Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Oh, I see the your point and mine are moot:  "Trump’s Republican Party insists there’s no affordability crisis and dismisses election losses".  " Almost two weeks after Republicans lost badly in elections in Georgia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia, many GOP leaders insist there is no problem with the party’s policies, its message or President Donald Trump’s leadership."

https://apnews.com/article/trump-economy-midterms-republicans-affordability-election-losses-0e15f928cdbb01eee41eadfb477cb981

There you have it, nothing to see here...

Originally Posted by James Brown

That sort of attitude is exactly what we expect from the GOP's non-leaders, and and of course is 100% reflective of the Democrat's head-in-sand analysis of the 2024 drubbing.  Both parties are incapable of introspection.   

At this particular point in time, I get the feeling that the D's are "more" out of touch.  "Hey, let's run actual socialists nationally!  It worked in New York and Portland!"  I don't doubt that the Republicans get drubbed in the 2026 midterms because of Trump and everything everyone has posted here in the last day or two.  But if the Democrats can't pull their head out of you-know-where and nominate Shapiro or the like in 2028, I can guarantee President Vance.   Not that I am sure Vance would be so bad freed of the dark shadow, but you never know.  In other words, I am getting worried reading all those articles about AOC primarying Schumer or Mamdani being the future of the party.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"The Roberts court is a shill of the MAGA/Project 2025/GOP."


How true, and take another recent example wherein the cons, without much of any "deliberation" other than a few hours over a holiday, decided that the redistricting plan for Texas was kosher. They totally ignored the hours and days worth of analysis of the appeals court that had decided the plan cleary amounted to racial gerrymandering which it obviously does and even ignored an internal justice department document that concluded the same thing. But according to Sammy Alito, it's obviously ONLY partisan gerrymandering and there's nothing to see here...

Originally Posted by James Lacey

We have to be one of the most flawed "democracies" in the world at this point.

Originally Posted by The David Cotterell

The Roberts court is a shill of the MAGA/Project 2025/GOP.

Only enlarging the court to 11 or 13 combined with term limits or age limits*will change this.  

*e.g. here in Canada the age limit is 75.  There is no term limit.

Dave

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

The Roberts court is a shill of the MAGA/Project 2025/GOP.

Only enlarging the court to 11 or 13 combined with term limits or age limits*will change this.  

*e.g. here in Canada the age limit is 75.  There is no term limit.

Dave

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It wasn't necessarily racially motivated, but the three-judge federal panel that heard the case certainly thought that it illegally diluted minority voting power. Only one of the judges dissented (a Reagan appointee), and the other two joined the majority: a Trump appointee and an Obama appointee. As far as I know, the unusual mid-decade redistricting we are discussing was initially done entirely at Trump's behest to gain a partisan advantage in the 2026 midterms. I'm not sure what you mean by "it was court-ordered." I believe the Republican lawyers who defended the redistricting in court even argued it wasn't illegal, since it was done entirely for partisan benefit. However, that doesn't mean that the redistricting didn't disenfranchise minorities. I see similar actions in blue states, such as CA, resulting from partisan actions in Texas and other red states. In contrast, Texas's actions were clearly undertaken only because Republicans are in deep trouble in the midterms. Surely this diffence in motivation between red and blue states is meaningful.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It wasn't necessarily racially motivated, but the three-judge federal panel that heard the case certainly thought that it illegally diluted minority voting power. Only one of the judges dissented (a Reagan appointee), and the other two joined the majority: a Trump appointee and an Obama appointee. As far as I know, the unusual mid-decade redistricting we are discussing was initially done entirely at Trump's behest to gain a partisan advantage in the 2026 midterms. I'm not sure what you mean by "it was court-ordered." I believe the Republican lawyers who defended the redistricting in court even argued it wasn't illegal, since it was done entirely for partisan benefit. However, that doesn't mean that the redistricting didn't disenfranchise minorities. I see similar actions in blue states, such as CA, resulting from partisan actions in Texas and other red states. In contrast, Texas's actions were clearly undertaken only because Republicans are in deep trouble in the midterms. Surely this diffence in motivation between red and blue states is meaningful.