stevenkesslar

I'm shocked! Since we are cock-sucking twins, I have of course known you my whole life, Sis. And you don't look a day over 27. Which is my age, of course. 😉 @lookin says his an octogenarian. So when the Wicked Witch melts away - or the Pope, or whatever he is - and we go down to Puerto Vallarta to celebrate with @lookin, we will still be the pretty young girls in the room. Since @lookin is wise beyond his years, I'm guessing that will be fine by him.

Agreed. Being tender of heart as we are, Sis, we can't send him packing to Hell. As much as we'd like to. How about the Vatican instead? Time for a Donclave?

Silly. If we are going to Puerto Vallarta to learn something from Claudia Sheinbaum, it is going to have to be in pesos. And I'm a picky bitch. If Trump throws in a bottle of real Mexican tequila, we might have a deal.

I've been bitching for months that nobody in the US media seems to have heard of a country called Mexico. At least when it comes to things other than deporting bad hombres. Mexico beat the incumbent curse in 2024 and elected a leftist Jewish woman to succeed AMLO in a whopping landslide. Why couldn't the US do that? And why isn't the media talking about it? It was funny that The Liberal Patriot, which is Ruy Teixeira's perma-scold on unpopular Democratic policies that turn off moderates, did very quickly come up with an article about what Democrats can learn from Carney's win in Canada. Mostly: be more moderate. But I would think they'd be a natural to sing the praises of Morena in Mexico. Since Teixeira keeps ranting, appropriately, about how Democrats are losing the Latino working class. So I was delighted to finally see this informative article from The New Republic appear: The Democrats Could Learn a Lot From Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum I think a lot of the formula about what Democrats need to do is right there. I will highlight two parts: One analysis I read quoted someone saying it was this simple: we literally put money in people's hands. I will go to the grave believing Harris would have won if Democrats had picked a few things - especially the expanded child credit that helped tens of millions of working class families during peak inflation, and cut child poverty in half for one year - and fought like holy hell to keep them in 2022 and then to fight for them in 2024. Child poverty versus tax cuts for Elon Musk? Harris could have won. I don't think Bidenomics ever passed that test. This goes to Ezra Klein's scolding about how it's not about how much money Democrats spend. It's about building shit fast that people feel improves their lives. Where is all the rural broadband? Where are all the electric chargers? I don't know any more about Plan Mexico than what I just read in that article. But I just took a big swipe at progressive climate changers in another post. What this article strongly suggests is you can push things like electric cars in ways that mean creating good jobs. As I posted elsewhere, Democrats seem to have lost fossil fuel states where we used to win Senate races, like Montana and the Dakotas and maybe now Pennsylvania, because we basically convinced people we would take their fossil fuel jobs away. Maybe we should be deporting our best and brightest to Mexico .... to learn something

Yes, yes, yes. But what I am realizing more and more is that all that may be a blessing in disguise. The problem is this: how do you elect a racist Chicago Jew or a moderate Kentucky farm boy as President? AOC and her minions will have none of that! I'm referring to Rahm Emanuel and Andy Beshear. And the racist Jew dig is based on all the turmoil in Chicago when he was Mayor about racist cops killing Blacks, that peaked in 2020 of course. Rahm also pissed off lots of teachers. He claims it made schools better. So if I had to bet on either of these two, it would be that a moderate farm boy from Kentucky might be viewed as less offensive to progressives. The point is that Trump is creating a sort of existential crisis. Not only for democracy, but for progressives. Like we will wipe you out. Totally. We will bury your woke asses in coal. Fuck you, and fuck your climate change woke bullshit that most people hate. You are wrong. You are fucked. And you will die. And you fucking deserve to die! Did I scare you, Sis? I didn't mean to. But that is basically what Trump says, and means. And the climate change crowd has to survive four years of that. Better get some Democrats elected in 2026 to at least put a check on it. John Judis is as leftist as it gets, back in the day. So if he is saying Democrats have to moderate on issues like climate change, or we die, that is a big shift. But if he is right, how does that even happen? The only way I can see is basically how it did when Clinton got elected. Moderate, or die. The question is does it take 12 years like it did from 1980 to 1992? Reagan won two landslides, Trump barely won twice. And he is scaring the living shit out of people. Especially progressives. So I'm optimistic four years of this horror may be enough. I have my eye on Ruben Gallego. He won in Arizona. And the gap between his vote and Kamala's was bigger than the gap between Harris and any other Democratic Senator who won in a swing state she lost. He is a guy, he says Latino men all want to own a big ass truck (gas version), and he takes his son to box in a gym. That may be less offensive, and a reason for young Zoomer men who already regret voting for Trump to shift back.

That's far from clear. I'm now changing the subject from immigration, and the impact on the Democratic Party, to the more general topic of how Democrats dig out of the hole we are in. To sum up on immigration, my point is this. The Republicans will do the heavy lifting for us. Trump will attack judges. So then the issue becomes defending due process and the rule of law. People, including many Republicans, don't think Trump follows the law. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress will do perfectly democratic things - pass laws - moving the immigration debate as far right as they can. So then the issue may not be should we deport criminal wife beaters? (Duh! Yes.) It may be should we deport US citizens because Trump doesn't like them? (Duh! No.) I mostly think Republicans will solve the problem for us. Last night I read a series of recent essays from John Judis. Along with Ruy Teixeira, he co-authored The Emerging Democratic Minority in 2002. Which seemed way too optimistic at the time. Now they are kind of the scolds who have been pragmatically warning Democrats for years. So the best of his recent essays is this one: The Emerging Democratic Minority There's a hyperlink there. But in case you miss it click here. Sounds bleak. But the well-documented facts are not as bleak as it sounds. One of the things that is not as bleak as it sounds is Millennials and Zoomers, and especially young Zoomer men, under 24. The action is always in the reaction, to quote Alinksy. So they got pissed about - you name it - high rent, lockdowns, toxic masculinity, feeling they were ignored. So Trump went after them and a lot of them shifted. Part of the idea is most of these guys were too young to vote for Biden in 2020 anyway, and were not tuned in for Trump 1.0. So why not give it a try? And they did. And now, as Judis and others document, they are one of the groups moving away from Trump the quickest. There's been a lot of headlines about the new Harvard Youth poll that shows young voters trust Congressional Democrats even less than Trump, which is the opposite of four years ago. I think that is overstated. Because some of the young that don't trust Democrats are AOC/Bernie types. They really don't like Trump. And they want Democrats to be more aggressive in opposing him - which moderates mostly don't. The most recent generic ballot polls all show Democrats up. Two of the most recent ones show Democrats up 5 to 7 points. So if it's a battle of which awful party is less awful, right now Democrats are winning. We are less awful! Woo hoo! To that point, another great essay Judis just wrote argued we are stuck in this period of the lesser evil party winning. In 2018 and 2020, that was Democrats. In 2024, it was (barely) Trump and Republicans. Recall, Democrats did not get wiped out in 2022, like in 1994 and 2010. They gained one House seat in 2024. Judis argues Democrats could win, narrowly, in 2026 and 2028 simply by being less awful. And young voters shifting back to Democrats who are willing to do things like tax Elon Musk more could be one of the things that help. The thing that really jumped out at me as the most toxic thing for Democrats is not young men and "toxic masculinity". It is rural areas and small towns. This is NOT a news flash, of course. And the two key toxic words are: fossil fuels. Like you can take Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Louisiana, Ohio, and maybe now even Pennsylvania off the map thanks to fossil fuels. I just named places where Democrats could win Senate seats for sure, and in several cases electoral college votes. In 2008 Democrats won Senate seats in Alaska, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia. All fossil fuel states. All places where Democrats can no longer win, seemingly. The silver lining in that cloud is that Judis and Teixeira both argue that climate change progressives who want any climate change policy that can pass will have to either accept winning moderate things, or losing to Trump's all out war on climate change. So, again, Republicans may do the heavy lifting. In this case by severely crippling and beating climate changers to the point where they decide being able to win small things is better than massive losses. The particular nephew I named above, a Millennial, despises Trump as a dimwit and loves nuclear energy as a pragmatic solution. So these emerging ideas about "abundance" and just getting shit done quicker (like building homes and bridges) and being pragmatists about nuclear power as a transition fuel that is a lesser evil would probably help Democrats a lot at the ballot box. My question about nukes now is less safety and - as always - can you actually deliver on affordability? But that would be a great debate to have that would not send Iowans running away. To sum up, Democrats' best hope does seem to be that Trump does so many awful things that moving toward the center is less awful for progressives than losing. And enough to convince people in the states I named to vote for Democratic Senators and Presidents again.

One of my Millennial nephews has a great line when I goad him about his own, and his generation's, cynicism about government. He points out he and his wife probably won't ever get the benefits of Social Security like his Mom and Dad do. Fucking Boomers. To which I reply he is both the symptom and cause of cynicism. If Ronald Reagan could fix Social Security for a generation, and Trump could barely put together a coalition that elected him twice, Millennials and Zoomers should find demanding politicians fix Social Security for another generation or two a piece of cake. (It is set to go bankrupt in 2033.) Ever the data geek, he replied that the problem is arithmetic. Americans are just not making enough babies anymore to make the math work. So maybe it is not the Fucking Boomers after all. Maybe it is simply Fucking. Who knew? 🙄 This exchange happened two days ago. I wondered what the impact of immigration is. So I checked. The Overlooked Impact of Immigration on the Size of the Future U.S. Workforce That report does not specifically address Social Security. But it's clear that today's immigrants will also increasingly be keeping us out of poverty by paying for our Social Security benefits. In fairness, Trump is only talking about illegal immigrants. Not legal ones like his wife. Oh, as well as getting rid of birth right citizenship if he can. And speaking of older Americans, Warren Buffet just got off a great line about what sucks about tariffs. He said he just doesn't think it will work out well when we piss off 7 billion people who don't like us, when there's only 340 million of us. Not that there is any recent evidence that Canadians or Australians don't like us. Is there? So one wonders if at some point even our former friends and allies decide they don't want to live in our shit hole of a country. The math works well. The generation that always tends to support Trump and his policies the most is Gen X. They are 45 to 60 today. So right around when they are coming into the retirement system expecting the benefits is when it is supposed to go broke. Getting rid of the people funding Social Security, or discouraging them from coming in the first place, will clearly help. 🙄 Fucking Trumpers! (A geeky P.S. Brookings put forth a "centrist" proposal that says increasing legal immigration would pay for about 5 % of the needed amount to make Social Security solvent for the next 75 years. Less immigration obviously just makes the problem worse, earlier. The big ticket items basically target the rich: higher earners paying SSI taxes on a higher percentage of their earnings, and high earners paying taxes on all SSI benefits. Trump clearly plans to rob from the poor to help the rich. With luck, I hope Millennials and Zoomers at some point have the clout and will to rob from the rich to help themselves.)

I think it is genius. The Catholic church has a big problem. They harbor a number of child abusers. Who would have thought that Trump could possibly lower the standards even further? One other upside. Once she is beatified, I think everyone will agree that Melania Trump deserves to be thought of as a saint.

Sorry. I am beating it to death. But these two new articles simply reinforce my opinion about Judge Dugan. Which is that it was political malpractice for Trump and Homan to shift the target from the bad hombre to the social justice judge. Trump’s immigration ‘shock and awe’ is losing in the court of law Dozens of judges across the country — appointed by presidents of both parties — have ruled against Trump’s audacious immigration policies. If we are going to set aside "legal nuances" and focus on the larger point, that is the larger point. Trump is going way too far, legally. And as a result he is losing in the court of law. You can say that is just because Politico is a bunch of radical socialist whack jobs, as are some of these far left socialist judges - who by the way like to drink the blood of Christian children. But that is the point. That is why Trump is now losing in the court of public opinion as well. And that is not my opinion. That is a fact. Evers calls White House border czar’s immigration enforcement threats ‘chilling’ White House Border Czar Tom Homan threatened consequences for the Wisconsin Democrat, alluding to the possibility of criminal charges. Evers has specifically defended Judge Dugan. And while it is a "legal nuance", there is a difference between intentionally helping someone evade arrest, and legally refusing to cooperate with ICE. I'm not a lawyer. But I am guessing Dugan and her lawyer will argue it was the latter. And if Team Trump prosecutes her, which I think only makes their problem worse, Evers will say - or more likely imply - that in the US dissent or being a Democrat now means citizens get threatened with being sent to El Salvador. Without mincing words, I think it is clear this is not going well. Trump is committing political malpractice by shifting the target, in all sorts of ways, from bad hombres who did break the law to judges who argue they are fighting for the law. That said, what I think is going well is that judges, including SCOTUS, are mostly holding the line. While conservatives, who have the barest of majorities in Congress, are moving the line as far to right as they can. I'm a liberal Democrat, and I will argue that is what they got elected to do. And they are doing it.

I actually think the working class and middle class are fucked either way. The scenario you state is the direct line to "you are fucked" ASAP. Recession, high unemployment, stock bear market, etc. At this point, if I had to bet, the more likely scenario is some big stock recovery. A WSJ headline that says "Deal With China" would do it. And I'll even throw in that some of it may make sense as fair trade policy, if the policy and negotiations were done by Bill Clinton. Or Carney. Or even a smart money guy like Scott Bessent, were he freed from having to pander to Trump's every irrational whim and constant policy reversals. Even if we have a market recovery and good times, it ain't gonna help the working class. Millions are probably about to lose health care thanks to Medicaid cuts. So it's like trying to kill Obamacare all over again. The tax cuts favor the billionaire and corporate class. In a stock market rebound, it will help much of the middle class as long as it lasts. But not the people who voted for Trump because rent costs too much. Prices are going up, not down, for those folks. So even a recovery doesn't help the working class in Trump's rags or riches economy. I very much doubt this stock bull market since 2009 will last to 2028. Warren Buffet, who is smarter than Trump, has been systematically piling up cash. And that ain't because of Trump. But Trump has a very good chance of being the lucky guy who first had to manage COVID, ineptly, and now may have to manage a market crash like 2008. I really can see a replay: he gets a huge negative reaction in the midterms like in 2018, and then his sorry ass party loses in 2028. Although it will probably be worse than 2020 for Republicans. Assuming Democrats can moderate and not scare natural allies with far left culture wars or "toxic masculinity" of whatever.

Sweetie, I did. I never want to get on JD's dark side. (Does he have a light side, by the way?) After all, we all saw what he did to the Pope, no less. And one can't ever be grateful enough. Especially to Donald Trump. So I will just repeat myself - something I rarely do! 🙄 Thanks, President Trump. You ignorant raping lying law breaking pig-brained worthless piece of shit! And, speaking of repeating myself, here is yet another example of the pig-brained traitor just not giving a shit about "legal nuances". Senate Democrats urge DOJ to drop plan to repay some Jan. 6 defendants Actually, there is no legal nuance here. It was the worst attack on the US Capitol and the peaceful transfer of power in US history. And the pig-brained traitor really does want to turn it into the Jubilant Patriotic Cop Beating.

I'd add a key word .... RETRIBUTION. Steven Bannon, to his credit, will be honest and tell Trump to publicly promise retribution. Which is a very Trump thing to do. Susie Wiles is the kind of power hungry pragmatist who will clean it all up and get Trump to say, gosh darn, I just want lower prices. And making sure you don't get raped by an illegal immigrant who is not a billionaire like me. Or something like that. Raping and retribution actually kind of go hand in hand. So it's a chicken and egg question. But I would argue Trump's natural tendency for rape and retribution came first. We saw plenty of that in the first shit show. SCOTUS simply encourages it, rather than causing it, by saying, "Ah, who cares?" Well, apparently the American people care. That's the way I read these polls, so far. And it is the problem with saying, "I care about the law, of course. But not these legal nuances." The law is basically a vast collection of legal nuances. So if you don't care about them, you basically don't care about the law. Trump is Exhibit A through Z of that. And the American people don't really like it, it seems.

My theme of the day is that Trump doesn't give a shit about legal nuances. So this is another example of that. At the very least it was bad form, if not breaking the law. The larger point, though, is that his approval is dropping like a dumb rock precisely because the US middle class is losing money thanks to his stupid antics. And most people in polls do see them as stupid. Even many Trumpy Republicans think tariffs will raise prices without suddenly causing factories with good jobs to magically appear in Iowa or Alabama. And the uncertainty is a killer for Wall Street, too. As well as for the large corporations that are supposedly going to build these factories. Speaking of MTG, two new polls show Ossoff would beat MTG by double digits if the 2026 Georgia Senate race were held today. I don't think we have to wonder why. They are going to fuck, fuck, fuck, and fuck the middle class. Tax cuts for Elon Musk, take away health care for Trump working class voters on the Medicaid expansion, and economic misery for the middle class. Fuck you, middle class. Fuck you. We are for the rich. Which is US, you stupid fuckers. Enjoy your misery. The interesting question is whether Democrats can get past the hard NO by a lot of working class voters in places like Iowa, which does have a lot of do with the culture war. We'll see. And, in fairness, some of that windfall is just because most people on Wall Street are not a dumb fuck like Trump. He creates havoc and hurts middle class people who do it the normal way, which is like a 401k and dollar cost averaging. But investors use it to their advantage. Thrill-Seeking Investors Just Made a Fortune on Triple Leveraged ETFs As of today, so far, I booked $22,000 in profits on shares of FNGA and SOXL I bought on April 4 or 7, when the hysteria hit bottom. And I have not sold half the shares, since the rally seems to still have legs. So it will be 40 to 50k when its sold probably. But, if we get our Trump recession, it won't last. And that's not counting the shares of FNGA I sold in Dec. and Feb. Mostly because it seemed like we were headed for a correction, anyway. But the tariff bullshit sure pushed us over the cliff fast. So I suppose I should thank Donald. Thanks, President Trump. You ignorant raping lying law breaking pig-brained worthless piece of shit! 😨

Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply condemns Trump’s attacks on judges I think this is exactly why the polls show Trump went from having majority support for his border policy to majority opposition. Kudos to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Assuming the House Republicans get most or all of what they now have in their immigration bill, the legal pendulum will swing further right. Like Republicans opposed an amendment to prevent ICE for deporting US citizens. So the political pendulum will probably swing more as well if these attacks on judges and citizens and the law keep escalating. Trump is great at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Thank you for restating your opinion, again. You can mince words all you want. But you've been quite clear. You don't think legal nuances are relevant. You find her actions stupid and immoral. Case closed. The polls are on my side regarding Trump's stupidity on this issue, which is my main point. Although polls can always change quickly. Trump had the public on his side when he was going after bad hombres who break the law. As soon as he started going after judges and due process, he lost public support.

There ya go. You said it yourself. The law is irrelevant to you. You have decided Dugan is stupid and immoral. The law, as it pertains to Dugan or this immigration action, is "irrelevant" to you. That is where most Americans, and I, seem to disagree with you. But you are very clear. You keep saying it. Dugan is stupid, stupid, stupid. She is immoral, immoral, immoral. Whatever the law says, which is always nuanced, is irrelevant to you. And you love to insult people you disagree with.

House Judiciary approves proposals to boost immigration enforcement in Trump’s megabill Republicans fought hard for their conservative priorities So this sounds like good news, for three reasons. First, I'd call it a win for America. Americans definitely wanted an immigration crackdown. I'd say Trump won for three reasons: lower prices, the border, and old Biden. They are not getting their lower prices, and they are pissed. But at least they get their crackdown. Second, it's a victory for Republicans who have a lot of conservative ideas and now will put them into law. Third, for the reasons I outlined above, I'd call this a victory for Democrats. There was a bipartisan crackdown that could have passed a year ago, had Trump not killed it. So Democrats can now be the loyal opposition. Some of this does sound like it goes too far. But I like the idea that it boxes Democrats in. And if it is coming from Congress or judges, it is the right way to do it. It is interesting to note what amendments Democrats pushed that all failed. Like ICE should not be funded to detain or deport US citizens. ICE should not do immigration enforcement at elementary schools. Hardly radical left-wing ideas. When the insolent pig fails and Democrats are in charge again, they can move things back to the middle, hopefully. But on this issue in particular I feel my party, Democrats, asked for it. So now we see the results of pushing too hard. That's politics.

Or Joebesity? Biden spurs? Or maybe he is secretly Jillous of Biden?

Well, he's not really blaming Biden, Sis. He is blaming the "Biden overhang". Can you blame him?

Apparently that is the conclusion he reached during his four years in exile. Jan. 11th and rape and being a felon just don't matter. I think it's actually worse. In his first act he had no particular agenda, really. Something about THE WALL while fentanyl poured in. But now he wants retribution. That is the agenda. Just tear shit down. Including the law, and judges. Meanwhile, coming soon to an economy near you: And And At least sometimes Trump tells the truth.

US economy shrinks as Americans brace for Trump’s trade war Canada, could you please take us over, so we can be one of your provinces? Then we can have a leader who understands the economy. Asking for a friend.

You're funny. Seriously. We should just agree to disagree. This was interesting for me because I learned some things, albeit about "legal nuances". But you really should take my word for what I said. It would be stupid for Democrats, or judges, to defend wife beaters who break the law. I said that, and I stand by it. And now I have to defend it. I did not say that was what Dugan did. For example, if she said "ICE is full of Nazis, you are evil, and I will not let you assholes torture this poor innocent man," that would be an extreme example of a stupid judge saying stupid shit defending someone who broke the law. But she did none of that. And we actually don't know if he is a criminal, regarding any allegations of what he did to his roommate. But we do know he did enter the US illegally and was deported in 2013. If you think Dugan defended anything the guy did, you are again factually incorrect. Note that most of what we know about what she said is from ICE, and their written documentation. We know she asked them about an arrest warrant. And what type it was. We know she directed them to the chief judge. So she was not defending a wife beater who breaks the law. She was defending due process. These nuances do not concern you. You have made a perfectly fine argument that Dugan is stupid, and immoral. But don't put that on me. It does make sense to me that you can only see this one way: she is stupid, and immoral. It follows that unless she is helping ICE, she must be defending a wife beater. That is how you appear to see it. I did not say that, and I don't think that. I do think it is smart that the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended her. But you obviously don't agree with, or perhaps understand, my political point. When Trump is going after illegal immigrants who beat their wives, he is winning. Polls show that. When he is going after judges, he is losing. Polls show that. So the more this is about Dugan, a judge, I don't see how that helps Trump or ICE in any way. It of course depends on whether they prosecute her, and what happens. If she did not break the law, she will be a hero and martyr to many. That does not help Trump or ICE. We can be certain that Dugan's attorney will not argue she was trying to defend the actions of a criminal. The attorney will argue she was defending due process and the rule of law. Again, these nuances are not of interest to you. You think she is stupid and immoral. One other new point, that just goes more into nuances that disinterest you. It would be interesting to know what Dugan was thinking. On one end, there are good MAGA folk who I'm sure feel like unless she was bending over backward to help ICE, she is immoral. Immigration activists will treat her like Joan of Arc. But what was she actually thinking when she did what she did? The comical thing to me is that I'm guessing (I'm not a lawyer) that to find her guilty of helping this guy, they have to show intent. Like she would have to say, "I wanted to help him evade ICE. That was my plan." And she is a judge, who knows the law. So I think we already know that she will likely argue her concern is due process and the rule of law. The last thing she or her attorney will likely do is say she was trying to help a criminal avoid arrest. Again, at this point it is almost all just repetition. I think we have both learned whatever we are willing to learn.

I was surprised about all that. My simplistic idea of Hoover was he was the guy who screwed up the Depression. A client in Iowa took me to his Presidential museum years ago. As you state, he had an admirable history of achievement and humanitarianism. This guy is not Donald Trump. You can also make a good case he get left holding the bag for a problem he did not cause. That said, it is fair to go after him for how he dealt with the problem. His policies versus the New Deal was a very stark comparison. Which is why the New Deal political coalition lasted so long. I don't think we have to worry about Trump's 49.8 % coalition lasting as long as FDR's. 😉

I think it's better if we just agree to disagree. Your main point is that you don't like what she did. Fine. There is no poll on that. But there is a poll that says most Democrats and Republicans agree that most judges are not "fair and impartial". So I think most people would agree with you that Dugan was not being fair and impartial in this situation. In my words, not hers, she told ICE to go fuck off, basically. You don't like that, especially if it is stated that way. To quote you directly, it was "stupid" and "immoral". Fine. Most people might agree with you. I have two main points, neither of which you agree with, or even understand. First, the law does matter. That is actually the point. You have made clear that "legal nuances" are not the point to you, and you don't care. And now you are back to your imaginary deportation order. So here we go again. THERE WAS NO DEPORTATION ORDER. IT DID NOT EXIST. YOU KEEP MAKING THAT UP. It is the kind of "legal nuance" that bores you, I guess. The guy was deported once, shortly after an "expedited" deportation order was put together back in 2013, when Deporter In Chief Obama was President. Somehow he got back in. No article I have read said when, or how. ICE finds out about this by matching fingerprints after he beats the shit out of his roommate for playing music too loud. They put together an administrative arrest warrant, which means ICE's "do it yourself" arrest warrant, not an arrest warrant by a judge. That is a "legal nuance" that matters a lot, and will be important when Dugan herself has to defend her actions in court. But there was no deportation order, period. ICE had an arrest warrant and they planned to arrest the guy. Your position is that Dugan should have helped ICE, or at least should not have allegedly helped the guy they came there to arrest. Fine. Again, I suspect if this were polled most people would agree with you. Certainly most Republicans. And the immigration activists who would disagree with you are the problem, as I have made clear. They pushed Biden to do things he could have resisted, but did not. So middle America got pissed, and that led to Trump. I have no problem blaming a lot of this on immigration activists who could be labelled as "fanatics". My second point is that Trump is now fucking up, by targeting judges rather than illegal immigrants. No matter what you think about what Judge Dugan did, that is just a fact now. He now has net disapproval on immigration. And I think the reason is clear. Most Americans want him to follow the law. Even though they also think most judges, like Dugan, are hardly fair and impartial. I cited the polls above. So, even if you think she should be jailed or deported, what I think you fail to recognize is that she is winning the political fight. If Trump is making the target judges, and due process, he is the one losing. The polls show this. He is a moron. Dugan will likely have zero consequences, even if they prosecute her - which they may not, when smarter people than Trump think through that it just looks bad to try to jail a social justice activist judge. And, to be be clear, I am not saying Dugan picked this fight. That is the point, too. She did not pick this fight. Trump and ICE did. Which is just really fucking stupid on their part, no matter what you think about Dugan. They could have just arrested the guy, which they did, and left her alone. I think Dugan herself sees this. Because she understands these nuances of the law that you are unconcerned with. This is just repetitive, but that is untrue. I did not say Dugan was stupid, or that her actions were stupid. I said Trump is a moron. Or stupid. Or whatever similar word you want to use. It is stupid of him to go after a judge based on due process. And his stupidity is being rewarded with plummeting poll ratings on an issue he was winning. Now he is losing. He is a moron. That concept is simple. I don't view Dugan as immoral, or stupid. She is a social justice warrior. I can't read her mind. But it's a safe bet that she feels she did the right thing and followed the law. On a much more general level, it would be fair enough to say that I think immigration activists were stupid. But I would not use that word. They were fighting for what they believed in, as is Judge Dugan. So stupid is not the best word. They went too far, and they did not heed the warnings they were going too far. Biden, unlike Obama, was stupid for not saying NO earlier. But this is politics. Dugan seems to be politically nimble. There is another nuance here, political rather than legal, that you don't get. It follows that if everyone spent as much time as we have picking this apart, what Dugan did might help Trump. For sure, if every judge in America organized together and they all called for immigration officials to be jailed, there would be a massive reaction against that. But that is not what is happening. Most people seem to care about political nuances as much as you care about legal ones. Trump knows that, and keeps saying, "I am going after bad hombres who beat their wives." And people want that. I sure do. But the minute he says, "I am going after a judge," that shifts very quickly. The nuances don't really matter. Then people say, "Oh, Trump is not following the law." That is what is happening right now. The polls confirm it. You can dislike what Dugan did but still see this as political stupidity on Trump's part. He is stupid for picking fights with judges. Period.

Meanwhile, it looks more and more like they will take an ax to Medicaid, including for working class Trump voters in red states, while they dole out relief to Elon Musk and other billionaires who pay too much in taxes. There was talk about how Republicans were maybe actually gonna raise taxes on the rich, and expand the child tax credit to help the working class. Of course, there was also talk about how Trump would lower prices when he ran for President. Ha ha ha.