• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

Wrong, its the predatory farmers, small businesses, restaurants, hotels, gated community residents who are the problem for continuously fostering an environment that provides a constant source of income/revenue/opportunity for these illegal immigrants (because its NOT immigrants that are a risk).
You've flipped cause and effect. The environment (demand) for low-wage workers is always there; it isn't in any sense predatory. All that can happen is that workers can out-compete each other by being willing to work for less. A student willing to work for minimum wage displaces workers requiring a higher wage. If anything can be given the attribute "predatory", it's the workers willing to work for less. They displace other workers. If they aren't there to displace other workers, either employers are paying whatever wages clear the market or they aren't in business.

Large numbers of illegals try to enter the US when the administration of the day sends signals that they might not be too strenuously opposed, and those numbers drop precipitously when the administration of the day sends strong signals the other way. Businesses react to what is available - a supply signal. Close the pipeline and they will find other ways. They will whine, but they will find other ways. Mostly wages will rise enough to clear, and costs will be passed on.
The problem also lies with a significant number of those 42 million Americans on SNAP benefits who are not willing to get off their butts and perform some of the work that the illegal immigrants are doing in order to shrink the volume of unfilled job openings that exist within the US.
Sure, social welfare programs promote a lazier - or if you prefer, less striving, doesn't really make a difference except in an aesthetical sense - culture. Humans have known this since the first tribes made life hard for slackers. A culture in which people are reluctant to accept charity and determined to make their own way is difficult to sustain when governments replace private charity on massive scales.
 
As with most of what I write about American politics, I pass along American opinions about their own country and government. Most of those opinions are informed. Americans in America,
I think that this is the fundamental problem that we all now have the ability to create content and distribute it widely through algorithm-boosted online media. I don't find much "informed" opinion on the web. What I find is opinion backed by other opinions rather than fact. And its getting worse. It was once easy to identify biased opinion because it stood out from factual reporting. Now everything is opinion. And it comes from both sides so that all that you have in front of you are polar opposite opinions about the same issue. It's harder and harder to apply common sense when analysing these.
It surely does. It manifests mostly against whatever party controls the WH. Today, that is Republicans.
But that is the nature of things. It is only the party that is in power that can act in a way to affect the public's life. Some of those will be harmed, or think they are being harmed, by those actions and they will be the loudest critics.
Degrade its reputation enough, and it loses popular support.
That, IMHO, is why I think Trump is a danger to American democracy. His infantile and extreme tirades against anyone he feels is against him do resonate with a certain element of MAGA. That undermines whatever institution he targets. One's only hope is that those die-hard MAGA supporters never grow to being the nation's "popular support" but remain at a minority. Even a minority, if substantial, can be dangerous.
This is a matter of critical importance: courts have very little power to enforce their decisions, ultimately depending on the polity to deliver the message to politicians (the executive branch in particular) that they better respect the courts, or else.
Courts do have coercive powers beyond mere persuasion. Money judgements and jail are part of their arsenal. In one respect you are right though. In order to effect those punishments, the courts rely on entities controlled by the executive. If the executive simply drags it feet then those powers become meaningless. The problem here quite simply is that Trump is the first executive leader in the US who is prepared to test that type of inaction and has installed secretaries who are extremely loyal to him rather than the Constitution. And let me be clear, by Trump, I mean him and that small core of political advisors led by Stephen Miller who are the architects of this chaos.
If people see enough of what looks like partisan legal warfare, read opinions describing it as such, and then subsequently do indeed see the decisions slapped down by higher courts, sometimes in very strong terms, the collective reputation of all courts suffers.
Again, whether or not these decisions are partisan or not is very much in the eyes of the beholder. Frequently their views are clouded by their own partisanship. And, yes, within that group of beholders the reputation of the entire judiciary may suffer. IMHO, that is a consequence of a poorly educated and schooled populace who can't isolate one decision from the overarching nature of the benefits that a strong judicial system brings to a society. That's my complaint about MAGA - they barely understand first order effects of their positions, much less second or third.

🍻
 
That, IMHO, is why I think Trump is a danger to American democracy. His infantile and extreme tirades against anyone he feels is against him do resonate with a certain element of MAGA. That undermines whatever institution he targets. One's only hope is that those die-hard MAGA supporters never grow to being the nation's "popular support" but remain at a minority. Even a minority, if substantial, can be dangerous.
Trump is a buffoon, and aside from the die-hard supporters, who else really pays attention when he blackguards an institution?

Conversely, when people regarded as sober and serious react to an adverse USSC decision or a Congressional legislative accomplishment by putting pen to paper and writing sober serious articles about the shortfalls of the institution, often favouring the words "illegitimate" and in the case of the court, "partisan", who is paying attention then?

And is the first group or the second ultimately more corrosive to institutional reputations?
 
The whole thing was an utter farce. Give the guy a ticket for drunk and disorderly or something appropriately minor like that. The administration tried to make an example of him and just got humiliated both by grand then trial juries. The criminal trial was almost certainly a case of jury nullification of a BS charge.

The guy was being a drunken buffoon. Handle it as such.

And now some dumb dumb federal agent gets to spend the rest of his career being the guy who took the stand to rather dubiously and exaggeratedly describe how the sandwich ‘exploded’ on him. And it had onions.

From NBC article:

Border Patrol Officer Greg Lairmore received two "gag gifts" related to the incident — a plush sandwich and a patch featuring a cartoon of Dunn throwing the sandwich with the words “Felony Footlong” — which the defense team argued showed this was not a serious event in his life.
 
I'm sure it won't be long before someone will capitalize on this farce and start featuring a "Felony" submarine sandwich on their menu's.
 
And is the first group or the second ultimately more corrosive to institutional reputations?
That's a good question that I don't know the answer to.

The first group is a relatively new phenomenon and its long-term impact is yet to be determined. It wouldn't be so concerning if over 70,000,000 Americans hadn't voted for Trump.

I'm not so sure about the second group either. In this case its because it is expressly a long term practice for sober, legal scholars to criticize some of the court's decisions without any general, negative impact.

The SCC has been a "partisan" court for many decades and, quite frankly, I think that some of the earlier appointments to the court are more demonstrably partisan - on either side - than some of Trump's appointments. I find Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch to be more centrist than I expected. All in all, one has to remember this has been a court with a continuous majority of conservative-appointed judges for a half a century.

🍻
 

U.S. President Donald Trump wants the Washington Commanders to put his name on their future stadium, ESPN reported Saturday.

A “senior White House source” told ESPN that the commander-in-chief has expressed his wishes to the NFL team’s ownership group, led by Josh Harris.

“It’s what the president wants, and it will probably happen,” the source said.

Next on the list of things only this president can say without anyone batting an eye.
 



Next on the list of things only this president can say without anyone batting an eye.
Waiting to see which paper currency denomination he ‘asks’ to have his picture on. My guess is that he suggests a new 500$ bill, like the 500 Euro bill, with his face on it.
 
A truly egotistical person would ask to be on the most commonly circulated denomination, which is probably a 20 or maybe a 50.
 
A truly egotistical person would ask to be on the most commonly circulated denomination, which is probably a 20 or maybe a 50.
A Gold Eagle coin...lasts longer in circulation. Maybe featuring a crown of Laurel leaves?
 
According to the US Treasury website, federal law prohibits the image of a living person appearing on their currency. This was apparently to avoid the appearance of a monarchy. How prescient.

So, the solution is . . .
Ignore the law, do it anyways, wait for the courts to rule agaisnt him, rail agaisnt liberal radical judges regardless of who appointed them, file an emergency injunction to stay the lower court ruling, and have the SCOTUS, which is ideologically slanted his way, bend over backwards to rule in his favour.
 
Back
Top