev 6:8).
Four angels are released “to kill a third of mankind” (Rev 9:15).
The rider called “Faithful and True” (Christ) strikes down the nations in the final judgment (Rev 19:11–21).
In these, angels/Christ carry out judgment; believers aren’t told to.
C) A line about killing inside a parable
In the parable of the minas the nobleman says: “Bring those enemies… and slay them before me” (Luke 19:27).
This is parable speech, not an instruction to Jesus’ followers to kill.
D) The state’s sword (not a command to Christians)
Romans 13:4: the magistrate “does not bear the sword in vain” as “God’s servant” to punish wrongdoers—an acknowledgment of civil authority, not a church order to kill.
What was that about throwing stones in glass houses?I applaud your ability to take Biblical text out of context to make your point.
It is all to common.You didn't show how it is "out of context"?? That is the way the Bible is written and is the word of God. And since it is the word of God, why does it need context?
I also noticed you didn't object to any of it.
And we understand that you are beholden to the Democratic Party and the likes of CNN as much as any jihadist is to Islam.
You have for years shown yourself to be blind to the glaring mistakes of the Democratic Party... ignoring the failures of Biden and defending him for four straight years.
No matter what evidence is presented, you remain steadfast in your support.
Your political loyalty trumps logic, facts, and sometimes even your own professed personal values... it is evident to anyone who reads your articles and posts, even if not to yourself.
I have never been one to understand why people cling to their political party, even in the face of contradictory evidence... definitions like cognitive dissonance, groupthink, and social identity theory are used to explain it...
But one thing I DO understand is the role of Media (ie - CNN) and the Echo Chambers it can create.
The media plays a crucial role in reinforcing party loyalty. Whether CNN or FOX viewers are only exposed to information that reinforces their beliefs.
Social media has made it even worse, algorithms prioritize content that aligns with a user’s previous interactions, creating a feedback loop that deepens political divides and hardens party loyalty.
If you aren't making a conscious and deliberate effort to keep this always in the forefront of your mind, while limiting your exposure to it, you are nothing more than a dupe, a regurgitator of the nonsense they spout and feed to you.Again, unsubstantiated opinion not based on any facts or evidence. That said, you are certainly entitled to it. I am just obligated to point out its flaws.
One only has to check out your articles and read your forum posts to validate that the main point of my post is factual... not opinion.
Your posts are full of the same debunked claims
Interesting. Most of the time ChatGPT provides its sources and the only ones of those I remember maybe seeing is LinkIn. It must have missed the message, lol.
Hey, I'm just curious:
Are "states' rights" a thing that Republicans still believe is important, or does that only apply to Democratic Presidents and red states?
THIS ADMINISTRATION IS FULL OF IT...
Did she just conveniently change her mind?You rarely take the full context into account. You post a sentence or two and leave out everything else—the reasons behind it, why she actually made the statement you dug up.
Kristi Noem’s comments on federalizing the National Guard during the Texas border dispute were clear: she argued that such action by President Biden would be a “direct attack on states’ rights.” At the time, the context was enforcement of a court order against Governor Abbott’s use of razor wire barriers, an action she saw as federal overreach into state authority. Some critics now point to her support for sending federal troops to Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles under President Trump and suggest her attitude has changed. But the comparison doesn’t hold up—the situations are fundamentally different, and there is no true analogy between them. In D.C. and L.A., federal troops were deployed to protect federal property and maintain order, not to override a state governor’s policy or challenge states’ autonomy. Noem’s position wasn’t inconsistent; it reflected the principle she was defending in each case. Her warning about Biden was about state sovereignty being undercut, whereas Trump’s deployments were about defending the federal government’s constitutional responsibilities, which is exactly the type of situation she has consistently supported.They believe in State's Rights ONLY when it sounds right. If it gets in their way, ....
Related Discussions
- 7
How restrained are you when someone cuts in line right in front of you. Do you
by garyyoungberg 14 years ago
How restrained are you when someone cuts in line right in front of you. Do you take any action?
- 8
A Party Unraveled: How the Modern Left Has Imploded
by Sharlee 4 months ago
Today's Democratic Party appears to be a shell of what it once was, a party that claimed to champion the working class, support American families, and value freedom of thought. Today, it's becoming increasingly difficult to recognize those foundational principles in its platform. What we’re seeing...
- 303
Is it right for Christians to convert tribal natives?
by klarawieck 15 years ago
For some time now, Christians have been traveling to the farthest, most remote places on earth with the intention of helping tribal people live a more civilized lifestyle. While committed to a charitable cause, they don't only change their way of life but take the initiative to convert them to...
- 59
Are Immigration Issues Driving The Global Move to Nationalism
by ga anderson 6 years ago
It is just a thought, yet to be developed, but what the hell is happening to the world.The USA has Pres, Trump.The Uk has it's Brexit crisis.Germany has disavowed the world-acclaimed Merkel government.Many immigrant-friendly countries like France and Sweden are rethinking their policies amid...
- 10
Have you ever seen an apparition right in front of you?
by Gary Rowell 14 years ago
Have you ever seen an apparition right in front of you?I like the thrill of getting freaked by ghosts, like in good documentaries, but I believe the mind sees what it wants to.
- 166
If Christianity really is the truth, shouldn't scrutiny demonstrate its truth?
by Elizabeth 11 years ago
If Christianity really is the truth, shouldn't scrutiny demonstrate its truth?All over the place in America, we see believers responding with outrage and defiance when Christian beliefs are challenged or questioned. If the beliefs of Christianity are, in fact, the truth - the only truth, then...