POLL

[thetragichippy]

Curious

[mat]

Normal politics. Oxymoron.

[Jax]

9 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

Curious

Are you saying that the 8 years of Obama was normal?  

[baddog]

I voted no. Too much hate and division. 

[thetragichippy]

14 hours ago, Jax said:

Are you saying that the 8 years of Obama was normal?  

I remember around 2015 when Trump started using Twitter to by pass the media, Democrats and some Republicans called "twitter" unpresidential for the President to use that platform, as well as his language and attacks.....Fast forward to 2026, Congressman cursing, posting propaganda, cherry picked quotes, etc is the norm for just about every sitting member of Congress.......

So I was talking more about the political climate that Trump can and should take credit for changing. Like Trump or hate Trump, Trump will go down in the history books as a President that changed the was politics was fought. 

[bullets13]

Too much politics is being driven by the fringe right and the fringe left for things to go back to normal. At this point neither side can come up with an idea, no matter how sensible it is, that the other side will agree to. We're going to experience a period of each side pushing radical legislation while they're in office that results in the other side coming into power, nulling that legislation, then pushing their own. 

[Porter]

56 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Too much politics is being driven by the fringe right and the fringe left for things to go back to normal. At this point neither side can come up with an idea, no matter how sensible it is, that the other side will agree to. We're going to experience a period of each side pushing radical legislation while they're in office that results in the other side coming into power, nulling that legislation, then pushing their own. 

Just curious what radical legislation has the right pushed? 

[bullets13]

2 hours ago, Porter said:

Just curious what radical legislation has the right pushed? 

perhaps not necessarily legislation, but how about starting wars that nobody wanted? so i guess a bigger issue for the right is that Trump has been given free rein to act terribly, get whoever he wants nominated for any race, even if that means the right will lose a race they should win, and receive adulation from the fringe right, who will support him no matter how badly he acts or fails. some of his executive orders are embarrassing; others have caused damage to the party. Trump has also marked a sharp departure by the right of being the party of decency and morality. While they still don't compare to the left, no transgression is too big as long as it's Trump or someone he supports doing it. That'll hurt the party in the long run as well. 

[little red]

3 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

I remember around 2015 when Trump started using Twitter to by pass the media, Democrats and some Republicans called "twitter" unpresidential for the President to use that platform, as well as his language and attacks.....Fast forward to 2026, Congressman cursing, posting propaganda, cherry picked quotes, etc is the norm for just about every sitting member of Congress.......

So I was talking more about the political climate that Trump can and should take credit for changing. Like Trump or hate Trump, Trump will go down in the history books as a President that changed the was politics was fought. 

In a bad way.

[Porter]

2 hours ago, bullets13 said:

perhaps not necessarily legislation, but how about starting wars that nobody wanted? so i guess a bigger issue for the right is that Trump has been given free rein to act terribly, get whoever he wants nominated for any race, even if that means the right will lose a race they should win, and receive adulation from the fringe right, who will support him no matter how badly he acts or fails. some of his executive orders are embarrassing; others have caused damage to the party. Trump has also marked a sharp departure by the right of being the party of decency and morality. While they still don't compare to the left, no transgression is too big as long as it's Trump or someone he supports doing it. That'll hurt the party in the long run as well. 

Just wondering because very little meaningful legislation has gotten done his second term except maybe The Epstein Files Transparency Act that he had no choice to sign or look really guilty only for Administration to keep ignoring the law. Just a bunch of useless executive orders that will be changed when the next Democrat is president which at that point want matter anyway because they will put the finishing touches on totaling destroying this country with no return to normalcy. I will be shocked if some how the Republicans are able to keep the house and senate with affordability issue front and center for Americans. 
 

[thetragichippy]

18 hours ago, Porter said:

Just wondering because very little meaningful legislation has gotten done his second term except maybe The Epstein Files Transparency Act that he had no choice to sign or look really guilty only for Administration to keep ignoring the law. Just a bunch of useless executive orders that will be changed when the next Democrat is president which at that point want matter anyway because they will put the finishing touches on totaling destroying this country with no return to normalcy. I will be shocked if some how the Republicans are able to keep the house and senate with affordability issue front and center for Americans. 
 

What positives have come from the Epstein Transparency Act? I've seen no arrest, no investigations, so I'm not sure it's meaningful, unless it just makes folks feel like they accomplished something against Trump.  Oddly, during the investigation of Maxwell under Biden, with access to everything, they came up with nothing but Maxwell.....

I will also be shocked if Republicans keep both - based on history, the should not keep both.  That rarely happens with any administration that holds both houses. 

[Porter]

2 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

What positives have come from the Epstein Transparency Act? I've seen no arrest, no investigations, so I'm not sure it's meaningful, unless it just makes folks feel like they accomplished something against Trump.  Oddly, during the investigation of Maxwell under Biden, with access to everything, they came up with nothing but Maxwell.....

I will also be shocked if Republicans keep both - based on history, the should not keep both.  That rarely happens with any administration that holds both houses. 

The Epstein Files Transparency Act took effect November nineteenth, twenty twenty-five, giving DOJ thirty days to publish everything unclassified. They blew the deadline, dropped a partial batch on December nineteenth, then claimed compliance on January thirtieth with about three and a half million pages — out of roughly six million they identified. The other two and a half million are mostly withheld on privilege claims: deliberative process, attorney-client. Some withheld for reasons the law doesn’t even permit. In the Phang versus Blanche lawsuit, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche conceded on the record that he’s in violation. Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered him to either strip key redactions or justify every single one line by line. DOJ responded by offering to show more to the judge behind closed doors instead. The kicker: a Wall Street Journal review found the released files exposed personal info on at least forty-three victims — the exact thing the law was written to protect — while names of powerful people stayed hidden behind privilege. So the law’s narrow exceptions got used to shield institutions, not survivors. That’s what triggered Epstein Files Transparency Act Two, H.R. 9694, backed by seventeen state attorneys general as of two days ago. It would let states, survivors, and members of Congress sue DOJ directly over withheld or improperly redacted records, and add criminal penalties for non-compliant employees. It’s stalled in the House Judiciary Committee, but Massie and Khanna say they’ve locked up two hundred eighteen discharge-petition signatures to force a floor vote in the post-election lame-duck session. One angle worth watching: the law required DOJ to publish a redaction log in the Federal Register listing every withheld category and its legal basis. That log was never published. Without it, there’s no public way to audit what got hidden or why — which is arguably the single biggest enforcement gap in the whole statute.

[thetragichippy]

18 minutes ago, Porter said:

The Epstein Files Transparency Act took effect November nineteenth, twenty twenty-five, giving DOJ thirty days to publish everything unclassified. They blew the deadline, dropped a partial batch on December nineteenth, then claimed compliance on January thirtieth with about three and a half million pages — out of roughly six million they identified. The other two and a half million are mostly withheld on privilege claims: deliberative process, attorney-client. Some withheld for reasons the law doesn’t even permit. In the Phang versus Blanche lawsuit, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche conceded on the record that he’s in violation. Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered him to either strip key redactions or justify every single one line by line. DOJ responded by offering to show more to the judge behind closed doors instead. The kicker: a Wall Street Journal review found the released files exposed personal info on at least forty-three victims — the exact thing the law was written to protect — while names of powerful people stayed hidden behind privilege. So the law’s narrow exceptions got used to shield institutions, not survivors. That’s what triggered Epstein Files Transparency Act Two, H.R. 9694, backed by seventeen state attorneys general as of two days ago. It would let states, survivors, and members of Congress sue DOJ directly over withheld or improperly redacted records, and add criminal penalties for non-compliant employees. It’s stalled in the House Judiciary Committee, but Massie and Khanna say they’ve locked up two hundred eighteen discharge-petition signatures to force a floor vote in the post-election lame-duck session. One angle worth watching: the law required DOJ to publish a redaction log in the Federal Register listing every withheld category and its legal basis. That log was never published. Without it, there’s no public way to audit what got hidden or why — which is arguably the single biggest enforcement gap in the whole statute.

all you would of had to say is it was not meaningful legislation.....

[Porter]

23 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

all you would of had to say is it was not meaningful legislation.....

It’s as meaningful as anything else that has been passed which is very little.