The New Lounge

[Th0r]

DC has just gotten way too big. We have to get big pharma, the corporations, big oil... out of DC. It's become a cesspool. All of this has ruined politicians. Too many are on the take, deceptive, dishonest... For those that are legit? They don't last.

A bill should not be hundreds of pages. This is where the waters get real muddy. There winds up being so much pork that the pages squeal when you turn them. We need term limits. That will never happen as long as those in office are the ones voting on them.

I trust Trump 1000x more than I trust Congress. I know I didn't answer your questions. The answers have only been in the movies.

I hear you on the frustration—no argument there. D.C. has become a revolving door for lobbyists, consultants, and corporate influence. But if we’re serious about draining that swamp, we have to look at one of the biggest accelerants: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

That 2010 Supreme Court ruling opened the floodgates for unlimited outside money in politics. It allowed corporations, unions, and super PACs to spend freely to influence elections—without real transparency. That means the same “big pharma, big oil, big tech” you’re talking about can now legally dump millions into races, shape narratives, and drown out everyday voters.

And you’re absolutely right—when even the legit politicians get chewed up by that system, something’s broken. But that’s exactly why checks and balances matter. Concentrated power—whether in Congress or the Oval Office—without accountability just speeds up the damage.

So maybe the question isn’t “Which person do we trust more?” but “How do we reduce the system’s dependence on trust at all?”

That starts with fixing the money pipeline. Citizens United v. FEC made it worse. Rolling it back—or at least demanding transparency and reform—has to be part of the answer.

One last thing—most people on both sides are mad about the same stuff. Corruption,
lobbyist dominance, politicians chasing reelection instead of results. But it gets filtered through biased media, partisan habits, and algorithm-fed outrage. If more people actually talked instead of yelling past each other, they’d realize there’s broad consensus on a lot of this. The division is real—but it’s also being fed for profit. And that’s something worth pushing back on too.

 

[Mac9192]

I hear you on the frustration—no argument there. D.C. has become a revolving door for lobbyists, consultants, and corporate influence. But if we’re serious about draining that swamp, we have to look at one of the biggest accelerants: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

That 2010 Supreme Court ruling opened the floodgates for unlimited outside money in politics. It allowed corporations, unions, and super PACs to spend freely to influence elections—without real transparency. That means the same “big pharma, big oil, big tech” you’re talking about can now legally dump millions into races, shape narratives, and drown out everyday voters.

And you’re absolutely right—when even the legit politicians get chewed up by that system, something’s broken. But that’s exactly why checks and balances matter. Concentrated power—whether in Congress or the Oval Office—without accountability just speeds up the damage.

So maybe the question isn’t “Which person do we trust more?” but “How do we reduce the system’s dependence on trust at all?”

That starts with fixing the money pipeline. Citizens United v. FEC made it worse. Rolling it back—or at least demanding transparency and reform—has to be part of the answer.

One last thing—most people on both sides are mad about the same stuff. Corruption,
lobbyist dominance, politicians chasing reelection instead of results. But it gets filtered through biased media, partisan habits, and algorithm-fed outrage. If more people actually talked instead of yelling past each other, they’d realize there’s broad consensus on a lot of this. The division is real—but it’s also being fed for profit. And that’s something worth pushing back on too.

Agree with you. How do you combat something that is extremely big and wealthy? These are powerful people, with many hiding in plain sight. Checks and Balances sounds good in theory, but no offense, we are fooling ourselves with this thinking. You're asking the foxes to guard the hen house.

If you thought what I said above makes you feel hopeless, then I've got one better than that. This one is REALLY far fetched. A good old fashioned Citizen Revolt. Here's how it might go: Hey Bob, we are forming a group to take on this corruption. Would you like to join us? Bob says "I'd really like to, but I've got a mortgage, wife, and 2 kids at home, and I need my job. Good luck though."

For every one Fred that's out there that is willing to tackle the Establishment, there's a million Bob's that are too scared.

The best option we have right now is the half crazy man in office. He's got stones that have to be hauled around in a wheel barrow, and wealthy enough to not need their money.

 

[Th0r]

Agree with you. How do you combat something that is extremely big and wealthy? These are powerful people, with many hiding in plain sight. Checks and Balances sounds good in theory, but no offense, we are fooling ourselves with this thinking. You're asking the foxes to guard the hen house.

If you thought what I said above makes you feel hopeless, then I've got one better than that. This one is REALLY far fetched. A good old fashioned Citizen Revolt. Here's how it might go: Hey Bob, we are forming a group to take on this corruption. Would you like to join us? Bob says "I'd really like to, but I've got a mortgage, wife, and 2 kids at home, and I need my job. Good luck though."

For every one Fred that's out there that is willing to tackle the Establishment, there's a million Bob's that are too scared.

The best option we have right now is the half crazy man in office. He's got stones that have to be hauled around in a wheel barrow, and wealthy enough to not need their money.

Checks and balances aren’t a feel-good theory—they’re the only thing standing between power and abuse of it. When we give that up and throw it all behind one guy just because he seems tough enough to take on the system, we’re not fixing anything—we’re just hoping he doesn’t turn the system on us.

You mentioned foxes guarding the henhouse. Fair. But the answer isn’t handing the biggest, loudest fox the master key and hoping he eats fewer chickens. Just because someone doesn’t need the money doesn’t mean they don’t want the power. And history’s pretty clear on how that story usually ends.

Real change isn’t about trusting one person—it’s about building pressure from the ground up. That means pushing back on decisions like Citizens United that flooded our politics with unchecked money. It means enforcing term limits, banning stock trading by elected officials, and demanding transparency in lobbying and campaign finance. It means rebuilding civic education so people understand how this system works—and showing up locally, where change actually moves faster.

That’s not idealism. That’s how you box power back in and force it to answer to the public.

Because at the end of the day, the system reflects what the public tolerates. We can blame politicians, lobbyists, corporations—but if voters keep rewarding dysfunction with loyalty, outrage, or apathy, the system keeps breaking. Corruption doesn’t survive without permission. The rot starts at the top, but it’s the bottom that lets it grow.

 

[Mac9192]

I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying @Th0r. I just think you're more optimistic in the system than I am. I see it corrupt to the core, with their lust for power through money being the root of the problem. The tentacles up there reach so far. Too many outsiders have more influence than our own leaders have had. The media, with their help, have controlled us by what they tell us on tv. In return, what they've been able to do is divide us by 3 categories: race, sex, and wealth. A very cunning move. It keeps us distracted. Social media has helped combat that a lot. Which is a huge reason Trump got back into office.

Sadly, I do have more faith in one man than I do the system. Because it's the crooked system that's been in place for a long time that helped put a man who'd never held any political office, there. @Dattier laughs at this, but I fully believe it.

 

[GhostOf301]

Checks and balances aren’t a feel-good theory—they’re the only thing standing between power and abuse of it. When we give that up and throw it all behind one guy just because he seems tough enough to take on the system, we’re not fixing anything—we’re just hoping he doesn’t turn the system on us.

You mentioned foxes guarding the henhouse. Fair. But the answer isn’t handing the biggest, loudest fox the master key and hoping he eats fewer chickens. Just because someone doesn’t need the money doesn’t mean they don’t want the power. And history’s pretty clear on how that story usually ends.

Real change isn’t about trusting one person—it’s about building pressure from the ground up. That means pushing back on decisions like Citizens United that flooded our politics with unchecked money. It means enforcing term limits, banning stock trading by elected officials, and demanding transparency in lobbying and campaign finance. It means rebuilding civic education so people understand how this system works—and showing up locally, where change actually moves faster.

That’s not idealism. That’s how you box power back in and force it to answer to the public.

Because at the end of the day, the system reflects what the public tolerates. We can blame politicians, lobbyists, corporations—but if voters keep rewarding dysfunction with loyalty, outrage, or apathy, the system keeps breaking. Corruption doesn’t survive without permission. The rot starts at the top, but it’s the bottom that lets it grow.

I don't take issue with a single thing you have said. The problem, though, is that you have a better chance at trusting one person to create change than a group of politicians who view their roles in Congress as a career more than a public service. Their interests, as in the vast majority of them, are to remain office. The problem with trusting one person over the group is if you are wrong about that person, you're pretty fvcked.

Veering ahead.


Personally, I don’t have a problem with Trump stirring things up. Though I wish the wishy washy nature of it wasn’t prevalent. It's a gamble, but a gamble worth taking. If in two years, markets are stable, trade is more fair (equal is not a reasonable expectation) and we are less reliant on China while excelling in manufacturing, industrial, agriculture and tech jobs here at home, he will have a pretty big victory. I think if there aren't signs of that by the one year mark. The midterms will be a blow for him. If those things don't happen, then he will have single handedly ruined the economy, IMO.

 

[Th0r]

I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying @Th0r. I just think you're more optimistic in the system than I am. I see it corrupt to the core, with their lust for power through money being the root of the problem. The tentacles up there reach so far. Too many outsiders have more influence than our own leaders have had. The media, with their help, have controlled us by what they tell us on tv. In return, what they've been able to do is divide us by 3 categories: race, sex, and wealth. A very cunning move. It keeps us distracted. Social media has helped combat that a lot. Which is a huge reason Trump got back into office.

Sadly, I do have more faith in one man than I do the system. Because it's the crooked system that's been in place for a long time that helped put a man who'd never held any political office, there. @Dattier laughs at this, but I fully believe it.

I see where you’re coming from, and I can tell you’re being genuine. We just see the roots of the problem a little differently.

You’re right that the system has been warped by power and money—but I don’t think social media is the antidote. If anything, it’s poured gas on the fire. These platforms don’t unite us—they profit off outrage, division, and confusion. The algorithms aren’t designed to inform—they’re designed to provoke. And that happens on all sides, every day.

Same goes for legacy media. The for-profit model has completely rotted the core. Whether it’s cable news or clickbait headlines, the business isn’t truth—it’s attention. And if fear, anger, or identity politics get more clicks, that’s what gets amplified.

So yeah, people feel divided by race, sex, and wealth. But that division didn’t start with media—it got monetized by it. And now we’re all stuck reacting to narratives crafted by companies whose only goal is to keep us watching or scrolling.

I know it can feel easier to believe one person can cut through all the dysfunction, but real change doesn’t come from one figure at the top. No matter how bold or well-meaning they seem, concentrated power without checks does not lead to lasting solutions. It’s the people—when we stay informed, engaged, and grounded—who still have the ability to steer this thing. But only if we stop letting media, traditional or social, tell us who to fear, who to blame, and what to believe. That’s where the fight actually starts.

 

[Mac9192]

But only if we stop letting media, traditional or social, tell us who to fear, who to blame, and what to believe. That’s where the fight actually starts.

Who can we trust? Folks on the left think the right's news is one sided, and the folks on the right think the left's news is one sided.

There's a saying that if we don't watch the news, we are uninformed. If we watch the news, we're misinformed. And fact checkers? Who checks the fact checkers?

 

[Th0r]

I don't take issue with a single thing you have said. The problem, though, is that you have a better chance at trusting one person to create change than a group of politicians who view their roles in Congress as a career more than a public service. Their interests, as in the vast majority of them, are to remain office. The problem with trusting one person over the group is if you are wrong about that person, you're pretty fvcked.

Veering ahead.


Personally, I don’t have a problem with Trump stirring things up. Though I wish the wishy washy nature of it wasn’t prevalent. It's a gamble, but a gamble worth taking. If in two years, markets are stable, trade is more fair (equal is not a reasonable expectation) and we are less reliant on China while excelling in manufacturing, industrial, agriculture and tech jobs here at home, he will have a pretty big victory. I think if there aren't signs of that by the one year mark. The midterms will be a blow for him. If those things don't happen, then he will have single handedly ruined the economy, IMO.

I hear that—and I actually agree with a lot of what you said. You’re absolutely right that Congress has become more about job security than public service, and that’s a huge part of why trust in the system is so low. The frustration there is valid.

But you also nailed the risk with placing faith in one person: if you’re wrong, you’re screwed. And that kind of gamble doesn’t just affect the person rolling the dice—it affects all of us.

If we want real change, it can’t just come from outside the system. We have to fix what’s broken inside it, too. That means things like term limits, banning stock trading by sitting members, campaign finance reform, and closing the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms. None of that’s flashy, but it strips out a lot of the incentives that keep public office from actually serving the public.

Setting the bar at “the economy didn’t collapse” just isn’t good enough. Trade reform, domestic growth, less reliance on China—those are all worth pursuing. But the method matters as much as the outcome. If we get short-term wins at the cost of long-term damage to democratic institutions, it’s not really a win at all.

This shouldn’t be about hoping the gamble pays off. It should be about demanding better from everyone who holds power—whether they sit in Congress or behind the Resolute Desk.

 

[Th0r]

Who can we trust? Folks on the left think the right's news is one sided, and the folks on the right think the left's news is one sided.

There's a saying that if we don't watch the news, we are uninformed. If we watch the news, we're misinformed. And fact checkers? Who checks the fact checkers?

Fair questions—and I think a lot of people feel exactly the same way. But if the answer is “we can’t trust anyone,” then the people manipulating the narrative have already won.

Every news source has a slant, but that doesn’t mean all information is equally worthless. The goal shouldn’t be to find a perfectly neutral outlet—it’s to learn how to spot the spin, cross-reference facts, and think critically. That takes effort, but in a media hellscape designed to confuse us, being passive is what really leaves us vulnerable.

As for fact-checkers—sure, they should be held to standards too. But “who checks the fact-checkers” shouldn’t be a rhetorical dead end. It should be a challenge to us to stay engaged, verify things ourselves, and resist the urge to tune out entirely. Accountability starts with paying attention, not giving up.

And in my opinion, the best counterbalance to all of this isn’t a news outlet or a fact-checking site—it’s real life. Personal experience with real people, especially those who don’t think like we do, is where perspective actually grows. Some of the best conversations I’ve ever had were in places that felt completely foreign, with people who challenged my views in ways no headline ever could.

Honestly, even this thread is a great example. You’ve disagreed and pushed back, I’ve disagreed and pushed back—but we’re still talking. That’s the point. At the end of the day, we’re all just people sharing the same planet. We’d get a lot further if we acted like it more often.

 

[Mac9192]

If we want real change, it can’t just come from outside the system. We have to fix what’s broken inside it, too. That means things like term limits, banning stock trading by sitting members, campaign finance reform, and closing the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms. None of that’s flashy, but it strips out a lot of the incentives that keep public office from actually serving the public.

How do we do all this? I’m seriously asking. Isn’t it Congress that would be the ones voting on term limits? Again, we’re basically asking the foxes to guard the hen house.
How do we stop this revolving door between Congress and lobbyists? We can’t depend on the media. And how can a truly good person win a seat when it requires millions of dollars just to have a chance? And years ago they redrew a lot of congressional districts, which is how some of these people dumber than a bag of hammers got elected.

You want to change the system too, which is great. But these people don’t fight fair. They told you knives only, but they brought assault rifles and grenades.

 

[Mac9192]

And in my opinion, the best counterbalance to all of this isn’t a news outlet or a fact-checking site—it’s real life.

Yes.

 

[Th0r]

How do we do all this? I’m seriously asking. Isn’t it Congress that would be the ones voting on term limits? Again, we’re basically asking the foxes to guard the hen house.
How do we stop this revolving door between Congress and lobbyists? We can’t depend on the media. And how can a truly good person win a seat when it requires millions of dollars just to have a chance? And years ago they redrew a lot of congressional districts, which is how some of these people dumber than a bag of hammers got elected.

You want to change the system too, which is great. But these people don’t fight fair. They told you knives only, but they brought assault rifles and grenades.

That frustration’s earned—the system protects itself by design. But that doesn’t mean one person can’t make an impact.

You won’t fix Congress alone, but you can stop treating party labels as stand-ins for character. Look at where candidates come from, who funds them, and what they’ve actually done—not just what they say. That matters more than the letter next to their name.

I’ve worked with politicians from both parties. I’m rarely impressed. Though, I’ve met good ones on both sides. In my experience, many do care more about staying in office than doing anything that goes against the grain. Personally, I just look for good people who care—and don’t fold when it’s inconvenient.

The problem isn’t just bad politicians—it’s that we keep accepting the ones who play the game best. If more folks showed up curious instead of tribal, things would shift—maybe slowly, but they would.

And yeah, they don’t fight fair. But that’s not a reason to check out—it’s the reason to push harder. Real change starts locally: primaries, off-years, city councils. Support people without PAC money but with a backbone.

 

[Th0r]

It’s no secret that a lot of us in this thread don’t see eye to eye on every issue—and that’s okay. I just want to thank everyone for the conversation. Fair warning: I’m going to go hard on the things I believe in, now and in the future—but that doesn’t mean I don’t respect you as a person. Disagreement doesn’t have to mean disrespect.

We covered a lot—executive overreach, Congress falling short, media distortion, money in politics—but through all of it, there were some common threads. Frustration with the system. A desire for more honesty. A belief that things should work better than they do. That overlap matters more than most people think.

We’re not going to fix any of this by lobbing takes from opposite corners and calling it dialogue. It’s going to take people willing to look past party lines, question what they’re being sold, and expect more from everyone in power—and from each other.

Appreciate the back and forth.

 

[GhostOf301]

I hear that—and I actually agree with a lot of what you said. You’re absolutely right that Congress has become more about job security than public service, and that’s a huge part of why trust in the system is so low. The frustration there is valid.

But you also nailed the risk with placing faith in one person: if you’re wrong, you’re screwed. And that kind of gamble doesn’t just affect the person rolling the dice—it affects all of us.

If we want real change, it can’t just come from outside the system. We have to fix what’s broken inside it, too. That means things like term limits, banning stock trading by sitting members, campaign finance reform, and closing the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms. None of that’s flashy, but it strips out a lot of the incentives that keep public office from actually serving the public.

Setting the bar at “the economy didn’t collapse” just isn’t good enough. Trade reform, domestic growth, less reliance on China—those are all worth pursuing. But the method matters as much as the outcome. If we get short-term wins at the cost of long-term damage to democratic institutions, it’s not really a win at all.

This shouldn’t be about hoping the gamble pays off. It should be about demanding better from everyone who holds power—whether they sit in Congress or behind the Resolute Desk.

Term limits, no stocks, including spouses and immediate households, and no private campaign donations. Campaign funding should be through parties and capped. Who you vote for shouldn't be influenced by how much money they raise. One of Trump's biggest failures for me was in his first term, he never made good on his campaign promises to end lobbying and push for term limits. And it has become a forgotten topic, unfortunately.

 

[GhostOf301]

Has the sky stopped falling? Too civil, lately?

 

[KDSTONE]

Has the sky stopped falling? Too civil, lately?

Payback’s a b-, James.

Docs showing Letitia James' residence could be legal "problem" for AG

"There's obviously no question that Letitia James is a target of Donald Trump," a former federal prosecutor told Newsweek.

www.newsweek.com

Better get your ducks in a row and fast you political hack you.
Sorry, Letitia, but no one’s above the law. You said so yourself.

 

[Th0r]

Has the sky stopped falling? Too civil, lately?

The economic sky is still falling—it’s just happening slowly enough that most people haven’t noticed.

U.S.–EU trade talks have stalled. The EU offered to eliminate tariffs on industrial goods, including cars, but the U.S. rejected the proposal. Consequently, tariffs remain in place, with no clear resolution in sight.

Meanwhile, South Korea and Vietnam are strengthening their trade relations, aiming to boost bilateral trade to $150 billion by 2030. This move is partly in response to U.S. tariffs that pose challenges for both economies.

Hong Kong has suspended its postal service for goods going to the U.S., citing high costs linked to U.S. tariffs.

Trump’s message? “The ball is in China’s court… we don’t have to make a deal with them.” That might fire up a crowd, but it doesn’t stabilize markets—or signal strategy.

Additionally, the U.S. has restricted Nvidia from selling its H20 AI chips to China, a move that Nvidia projects could result in a $5.5 billion revenue loss.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has warned that the current scale of tariffs is “significantly larger than anticipated” and could lead to higher inflation and slower growth. The Fed is adopting a cautious “wait-and-see” approach, delaying interest rate adjustments until there is more clarity around trade policies.

This isn’t just a series of isolated events; it’s a slow-moving economic breakdown. Barring a significant reversal or an unforeseen solution, this situation is on track to become increasingly severe later this year. The warning signs are everywhere. Most people just haven’t looked up yet.

I’m increasingly worried that 300 million Americans are about to get a hard lesson in macroeconomics that they didn’t know they signed up for. The “find out” phase so to speak…

 

[GhostOf301]

There are reasons to be concerned. And with the uncertainty, the reasons are significant. There are promising signs with the economy that seem to be drowned out by the trade war, though. Gas and groceries are going in the right direction. Border is secure. And ther is over $5 Trillion in investments as of now. That's the optimistic view point

 

[Dahntay#1]

Any thoughts on the Karmelo Anthony/Austin Metcalf situation? I think I have an idea of what may have happened, but I haven’t taken the time to research to say so definitively. However, I have seen racial tensions escalate for sure. For years, I’ve seen the media purposely try to keep people angry to create an even bigger racial divide.

 

[KDSTONE]

Karmelo Anthony living with family in $900K home in gated community, bought new car after release on bond in Austin Metcalf murder case: report

Karmelo Anthony, 17, is shacked up with his family at the pricey home inside the gated community of Richwoods in Texas.

nypost.com

 

[Th0r]

It’s Good Friday, I’m off work, and one story in the news this week has really stuck out to me. It ties directly back to something we talked about last week: the slow erosion of checks and balances. Back then, the courts still looked like the last real guardrail. Well—wouldn’t you know it—this week’s story might put that to the test. And while it’s still playing out, it’s worth highlighting what’s already happened and why it matters.

In a recent case, a federal judge issued a clear order: don’t deport the individual until their legal case is resolved. The administration did it anyway, later calling it an “administrative error.”

The Supreme Court stepped in with a unanimous ruling: the government must “facilitate” the person’s return. The bar wasn’t high—just make a good-faith effort. So far, they haven’t even tried. Instead, they claim their duty ends with lifting domestic legal barriers, not actively helping to bring the person back. The lower court is now considering whether to hold the executive branch in contempt.

This isn’t a simple mix-up. It’s the executive branch ignoring both a federal court and the Supreme Court. That’s not just wrong—it’s dangerous.

Because this isn’t about immigration. It’s about whether the presidency is still constrained by law. If the courts can be ignored in one case, what’s to stop it from happening again?

If this were happening under a president you didn’t support, would you still be okay with it? If not, then the principle—not the person—should matter.

This wasn’t a partisan ruling. All nine justices, including the most conservative on the bench, agreed. When every justice speaks with one voice and the White House still shrugs it off, that’s scary. That’s power without accountability.

The legal fight isn’t over. It’s likely headed back to the Supreme Court. Hopefully, the administration complies before this can escalate further.

Because once any president decides the courts can be ignored, the damage doesn’t stay limited to a single case. That mindset spreads—to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, due process, citizenship rights, and yes, even the right to bear arms.

The Founders didn’t build a government where one person decides what laws apply. The whole point of a republic is that no one—not even a president—is above the law.

Thoughts?

 

[KDSTONE]

In other news, it’s looking like the FSU shooter was a white supremacist:

FSU student who knew suspected shooter says he was removed from club for white supremacist views

FSU student Reid Seybold described locking down with classmates during the campus shooting, hiding under desks and hearing the door handle rattle. He texted loved ones goodbye, fearing for his life. Seybold later learned the suspected shooter was Phoenix Ikner, someone he knew from a political...

www.nbcnews.com

 

[KDSTONE]

It’s Good Friday, I’m off work, and one story in the news this week has really stuck out to me. It ties directly back to something we talked about last week: the slow erosion of checks and balances. Back then, the courts still looked like the last real guardrail. Well—wouldn’t you know it—this week’s story might put that to the test. And while it’s still playing out, it’s worth highlighting what’s already happened and why it matters.

In a recent case, a federal judge issued a clear order: don’t deport the individual until their legal case is resolved. The administration did it anyway, later calling it an “administrative error.”

The Supreme Court stepped in with a unanimous ruling: the government must “facilitate” the person’s return. The bar wasn’t high—just make a good-faith effort. So far, they haven’t even tried. Instead, they claim their duty ends with lifting domestic legal barriers, not actively helping to bring the person back. The lower court is now considering whether to hold the executive branch in contempt.

This isn’t a simple mix-up. It’s the executive branch ignoring both a federal court and the Supreme Court. That’s not just wrong—it’s dangerous.

Because this isn’t about immigration. It’s about whether the presidency is still constrained by law. If the courts can be ignored in one case, what’s to stop it from happening again?

If this were happening under a president you didn’t support, would you still be okay with it? If not, then the principle—not the person—should matter.

This wasn’t a partisan ruling. All nine justices, including the most conservative on the bench, agreed. When every justice speaks with one voice and the White House still shrugs it off, that’s scary. That’s power without accountability.

The legal fight isn’t over. It’s likely headed back to the Supreme Court. Hopefully, the administration complies before this can escalate further.

Because once any president decides the courts can be ignored, the damage doesn’t stay limited to a single case. That mindset spreads—to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, due process, citizenship rights, and yes, even the right to bear arms.

The Founders didn’t build a government where one person decides what laws apply. The whole point of a republic is that no one—not even a president—is above the law.

Thoughts?

The American people have just survived, well the ones not murdered or od’d on Fentanyl, four years of a Pres who decided not to enforce our border. No new laws passed, no judicial decisions. Overturned wildly popular policy like the Remain in Mexico policy with the stroke of a pen. Don’t remember much pearl clutching from you back then.
In fact, I don’t remember you showing up at all until Trump took office.
I do appreciate your posts though since one of our libs is AWOL and the other seems to just be barely hanging on.
Now the Left is clutching their pearls over a member of a designated terrorist group MS13, who has a history of domestic violence, who has been in our country illegally for 13 years. This case says more about how a small ruling elite is attempting to normalize deviant behavior than it does about executive overreach.

 

[KDSTONE]

It’s Good Friday, I’m off work, and one story in the news this week has really stuck out to me. It ties directly back to something we talked about last week: the slow erosion of checks and balances. Back then, the courts still looked like the last real guardrail. Well—wouldn’t you know it—this week’s story might put that to the test. And while it’s still playing out, it’s worth highlighting what’s already happened and why it matters.

In a recent case, a federal judge issued a clear order: don’t deport the individual until their legal case is resolved. The administration did it anyway, later calling it an “administrative error.”

The Supreme Court stepped in with a unanimous ruling: the government must “facilitate” the person’s return. The bar wasn’t high—just make a good-faith effort. So far, they haven’t even tried. Instead, they claim their duty ends with lifting domestic legal barriers, not actively helping to bring the person back. The lower court is now considering whether to hold the executive branch in contempt.

This isn’t a simple mix-up. It’s the executive branch ignoring both a federal court and the Supreme Court. That’s not just wrong—it’s dangerous.

Because this isn’t about immigration. It’s about whether the presidency is still constrained by law. If the courts can be ignored in one case, what’s to stop it from happening again?

If this were happening under a president you didn’t support, would you still be okay with it? If not, then the principle—not the person—should matter.

This wasn’t a partisan ruling. All nine justices, including the most conservative on the bench, agreed. When every justice speaks with one voice and the White House still shrugs it off, that’s scary. That’s power without accountability.

The legal fight isn’t over. It’s likely headed back to the Supreme Court. Hopefully, the administration complies before this can escalate further.

Because once any president decides the courts can be ignored, the damage doesn’t stay limited to a single case. That mindset spreads—to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, due process, citizenship rights, and yes, even the right to bear arms.

The Founders didn’t build a government where one person decides what laws apply. The whole point of a republic is that no one—not even a president—is above the law.

Thoughts?

I appreciate your concerns about checks and balances and the rule of law. As well as our Founders’ original intent. Honestly, these same arguments of overreach and usurpation of power have been used against every Pres in my lifetime. Most of us are tuning it out. The little boy who cried wolf scenario could be playing out in real time; at the same time no one trusts the Media anymore after the laptop, Russia Hoax, so much more. The Right media are Trump cheerleaders. The other 90% have been out to get him for ten years.

 

[KDSTONE]

Any thoughts on the Karmelo Anthony/Austin Metcalf situation? I think I have an idea of what may have happened, but I haven’t taken the time to research to say so definitively. However, I have seen racial tensions escalate for sure. For years, I’ve seen the media purposely try to keep people angry to create an even bigger racial divide.

It’s weird that so many are trying to make a social justice martyr out of Anthony. My understanding is he stabbed a virtual stranger in the heart over a seat. And it’s on video. Seems to be open and shut. Given his age, I’d be opposed to the death penalty, but I may be in the minority on that on this board

 

[Th0r]

The American people have just survived, well the ones not murdered or od’d on Fentanyl, four years of a Pres who decided not to enforce our border. No new laws passed, no judicial decisions. Overturned wildly popular policy like the Remain in Mexico policy with the stroke of a pen. Don’t remember much pearl clutching from you back then.
In fact, I don’t remember you showing up at all until Trump took office.
I do appreciate your posts though since one of our libs is AWOL and the other seems to just be barely hanging on.
Now the Left is clutching their pearls over a member of a designated terrorist group MS13, who has a history of domestic violence, who has been in our country illegally for 13 years. This case says more about how a small ruling elite is attempting to normalize deviant behavior than it does about executive overreach.

You throw out a lot of distracting stuff in this post that has nothing to do with the argument I made.

First, this isn’t about pearl clutching over one individual. The core issue is that the executive branch ignored a direct order from the Supreme Court. That’s not partisan—it’s constitutional. If the courts can be brushed aside whenever inconvenient, it sets a precedent: any ruling, on any issue, from any judge can be ignored. That should concern everyone, no matter who’s in office.

Second, whatever you believe about the individual in this case, the legal reality is simple: a federal judge ordered that he not be deported. That should’ve been the end of it. Instead, the government went ahead anyway—then refused to comply with a unanimous Supreme Court ruling. And the solution here was simple: bring him back, let the legal process play out, and if it led to deportation, so be it. They didn’t do that. I wonder why?

As for Remain in Mexico, yes—it was rolled back by executive action. But it was also challenged in court, reviewed by judges, and went all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld the administration’s authority to end it. You may not like the result, but the process was followed. This is different. This is outright defiance of the courts.

So if the new precedent is that it’s fine to ignore the courts when we like the outcome, what happens when the next president uses that logic for something we don’t?

I appreciate your concerns about checks and balances and the rule of law. As well as our Founders’ original intent. Honestly, these same arguments of overreach and usurpation of power have been used against every Pres in my lifetime. Most of us are tuning it out. The little boy who cried wolf scenario could be playing out in real time; at the same time no one trusts the Media anymore after the laptop, Russia Hoax, so much more. The Right media are Trump cheerleaders. The other 90% have been out to get him for ten years.

Overreach gets thrown around a lot, sure—but this is different. A federal judge issued an order. The executive branch ignored it. Then the Supreme Court—unanimously—told them to fix it, and they still haven’t.

The media’s failures don’t excuse what happened. You don’t need to trust CNN or Fox to see what this is: one branch of government refusing to follow the law.

 

[Th0r]

Any thoughts on the Karmelo Anthony/Austin Metcalf situation? I think I have an idea of what may have happened, but I haven’t taken the time to research to say so definitively. However, I have seen racial tensions escalate for sure. For years, I’ve seen the media purposely try to keep people angry to create an even bigger racial divide.

Honestly, this is the first I’ve heard of the situation, and I just started reading up on it after your post. From what I’ve seen so far, it looks like an absolutely heartbreaking tragedy.

First and foremost, my heart goes out to Austin Metcalf’s family. Losing someone that young, and in that kind of violent way, is something no one should have to go through. At the same time, it’s hard not to feel for everyone involved—there are no winners here.

To me, this doesn’t look like a race issue. It looks like a devastating situation between two individuals that ended in the worst possible way. Sometimes there’s no political angle—just pain and loss.

 

[Dattier]

People are saying Metcalf was a bully so Anthony feared for his life and acted in self-defense. Other people are saying Metcalf was reasonably protecting others and was murdered. The DA certainly believe murder charges are warranted. I have not heard anything about the altercation itself that indicates race was a relevant factor, though @Dahntay#1 will surely cite crime statistics out of context to justify distrust of Anthony's character based on race. Race has definitely been part of the social media discussions I've seen. It's a high profile enough case that there will be plenty of resources supporting Anthony's defense, and I suspect the prosecution is willing to invest, as well. I trust the courts as the best, most accurate way of getting at the most plausible truth, imperfect as they may be. I am more worried about wrongful convictions than a guilty person getting away with it, so I prefer seeing high quality defenses. That goes for OJ Simpson and Kyle Rittenhouse alike, 2 complete scumbags I think were definitely guilty but who were able to pay for defenses that did their job.

Checks and balances is a central pillar of our Republic. It fails to exist when clear court orders are blatantly ignored just as it fails to exist when judges legislate from the bench, or when the courts are weaponized, or when courts are threatened.

 

[Dahntay#1]

Epic post by @Dattier. This guy actually said that I’m going to cite crime statistics out of context when he’s the one that inaccurately said white men are the biggest mass shooters and sex offenders. Then when challenged, he tried to move the goalposts and create his own definition of a mass shooting.

 

[Dattier]

Epic post by @Dattier. This guy actually said that I’m going to cite crime statistics out of context when he’s the one that inaccurately said white men are the biggest mass shooters and sex offenders. Then when challenged, he tried to move the goalposts and create his own definition of a mass shooting.

You're missing the 90% of your post that isn't about me.
Receipts?
Are you denying that you have said stereotypes are justifiable, and have specifically mentioned crime by Black people?
Funny how a guy who claims racism doesn't exist can feel that there's racial tension around something.

 

[Dahntay#1]

Honestly, this is the first I’ve heard of the situation, and I just started reading up on it after your post. From what I’ve seen so far, it looks like an absolutely heartbreaking tragedy.

First and foremost, my heart goes out to Austin Metcalf’s family. Losing someone that young, and in that kind of violent way, is something no one should have to go through. At the same time, it’s hard not to feel for everyone involved—there are no winners here.

To me, this doesn’t look like a race issue. It looks like a devastating situation between two individuals that ended in the worst possible way. Sometimes there’s no political angle—just pain and loss.

There is a reason you haven’t heard of it. I bet you also haven’t heard of the school shooting by Tracy Haynes the other day. You have to ask yourself why.

 

[Dahntay#1]

You're missing the 90% of your post that isn't about me.
Receipts?
Are you denying that you have said stereotypes are justifiable, and have specifically mentioned crime by Black people?
Funny how a guy who claims racism doesn't exist can feel that there's racial tension around something.

I have indeed said stereotypes are justifiable. I’ve also said that every person on Earth stereotypes. Even other animals stereotype. It’s how you survive. That has nothing to do with taking statistics out of context, which I have never done.

Do you think racial tension and “racism” are the same thing or something?

 

[KDSTONE]

You throw out a lot of distracting stuff in this post that has nothing to do with the argument I made.

First, this isn’t about pearl clutching over one individual. The core issue is that the executive branch ignored a direct order from the Supreme Court. That’s not partisan—it’s constitutional. If the courts can be brushed aside whenever inconvenient, it sets a precedent: any ruling, on any issue, from any judge can be ignored. That should concern everyone, no matter who’s in office.

Second, whatever you believe about the individual in this case, the legal reality is simple: a federal judge ordered that he not be deported. That should’ve been the end of it. Instead, the government went ahead anyway—then refused to comply with a unanimous Supreme Court ruling. And the solution here was simple: bring him back, let the legal process play out, and if it led to deportation, so be it. They didn’t do that. I wonder why?

As for Remain in Mexico, yes—it was rolled back by executive action. But it was also challenged in court, reviewed by judges, and went all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld the administration’s authority to end it. You may not like the result, but the process was followed. This is different. This is outright defiance of the courts.

So if the new precedent is that it’s fine to ignore the courts when we like the outcome, what happens when the next president uses that logic for something we don’t?

Overreach gets thrown around a lot, sure—but this is different. A federal judge issued an order. The executive branch ignored it. Then the Supreme Court—unanimously—told them to fix it, and they still haven’t.

The media’s failures don’t excuse what happened. You don’t need to trust CNN or Fox to see what this is: one branch of government refusing to follow the law.

You’re the constitutional expert so I’ll defer to your expertise. Where in the Constitution does it give a fed court judge de facto power to decide our border policy? I thought that was under the purview of the exec branch to enforce our border. Greg Abbott was constantly accused of usurping federal authority when he tried to enforce Texas’ border.

 

[Mac9192]

I could be wrong, but what I gather about the "illegal immigrant" being deported is the left is crying foul, while the right says he's been here illegal, and is a known MS-13 gang member. I'm not sure if this is what @Th0r is referring to when mentioning overreaching by the President or not. Good Morning America had his wife on tv this morning. It was being laid on heavy.

I agree with President Trump on designating MS-13 as a terrorists group, and getting them out of the country. I don't understand why anyone disagrees with this. They are nothing but a gang of monsters.

 

[KDSTONE]

Honestly, this is the first I’ve heard of the situation, and I just started reading up on it after your post. From what I’ve seen so far, it looks like an absolutely heartbreaking tragedy.

First and foremost, my heart goes out to Austin Metcalf’s family. Losing someone that young, and in that kind of violent way, is something no one should have to go through. At the same time, it’s hard not to feel for everyone involved—there are no winners here.

To me, this doesn’t look like a race issue. It looks like a devastating situation between two individuals that ended in the worst possible way. Sometimes there’s no political angle—just pain and loss.

This doesn’t look like a race issue.
You may feel differently once the trial starts. Much like the Oj trial, this is the only card left to play when the evidence is overwhelming. I don’t know who his lawyers are , but I’m willing to bet race hustler Crump will show up if the $ is right.
It shouldn’t be a race issue, but can a Black defendant get a fair trial in racist Texas? It’s a red state ya know

 

[Dattier]

I could be wrong, but what I gather about the "illegal immigrant" being deported is the left is crying foul, while the right says he's been here illegal, and is a known MS-13 gang member.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia has no criminal convictions. He has been suspected of being an MS-13 member, suspected of domestic violence, and suspected of human trafficking. No convictions, no confirmation. In 2019, he was granted an alternate to asylum called a "withholding of removal," which prevents him from being deported due to valid concerns about his safety if deported. Homeland Security granted him a work permit, and he has completed all required annual check-ins with ICE.

None of that is the issue, though. The issue is that courts forbid the Trump administration from deporting him before he was deported. The Trump administration has admitted to making a mistake -- a "clerical error" -- in deporting him anyway. SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that the deportation was illegal and that they "facilitate" his return, which stops short of demanding that the end result be his return to the US.
The Trump administration is now fighting what exactly "facilitate" entails in a lower court while that court considers criminal contempt charges against the Trump administration.

Again, whether Abrego Garcia is an MS-13 member or a martyr of some sort is immaterial. If the rule of law matters, he was on a "withholding of removal" order, meaning he could not be legally deported without due process. He was deported anyway.

 

[Th0r]

You’re the constitutional expert so I’ll defer to your expertise. Where in the Constitution does it give a fed court judge de facto power to decide our border policy? I thought that was under the purview of the exec branch to enforce our border. Greg Abbott was constantly accused of usurping federal authority when he tried to enforce Texas’ border.

This isn’t about a judge setting border policy—it’s about a judge issuing a lawful order in an individual case, and the executive branch ignoring it. That’s not a separation-of-powers debate, that’s defiance of the judiciary.

If the courts can’t intervene when the government violates someone’s legal protections, what exactly are they for? And if the executive can ignore a court because it involves immigration, what’s to stop them from doing the same in other areas—gun rights, property, speech?

You’re raising a different issue entirely, but I’m happy to hear how you think ignoring the courts fits into constitutional authority.

I could be wrong, but what I gather about the "illegal immigrant" being deported is the left is crying foul, while the right says he's been here illegal, and is a known MS-13 gang member. I'm not sure if this is what @Th0r is referring to when mentioning overreaching by the President or not. Good Morning America had his wife on tv this morning. It was being laid on heavy.

I agree with President Trump on designating MS-13 as a terrorists group, and getting them out of the country. I don't understand why anyone disagrees with this. They are nothing but a gang of monsters.

The issue isn’t whether gang members should be deported. I’m not saying they shouldn’t. The question is whether the government can ignore court orders to do it.

In this case, a federal judge issued a stay—meaning the deportation was legally blocked while the case played out. The executive branch did it anyway. Then the Supreme Court unanimously told them to fix it, and they still haven’t.

If someone’s guilty, deport them—after due process. That’s not a liberal or conservative idea. That’s the Constitution. You don’t get to break the law to enforce the law.

Also worth noting—people are quick to cheer deportations to El Salvador, but the head of that country’s prison system is currently being sanctioned by the U.S. under the Magnitsky Act for human rights abuses. This isn’t just tough-on-crime optics—it’s sending people into a system our own government considers corrupt and abusive.

Some of these photo ops with Bukele might look good in the short term, but they’re not going to age well. You can be tough on gangs without abandoning the rule of law or cozying up to authoritarianism.

When did ignoring our own courts and outsourcing justice to regimes under U.S. sanctions become the American way? Do we not constantly say that America is special—that we’re a nation of laws, not men, and above that kind of behavior?

 

[KDSTONE]

I could be wrong, but what I gather about the "illegal immigrant" being deported is the left is crying foul, while the right says he's been here illegal, and is a known MS-13 gang member. I'm not sure if this is what @Th0r is referring to when mentioning overreaching by the President or not. Good Morning America had his wife on tv this morning. It was being laid on heavy.

I agree with President Trump on designating MS-13 as a terrorists group, and getting them out of the country. I don't understand why anyone disagrees with this. They are nothing but a gang of monsters.

Oh, they’re all about the letter of the law when convenient, but ignore Ms13’s designation as a terrorist group. Surely the President of the US can be afforded some discretion when attempting to remove terrorists from the country. They don’t seem to care that we were all put in danger by the Dems’ absolute refusal to enforce our border.
They didn’t stop there however. They even tried to vilify our Border Agents simply for doing their job. Whipgate anyone? I’m sure our libs heard about that due to the whack algorithms running their phones When it was revealed to be a hoax? Nah, prob hearing it for the first time.

 

[KDSTONE]

Kilmar Abrego Garcia has no criminal convictions. He has been suspected of being an MS-13 member, suspected of domestic violence, and suspected of human trafficking. No convictions, no confirmation. In 2019, he was granted an alternate to asylum called a "withholding of removal," which prevents him from being deported due to valid concerns about his safety if deported. Homeland Security granted him a work permit, and he has completed all required annual check-ins with ICE.

None of that is the issue, though. The issue is that courts forbid the Trump administration from deporting him before he was deported. The Trump administration has admitted to making a mistake -- a "clerical error" -- in deporting him anyway. SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that the deportation was illegal and that they "facilitate" his return, which stops short of demanding that the end result be his return to the US.
The Trump administration is now fighting what exactly "facilitate" entails in a lower court while that court considers criminal contempt charges against the Trump administration.

Again, whether Abrego Garcia is an MS-13 member or a martyr of some sort is immaterial. If the rule of law matters, he was on a "withholding of removal" order, meaning he could not be legally deported without due process. He was deported anyway.

And his wife is merely suspected of filing a restraining order. Right?

 

[Th0r]

Oh, they’re all about the letter of the law when convenient, but ignore Ms13’s designation as a terrorist group. Surely the President of the US can be afforded some discretion when attempting to remove terrorists from the country. They don’t seem to care that we were all put in danger by the Dems’ absolute refusal to enforce our border.
They didn’t stop there however. They even tried to vilify our Border Agents simply for doing their job. Whipgate anyone? I’m sure our libs heard about that due to the whack algorithms running their phones When it was revealed to be a hoax? Nah, prob hearing it for the first time.

Labeling someone a terrorist to bypass the courts is a dangerous road to go down. If the executive can override due process just by calling someone a “terrorist,” what stops that label from being applied to others—protesters, journalists, political opponents? That’s not strength. That’s how rights get erased.

The courts aren’t ignoring MS-13’s designation. They’re saying even if someone is accused of serious crimes, they’re still entitled to the process guaranteed by the Constitution. That’s not a loophole—it’s the foundation of how our system works.

You can be tough on crime and believe in the rule of law. It’s not supposed to be one or the other.