So the news of the Bears moving was overhyped. Perhaps a deep ploy to get Jabba moving.
Happy Hour
- Thread starter ILisBest
- Start date
I just searched and didn't find something on an Illinois counter offer - but it is like 2 teams bidding on a free agent, Illinois will either counter or fold. Apparently Indiana has offered to set up a stadium authority that can issue bonds that get repaid thru taxes. One site said it would be worth more than $1 billion and the Bears get to keep all the revenues. The Bears say they are putting in $2 billion.
The New York Jets play in New Jersey ...
The state of Illinois is screwed for the foreseeable future. Bad government, pill pushers run amok, and little hope in sight.
Bears would be smart to take a lesser deal in Indiana than a long term deal in Illinois. Even better, they will get a better deal in a better state.
Last edited:
The problem with NWI will be where. Are there enough hotels, etc. Nobody wants to have an overnight in Gary.
Lock up the 2 percent, deport the illegals and crime goes way down.
It is determined on a state basis. 12 states do not have such laws and all are blue with the exception of Iowa. Facts matter.
Zero problems at all to be honest. When the Super Bowl is in Glendale, AZ (NW side of Phoenix) everyone who visits stays in Scottsdale (East side of Phoenix). It's maybe a 30–40-minute drive from there to the stadium.
I strongly suspect people visiting for the game will mostly stay in the Chicago area since there is much more to do.
Well, she will have plenty of time to ponder the question she asks. It sucks that universities get away with this crap.
GDP growth rate in Q4:1.4% lol. For the year, growth of about 2.25%, which is down from 2.7% in Old Joe's last year in charge.
I was wrong about the level of impact of the tariffs (I projected growth of 1-1.5% for the year and improvement in 2026), but I was not wrong that tariffs would have a negative economic impact (the economy should have improved from 2024 considering the boon in AI-related capital investment, but instead saw moderately lower growth).
AND THE TARIFFS GOT STRUCK DOWN TODAY!!! GREAT JOB BY ROBERTS, GORSUCH, BARRETT AND THE REAL ORIGINALISTS TODAY!
I was wrong about the level of impact of the tariffs (I projected growth of 1-1.5% for the year and improvement in 2026), but I was not wrong that tariffs would have a negative economic impact (the economy should have improved from 2024 considering the boon in AI-related capital investment, but instead saw moderately lower growth).
AND THE TARIFFS GOT STRUCK DOWN TODAY!!! GREAT JOB BY ROBERTS, GORSUCH, BARRETT AND THE REAL ORIGINALISTS TODAY!
Last edited:
Awesome to see the grand Dtrain reveal and coming out party! He loves a bigger GDP based on more government spending and doesn't agree with the true originalist and great minds in Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh who were scathing in their criticism.
And while you celebrate 1.4, note that it would be 2 points higher without the shutdown. It may also be higher with more cheap labor which is being evicted. Pretty awesome that there is growth without the government driving it. Not a great day for the country, but zero regrets on my vote.
And we still won't forget your GOD-awful Liberation Day predictions - runaway inflation and a tanking stock market. Both EPIC fails.
It’s time to pass laws making judges responsible for their decisions, notwithstanding what happens to the criminal once in prison. Currently, these judges aren’t even held to the standards of the local bartender.
I never predicted runaway inflation, and I bought stock after the sell off (which you knew). I predicted slower economic growth. I overshot the mark, but I do think the evidence is that tariffs did depress growth. Tariffs have a one-time inflationary impact, which means the timing was less than ideal, but long-term inflation isn't that great of an argument against tariffs.
Good news for Trump, tho. The Supreme Court just gave him an out on the tariffs, he should take it.
Government spending was likely higher in 2025 than 2024. We have less government employees (which is good). The overwhelming majority of government spending has zilch to do with the number of employees in the federal government.
Thomas was against it. He is as originalist as it gets. No caps necessary for my post.
Thomas is a partisan hack, he is not an originalist when it's not convenient for the GOP. Now he's a great originalist when it conforms to right wing political preferences (which is most of the time, just not here).
Gorsuch is an originalist whether it's convenient for the GOP or not. That's an actual originalist.
You thinking you have some idea of judicial ideologies is really something, but this thread is really something on a regular basis.
Like I posted in the December thread, the wine industry is in serious trouble.
Why do I see the quote "legal expert Jonathan Turley" every time I see a hack right wing legal take? And exactly why do you support a widespread tariff regime other than "Trump"?
Yes, Trump will be able to impose some tariffs. But the willy nilly 50% on countries that offended me crap is much harder now. Targeted tariffs via much more complex administrative processes are still available. but it requires much more work and many more supporting facts other than "Trump's feelings."
Russia has been shown to be more in the "paper tiger" lane as they struggle to take over little Ukraine. Other than them being a nuclear nation run by a psycho killer, they are not the big threat they used to be.
China is the true enemy of the US imo. The US was too heavily reliant on China. The tariffs have forced the US to do more business with other countries that are not near the threat or even a threat at all.
They were intended to push more business creation into the US to hopefully reduce trade deficits and create more private sector jobs.
I feel it created a large account of dollars for the US that other countries helped to fund.
I can find you plenty people with that credential. What is really constitutes is a TV mouthpiece, no different than the “experts” on the left.
I am well-read on SCOTUS. You have an opinion. You can have yours. There is plenty of knowledgeable people who disagree with your take. Spare me your BS personal attack.