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.

[Jax]

Bush family money is now backing the Democrat in the Texas Senate race. Barbara Bush donated $2,500 to a Super PAC supporting James Talarico over Ken Paxton.

Clinton, Bush and Obama -- this is NOT the normal I want to go back to!  

[5GallonBucket]

Texas will eventually turn blue…..too much growth too much greed and too many weak minded people on both sides shaking hands behind closed doors.

and the Muslim s will eventually breed us out.….stupid LBJ

[OlDawg]

Trump has taken us one step closer to pure socialism by taking government ownership stakes in multiple companies and industries, and justifying them all with the umbrella of ‘National Security.’

He’s codified the Democratic Socialists’ agenda for them, and a bunch of Trump-loving stooges went right along with it.

[DCT]

5 hours ago, OlDawg said:

Trump has taken us one step closer to pure socialism by taking government ownership stakes in multiple companies and industries, and justifying them all with the umbrella of ‘National Security.’

He’s codified the Democratic Socialists’ agenda for them, and a bunch of Trump-loving stooges went right along with it.

Careful, you will be labeled a Trump hater or a liberal.  However, you speak facts that can be backed up not opinions.  Trump represents MAGA not Republicans.

[Porter]

19 hours ago, OlDawg said:

Trump has taken us one step closer to pure socialism by taking government ownership stakes in multiple companies and industries, and justifying them all with the umbrella of ‘National Security.’

He’s codified the Democratic Socialists’ agenda for them, and a bunch of Trump-loving stooges went right along with it.

Say louder so the ones in back can hear it! They know who they are.

[baddog]

19 hours ago, OlDawg said:

Trump has taken us one step closer to pure socialism by taking government ownership stakes in multiple companies and industries, and justifying them all with the umbrella of ‘National Security.’

He’s codified the Democratic Socialists’ agenda for them, and a bunch of Trump-loving stooges went right along with it.

Google search:

Economists and political analysts generally do not consider the Trump administration's equity investments in private companies to be socialism, though critics and some conservatives characterize the actions as state capitalism, interventionism, or a form of "venture socialism". [

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

]

 

Why It Is Not Traditionally Defined as Socialism

• Definition of Socialism: True socialism involves collective or government ownership and centralized control over the means of production, distribution, and pricing (as seen historically in state-run economies). [
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  , 
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  ]
• Passive Stakes vs. Control: Administration officials, such as economic advisor Kevin Hassett, argue that acquiring minority shares or passive equity stakes (such as in Intel, MP Materials, or various CHIPS Act recipients) does not mean the government is running the companies or dictating day-to-day business operations. [
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  , 
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  , 
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  ]
• National Security & Market Correction: Supporters—including pieces from the 
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  —argue that taking strategic stakes or "golden shares" (such as with U.S. Steel) is a targeted intervention to protect critical supply chains and counter foreign market distortions, rather than replacing free-market capitalism. [
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  , 
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  , 
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  ]

 

Why Critics Call It Socialism or State Control

• Unprecedented Federal Ownership: The administration has expanded federal equity and quasi-equity holdings across dozens of private companies in sectors like tech, mining, and energy. [
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  , 
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  ]
• Coercive Levers: Critics from both the left (such as commentators on MS NOW) and libertarian/conservative groups (such as the 
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  ) argue that conditioning subsidies, permits, or government contracts on handing over equity or demanding leadership changes blurs the line between public and private sectors. [
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  , 
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  ]
• State Capitalism: Many analysts classify the model as 
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  —a hybrid system where private enterprise remains intact, but the state actively picks winners, shapes capital allocation, and exerts political pressure on corporate boardrooms