Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

I saw that during a football game yesterday. Is that even legal? Not that Trump or this current group of republicans care about legalities. Imagine in Biden or Obama did that, they'd definitely be calling a foul.

I saw the "paid for by the US Government" notation too, but the TV sound was off.  (How 'bout that Broncos game!)  Seems really weird/illegal, but I can't actually have an opinion because I did not hear the content of the ad.  I'll check google.

Originally Posted by James Brown

I saw the "paid for by the US Government" notation too, but the TV sound was off.  (How 'bout that Broncos game!)  Seems really weird/illegal, but I can't actually have an opinion because I did not hear the content of the ad.  I'll check google.

Well it is true.  The White House says that the ad (which clearly mirrors a campaign ad) was a "public service announcement."  What BS.  This taxpayer wants a refund!   

I can't wait for Richard to show up and defend this indefensible ad, just to be disagreeable.  I know with my entire heart and soul that any true conservative and/or any true lover of the Constitution absolutely abhors Trump using federal funds to pay for any such a self-promotional ad buy, whether or not one twists himself into the false pretzel of trying to paint the ad as a "public service announcement."  But then again, is Richard actually a conservative or a Constitutionalist, or just a Trump boot-licker? 

Trump once again proves wrong those few of us who hope he can't sink any lower.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6114342-trump-nfl-ad-airing/

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"Democrats lead in Texas Senate, gubernatorial race: Poll"

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/6108262-democrats-lead-texas-polls/

By the way, Texas polls disappoint Democrats every time.  Remember Beto?

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/24/politics/video/bash-trump-white-house-media-ban-digvid

You oughta read the poop the Faux news viewers are posting, with righteous indignation, about how correct Trump is in his bogus claims against media outlets he doesn't like...it's, as you can imagine, about as bad as it gets:  https://www.foxnews.com/media/federal-judge-orders-trump-administration-restore-white-house-access-cnn-msnow-politico

November can't get here quickly enough and if the country regains its collective sanity, republicans will lose both the senate and the house and remove the orange stain from the WH...

Best you can hope for Rod, is that the Ds win both House and Senate.  No way in the world the majority in the Senate would be sizable enough to convict Trump after he is impeached.   So you are stuck with him until January, 2029.  

I do think gridlock is inevitable. 

I see two huge problems for the Ds in 2028, however. 

First, if the new majority in the House spends all of its time and energy impeaching Trump over and over and/or being entirely obstructionist for the next two years the R candidate is likely to win the Presidency in 2028.  The blue-collar base has been abandoned by the D party and these folks are receptive to populist Trump/Vance type rhetoric. 

Second, the socialist/DSA Democratic party candidates are going to do pretty well in 2026 given the coming blue wave.  Most DSA candidates are running in safe seats, and it is indisputable that a very active chunk of the new "elite" base of the Ds, i.e. urban/suburban white collar women and college educated kids love the DSA.  I saw this first hand in my own district when the Ds shockingly threw out a powerful, well-regarded, conventionally liberal 30 year Congresswoman (Diana DeGette) in favor of a socialist newbie.  Talk about shortsighted!  Anyway, if many more D's drink the DSA Kool-Aid after these candidates romp in 2026, then the path forward for any national R in 2028 becomes very very clear.

I can cite many articles and polls supporting the above issues for the D party.  Including everything written by Ruy Teixeira in the past several years.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Yeah, you're right, Jim.

While I do think Trump needs to held accountable, if that's all the Dems try to do, assuming they win both the house and the senate, the bread and butter issues, i.e, the economy has to be front and center and if they don't, we'll have another Republican in the WH and quite possibly, "JD".

That said, I think the Dems have to push Trump on the tariffs if they win and if they want to prevail long term. Trump has circumvented the SCOTUS decision in many ways despite the payback to corporations. The obvious example is Canada and there are many others. 

I think the Dems need to pass anti-tariff legislation and let try Trump to veto it so the GOP can answer for it later. People hate the tariffs for the most part, so I think it can be a winning message. 

I also think the Dems need to sharpen their messaging on all the so-called manufacturing plants that he claimed would happen in various states, including another today, that never happened and likely will not because its all Trump made-up BS.

Iran is a wild card and my guess is Trump will be forced into some sort of compromise that is, at best if we're lucky, as good as we already had under Obama but Iran will probably retain control of the strait despite Trump's lies to the contrary. 

Do you agree or do you think the Dems need a different strategy?

I agree.   If the Ds can focus on the economy, including tariffs, and focus on wars unpopular with the public (Iran and Russia) the sky is the limit in 2028.   If they focus entirely on Trump they lose.   There is a thin line between holding him accountable and “vengeance” The activist base wants vengeance, but the Biden era prosecutors were a large part of the reason Trump is president now.  

Some of the bad ideas of the left, like everything the DSA stands for, need to be curbed right now, or the Ds will lose the crucial center voters big time.  I’m gonna start a thread on that one of these days.   It’s probably gonna be a short one because none of you guys are gonna want to defend the DSA, no matter what our dear friend says.

Every bad idea conceived by the left in recent years conveniently collected in one place!   I would have thought it was a joke, but in about three months I personally am going to be represented by a Congresswoman who belongs to the party that wrote this platform.  Unbelievable.   Will anyone defend this?   My guess is no because y’all are rational adults.  

https://program.dsausa.org/

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Individually, I agree with many of their policies. I suspect many Americans do too. Overall, though, their platform's branding and messaging won't be effective or relatable, and it's a target-rich environment for identity attacks and mischaracterizations. My favorite example is when Democrats originated the phrase "defund the police," or even better, "decriminalize border crossings." People attacked and mischaracterized these policies based on those phrases alone, without ever trying to understand them. They will do the same with this platform.

I think many Americans agree that reform on some of these topics would be OK.  Healthcare and prescription drug cost reform are two topics the poll well, for example.  Lots of people favor some sort of orderly immigration reform, while keeping a closed border.  Lots of people think Israel has been heavy-handed in Gaza etc. etc. 

I seriously doubt that many Americans would agree with the policies as set forth in this platform on those topics.  I suppose, if you went through with a fine toothed comb one could find a policy, expressed in the DSA's own paper using their own words, that is not crazy.  I did not see any.  I'd be surprised if you can quote one policy from this paper you would endorse "as written" without also quoting 10 you think are crazy!

Some of their policies are endgame dangerous.  Eliminating our Constitutional checks and balances by eliminating the the judicial branch and executive branch will inevitably lead to a totalitarian dictatorship, if history is any guide.  Same with the elimination of police and incarceration as punishment.  As if the evil aspects of human nature were going to be wished away!  

They published this for a reason though, and it is to attract those voters who feel entitled to free housing and medicine, free education in whatever arcane subject pleases them, paying no bills whatsoever, while working 32 hours a week with unlimited leave at a cool job guaranteed by the government!  All for a living wage, while the poor Palestinians get Israel from the river to the sea, including Jerusalem.  Wonder what we'll do with the Israelis?  

Of course, I realize that none of this weak minded socialist nonsense stands a chance of being implemented as written.  I'm shocked they wrote it, as it exposes the silliness of our DSA movement.  My guess is that the vast majority of the voters who primaried DSA candidates over conventional Democrats think that American-style socialism is something vague and limited, along the lines of "healthcare like they have in Denmark" and not this litany of truly crappy ideas.  My guess is that their vote is a reaction against some injustice or another they believe is inherent in our system, and not in any way a reasoned consideration of the tragic fate of freedom in the western hemisphere if many of these policies were to be implemented as written.  Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

There is a lot to unpack in your post, especially since, once again, you are misrepresenting what people said to make it easy to attack (straw man), and you are apparently clueless about the Democratic Socialists of America's (DSA) origins, history, and overall membership within the Democratic Party.

Briefly, I said I agree with some of their policies; I didn't say I agree with their platform. Specifically, I would be fine with a Green New Deal or Medicare for all. The DSA has been around for a while, but it didn't really start to gain traction in the Democratic Party until the emergence and election of Trump in 2016. Its relatively recent rise is largely because of a response to the extreme right-wing policies and actions of MAGA and Trump. Still, despite its recent membership growth, it remains a very small faction within the big-tent politics of the Democratic Party. The DSA has about 120,000 dues-paying members, a tiny fraction (about 0.26%) of the roughly 45.3 million registered Democrats nationwide. The DSA, as a faction inside the big-tent politics of the Democratic Party, is no different than the membership size of white supremacists inside the Republican Party. It's hard to know for certain, but I would not be surprised if there were more registered Republicans nationwide who are also white supremacists than there are DSA members inside the Democratic Party. Does that mean the Republican Party wants to create an exclusive white ethno-state within the United States? Hardly. Yet, that is the exact sort of ridiculous claim you are generalizing about the Democratic Party because of the existence of the tiny DSA faction.

BTW, I doubt JimB ever called me a "staunch conservative," since his judgment is always measured and trustworthy, and I've never been a "staunch conservative," since I've always been socially progressive. JimB knows this, as well as anyone here, and I guess he probably just meant that I was more right-leaning at one time than I am today. The truth is, most of us, except for a hardline zealot like yourself, are rarely left or right on all issues. Most of us have varying opinions based on the issue or policy under consideration.

I’ve not called you a staunch conservative James, at least not to my best recollection.   Of course, with more than 20 years of history between us, I’m well aware of your sane brand of conservatism on some issues and liberalism on others.   

I hope most voters are like that, thinking through the issues based upon their own values and experiences. Sadly, too many voters are just mindless bootlickers who support whatever BS the head of their party spouts, just like Richard for example, when he apparently supported Trump’s ridiculous, economy-wrecking $5000 check per person scheme if the Rs were to hold Congress.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

There is a lot to unpack in your post, especially since, once again, you are misrepresenting what people said to make it easy to attack (straw man), and you are apparently clueless about the Democratic Socialists of America's (DSA) origins, history, and overall membership within the Democratic Party.

Briefly, I said I agree with some of their policies; I didn't say I agree with their platform. Specifically, I would be fine with a Green New Deal or Medicare for all. The DSA has been around for a while, but it didn't really start to gain traction in the Democratic Party until the emergence and election of Trump in 2016. Its relatively recent rise is largely because of a response to the extreme right-wing policies and actions of MAGA and Trump. Still, despite its recent membership growth, it remains a very small faction within the big-tent politics of the Democratic Party. The DSA has about 120,000 dues-paying members, a tiny fraction (about 0.26%) of the roughly 45.3 million registered Democrats nationwide. The DSA, as a faction inside the big-tent politics of the Democratic Party, is no different than the membership size of white supremacists inside the Republican Party. It's hard to know for certain, but I would not be surprised if there were more registered Republicans nationwide who are also white supremacists than there are DSA members inside the Democratic Party. Does that mean the Republican Party wants to create an exclusive white ethno-state within the United States? Hardly. Yet, that is the exact sort of ridiculous claim you are generalizing about the Democratic Party because of the existence of the tiny DSA faction.

BTW, I doubt JimB ever called me a "staunch conservative," since his judgment is always measured and trustworthy, and I've never been a "staunch conservative," since I've always been socially progressive. JimB knows this, as well as anyone here, and I guess he probably just meant that I was more right-leaning at one time than I am today. The truth is, most of us, except for a hardline zealot like yourself, are rarely left or right on all issues. Most of us have varying opinions based on the issue or policy under consideration.

By the way, the DSA‘s influence in the Democratic Party is currently vastly outsized compared to its dues paying membership. I am sure my Congresswoman Diana DeGette would agree. Her primary loss to an untested DSA candidate was one of the most shocking political events I’ve witnessed in a very long time. So I think your analogy, while correct on the numbers, breaks down in the effect. I don’t believe any openly white supremacists, members of the proud boys, the Ku Klux Klan, or the like have recently won primaries giving them basically un-opposed paths into Congress in 2026.  J.  

p.s.  I get it that some on the extreme left would consider all white male Republican congressmen to be white supremacists, but that is a ridiculous dilution of the words “white supremacist”.   Word dilution for political gain is something that has bothered me for a long time. The most recent glaring example is those who insist Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip be characterized as “genocide“.  I have young relatives who insist that genocide in Gaza is a truth beyond debate, and that anyone who supports Israel at any level is therefore complicit in genocide. Discussion becomes impossible on those terms.

Originally Posted by James Brown

By the way, the DSA‘s influence in the Democratic Party is currently vastly outsized compared to its dues paying membership. I am sure my Congresswoman Diana DeGette would agree. Her primary loss to an untested DSA candidate was one of the most shocking political events I’ve witnessed in a very long time. So I think your analogy, while correct on the numbers, breaks down in the effect. I don’t believe any openly white supremacists, members of the proud boys, the Ku Klux Klan, or the like have won primaries is giving them basically un-opposed paths into Congress in 2026.  J.  

p.s.  I get it that some on the extreme left would consider all white male Republican congressmen to be white supremacists, but that is a ridiculous dilution of the words “white supremacist”.   Word dilution for political gain is something that has bothered me for a long time. The most recent glaring example is those who insist Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip be characterized as “genocide“.  I have young relatives who insist that genocide in Gaza is a truth beyond debate, and that anyone who supports Israel at any level is therefore complicit in genocide. Discussion becomes impossible on those terms.

P.s.s.  I guess word dilution for political gain has been with us forever. Obviously, exaggeration to the point of insanity along with gross mischaracterization of anyone's actual political position is the only arrow in Richard’s quiver.   The effect of this is the same, no matter who does it, it stifles conversation.   That is too bad.