- Bouie calls for outright Democrat defiance of the Virginia Supreme Court decision striking down a wildly dishonest and unethical attempt to wipe out Republican Congress members in an evenly divided state.
- He lies about the reasons for the Trump-led push to counter already locked-in Democratic gerrymanders in Democratic states. (I’ve posted that list of all the New England states, Hawaii and Delaware showing zero Republican representatives too many times already.)
- He pretends the referendum the court struck down was genuinely approved by the public. “The voice of the people” narrative the Left has adopted for this episode is even more dishonest than usual. I voted in the disputed election. I read what I was voting on. The language did not explain that the proposed provision would result in wiping out Republican districts; it said it would “restore fairness.” That was a lie. The election was an attempt to deceive the public. Even if the Virginia legislature had followed the law, that deceitful language alone made the election nothing but a scam perpetrated on Virginia voters.
- Bouie lies again, claiming the 4-3 decision was decided “on partisan lines.” As many have noted, Democrats are trying to obscure the fact that the author of the majority opinion was appointed by a Democrat.
- “Key Virginia Democrats quickly acquiesced to the decision,” Jamelle writes. ” Don Scott, the speaker of the House of Delegates, said, ‘We respect the decision of the Supreme Court,’ while Gov. Abigail Spanberger said that she was ‘disappointed’ but didn’t challenge the ruling or the court’s authority.” Then he says it is a mistake not to challenge the decision, even though the Virginia Supreme Court is the final word on such matters.
- He argues that the court’s decision that an election has begun when people are already voting is absurd. What is absurd is that voting isn’t automatically regarded as the beginning of an election. In this case, Virginians had cast many votes for a provision before it had been approved by the legislature. How can such votes be considered legitimate? This is like having voters choose among candidates who haven’t been nominated yet.
Taken as a whole, the entire opinion piece is misleading, dishonest, biased, and hypocritical: Bouie would be howling if President Trump openly defied one of the partisan, activist Federal judges who have repeatedly exceeded their authority to block his policies. Amusingly, Jamelle writes in his profile that he strives “for honesty, fairness and good faith in my writing.” He adds, “I am scrupulous about the facts and try as much as I can to avoid idle speculation.” His latest effort proves that his profile is also a lie.
If the Times had principles, standards and integrity, it would refuse to publish Bouie’s swill, and fire him for being an unethical hack.
But if the Times didn’t want unethical hacks, it wouldn’t have hired him in the first place.
Ethics Alarms 
This feels less… I don’t know…. fraught? Than usual. I don’t know the word. I don’t think it’s a particularly good sign for the discourse that I’m sick of hearing about the midterms and it’s only the beginning of May. It also doesn’t feel like the stakes are as high as they used to be, I mean, I’m old enough to remember when the Dems wanted President Autopen to stack SCOTUS. I don’t know whether it’s a matter of political exhaustion (on my part or on the part of the electorate as a whole) or my growing personal disillusionment with the Trump administration (his second term has been so much worse than his first), but I just can’t get overly excited by some good old fashioned gerrymandering, and it doesn’t feel like the public at large are either.
Don’t get me wrong, the Dems are way over their skis on section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and now they won’t be able to force the corralling of black people into geographically tortured vote plantations so they can squeeze a seat or two out of areas where they wouldn’t get any with the normal vote distribution… But they were just handed a loss and they’re not exactly famous for taking judicial losses well, and a win is a win.
I just wish that I had something to be excited for, and not just this annoyed apathy waiting to see which asshole shits on what next.
I’d love to read an objective analysis of how Trump II is “worse” than Trump I. The sweep out of illegal immigrants and the crushing of the DEI discrimination and the final nail approaching the climate change grift coffin…all by themselves make this a top 50% Presidency, and add to that finally dealing with Iran…I really don’t know how you reach that conclusion, but I’d be eager to read it. Yeah, Trump has been more obnoxious this time, but that’s mostly style, not substance, and it has made the Democrats so crazy that the essential corruption of the party is becoming clear.
I’ve thought about putting some time into writing one. The problem is that if someone is dead set on cheerleading for him, you can do exactly what you just did and focus the good while ignoring the myriad of self-defeating own goals his administration seems addicted to.
The biggest one has got to be his fiscal policy this time around. It’s indefensible. Trump I was brilliant, he updated the tax system to avoid inversions, and he negotiated CUSMA. Trump II has extracted 300 billion dollars in tariffs from American ratepayers and has seen nothing for it…. The increase in capital investment in America is less than what he has extracted with the tariffs. He has tariffed things that America cannot domestically produce, and that has increased costs, mostly on food, during a cost of living crisis. He has favored America’s geopolitical enemies, notably Russia, in his tariff scheme. Even things that make sense theoretically were so ham-fistedly rolled out, they end up binned… I’m thinking about DOGE in particular.
Trump’s control of foreign relations have also been worse, he’s been unable to do anything with Russia/Ukraine, and frankly… I don’t think what happened in Iran is really that great. My read on it was that he got pressured into the attack by Israel and grossly misread the international room, because no one had his back. I’m old enough to remember all the bitching about “NATO allies” not living up to their obligations, even though NATO is a defensive alliance and there is no obligation to join in an offensive action… Which, by the way, is the newest example in the succession of broken campaign promises: No New Wars. Or are we pretending that America isn’t at war with Iran right now?
And then there’s an entire Festivus’ worth of small, weird items. Like the executive order(s) allowing the Chinese spy app that is TikTok to operate in the US, despite the congressional ban, or the million dollar Gold Card Visa, or the establishment of the BitCoin reserve, and the promotion of his own ShitCoins. Trump I was chaotic because he had to deal with all the attacks coming from all quarters, and he had thin skin Trump II is chaotic because he is doing a lot of chaotic things.
Honestly… Part of what I think is happening is that Trump is fading. His age has finally caught up with him, it’s not nearly as bad as Joe, but he just isn’t able to manage like he used to. I don’t think he has a grasp on the specifics of everything he’s trying to do, and still isn’t good at hiring uniformly good people… For every Rubio, there’s a Noem. He’s given a lot of people marching orders, told them to be fearless, and they are going full bore, sometimes in deeply unproductive directions.
The way I judge Presidents is measuring the good stuff against the bad stuff. The President just doesn’t have that much control over inflation and job creation, or unemployment for that matter. Shrinking the federal workforce is good stuff. Killing the Department of Education is good stuff. The items I mentioned are all good, from Trump’s own agenda. Getting NATO to pick up more of the costs, showing China et al that when a nation threatens another, the US response will be more than “Don’t.” The economy? Trump II started with crap, and the Democrats blame him for not fixing their mess. That may be a good way to attract dumb votes, but it’s not legitimate criticism. Yes, it’s not hard to look better than the Worst President Ever, his predecessor. It amazes me how many people can’t even admit that.
And Trump screwed up horribly by starting this war. This man’s analysis paints a tragic picture. I give Jaing 70% probability that his analysis is right. The consequences are enormous.
This isn’t really a reply to any topic at hand, but a general question on commenting. Am I off base to desire that when people have an argument, they actually write it out, and not simply refer to an essay or video? There’s a part of me that says, “Don’t be lazy and do the footwork yourself.” There’s another part of me that argues back, saying, “There’s only so much time in the day, and watching a 30 minute video that could have been summarized in a few bullet points does make any high priority.” I know I end up not responding to most comments that are of the nature “What do you think of this? <Link?” or “Watch this video. This person makes great points!”
I discourage that approach. It is an appeal to authority, and packaged arguments are seldom trustworthy.
I’m also pretty sure that the video is AI generated.
It is an AI creation using an essay written by Jiang. More and more common on the Internet. But it is 100% Jiang’s analysis.
AI has made all video dubious, don’t you think?
Here is what Google AI has to say: “Jiang Xueqin (born 1976), known online as “Professor Jiang” or “China’s Nostradamus,” is a Chinese-Canadian educator, commentator, and YouTuber based in Beijing. He gained prominence in 2024–2026 for his YouTube channel “Predictive History,” where he uses historical analysis and game theory to forecast global affairs.“
In other words, everything professor Jiang says is straight-up Chinese propaganda.
Jiang argues that this provoked war on Iran was largely directed by Israel. And by way of super-wealthy American Jewish Zionists. The war is turning, has turned, into a trap and no decent escape is possible. This view is quite common, and definitely is developing among the Right.
Israel is using the USA and doesn’t care that much about the damage that will be done to the US since Israel’s object is Greater Israel (and the survival of the Jewish ethno-state). Jiang predicts: overall loss, bad financial repercussions, more division and unrest in the US as a result, and general damage to America’s standing which may also result in damage to the petrodollar system.
Absolutely foolish and abrasive video. America has declined by getting the reputation of being afraid to stand up against dangerous adversaries and lazy allies refusing to spend the treasure to protect themselves. You know what would be a terrible mistake? Allowing Iran to send a nuclear missile into Israel or New York. Not making Iran pay dearly for interfering with passage through the Straight. Not crushing the government and military flat and ending the theocracy for good.
Yeah, but none of the good stuff is predicated on the bad. Nothing external caused Trump’s current fiscal policy. You could in theory have every good policy Trump is rolling out without any of the batshittery.
And it’s going to get worse, some of Trump’s most egregious tariffs are on crop inputs. Well, the inputs are bought, the crop is going in now, it’s going to come off in October, it’s going to get processed over fiscal 2027, and the products are going to make it to market somewhere between Q3 of 2027 and Q2 of 2028. He has guaranteed food inflation for his entire presidency.
No one made him do that.
That’s 100% true of the President, and I think it’s 100% intentional by the President, precisely to elicit the reactions from Democrats that he’s getting. They’re playing right into his hands. I don’t like the spectacle and we’re a LONG ways from the days of Reagan – the classiest President of my lifetime. But if I may be somewhat crass, there needed to be President that was a big enough jerk to give back to the Democrats what they’ve been dishing out and expose their totalitarian agendas, and President Trump is more than willing to be that jerk.
The GOP won’t win every election – heck, they may not win another one ever – but I doubt we’ll have any more GOP Presidential candidates that simply roll over when the other side tears into them. For all his faults, President Trump has a fighting spirit and a vicious tenacity that every GOP candidate should emulate.
Add to Jack’s comment:
So perhaps you can be a little excited that despite the MSM biased coverage, the economy is actually doing quite well under President Trump.
All three of these are actually kind of bad, seeing as the rate of inflation was 3.5% in Q1. There was a real decrease in GDP, a real decrease in personal incomes, and people are actually buying less things, they’re just spending more on the things they’re buying.
4% of what? a 4% increase? That’s actually closer to 6% and driven almost entirely by tech companies gobbling up resources to support AI Fully 80% of the gains in the stock market aggregators were had by 5 tech companies. Real people aren’t feeling that.
This is just straight up fiction… Imports increased by 2.5% and Exports increased by 1.5% in Q1, and that’s continued a trend that started with Trump’s tariff announcement: Your trade deficit has steadily gotten larger.
“Moderation” from the Biden era, sure, but Trump hasn’t seen a quarter less than 2% yet.
It’s weird… Because you’re right, but the labor participation rate is going down, and the actual number of FTEs went down. It feels like there’s this market wide skills mismatch, where the jobs exist for people with highly specialized education that the average person doesn’t have. Might be why Trump’s administration waffled on H1Bs.
Right…. But in 2022, gas prices increased to like .20 cents more than they are now because Russia invaded Ukraine. In 2026, gas prices increased to where they are now because America invaded Iran. Arguments could be made that Biden’s weakness indirectly allowed Putin to act, but the current price problems are directly attributable to Trump.
Trump supporters are perilously close to engaging in what I derisively called “line go up” politics when Democrats were trying to sell Biden’s economy. The idea is that proponents will line up to point at the indicators most favorable to their position, regardless of what the actual situation is.
The most common was to point out that the DOW was up… Which isn’t nothing, but most people don’t have a diversified portfolio as their subsistence income, it comes off tinny, and out of touch: The inflation rate is in the double digits, but stonk market line goes up!
The metrics that can be universally relied on to actually demonstrate the health of the financial situation for the average American are things like the mortgage foreclosure rate, and the credit card utilization rate. Because who cares if the DOW goes up if you’ve lost your home and are on the cusp of bankruptcy?
On that… U.S. foreclosure filings hit a six-year high in Q1 2026, with 118,727 properties entering foreclosure, a 26% year-over-year increase, and credit card balances rose by $44 billion in Q4 of 2025 and stood at $1.28 trillion. We don’t have Q1 data yet, but estimates are about another 70 billion got added. 32% of American adults have maxed out credit cards and 23% of American adults have more than $20,000 on a credit card as of March 2026.
Neither is a turnip, what’s your point?
Actually, Joe Biden was kind of a turnip….
I do think the GDP and inflation numbers are not great, but I do not see any reason for drama and panic. The numbers for Canada and Germany are a bit lower on both counts; Germany has a GDP growth of 0.5 and an inflation rate of 2.9.
As the administrations of Germany and Canada are more liberal I do not think we can point to any administration policy as the main driver of these numbers.
On tariffs I tend to agree with you; there is not sound economic basis for tariffs as they are basically a tax on the economy; Trump’s approach to tariffs have created a lot of uncertainty that will keep investors on edge or on the sidelines as investors like predictability and certainty.
The national debt is a factor, but that is a decade old problem that no party wants to fix.
In response to my post up ⬆️ above:
Absolutely foolish and abrasive video. America has declined by getting the reputation of being afraid to stand up against dangerous adversaries and lazy allies refusing to spend the treasure to protect themselves. You know what would be a terrible mistake? Allowing Iran to send a nuclear missile into Israel or New York. Not making Iran pay dearly for interfering with passage through the Straight. Not crushing the government and military flat and ending the theocracy for good.
That is a comment about a sensible, historical perspective that is not at all foolish. He may be wrong (I put that at 20-30% possibility). But it is already playing out as he predicts. So: strong evidence.
Once in, once America committed so arrogantly (at the worst moment to do so) I agree: there is no way out but 1) escalate 100 times more, or 2) retreat.
I don’t know how you reach that conclusion. The US has suffered negligible casualties and its adversary has been crunched. Almost all of the objectives of the war have been achieved.Britt Hume (full disclosure: his brilliant, novelist daughter is an old friend) wrote yesterday, “The US mission in Iran is being judged by a standard in which only complete capitulation is victory for the US but mere survival is victory for Iran. This is nonsense…” BINGO.
I don’t know how you reach that conclusion. The US has suffered negligible casualties and its adversary has been crunched.
Very simple: watching and reading many different people with background in these areas. I get the impression that you do not do much investigation.
You are making a classic error! You think that victory, in this case, depends on military destruction or vast military power. In this case, it doesn’t. The US is frozen tight now. It can’t act. It can’t go forward, it can’t back out.
Yes, those experts are partisan Trump-haters who would condemn anything he has a part in, and others who want Israel fried.
Of course it can “go forward.” It can proceed to level the country until the nuclear threat is eliminated and the leadership is decimated. Then the people of Iran will either decide to do something and overthrow the regime, or won’t, in which case they deserve what they get. “Many different people with backgrounds in these areas” have neither the information or the resources to know what they are talking about. I’m sure they are some of the same people who thought sending billions to Iran for a promise that couldn’t be enforced was brilliant, and letting the country kill hundreds of Americans (I am involved in the Marine Barracks lawsuits) without a military response was hunk-dory. It’s not.
The issue is ethics. Is it ethical for the one nation that can to take out an international evil-doer? Absolutely. I’m sorry John Lennon wouldn’t approve.
Yes, those experts are partisan Trump-haters who would condemn anything he has a part in, and others who want Israel fried.
The way you have this set up is bizarre! You allow no criticism of policy choices by Trump because, apparently, that is TDS. So anyone, even those who supported and voted for him, who now see problems with his actions, got bit by the dreadful TDS insect. It does not matter in this analysis of yours that Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer (and Greenwald) are each Jewish. You assume they “hate” Trump and therefore their analysis of his tactics and strategies are 100% motivated by that irrational hate.
The rest of what you wrote is not worthy of the time to comment on it. Again, if I could suggest something it would be to read Mearsheimer and Sachs and Greenwald. They make arguments that can be considered rationally.
Your opinions (seem to me) completely old-school Neocon. A very destructive movement in American politics. And ethically extremely questionable.