Originally Posted by Richard DavisThinking out loud here at lunchtime. With Trump deporting illegal aliens, it will be interesting to see how that affects the voter turnout for the radical Marxist Democrat party come 2028.
Posts Made By: James Lacey
September 5, 2025 12:29 AM
Forum:
Politics
September 5, 2025 03:09 PM
Forum:
Politics
Non-Citizen Voting: A MythPosted By James Lacey |
Originally Posted by Jim MoscheckYes, but I'm bored with it. Obviously he has too much time on his hands after making the millions of dollars in sales of his medical carts, speaker designs, and "artistic" cabinets.
I counted 10 threads with titles longer than one of Trump's ties, which isn't a record, but still quite a few for one of Rich's distraction marathons. It's no wonder you are bored with it, though; that's what happens when you can't take someone seriously anymore. He has zero credibility left with anyone here, regardless of whether he cares or not.
September 6, 2025 09:30 PM
Forum:
Politics
(insert paragraph long thread title here)Posted By James Lacey |
Originally Posted by Rod KaufmanHere's my long title paragraph insertion, inspired by the subject of the thread:
"Job Market In The Potty Flushed By Manufacturing Jobs/Trump's Botched Commando Raid In North Korea"
The details:
"Trump’s job market promises fall flat as hiring collapses and inflation ticks up"
"The U.S. job market has gone from healthy to lethargic during President Donald Trump’s first seven months back in the White House, as hiring has collapsed and inflation has started to climb once again as his tariffs take hold."
"Friday’s jobs report showed employers added a mere 22,000 jobs in August, as the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.3%. Factories and construction firms shed workers. Revisions showed the economy lost 13,000 jobs in June, the first monthly losses since December 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic."
"The new data exposed the widening gap between the booming economy Trump promised and the more anemic reality of what he’s managed to deliver so far."
https://apnews.com/article/trump-economy-jobs-promises-inflation-time-employment-e0ca5354f6cd426d25f353e1a54d1fb5
Extra long bonus post (inspired by the Dick):
"US Navy Seals killed North Korean civilians in botched 2019 mission, report says"
"New York Times says Trump authorized mission to plant listening device; team killed fishers they encountered"
"The newspaper also revealed that the plan was based on a similar 2005 operation approved by George W Bush." (So you know it's got to be good!)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/05/commando-team-north-korea-civilians-2019-mission
From the accounts on the news, it appears the elite navy seals team spent a couple of hours in a water filled sub at 40 degree temps while in breathing apparatus and then emerged on the north korean coast only to encounter civilians diving for shellfish. So, to avoid detection, they immediately killed the civilians, probably with a Dick-approved technique and then sliced open their chests in order to deflate their lungs so they's sink and not give away their position. (They probably used a Dick-approved bowie knife to do it, too.)
Trump, for his part, denies it so you know it's got to be true!...
The only person with a worse credibility crisis than Rich right now is Trump himself. Rich needs to come out of his echo chamber because by the time the midterms get here, it's apparent the economy is going to be a significant issue, and no president in modern times has ever been able to outrun the economy.
September 6, 2025 10:58 PM
Forum:
Politics
(insert paragraph long thread title here)Posted By James Lacey |
Originally Posted by Jim MoscheckGeez, now he's posting multiple indenticle threads for twice as many non views and replies. LOL
What always amazes me is that Rich's reality is so utterly different from ours.
Let's hope the SCOTUS upholds some of the recent rulings from the lower federal courts, such as the one putting a stop to Trump's illegal tariffs. Until the midterms arrive, the judiciary is our only remaining guardrail.
September 7, 2025 12:30 PM
Forum:
Politics
(insert paragraph long thread title here)Posted By James Lacey |
Originally Posted by James Brown
Do you think the Ds can rise to the occasion? (question to James, Jim, Rod, David, anyone...) The polling indicates the Ds are continuing to hemorrhage support. Will it matter in 2026? We'll see. For 2028, it seems that the D front runners are extreme lefties, or the left's own Trump-style blowhard - Gavin Newsome. I, for one, am worried the opposition has nothing significant to offer the electorate. Just like 2024.
FWIW, I am hoping Colorado's governor Jared Polis will run in 2028. Smart guy, and reasonably moderate. Unfortunately, Buttigieg seems to have the white, gay, intelligent, democrat "lane" tied up. Polis has tons more experience than Buttigieg, and is not tainted by a crappy run as transportation secretary under Biden. I hope Shapiro from PA runs too.
Of course I would vote for Nikki Haley over any of these guys... But please Lord, how about a Haley v. Schapiro, or even a Rubio v. Polis race in 2028? That would be so great. Between now and then, let's have the D's take the House in 26, assuming they have any political strength and strategy at all... which remains to be seen.
Republicans are lowering the bar so far at this point, I'm not sure the Ds have to rise much. Trump and his policies are wildly unpopular, and his poll numbers are down in all the essential categories like the economy, immigration, etc. His trade/tariff policies are especially unpopular, and he gets a solid F on inflation and cost of living. Despite Rich's claims, support from young voters, such as Gen Z, has plummeted. He has a 28% overall favorability rating with them, and 71% disapprove of his economic policy, and 68% disapprove of his immigration policy. And his approval ratings among Hispanic voters have plummeted, too; gee, I wonder why?
The Trump architects of his trade policies may finally be realizing how bad the hole they have dug for themselves is, though. Right at the end of last week, Trump quietly signed another EO related to tariffs that exempts a lot of materials essential to US manufacturing from tariffs, and granted zero-import-tariff exemptions to most of our trading partners. It covered product categories like industrial goods, pharmaceuticals, and metals. In other words, it was the biggest TACO yet. The WH did its best to do it quietly, no press, no fanfare, because they know it's a significant reversal of his tariff policies, although they will spin it as a "strategic" move and claim they are just being "flexible," I'm sure. So, all the turmoil, chaos, and drama for what? It appears absolutely nothing. Can they rescue themselves from themselves before the midterms get here? We'll see.
September 7, 2025 12:38 PM
Forum:
Politics
(insert paragraph long thread title here)Posted By James Lacey |
Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman
I more worried about how much more damage SCOTUS will allow Trump to inflict under the guise of "executive branch authority and independence."
That said, I agree with James--if the economy continues to tank as it clearly is--then the pendulum will swing back to the Democrats. That, and the impact of "the big beautiful bill" on health care and its overall strongly negative polling ought to be more than enough.
As far as choices go, Polis/Shapiro/Besheer would be my preferences. I've never understood your favoritism with Haley...
If the SCOTUS sides with Trump and his EO using the IEEPA to declare a "national emergency, " citing the US trade deficit, then we are truly screwed. We might as well put a crown on Trump's head and all go home if that happens. Never mind that a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, I have a trade deficit with the grocery store every week, but you don't see me declaring I'm going to impose a 100% tariff on them, do you? Don't get me wrong, some trade deficits can be bad, but overall, that was not the case for the US, and there sure as heck was no "national emergency."
September 9, 2025 03:46 PM
Forum:
Politics
(insert paragraph long thread title here)Posted By James Lacey |
Originally Posted by James Brown
Hogwash
Using Grok, I conducted an analysis to determine how often the SCOTUS has sided with Trump versus pushed back on him, and Trump, as it turns out, has been limited by the SCOTUS far more than enabled. Trump has gotten a lot of leniency on immigration enforcement and national security issues, but plenty of pushback on regulatory and domestic policy issues (DACA, adding citizenship question to census, immunity from state subpoenas, etc.).
September 9, 2025 04:38 PM
Forum:
Politics
(insert paragraph long thread title here)Posted By James Lacey |
Originally Posted by James Brown
Interesting stuff. Thanks!
I'm at least hopeful they will uphold the ban on Trump's tariffs, based on past behavior alone. But Trump, and honestly just about any executive, is going to get a lot of leniency on immigration and national security issues if the past is a good predictor of the future, and a good predictor across administrations.
September 9, 2025 07:40 PM
Forum:
Politics
(insert paragraph long thread title here)Posted By James Lacey |
Originally Posted by Rod KaufmanLooking at the AI response, I see the following and it's evident the chart James provided is skewed significantly to Trump's first term in office and,IMO, qualitatively involving less controversial issues than those recently decided in Trump's second term: :
"During his first term, Donald Trump had the lowest Supreme Court win rate of any modern president, though his record has improved significantly since returning to office in January 2025. This success has primarily been on the "emergency docket" for specific policies rather than on the merits docket for broader legal issues."
"As of September 2025, Donald Trump's administration has a successful track record with the Supreme Court, particularly through emergency applications to the "shadow docket"."
"Since returning to office in January 2025, the Trump administration has frequently used the Supreme Court's emergency docket, winning most of its applications. These emergency requests are decided quickly, without the full briefing and oral arguments of regular cases, and have been controversial among lower-court judges and some legal experts."
"Notable victories include":
"Expansion of executive power. The Court has repeatedly sided with the administration to let it proceed with actions that have been blocked by lower-court orders. For example, the court allowed the firing of Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Labor Relations Board, expanding presidential authority over independent agencies."
"Immigration policy. The Supreme Court has enabled the administration to proceed with hardline immigration policies while legal challenges play out. This includes allowing deportations to resume, ending temporary protections for certain migrants, and lifting lower-court orders that had halted other policies.
Narrowing of judicial power. In June 2025, the court sharply curtailed the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions that block federal policies. This was a win for Trump's administration in a case related to his directive on birthright citizenship."
"Narrowing of judicial power. In June 2025, the court sharply curtailed the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions that block federal policies. This was a win for Trump's administration in a case related to his directive on birthright citizenship."
I don't think it's skewed towards his first term, but it does include results from that period, and probably doesn't include all the current data since his second term is obviously ongoing. Overall, though, Trump's legal wins vs. losses lean pretty heavily towards him losing. I think, for example, his losses are easily more than double his wins. On the other hand, his wins have expanded presidential powers in significant ways, so maybe the raw numerical wins vs. losses feel worse than they actually are.
September 9, 2025 07:41 PM
Forum:
Politics
(insert paragraph long thread title here)Posted By James Lacey |
Originally Posted by Brian McFarland
That graph is fascinating and not at all what I would have predicted. Thank you for posting it!
We can quibble over details, but I think what I learned overall is that the data doesn't seem to show that courts are biased toward helping Trump or shielding him from wrongdoing.
Funding Member
