Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TWD 1974 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TWD 1974 said:

---

historian said:

---

Exactly

---

I appreciate you may agree with me there, but my continuing may find us in disagreement!
I deplore the current situation where one party has to dominate, and districts are altered to unrecognizable ends largely to accommodate the whims of a leader or in reprisal for what someone else did. Far too many of us today have given up or forgotten that we got to where we are by compromise: Our Constitution, our national capitol, our very nation are all products of compromise. For 80 years, we coexisted as half slave, half free, through a series of tortured compromises by Henry Clay and others. It was only when Chief Justice Taney in his Dred Scott decision, closed the door on any possible further compromise that war between the states became inevitable. You and I can argue about the causes and the results of that war all day long, but my point is war begins when a people are convinced that no other compromise is possible. Compromise is only possible when opposing parties recognize their own limits and are forced to consider the viewpoints on the other side. The best, the important decisions in the history of our Republic have almost always been bipartisan. I see little hope for the future without our rediscovering the lost virtue of compromise.

---

That sounds nice, however your read on history is a little misguided.

During Henry Clay's time and before the Civil War, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ, there was exponentially less power seated in Washington and most power was held by the states. So it was much easier to "compromise" when the stakes were relatively low. Once the federal government reached the size and scope, the stakes became much larger and thus compromise much more difficult. This of course is exacerbated when one party has become dominated by radical, extremist positions that would have seen absolutely looney five, 10, 20, 50 years ago. Add to the fact that Congress basically has stopped functioning.

To your point on gerrymandering I agree 100%, but the Democrat Party will never agree.

---

I agree that the world, Washington, Federal Govt. and Power of the President have changed exponentially in their complexity. The problem in my view is not that government is too big, but that staying in political power demands a win, to dominate. Gerrymandering districts winnow out the possibility of compromise because compromise normally begins with purple state senators and Congressmen who have survived in the contested districts that have to find a way to serve all of the voters. Safe district politicians today sing one of two songs, "I love the President more than anyone, or I hate the President more than anyone."
You may be right that the Democrats would not agree to reform the gerrymandering. If Abbott had called Newson and said "we'll stop if you stop" would there have been a deal? We will never know. No one made the call. We no longer elect leaders with the courage to make that kind of call.

---

You do know when gerrymandering started, right? It's hardly a new concept - the Democrat Party used it to maintain an iron grip on Congress for most the of the 20th Century. It's like most Democrat hysterics, when they say they oppose gerrymandering they actually mean they oppose Republican gerrymandering.

In terms of "we'll never know" is another naive comment - the Democrat-led gerrymandering is exponentially more extreme than the Republican-led states. That is how it has managed to stay in power despite being generally less popular than the GOP in most years.

You sort of glossed over part of my comments. Do you think increasingly radical and extreme positions makes it more difficult or challenging to compromise? Do you think the Democrats would be willing to stop the emotional hysterics, hyperbole, and disinformation in order to have a more irenic climate that would facilitate compromise? Said another way would they give up the theater kids act for the good of the nation?

---

Gerrymandering is a much older concept than early 20th century--see Eldrege Gerry and Massachusetts 1812. The manipulation of congressional districts to counter Federalists or Antifederalists is about as old as the Republic. My point is that the problem isn't about who did it the most. The Constitution gives a great deal of latitude to the states to determine their own political map. It is only when states abuse that power by violating the constitutional rights of voters that gerrymandering is held in check. Give the winners of the state legislature the ability to change the map to their advantage and it is going to happen, be it Republican or Democrat, unless there is constitutional restraint or the fear of voter reprisal.

If my comments are naive, I may concede to it. Your point that the Democrats are more extreme--does that make Republican gerrymandering ok? Is that not an argument of a 5th grader? Also, there are 39mm registered Republicans nationally, to 45mm Democrats. There are roughly about as many independent or unaffiliated voters as republicans and democrats combined. I would argue neither side is winning. Most people view the parties negatively, in part because of the perception that they can't get anything done. This is the canary in the coal mine. The rise of extreme politics on the left and right are signs that the people are deeply frustrated with the status quo. Facing the problem is not easy. There never was an irenic period in the history of our democracy. Democracy is inherently difficult; it's just the better alternative.

TWD 1974 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TWD 1974 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TWD 1974 said:

---

historian said:

---

Exactly

---

I appreciate you may agree with me there, but my continuing may find us in disagreement!
I deplore the current situation where one party has to dominate, and districts are altered to unrecognizable ends largely to accommodate the whims of a leader or in reprisal for what someone else did. Far too many of us today have given up or forgotten that we got to where we are by compromise: Our Constitution, our national capitol, our very nation are all products of compromise. For 80 years, we coexisted as half slave, half free, through a series of tortured compromises by Henry Clay and others. It was only when Chief Justice Taney in his Dred Scott decision, closed the door on any possible further compromise that war between the states became inevitable. You and I can argue about the causes and the results of that war all day long, but my point is war begins when a people are convinced that no other compromise is possible. Compromise is only possible when opposing parties recognize their own limits and are forced to consider the viewpoints on the other side. The best, the important decisions in the history of our Republic have almost always been bipartisan. I see little hope for the future without our rediscovering the lost virtue of compromise.

---

That sounds nice, however your read on history is a little misguided.

During Henry Clay's time and before the Civil War, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ, there was exponentially less power seated in Washington and most power was held by the states. So it was much easier to "compromise" when the stakes were relatively low. Once the federal government reached the size and scope, the stakes became much larger and thus compromise much more difficult. This of course is exacerbated when one party has become dominated by radical, extremist positions that would have seen absolutely looney five, 10, 20, 50 years ago. Add to the fact that Congress basically has stopped functioning.

To your point on gerrymandering I agree 100%, but the Democrat Party will never agree.

---

I agree that the world, Washington, Federal Govt. and Power of the President have changed exponentially in their complexity. The problem in my view is not that government is too big, but that staying in political power demands a win, to dominate. Gerrymandering districts winnow out the possibility of compromise because compromise normally begins with purple state senators and Congressmen who have survived in the contested districts that have to find a way to serve all of the voters. Safe district politicians today sing one of two songs, "I love the President more than anyone, or I hate the President more than anyone."
You may be right that the Democrats would not agree to reform the gerrymandering. If Abbott had called Newson and said "we'll stop if you stop" would there have been a deal? We will never know. No one made the call. We no longer elect leaders with the courage to make that kind of call.

---

You do know when gerrymandering started, right? It's hardly a new concept - the Democrat Party used it to maintain an iron grip on Congress for most the of the 20th Century. It's like most Democrat hysterics, when they say they oppose gerrymandering they actually mean they oppose Republican gerrymandering.

In terms of "we'll never know" is another naive comment - the Democrat-led gerrymandering is exponentially more extreme than the Republican-led states. That is how it has managed to stay in power despite being generally less popular than the GOP in most years.

You sort of glossed over part of my comments. Do you think increasingly radical and extreme positions makes it more difficult or challenging to compromise? Do you think the Democrats would be willing to stop the emotional hysterics, hyperbole, and disinformation in order to have a more irenic climate that would facilitate compromise? Said another way would they give up the theater kids act for the good of the nation?

---

Gerrymandering is a much older concept than early 20th century--see Eldrege Gerry and Massachusetts 1812. The manipulation of congressional districts to counter Federalists or Antifederalists is about as old as the Republic. My point is that the problem isn't about who did it the most. The Constitution gives a great deal of latitude to the states to determine their own political map. It is only when states abuse that power by violating the constitutional rights of voters that gerrymandering is held in check. Give the winners of the state legislature the ability to change the map to their advantage and it is going to happen, be it Republican or Democrat, unless there is constitutional restraint or the fear of voter reprisal.

If my comments are naive, I may concede to it. Your point that the Democrats are more extreme--does that make Republican gerrymandering ok? Is that not an argument of a 5th grader? Also, there are 39mm registered Republicans nationally, to 45mm Democrats. There are roughly about as many independent or unaffiliated voters as republicans and democrats combined. I would argue neither side is winning. Most people view the parties negatively, in part because of the perception that they can't get anything done. This is the canary in the coal mine. The rise of extreme politics on the left and right are signs that the people are deeply frustrated with the status quo. Facing the problem is not easy. There never was an irenic period in the history of our democracy. Democracy is inherently difficult; it's just the better alternative.

---

As you know floating through leftist social media, my history lesson was just I suppose an eye roll that the sudden "outrage" about gerrymandering from Democrats is insincere because they have been relying on gerrymandering to maintain power for more 100 years.

It's is not a fifth grade argument to point out that you do not care about gerrymandering you care about Republican gerrymandering. it's just another eye roll to hear Democrats whine about Republican gerrymandering when they abuse it exponentially more.

So I will ask you a few questions to clarify your thoughts, which I suspect like most leftists on the board you will ignore ... but I actually would like to find a regressive smart enough to engage in a rational conversation and to date I have failed ... they all tuck their tails and run when presented with facts and specifics:

1. Would you support the complete removal of all gerrymandering in favor of computer-generated districts based on nothing but legal population (citizens and legal visitors not illegal aliens)

2. Define "extreme" in terms of politics? What canon do you use to determine if a particular policy is "extreme?"

3. Given #2, can you name three Republican policies that are "extreme" and what are they?

Thanks - I really hope you do not run and hide like the others.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Are you working for the GOP or MAGA?

---

gonna keep pointing out the obvious until you see it.

---

Cool, does it pay well? Seems like a fun job.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TWD 1974 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TWD 1974 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TWD 1974 said:

---

historian said:

---

Exactly

---

I appreciate you may agree with me there, but my continuing may find us in disagreement!
I deplore the current situation where one party has to dominate, and districts are altered to unrecognizable ends largely to accommodate the whims of a leader or in reprisal for what someone else did. Far too many of us today have given up or forgotten that we got to where we are by compromise: Our Constitution, our national capitol, our very nation are all products of compromise. For 80 years, we coexisted as half slave, half free, through a series of tortured compromises by Henry Clay and others. It was only when Chief Justice Taney in his Dred Scott decision, closed the door on any possible further compromise that war between the states became inevitable. You and I can argue about the causes and the results of that war all day long, but my point is war begins when a people are convinced that no other compromise is possible. Compromise is only possible when opposing parties recognize their own limits and are forced to consider the viewpoints on the other side. The best, the important decisions in the history of our Republic have almost always been bipartisan. I see little hope for the future without our rediscovering the lost virtue of compromise.

---

That sounds nice, however your read on history is a little misguided.

During Henry Clay's time and before the Civil War, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ, there was exponentially less power seated in Washington and most power was held by the states. So it was much easier to "compromise" when the stakes were relatively low. Once the federal government reached the size and scope, the stakes became much larger and thus compromise much more difficult. This of course is exacerbated when one party has become dominated by radical, extremist positions that would have seen absolutely looney five, 10, 20, 50 years ago. Add to the fact that Congress basically has stopped functioning.

To your point on gerrymandering I agree 100%, but the Democrat Party will never agree.

---

I agree that the world, Washington, Federal Govt. and Power of the President have changed exponentially in their complexity. The problem in my view is not that government is too big, but that staying in political power demands a win, to dominate. Gerrymandering districts winnow out the possibility of compromise because compromise normally begins with purple state senators and Congressmen who have survived in the contested districts that have to find a way to serve all of the voters. Safe district politicians today sing one of two songs, "I love the President more than anyone, or I hate the President more than anyone."
You may be right that the Democrats would not agree to reform the gerrymandering. If Abbott had called Newson and said "we'll stop if you stop" would there have been a deal? We will never know. No one made the call. We no longer elect leaders with the courage to make that kind of call.

---

You do know when gerrymandering started, right? It's hardly a new concept - the Democrat Party used it to maintain an iron grip on Congress for most the of the 20th Century. It's like most Democrat hysterics, when they say they oppose gerrymandering they actually mean they oppose Republican gerrymandering.

In terms of "we'll never know" is another naive comment - the Democrat-led gerrymandering is exponentially more extreme than the Republican-led states. That is how it has managed to stay in power despite being generally less popular than the GOP in most years.

You sort of glossed over part of my comments. Do you think increasingly radical and extreme positions makes it more difficult or challenging to compromise? Do you think the Democrats would be willing to stop the emotional hysterics, hyperbole, and disinformation in order to have a more irenic climate that would facilitate compromise? Said another way would they give up the theater kids act for the good of the nation?

---

Gerrymandering is a much older concept than early 20th century--see Eldrege Gerry and Massachusetts 1812. The manipulation of congressional districts to counter Federalists or Antifederalists is about as old as the Republic. My point is that the problem isn't about who did it the most. The Constitution gives a great deal of latitude to the states to determine their own political map. It is only when states abuse that power by violating the constitutional rights of voters that gerrymandering is held in check. Give the winners of the state legislature the ability to change the map to their advantage and it is going to happen, be it Republican or Democrat, unless there is constitutional restraint or the fear of voter reprisal.

If my comments are naive, I may concede to it. Your point that the Democrats are more extreme--does that make Republican gerrymandering ok? Is that not an argument of a 5th grader? Also, there are 39mm registered Republicans nationally, to 45mm Democrats. There are roughly about as many independent or unaffiliated voters as republicans and democrats combined. I would argue neither side is winning. Most people view the parties negatively, in part because of the perception that they can't get anything done. This is the canary in the coal mine. The rise of extreme politics on the left and right are signs that the people are deeply frustrated with the status quo. Facing the problem is not easy. There never was an irenic period in the history of our democracy. Democracy is inherently difficult; it's just the better alternative.

---

As you know floating through leftist social media, my history lesson was just I suppose an eye roll that the sudden "outrage" about gerrymandering from Democrats is insincere because they have been relying on gerrymandering to maintain power for more 100 years.

It's is not a fifth grade argument to point out that you do not care about gerrymandering you care about Republican gerrymandering. it's just another eye roll to hear Democrats whine about Republican gerrymandering when they abuse it exponentially more.

So I will ask you a few questions to clarify your thoughts, which I suspect like most leftists on the board you will ignore ... but I actually would like to find a regressive smart enough to engage in a rational conversation and to date I have failed ... they all tuck their tails and run when presented with facts and specifics:

1. Would you support the complete removal of all gerrymandering in favor of computer-generated districts based on nothing but legal population (citizens and legal visitors not illegal aliens)

2. Define "extreme" in terms of politics? What canon do you use to determine if a particular policy is "extreme?"

3. Given #2, can you name three Republican policies that are "extreme" and what are they?

Thanks - I really hope you do not run and hide like the others.

---

1. Would you support the complete removal of all gerrymandering in favor of computer-generated districts based on nothing but legal population (citizens and legal visitors not illegal aliens)

If you mean let AI tell us where to vote, no. So long as there is human oversite, I would be in favor of computer-assisted determination, based on citizens, that also takes into account the historical/geographical voting history and patterns. that adheres to the roughly equal populations of the various districts. --Over the decades, the apportionment for each district has grown to fit the 435 Congressional districts. We should welcome the Congress to the 21st century, call for an increase in the number of districts and a smaller increase in the number of senator (top five states in population have 3 senators, for instance).

2. Define "extreme" in terms of politics? What canon do you use to determine if a particular policy is "extreme?"

For me, extreme politics is when the ends justify an abrogation of law, or constitutional rights, or committing a felony or felonies to further political aims in the US while we are not in a state of war.

3. Given #2, can you name three Republican policies that are "extreme" and what are they?

I think bugging the Democrat Campaign Headquarters was extreme in my view. I think the denial of due process to immigrants who have not committed a violent crime and have lived here peaceably for many years is a violation of the 14th. amendment and is extreme.

TWD 1974 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TWD 1974 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TWD 1974 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TWD 1974 said:

---

historian said:

---

Exactly

---

I appreciate you may agree with me there, but my continuing may find us in disagreement!
I deplore the current situation where one party has to dominate, and districts are altered to unrecognizable ends largely to accommodate the whims of a leader or in reprisal for what someone else did. Far too many of us today have given up or forgotten that we got to where we are by compromise: Our Constitution, our national capitol, our very nation are all products of compromise. For 80 years, we coexisted as half slave, half free, through a series of tortured compromises by Henry Clay and others. It was only when Chief Justice Taney in his Dred Scott decision, closed the door on any possible further compromise that war between the states became inevitable. You and I can argue about the causes and the results of that war all day long, but my point is war begins when a people are convinced that no other compromise is possible. Compromise is only possible when opposing parties recognize their own limits and are forced to consider the viewpoints on the other side. The best, the important decisions in the history of our Republic have almost always been bipartisan. I see little hope for the future without our rediscovering the lost virtue of compromise.

---

That sounds nice, however your read on history is a little misguided.

During Henry Clay's time and before the Civil War, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ, there was exponentially less power seated in Washington and most power was held by the states. So it was much easier to "compromise" when the stakes were relatively low. Once the federal government reached the size and scope, the stakes became much larger and thus compromise much more difficult. This of course is exacerbated when one party has become dominated by radical, extremist positions that would have seen absolutely looney five, 10, 20, 50 years ago. Add to the fact that Congress basically has stopped functioning.

To your point on gerrymandering I agree 100%, but the Democrat Party will never agree.

---

I agree that the world, Washington, Federal Govt. and Power of the President have changed exponentially in their complexity. The problem in my view is not that government is too big, but that staying in political power demands a win, to dominate. Gerrymandering districts winnow out the possibility of compromise because compromise normally begins with purple state senators and Congressmen who have survived in the contested districts that have to find a way to serve all of the voters. Safe district politicians today sing one of two songs, "I love the President more than anyone, or I hate the President more than anyone."
You may be right that the Democrats would not agree to reform the gerrymandering. If Abbott had called Newson and said "we'll stop if you stop" would there have been a deal? We will never know. No one made the call. We no longer elect leaders with the courage to make that kind of call.

---

You do know when gerrymandering started, right? It's hardly a new concept - the Democrat Party used it to maintain an iron grip on Congress for most the of the 20th Century. It's like most Democrat hysterics, when they say they oppose gerrymandering they actually mean they oppose Republican gerrymandering.

In terms of "we'll never know" is another naive comment - the Democrat-led gerrymandering is exponentially more extreme than the Republican-led states. That is how it has managed to stay in power despite being generally less popular than the GOP in most years.

You sort of glossed over part of my comments. Do you think increasingly radical and extreme positions makes it more difficult or challenging to compromise? Do you think the Democrats would be willing to stop the emotional hysterics, hyperbole, and disinformation in order to have a more irenic climate that would facilitate compromise? Said another way would they give up the theater kids act for the good of the nation?

---

Gerrymandering is a much older concept than early 20th century--see Eldrege Gerry and Massachusetts 1812. The manipulation of congressional districts to counter Federalists or Antifederalists is about as old as the Republic. My point is that the problem isn't about who did it the most. The Constitution gives a great deal of latitude to the states to determine their own political map. It is only when states abuse that power by violating the constitutional rights of voters that gerrymandering is held in check. Give the winners of the state legislature the ability to change the map to their advantage and it is going to happen, be it Republican or Democrat, unless there is constitutional restraint or the fear of voter reprisal.

If my comments are naive, I may concede to it. Your point that the Democrats are more extreme--does that make Republican gerrymandering ok? Is that not an argument of a 5th grader? Also, there are 39mm registered Republicans nationally, to 45mm Democrats. There are roughly about as many independent or unaffiliated voters as republicans and democrats combined. I would argue neither side is winning. Most people view the parties negatively, in part because of the perception that they can't get anything done. This is the canary in the coal mine. The rise of extreme politics on the left and right are signs that the people are deeply frustrated with the status quo. Facing the problem is not easy. There never was an irenic period in the history of our democracy. Democracy is inherently difficult; it's just the better alternative.

---

As you know floating through leftist social media, my history lesson was just I suppose an eye roll that the sudden "outrage" about gerrymandering from Democrats is insincere because they have been relying on gerrymandering to maintain power for more 100 years.

It's is not a fifth grade argument to point out that you do not care about gerrymandering you care about Republican gerrymandering. it's just another eye roll to hear Democrats whine about Republican gerrymandering when they abuse it exponentially more.

So I will ask you a few questions to clarify your thoughts, which I suspect like most leftists on the board you will ignore ... but I actually would like to find a regressive smart enough to engage in a rational conversation and to date I have failed ... they all tuck their tails and run when presented with facts and specifics:

1. Would you support the complete removal of all gerrymandering in favor of computer-generated districts based on nothing but legal population (citizens and legal visitors not illegal aliens)

2. Define "extreme" in terms of politics? What canon do you use to determine if a particular policy is "extreme?"

3. Given #2, can you name three Republican policies that are "extreme" and what are they?

Thanks - I really hope you do not run and hide like the others.

---

1. Would you support the complete removal of all gerrymandering in favor of computer-generated districts based on nothing but legal population (citizens and legal visitors not illegal aliens)

If you mean let AI tell us where to vote, no. So long as there is human oversite, I would be in favor of computer-assisted determination, based on citizens, that also takes into account the historical/geographical voting history and patterns. that adheres to the roughly equal populations of the various districts. --Over the decades, the apportionment for each district has grown to fit the 435 Congressional districts. We should welcome the Congress to the 21st century, call for an increase in the number of districts and a smaller increase in the number of senator (top five states in population have 3 senators, for instance).

2. Define "extreme" in terms of politics? What canon do you use to determine if a particular policy is "extreme?"

For me, extreme politics is when the ends justify an abrogation of law, or constitutional rights, or committing a felony or felonies to further political aims in the US while we are not in a state of war.

3. Given #2, can you name three Republican policies that are "extreme" and what are they?

I think bugging the Democrat Campaign Headquarters was extreme in my view. I think the denial of due process to immigrants who have not committed a violent crime and have lived here peaceably for many years is a violation of the 14th. amendment and is extreme.

---

1. I need some specificity in your first answer.

Do you oppose gerrymandering? I assumed yes but can you confirm?

So would you support creating districts that simply start at the borders of states and capture the population of legal citizens and residents until a district population is reached and then start creating a new district?

If you oppose, can you explain specifically why you oppose in light of you opposition to gerrymandering?

2. 3. Thanks - it was exactly what I expected and appreciated the ROFLOL.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Are you working for the GOP or MAGA?

---

gonna keep pointing out the obvious until you see it.

---

Cool, does it pay well? Seems like a fun job.

---

Defeating communism was indeed a fun job. You're welcome.

Marx was a loser. His ideas are the philosophy of losing. They always lose. The only question how much damage they do on the path to their demise.

Marxists now control the Democrat Party. There is no compromise with these people. They're on a mission from GOD Marx. They are not content just to force you into quietly accepting their worldview. They will punish you for insufficient enthusiasm about it. Nothing furthers their cause more than those who dismiss the threat they pose and demand compromise for the sake of gaining the moral high ground (in their own mind) that they were willing to compromise and others weren't. It's like saying a rotten apple is bad but a bite or two of one is the best thing ever, and of course we must pass laws protecting the habitat of the apple worms. Can't eat too many apples. Nooo, we must leave some lying about and can't throw one away under any circumstances. The sanctity of the ecosystem demands we meet worms/people halfway, no matter what they demand. Our conscience demands it!

Former progressive fundraiser @evanwch says the DSA wave is just the beginning. pic.twitter.com/lAARiddPnI

— The Free Press (@TheFP) July 2, 2026

I always found PsyOps interesting. Knew a few a Bragg, I loved hanging out with them as the conversations were interesting as hell. Looking back, wish I knew about it before enlisting would have been an interesting way to serve.

That is why I push back so hard on Trump, feel like I am in the middle of a PsyOps exercise... Don't take my teasing too personal, figure it would be no fun if everyone agreed and I can't get myself to go all jackboots like some on here...

FLBear5630 said:

---

I always found PsyOps interesting. Knew a few a Bragg, I loved hanging out with them as the conversations were interesting as hell. Looking back, wish I knew about it before enlisting would have been an interesting way to serve.

That is why I push back so hard on Trump, feel like I am in the middle of a PsyOps exercise... Don't take my teasing too personal, figure it would be no fun if everyone agreed and I can't get myself to go all jackboots like some on here...

---

Has the possibility occurred to you that he is the one HE is the one pushing back against psyops….?

2026 Generic Ballot Among Hispanics

🔴 Republicans: 48% (+7)
🔵 Democrats: 43% (-4)

(+/- vs last Poll)

McLaughlin | 6/17-23 pic.twitter.com/6nQp6O0pk0

— OSZ (@OpenSourceZone) July 3, 2026

Interesting perspective.

Sure. If this was his first term and cabinet i would agree. This group? Bannon having more say? Tough sell... But there always the possibility of a counter action, just seem out of character.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sure. If this was his first term and cabinet i would agree. This group? Bannon having more say? Tough sell... But there always the possibility of a counter action, just seem out of character.

---

Socialism is out of character, and Dems have a bad case of it at the moment

True that... It definitely is not JFK's Democratic Party.

FLBear5630 said:

---

True that... It definitely is not JFK's Democratic Party.

---

That's why I really do not understand you TDSers ... Trump is basically a traditional Democrat, and the Democrat Party has become radically extreme. I guess that is why TDSers struggle to really specifically outline their objections other than MEAN TWEETS!

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

True that... It definitely is not JFK's Democratic Party.

---

That's why I really do not understand you TDSers ... Trump is basically a traditional Democrat, and the Democrat Party has become radically extreme. I guess that is why TDSers struggle to really specifically outline their objections other than MEAN TWEETS!

---

You guys keep attributing the issues many have with Donald as a Party or Platform issue, it isn't. Almost all of us voted for him multiple times over the Dems.

The issue is he wants to change the basis of our government structure to benefit him. Too many want him to succeed because they either hate the Dems (I assume you fall in this category) or are making a ton of money on his grifts and changes (I assume WR as a CEO falls into this category). Either way, what they are doing with Musk and DOGE, Tariffs, Israel, Venezuela, Iran, etc... He is operating as a King. He talks like he is a King and the sole approval authority.

If nobody stands up it will get worse.

This is not the first term Trump Administraton, Kelly was right. My dislike and distrust has nothing to do with the Platform or agreeing with the Dems. The Dems are a non-issue in this...

---

There you go yelling at clouds again. What are you even talking about "wants to change the basis of our government structure to benefit him." You sound like a QAnon loon. Operating like a king? You're a loon. He literally has done nothing "like a king."

You need to go yell at clouds and stay of QAnon.

What do you oppose about DOGE? You support inefficiency and grift?
I do not like the tariffs - but they're classic Democrat platform.
Israel - what about it? You hate the Jews now too?
How is Venezuela working out?
I do not love the Iran attacks, but it's not like Obama did not do the same thing with Libya ...

All you TDS butthurt stupidity has been done by others you just only get mad by Trump ... kind of like you guys uniquely get mad at Israel because of THE JEWS while ignoring other countries' foibles.

Go yell at clouds - you sound like a crazy person.

This is what is funny, you are yelling at clouds. Hell, TDS???? That is a Bannon phrase to discredit anyone that objects. It doesn't exist... Keep believing, it is what you are good at.

Rush Limbaugh once said that JFK is the last Dem president who was a genuine American patriot. He was correct. All of the Dems since then, and arguably some Republicans had priorities that did not benefit the people.

In your opinion who is the best Republican president?

New - Congress poll - Texas 34

🔴 Flores 44%
🔵 Gonzalez (Inc) 41%

Ranger R (🔴) - LV - 6/16 pic.twitter.com/NMTwFbhBPx

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) July 5, 2026

Lincoln - in my mind, he's the greatest president in US history. Then Washington, then Reagan.

FLBear5630 said:

---

This is what is funny, you are yelling at clouds. Hell, TDS???? That is a Bannon phrase to discredit anyone that objects. It doesn't exist... Keep believing, it is what you are good at.

---

You know your lack of intellect to defend your moronic statements reveals to everyone you're a ******. Oh wait ... of course you cannot figure that out because you're a ******.

Surely you TDS idiots can find one among you're ****** club that can articulate anything much less complex policy.

historian said:

---

Lincoln - in my mind, he's the greatest president in US history. Then Washington, then Reagan.

---

Washington was a Republican?

historian said:

---

Rush Limbaugh once said that JFK is the last Dem president who was a genuine American patriot. He was correct. All of the Dems since then, and arguably some Republicans had priorities that did not benefit the people.

---

Good riddance of Limbaugh. He certainly played a part in the current callousness.

Complex policy? Yeah, you have a good grasp TDS? Intellectual laziness.
F-ing clown.

Back on ignore for you wth the rest of the idiots.

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian said:

---

Lincoln - in my mind, he's the greatest president in US history. Then Washington, then Reagan.

---

Washington was a Republican?

---

No, he was a Federalist which disappeared in the es to ly 19th century. It was replaced by the Whigs which disappeared and replaced by the Republican Party.

Fun fact: the GOP was established in 1856 expressly as an anti-slavery party (not the first) while the Dems have always been pro-slavery. That's true today since it's the home of socialists of different stripes and socialism is slavery.

We should never forget that the Dems allowed sex trafficking under Biden, often blatantly helping the traffickers bring in hundreds of thousands of children. Thankfully, the Trump administration has found many of those young children. Many more are still out there and the Dems are fighting all efforts to find and deport the criminals responsible for these crimes. They want to abolish ICE, for example.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

True that... It definitely is not JFK's Democratic Party.

---

That's why I really do not understand you TDSers ... Trump is basically a traditional Democrat, and the Democrat Party has become radically extreme. I guess that is why TDSers struggle to really specifically outline their objections other than MEAN TWEETS!

---

You guys keep attributing the issues many have with Donald as a Party or Platform issue, it isn't. Almost all of us voted for him multiple times over the Dems.

The issue is he wants to change the basis of our government structure to benefit him. Too many want him to succeed because they either hate the Dems (I assume you fall in this category) or are making a ton of money on his grifts and changes (I assume WR as a CEO falls into this category). Either way, what they are doing with Musk and DOGE, Tariffs, Israel, Venezuela, Iran, etc... He is operating as a King. He talks like he is a King and the sole approval authority.

If nobody stands up it will get worse.

This is not the first term Trump Administraton, Kelly was right. My dislike and distrust has nothing to do with the Platform or agreeing with the Dems. The Dems are a non-issue in this...

---

You comments remind me of a dilemma I was in as a young man: I was a staunch Nixon guy, I saw in him a grasp of foreigh policy that was several levels above other politicians of the time. I defended him against the allegations against him. Years later, I came to realize--like Kissinger's analysis of him-- that you can admire a lot of qualities in someone who may agree with many of your core positions, yet find there is something missing in the person you admire, a serious flaw that may lead to destruction, or that may present a greater danger in spite of his talents. For Nixon, his paranoia led him to moves outside the rule of law that destroyed him. For Trump, his narcissism eats away at him, and defines him more than any position or policy.

TWD 1974 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

True that... It definitely is not JFK's Democratic Party.

---

That's why I really do not understand you TDSers ... Trump is basically a traditional Democrat, and the Democrat Party has become radically extreme. I guess that is why TDSers struggle to really specifically outline their objections other than MEAN TWEETS!

---

You guys keep attributing the issues many have with Donald as a Party or Platform issue, it isn't. Almost all of us voted for him multiple times over the Dems.

The issue is he wants to change the basis of our government structure to benefit him. Too many want him to succeed because they either hate the Dems (I assume you fall in this category) or are making a ton of money on his grifts and changes (I assume WR as a CEO falls into this category). Either way, what they are doing with Musk and DOGE, Tariffs, Israel, Venezuela, Iran, etc... He is operating as a King. He talks like he is a King and the sole approval authority.

If nobody stands up it will get worse.

This is not the first term Trump Administraton, Kelly was right. My dislike and distrust has nothing to do with the Platform or agreeing with the Dems. The Dems are a non-issue in this...

---

You comments remind me of a dilemma I was in as a young man: I was a staunch Nixon guy, I saw in him a grasp of foreigh policy that was several levels above other politicians of the time. I defended him against the allegations against him. Years later, I came to realize--like Kissinger's analysis of him-- that you can admire a lot of qualities in someone who may agree with many of your core positions, yet find there is something missing in the person you admire, a serious flaw that may lead to destruction, or that may present a greater danger in spite of his talents. For Nixon, his paranoia led him to moves outside the rule of law that destroyed him. For Trump, his narcissism eats away at him, and defines him more than any position or policy.

---

We are in the same boat.

I voted for him three times, the alternatives were just worse. I knew of Trump from growing up in NY, he was not someone you wanted in charge of your life.

I get called a Liberal, which i get growing up in NY Hell, my Dad (1st Republican in my family of railroad workers and merchant mariners) and Mom campaigned for Nelson Rockerfeller. So, considering the Deep South Texas view, Rockerfeller/Eisenhower Republicans would be Democrats...

BUDOS asked you who was the greatest Republican President, to which you replied 'Washington'.

So I take it your three were your all-party top 3?

BUDOS said:

---

In your opinion who is the best Republican president?

---

Modern?

1 - Eisenhower
2 - Roosevelt (start of Modern Era in my opinion)

Overall

1- Lincoln (Father of the Party)

FLBear5630 said:

---

Complex policy? Yeah, you have a good grasp TDS? Intellectual laziness.
F-ing clown.

Back on ignore for you wth the rest of the idiots.

---

ignore is for those you cannot intellectually hang with. You and the other Jew Haters keep it on speed dial.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

In your opinion who is the best Republican president?

---

Modern?

1 - Eisenhower
2 - Roosevelt (start of Modern Era in my opinion)

Overall

1- Lincoln (Father of the Party)

---

One could argue that LBJ accomplished more for the Republican party than any Republican President. By his own admission, his Civil Rights and the Voting Right's Acts would deliver the southern states into Republican hands for multiple generations.

No, just for people like you. Intellectual, sorry had to stop laughing...

FLBear5630 said:

---

No, just for people like you. Intellectual, sorry had to stop laughing...

---

Yelling at clouds and hating Jews is no way to go through life.

historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian said:

---

Lincoln - in my mind, he's the greatest president in US history. Then Washington, then Reagan.

---

Washington was a Republican?

---

No, he was a Federalist which disappeared in the es to ly 19th century. It was replaced by the Whigs which disappeared and replaced by the Republican Party.

Fun fact: the GOP was established in 1856 expressly as an anti-slavery party (not the first) while the Dems have always been pro-slavery. That's true today since it's the home of socialists of different stripes and socialism is slavery.

We should never forget that the Dems allowed sex trafficking under Biden, often blatantly helping the traffickers bring in hundreds of thousands of children. Thankfully, the Trump administration has found many of those young children. Many more are still out there and the Dems are fighting all efforts to find and deport the criminals responsible for these crimes. They want to abolish ICE, for example.

---

Speaking of finding children and who is responsible for finding them or losing them may depend upon where you choose to look, as noted below:

Evidence shows that Trump's immigration policiesespecially the 20172018 "zerotolerance" family separation policywere directly responsible for thousands of children being taken from their parents, and for many of them becoming "lost" because the government failed to track them.

1. Thousands of children were separated by design
Trump's "zerotolerance" policy required criminal prosecution of all adults crossing the border, which automatically triggered separation from their childreneven infants.

• More than 5,500 children were separated during the first Trump administration.
• Some families seeking asylum legally at ports of entry were also separated.

2. The government did not keep a list of the separated children
This is the core reason so many children became "lost."

• The Office of Refugee Resettlement was ordered not to maintain a list linking children to parents.
• There was no centralized database connecting children to their parents.
• As a result, even after the policy ended, officials could not figure out which child belonged to which parent.

3. Many children remain unreunited years later
A 2024 Human Rights Watch/Yale report found:

• About 4,600 children were separated during Trump's first term.
• Over 1,300 remain unreunitednearly 30% of the total.

4. Separations continued even after the policy officially ended
Even after June 2018, when Trump signed an order ending the policy, separations continued:

• At least 1,100 families were separated between mid2018 and the end of 2019.

5. New forms of family separation have emerged
In Trump's current term, mass deportation efforts are again dividing families:

• Parents are detained or deported while children remain in the U.S.
• Some children are reclassified as "unaccompanied minors," placed in shelters or foster care.

Trump's policies responsible for children being lost because the policies intentionally separated families and failed to track the children. The "lost children" problem was not an accident of scale; it was a systemic failure created by:

• deliberate separation,
• lack of recordkeeping,
• lack of reunification planning, and
• continued enforcement practices that split families again.

This is why thousands of children were separated, and why hundreds to more than a thousand remain unreunited today.
Across all these independent and government sources, the findings are consistent:
[ol]

Family separation was intentional policy.

The government did not create a system to track separated children.

Thousands of children were separated.

Hundreds to more than a thousand remain unreunited.

The "lost children" problem was caused by recordkeeping failures, not by children running away.

[/ol]
These conclusions come from official government watchdogs, federal courts, and independent investigationsthe most dependable documentation available.