Attack on the Feds independence

[Handlebar]

The idea that the "bipartisan" border bill pushed out by Sen Larkford was going to fix the issue is in my opinion ludicrous. As long as the incentives offered by sanctuary states and cities exist people will come. The birthright citizenship case in the Supreme court will have a huge impact.

 

[SAJ-99]

unless the democrats run someone in the middle.

The fact that you view Trump and Harris was equally bad tells me a lot. But I am very curious if any of these names interest you. In other words, where exactly is your middle?
Andy Bashear - Gov of Kentucky
Gavin Newsom- Gov of Cali
JB Pritzker - Gov Of IL
Josh Shapiro- Gov of Penn
Rahm Emanuel - Fmr Obama Chief of Staff, Former Major of Chicago
Mark Kelly- AZ senator
AOC

 

[Bonasababy]

The Bill that Trump killed was killed while Biden was in office still--a year before Trumps current term--and he would have not tried to veto it.

And no Presidents--including Trump who tried and was not allowed--cannot wave their hand and close the border themselves!

Trump tried and lost--he then appealed a US District court decision in 2018 against his ability to close the border all the way to the US Supreme Court--and his Trump Friendly SCUS declined to agree with him. Part of the district courts decision that the supreme court declined to address and let stand was based on that ability not being the intent of law and congress.

Legally a president cannot close the border.

And it's rich to point the finger at Biden--as the Bill Trump had killed WOULD HAVE FINALLY GIVEN THE PRESIDENT AUTHORITY they need to close a border.

The reality is
1) Trump tried but found he didn't have the authority to close the border,
2) then when bipartisan legislation was developed that would grant the president that ability he stepped in and told republicans--enough of who were planning to support it to gain passage--to vote against it.

So Trumps actions directly ended any chance that Biden--or any president--had to close the border.

Some reading on the issue.

As conservatives balk, U.S. Border Patrol union endorses Senate immigration deal

The National Border Patrol Council, which endorsed Donald Trump for president in 2020, said the new bipartisan bill "will drop illegal border crossings nationwide."

www.nbcnews.com

Unraveling Misinformation About Bipartisan Immigration Bill - FactCheck.org

Even before a bipartisan group of senators unveiled the text of a foreign aid and immigration overhaul bill on Feb. 4, it faced significant opposition from former President Donald Trump and other Republican leaders. We'll explain what was in the legislation and the facts on two popular talking...

www.factcheck.org

Justices rebuff government on asylum ban

Last week the federal government went to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to block a ruling by a federal judge that bars the Trump administration from denying asylum to […]

www.scotusblog.com

Transgender stuff is straying way afield but is a good example of the "but what about" mindset so many Trump supporters have(even if they aren't supporters anymore). Tiny problem in comparison to what really motivates people to vote. The prices they pay, their job prospects, the costs of things going up and up, watching more giveaways to the wealthy while all of the rest of us are hurting people.

People thinking thought their pocketbook needed improvement and thinking Trump could do that is why he won--their increasing realization that he and republicans made it worse is why republicans are in serious trouble.

Polls tell that story--for now in this time at least. Keep in mind most elections do not depend on die hards from either side changing their mind--they are decided by the masses in the middle and which way they lean. The biggest drop--and it's more than enough to result in a bloodbath for republicans in the midterm--is in numbers of people not aligned with either party who now have dropped their support for Trump and republicans.

Certainly agree that most places do not promote middle ground candidates--a consequence of the hold the two parties have is candidates have to please their party base which on both sides is more extreme than the average person.

I would like to think that a charismatic independent could win the day and start a sanity movement in politics but the cards are strongly stacked against that happening.

I see it more likely--and though I fear the result a bit--that dems get sweeping control. Only something drastic can lead to any change in the extremes the republican party has fled to.

Thats assuming they actually want to win an election. I am not sure in my state that they do--looking at the candidates they run up for statewide office consideration, at least.

 

[Carnage2011]

The fact that you view Trump and Harris was equally bad tells me a lot. But I am very curious if any of these names interest you. In other words, where exactly is your middle?
Andy Bashear - Gov of Kentucky
Gavin Newsom- Gov of Cali
JB Pritzker - Gov Of IL
Josh Shapiro- Gov of Penn
Rahm Emanuel - Fmr Obama Chief of Staff, Former Major of Chicago
Mark Kelly- AZ senator
AOC

I’m not going to breakdown each one but I think Shapiro would roll. Kamala should have picked him as her VP candidate last time…

 

[SAJ-99]

I’m not going to breakdown each one but I think Shapiro would roll. Kamala should have picked him as her VP candidate last time…

Do you think maybe the Republican party should also move away from crazy and toward the middle?

It always seems that the reasonable/former republicans I talk to fault the democrats for running a bad candidate. Then they proceed to ask that the party move further right. I’m not saying they shouldn’t, but just that it doesn’t solve anything if all citizens aren’t willing to be more flexible with their ideals.

 

[Carnage2011]

Do you think maybe the Republican party should also move away from crazy and toward the middle?

It always seems that the reasonable/former republicans I talk to fault the democrats for running a bad candidate. Then they proceed to ask that the party move further right. I’m not saying they shouldn’t, but just that it doesn’t solve anything if all citizens aren’t willing to be more flexible with their ideals.

I absolutely think that, but we know who the republican candidates will be. Vance, Rubio, or Vivek. Politicians are dumb…Republicans think they are killing it right now so they aren’t going to magically run a moderate. They believe their movement is strong and will carry them through. Sometimes it takes a good ass kicking for a party to reflect on what went wrong. Democrats gave the ability to capitalize on their last election and run a moderate candidate that can win. After the blood bath in the last election, the DNC basically came out and said their candidates were a poor choice.

If both sides continue to run someone farther on the fringes then we are in for a long few elections.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Nazi and white-nationalist slogans? Lay off the CTV/CBC....

 

[SAJ-99]

I absolutely think that, but we know who the republican candidates will be. Vance, Rubio, or Vivek. Politicians are dumb…Republicans think they are killing it right now so they aren’t going to magically run a moderate. They believe their movement is strong and will carry them through. Sometimes it takes a good ass kicking for a party to reflect on what went wrong. Democrats gave the ability to capitalize on their last election and run a moderate candidate that can win. After the blood bath in the last election, the DNC basically came out and said their candidates were a poor choice.

If both sides continue to run someone farther on the fringes then we are in for a long few elections.

I’m not sure what that movement is. It seems to be using a culture war to gain power and fleece the American people for profit. Many think Clinton, Obama, and Biden are fringe. You can’t show data showing actual performance. A lot of the movement is about ignoring the important stuff and believing made up stories.

I don’t think the Repubs can get more fringe than Trump, but they will try.

 

[Chama Grande]

Well he got the participation trophy he wanted, maybe Greenland can sleep easy tonight

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/01/15/machado-trump-nobel-prize/

 

[406dn]

I don’t think the Repubs can get more fringe than Trump, but they will try.

A number of years ago, I enjoyed the HBO series True Blood. There were a number of characters who were shapeshifters.

The GOP has several. Vance, Cruz, Miss Lindsay and others.

One of the less admirable traits of politicians is their willingness to morph into whatever they think sells best. No small part of why...is that it usually works.

 

[BigHornRam]

The fact that you view Trump and Harris was equally bad tells me a lot. But I am very curious if any of these names interest you. In other words, where exactly is your middle?
Andy Bashear - Gov of Kentucky
Gavin Newsom- Gov of Cali
JB Pritzker - Gov Of IL
Josh Shapiro- Gov of Penn
Rahm Emanuel - Fmr Obama Chief of Staff, Former Major of Chicago
Mark Kelly- AZ senator
AOC

The nominee will be Newsom. No one else has the name recognition or financial backing.

 

[Big Fin]

Do you think maybe the Republican party should also move away from crazy and toward the middle?

It always seems that the reasonable/former republicans I talk to fault the democrats for running a bad candidate. Then they proceed to ask that the party move further right. I’m not saying they shouldn’t, but just that it doesn’t solve anything if all citizens aren’t willing to be more flexible with their ideals.

Not pointed at you, just a good statement to expand on.

I don't "fault the Democrats" for running a bad candidate, though they surely have. I do toss it back to them when they talk about Trump being so flawed, which I agree with. The toss back from me is, "If he's so bad, why couldn't your candidate beat him?"

The reason is that the Dems listen to a small handful of strategic advisors, the same as the Repubs listen to their small handful of strategic advisors. And for the last 15 years, the Repubs strategic advisors are running circles around the Dems advisors.

The Dems are still carrying the baggage that came with Hillary's "Basket of Deplorables" statement and Obama's statement painting small town folks who are missing out on the economic waves as "...bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them."

Both of those are as arrogant, condescending, and damaging as anything they could say in the context of it coming from the people who want to claim the moral high ground of open-mindedness and intellectual understanding. And not a single apology or acknowledgement that such statements were complete bullshit. Coming from a small logging town where economic challenges are high and folks live pretty simple and conservative lives, I fully understand how damaging those statements were.

Some would say, "Get over it, that was Clinton and Obama." True to some degree, but not a single person in Democratic leadership has stated how condescending and arrogant those statements are. Rather, they reply with how stupid these same people are by "Voting against their own interest." Another arrogant and condescending statement I often hear from my friends who proudly fly the Dem flag. Fugg that - nobody votes against their self-interest. They just prioritize issues in a different manner. To claim that is voting "against one's self-interest" is a level of arrogance on the same plane as the two comments from Clinton and Obama.

That said, we are in a time where Congress has completely abdicated their duties and handed their powers to the Executive office, with this Congress controlled by Rs. Obama tested those waters slightly and when he had Dem majorities - they just let him do whatever he wanted. Then came Trump I, and he pushed it beyond anything prior to his time. Biden had Dems in Congress who have him a free pass on anything/everything. And now, we have Trump II with a Republican-controlled Congress that has let him go far outside the bounds of what most Americans find comfortable.

There are two other branches of the government - Legislative and Judicial. If they are not going to stand up and exercise the powers granted them in the Constitution, it is not a surprise at all that a spoiled brat Executive such as Trump would take advantage of that ineptitude/dysfunction of Congress. He also knows that the Judiciary hates to look political, so they find legal rationale to avoid looking political.

Trump and his advisors have expertly read this landscape and they're not looking around for permission from society or Congress. The only group who can put some side rails on him would be Congress, but the Republican members are too chickenshit to do anything and the Dems are too busy worrying about shit that doesn't really matter. So, Trump can do what he wants, how he wants, where he wants, and when he wants.

The topic of this thread, allowing Trump to attack the Fed, with an independent Fed being one of many cornerstones of the "Conservative" ideology, shows me how the Rs have lost their way and their claims as "Conservatives" is a laugh-out-loud statement. There is nothing in the Trump doctrine that fits the Conservative ideology that I was raised in while voting for Reagan, Bush (I and II), McCain, Romney, and others who came through primary elections that convinced voters they best represented the Conservative ideologies. They are trying to say that the Trump doctrine is the new brand of Conservatism. Bullshit.

As a person who puts the Constitution and the rights of citizens as paramount to any political party or any politician, seeing an unhinged Trump without any side rails from Congress, a Congress controlled by Rs who want to make the false claim that they are "Conservatives," disturbs me greatly.

If the Rs in Congress were true Conservatives, they'd defend the Constitution. They'd exercise the powers the Constitution provides to Congress as a balance against the Executive. They'd be as concerned about the 1st and 4th Amendment infringements as they claim to be about the 2nd and 10th Amendment violations. They'd have stood up for "law and order" and our law enforcement institutions by imposing such harsh consequences that Trump would have never pardoned the Jan 6th criminals. They'd have forced more fiscal discipline on the spending side when granting large tax cuts. They'd have (insert here the many examples where Trump and the current Rs in Congress are the antithesis of conservatives). They've done none of this.

I believe in America and that someway we find our way forward. The pace at which the political pendulum swings in today's world is stunning, exceeded only by the distance from the center that the pendulum swings when we have changes in power. Right now, the challenges caused by a combination of a Congress of bootlicking enablers and a Democratic opposition that has nothing to offer beyond their performative screams and yells, makes the challenges look more daunting than anytime in my life.

In America, "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility , .........." have always met the challenges. That document, the Constitution of the United States, has been the rulebook by which the citizens and their rights/liberty were protected from and overreaching government. The topic of this thread, the Fed's independence being usurped, is a symptom of the bigger issues, most of which I attribute to two political parties being more interested in winning, in having absolute power, in placing the party above the country, and electoral process that results in mostly hyper-partisans elected/appointed who view themselves as only representing only a small fraction of Americans.

Sorry for the ramble. I have zero trust in either party. I blame them equally for all the problems needing to be fixed. I see neither of them leading our country to bright future. I strongly feel that the party system has outlived any useful life in our country. Maybe I'm alone in that vision and I need to just drill a hole in the ice and wait for the bobber to go under rather than concern myself about such. I'm afraid I'm not wired in a way that let's me ignore what my eyes see and my ears hear.

 

[mevertsen]

I don't "fault the Democrats" for running a bad candidate, though they surely have. I do toss it back to them when they talk about Trump being so flawed, which I agree with. The toss back from me is, "If he's so bad, why couldn't your candidate beat him?"

The reason is that the Dems listen to a small handful of strategic advisors, the same as the Repubs listen to their small handful of strategic advisors. And for the last 15 years, the Repubs strategic advisors are running circles around the Dems advisors.

The Dems are still carrying the baggage that came with Hillary's "Basket of Deplorables" statement and Obama's statement painting small town folks who are missing out on the economic waves as "...bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them."

Both of those are as arrogant, condescending, and damaging as anything they could say in the context of it coming from the people who want to claim the moral high ground of open-mindedness and intellectual understanding. And not a single apology or acknowledgement that such statements were complete bullshit. Coming from a small logging town where economic challenges are high and folks live pretty simple and conservative lives, I fully understand how damaging those statements were.

Some would say, "Get over it, that was Clinton and Obama." True to some degree, but not a single person in Democratic leadership has stated how condescending and arrogant those statements are. Rather, they reply with how stupid these same people are by "Voting against their own interest." Another arrogant and condescending statement I often hear from my friends who proudly fly the Dem flag. Fugg that - nobody votes against their self-interest. They just prioritize issues in a different manner. To claim that is voting "against one's self-interest" is a level of arrogance on the same plane as the two comments from Clinton and Obama.

That said, we are in a time where Congress has completely abdicated their duties and handed their powers to the Executive office, with this Congress controlled by Rs. Obama tested those waters slightly and when he had Dem majorities - they just let him do whatever he wanted. Then came Trump I, and he pushed it beyond anything prior to his time. Biden had Dems in Congress who have him a free pass on anything/everything. And now, we have Trump II with a Republican-controlled Congress that has let him go far outside the bounds of what most Americans find comfortable.

There are two other branches of the government - Legislative and Judicial. If they are not going to stand up and exercise the powers granted them in the Constitution, it is not a surprise at all that a spoiled brat Executive such as Trump would take advantage of that ineptitude/dysfunction of Congress. He also knows that the Judiciary hates to look political, so they find legal rationale to avoid looking political.

Trump and his advisors have expertly read this landscape and they're not looking around for permission from society or Congress. The only group who can put some side rails on him would be Congress, but the Republican members are too chickenshit to do anything and the Dems are too busy worrying about shit that doesn't really matter. So, Trump can do what he wants, how he wants, where he wants, and when he wants.

The topic of this thread, allowing Trump to attack the Fed, with an independent Fed being one of many cornerstones of the "Conservative" ideology, shows me how the Rs have lost their way and their claims as "Conservatives" is a laugh-out-loud statement. There is nothing in the Trump doctrine that fits the Conservative ideology that I was raised in while voting for Reagan, Bush (I and II), McCain, Romney, and others who came through primary elections that convinced voters they best represented the Conservative ideologies. They are trying to say that the Trump doctrine is the new brand of Conservatism. Bullshit.

As a person who puts the Constitution and the rights of citizens as paramount to any political party or any politician, seeing an unhinged Trump without any side rails from Congress, a Congress controlled by Rs who want to make the false claim that they are "Conservatives," disturbs me greatly.

If the Rs in Congress were true Conservatives, they'd defend the Constitution. They'd exercise the powers the Constitution provides to Congress as a balance against the Executive. They'd be as concerned about the 1st and 4th Amendment infringements as they claim to be about the 2nd and 10th Amendment violations. They'd have stood up for "law and order" and our law enforcement institutions by imposing such harsh consequences that Trump would have never pardoned the Jan 6th criminals. They'd have forced more fiscal discipline on the spending side when granting large tax cuts. They'd have (insert here the many examples where Trump and the current Rs in Congress are the antithesis of conservatives). They've done none of this.

I believe in America and that someway we find our way forward. The pace at which the political pendulum swings in today's world is stunning, exceeded only by the distance from the center that the pendulum swings when we have changes in power. Right now, the challenges caused by a combination of a Congress of bootlicking enablers and a Democratic opposition that has nothing to offer beyond their performative screams and yells, makes the challenges look more daunting than anytime in my life.

In America, "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility , .........." have always met the challenges. That document, the Constitution of the United States, has been the rulebook by which the citizens and their rights/liberty were protected from and overreaching government. The topic of this thread, the Fed's independence being usurped, is a symptom of the bigger issues, most of which I attribute to two political parties being more interested in winning, in having absolute power, in placing the party above the country, and electoral process that results in mostly hyper-partisans elected/appointed who view themselves as only representing only a small fraction of Americans.

Sorry for the ramble. I have zero trust in either party. I blame them equally for all the problems needing to be fixed. I see neither of them leading our country to bright future. I strongly feel that the party system has outlived any useful life in our country. Maybe I'm alone in that vision and I need to just drill a hole in the ice and wait for the bobber to go under rather than concern myself about such. I'm afraid I'm not wired in a way that let's me ignore what my eyes see and my ears hear.

To your last paragraph.

Exactly why I have been a registered non partisan since about 2004.

I do wonder what people would do, if there truly were no parties.

Just names.

And candidates had to explain their position individually, and voters had to actually research who they were voting for.

 

[Dave N]

Well he got the participation trophy he wanted, maybe Greenland can sleep easy tonight

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/01/15/machado-trump-nobel-prize/

Supposedly, the committee says it's not allowed.