Roundup
(1) Schumer’s answer, when asked why Democrats didn’t stand when Trump said to stand if they believe that “The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens,” was: “Of course we support Americans; we’re not going to be a prop in Donald Trump’s little show.”
Chuck Schumer says Democrats didn't stand when President Trump said our government should work for Americans, not illegals because he didn't want to be a "prop."
Democrats have made it clear: they do not care about the American people.? pic.twitter.com/tLcmycJnmO
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 25, 2026
Ah, but the Democrats love to put on their own “little shows” – wearing all white, dramatically ripping up the SOTU address, yelling at Trump, boycotting the address. The other irony is that, by refusing to stand, they guaranteed that they would earn a place as the villains in “Trump’s little show.”
(2) J. D. Vance makes this observation about the Democrats’ repeated refusal to stand during the speech:
But I will say, Bill, something that I saw that probably most TV viewers didn’t see was really the cowardice, because there were a few Democrats who sort of politely clapped. They didn’t want to stand up. I guess maybe they were worried about being primaried by the far-left fringe of their party. But they were all looking around. They weren’t actually saying, you know what, I’m going to stand and support this because this is a common-sense, obvious statement. They were all looking around for cues from their colleagues, because they didn’t have the courage to stand on their own.
I don’t doubt it. You can call it “party discipline,” but it’s actually quite chilling.
(3) Dueling Trump impersonators:
I prefer Kozak, although they’re both good. Kozak’s Tucker is astounding, though, and even more so if you’re really familiar with Carlson’s mannerisms. It seems like an exaggeration but it resembles the real Carlson quite closely.
(4) Wine seems to be losing popularity:
Jon Phillips, the owner of Sonoma County winery Inspiration Vineyards and Winery, told The Post that the population decline of the industry’s top wine-consuming generation has led to a recent downturn in sales.
“A lot of people have a misconception that the Boomers are drinking less,” he said. “This cannot be emphasized enough: it’s not because the Boomers are drinking less, it’s because there are less Boomers.”
That would be fewer Boomers, not less. But you get the idea. As a non-drinker, I know next to nothing about this. Looking it up just now, I find the following:
The 2025 sample included nearly 5,000 U.S. adults over the age of 21, balanced to the U.S. census for age, income, education, gender, and ethnicity. It found that 31% of wine drinkers are now Millennials, surpassing Baby Boomers at 26%, whose share has dropped significantly from 32% in 2023. Gen Z’s share also climbed from 9% to 14%, despite only half the cohort currently being of legal drinking age.
“These findings show both opportunities and challenges,” said Liz Thach, President of the Wine Market Council, who presented the results alongside Research Director Christian Miller during a recent webinar for WMC members. “We’ve seen gains among Millennials and Gen Z; however, the industry is concurrently experiencing a decline in overall wine consumers.”
“What is interesting about this change is that despite all the talk about young consumers reducing alcohol, the largest erosion we found was in Baby Boomers – consumers over 60 years of age,” stated Christian Miller.
So again, is it because there are fewer Boomers around? It’s not clear. However, it’s part of an overall decline in alcohol consumption, with “beer, spirits, and wine sales all experiencing declines in the past year.” Is that because cannabis consumption is up? That’s my guess. And it appears to be a distinct possibility.
(5) Thune says the SAVE Act will come to the Senate floor. That does not mean it will pass; there aren’t enough GOP votes to go with the nuclear option or impose a talking filibuster, as far as I can see.
Schumer’s response is incredibly stupid when you realize that them sitting made them the best possible props Trump could have asked for.
A family from my Church recently moved to France because…..Trump. They were perfect illustrations of the mental illness that afflict liberals/progressives. The husband works teaching viniculture (Winemaking) at a college. They live in a very nice area of St. Joseph Michigan yet they are treated “like dogs” according to the wife. When Trump became President and the husband lost his teaching contract they decided to move to France. They do not like this country based on their comments. We are simply too American. With Adolf Trump as Prez they fled to France.
The contrast between their lifestyle and how they saw their plight is stark. Being European at heart Trumps contrast with European sensibilities drove them to Nantes. ‘Tis truly brain bending.
I don’t doubt it. You can call it “party discipline,” but it’s actually quite chilling.
(2) Cowardly or party discipline? Discipline in the face of what sort of disciplinary actions? The word cowardly is suggested in this section as a response to public opinion. But IMO the ‘c’ word works as a response to those disciplinary actions by the ‘D’ party. Whatever they are. I’m guessing they are substantial and severe. In that case, one could say those members are being smart too.
The analogous model for the Democrat party that I keep coming back to, is that of an organized crime syndicate. I think the model works here.
“The other irony is that, by refusing to stand, they guaranteed that they would earn a place as the villains in ‘Trump’s little show.’ ”
As I mentioned in a previous comment, that was the whole idea — President Trump set this up as a no-win situation for the Democrats. They couldn’t possibly stand based on the phrasing of his statements, but there was enough popular sentiment included in those statements that their not standing can be used against them.
#4
My wife and I love wine, especially reds. However, about 10 years ago we found that our stomachs did not like it as much so we’ve cut waay back. Whites are a bit better, but I do miss my cabernet, merlot, etc with dinner. Amazingly, I can have a predinner cocktail with no problem.
Tangential to 1 and 2, this one lefty i see has now repeatedly posted in the last few days how Trump is a child rapist. Just today she claims that he wants to attack Iran because they have videos of him actually raping children…I dont know how much more sick a person can get.
“Of course we support Americans; we’re not going to be a prop in Donald Trump’s little show.”
Their very inaction proved the falsehood of their claim. Had they stood & cheered for this and the other pro-American statements Trump made, they could have plausibly made the claim that it is just Trump, not America, that is the object of their hatred. It would be a false claim but a plausible one. But their recoil at all things American shows everyone where they stand.
Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s going to hurt them in the upcoming elections. A sizable fraction of Americans agree with their anti-Americanism.
#4 I gave up alcohol last year and I was a daily drinker–a cocktail and glass of wine enjoyed at home. Right before I turned 65 my metabolism changed and I have arthritis issues in my feet as well as bunions (genetic). Keeping my weight down is imperative, so goodbye alcohol and any sweets, and those I will eat on special occasions only. In one year I have only lost 5 pounds and that probably represents a calorie reduction of 1000 per week. So I can only imagine how much weight I would have added if not for the change.
We travel past the where the wine grapes are grown at least once per month. There had been a huge escalation in that crop over the years and now a lot are going fallow. We think many people being on prescription medicine of one type (of every age) or another may be responsible for the number of people that do not drink now.
Betsybounds:
If you do not like Trump who would you vote for?
TR, you’re trying to hard.
I like the Reds too. I have a Wine Refrigerator, holds maybe 80 bottles. I only have about 20 right now. It take me a week to drink a bottle though. Don’t open one every week.
I’m against this modern temperance movement though I only imbibe lightly once a month now. I wonder if Tolkien and Lewis’s works would have suffered if they had not discussed things over a pint.
Young people are smoking pot. It is hurting all alcohol sales.
In NE, the dopers claim that pot is safer than booze.
The idea that pot is safer than booze is highly questionable. Alcohol doesn’t carry the demonstrated risk of psychosis and schizophrenia even among casual users. Those who smoke the stuff are exposing their lungs to some serious damage.
Kate,
I totally agree, especially with the levels of THC as high (no pun intended) as they are are now compared back in the 60s. From my very brief experience back as a freshman in 1970, I couldn’t understand how physically I felt good 2-3 days after but doing my physics and math homework was very difficult. Only much later I learned, that unlike alcohol which is fairly rapidly metabolized by the liver, THC takes up residence in fatty tissue which the brain has a lot. As such the half life is days, not hours. Given the potency of the current cannabis, even if one only indulges twice a week, one is mentally stoned constantly. The creation of the idiocracy continues.
Idiocracy as Soros intended and libertoonians encouraged.
I was asked in a security clearance interview (late ’80s, low level, not a Q) why I stopped infrequent smoking of pot. Easy I said, I could buy beer and it didn’t mess up my “wind” (I was a semi serious distance runner, faster than the average bear).
The GOP already has ads focusing upon the Democrats’ repeated refusal to stand during the SOTU speech.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/w_CeHMzBQfU
“Wine ?Is Allowed to Have Bad Chemicals (unlisted from label)”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5rWukBdEfE
Evidently this is common within the industry.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wine%2C+chemicals
Despite the lack of votes needed for passage, the SAVE Act should absolutely be brought to the floor for a vote. Then repeatedly run ads exposing the democrats’ refusal to ensure fair and legitimate elections. Link to a webpage listing every Representative and Senators vote.
Ads contrasting Va. Gov. Spanberger’s incessant promise to focus upon ‘affordability’ and what she and her democrat legislature are actually doing with 50+ new taxes. Nobody likes a liar.
Sharon W,
“In one year I have only lost 5 pounds and that probably represents a calorie reduction of 1000 per week.”
Many years ago, when diagnosed with diabetes I stopped consuming sugar. I switched to stevia (Sweetleaf brand) and allulose based sweeteners. Despite cutting out sugar based foods, about 2 yrs ago my A1C level had risen to 8.5. That was a wakeup for me, as I realized insulin injections awaited around the corner. So I made a lifestyle change to a low carb diet (not Keto). My A1C level is now down to 6.1 and I have gradually dropped down in weight from 216 to 188lbs.
Yes, I miss pasta, rice and potatoes but consider it worth it. Very occasionally like at Thanksgiving, I’ll treat myself to a small portion. I rarely consume liquor, though I love a good single malt scotch.
@Geoffrey Britain:Despite the lack of votes needed for passage, the SAVE Act should absolutely be brought to the floor for a vote. Then repeatedly run ads exposing the democrats’ refusal to ensure fair and legitimate elections.
They need to highlight the Republicans’ refusal as well. The GOP could find the 51 votes needed to set aside the filibuster to roll back California’s EV mandate last year, but they can’t be arsed to do that for this.
a calorie reduction of 1000 per week.
1000 calories per week is 52,000 calories in a year; divided by 3500 calories per pound is 15 pounds. I suspect there’s other factors in the diet not accounted for that would explain the missing 10 pounds.
Being off in a diet by 2000 calories a week is very easy to do, unless the recordkeeping is very rigorous and all the food eaten is known, weighed ingredients. 2000 calories sounds like a lot but over a week it’s one serving of French bread per day.
Not every one carries exactly 3500 calories in each pound of fat but even at 5000 it would be over 10 pounds.
the industry is concurrently experiencing a decline in overall wine consumers.”
Goody! Demand goes down, so does the price, for us surviving old geezers.
IS, I like the way you think!!
So Hillary never net Epstein, but had Maxwell at daughters wedding. And of course, Bill in that Devil In A Blue Dress pic. She tried to bring Trump in again. If Trump had anything to do with him, it would have come out with BO.
Schumer really is a slimy piece of work.
I’m trying to remember exactly how the SOTU turned into these shoutfests. I guess Reagan deserves some of the blame for being the first, IIRC, to invite people he was going to mention in the speech to attend. I suppose there have always been some passages that were more partisan than others in most of them but I don’t recall until recently the whole act of sitting in silence while the opposition cheers. That one excited utterance during one of Obama’s speeches, endlessly amplified by the DNC stenographers, seems to have been the permission structure the Democrats needed to let their inner toddler out. I may be partisan but I don’t recall the GOP members acting like that with Obama on purpose, or heckling Biden.
physicsguy, I’ve been seeing some comments recently there appears to have been a mentally disturbed woman who went to the FBI with a story that Trump abused her when she was a child, and somehow those interviews wound up covered by the Epstein release. I haven’t seen any details as to when she was interviewed or specifics of the accusation but considering the Biden DOJ potentially sat on it for four years I suspect they are pretty outlandish. The story going around now is those particular interviews were not released with the rest of the Epstein material.
@Kate: The idea that pot is safer than booze is highly questionable.
The number of deaths caused by tobacco and alcohol are very high. Here’s Chat’s summary, which is in line with what I’ve read before:
__________________________________
Tobacco/Alcohol/Marijuana Annual Death Comparison (approximate)
Cause U.S. Annual Deaths Global Annual Deaths
Tobacco (smoking & secondhand) ~480,000–490,000 ~7 million+
Alcohol (excessive use) ~178,000 (CDC estimate) ~2.6 million (WHO estimate)
Marijuana (direct overdose) Not significant/rare Not reliably <documented
__________________________________
I’m sure there are marijuana deaths due to driving accidents and lung cancer, but those numbers are not near the those of tobacco and alcohol by orders of magnitude.
Deaths are deaths. As serious as it gets. It’s difficult to measure the deaths due to marijuana. No question at all for tobacco and alcohol and those are in the hundreds of thousands per year for the US.
As to psychosis and schizophrenia. Those are unusual. It’s a long discussion.
Nonetheless, is it not better to have been mad or to remain somewhat mad compared to being dead?
@physicsguy: Given the potency of the current cannabis, even if one only indulges twice a week, one is mentally stoned constantly.
Not really. The first few years of marijuana use are glorious, even with the so-called inferior weed of yesteryear. But then tolerance sets in and one rarely gets that high again, even with the monster THC of these years.
The best one can do is to knock off for a few months or so, then the doors open wide. For a very short time.
I’ve been smoking marijuana daily since I was 18 except for the ten years when I was in the Tony Robbins Leadership program. I have no problem keeping up with the intelligence in this smart blog and even make my own contributions.
huxley:
You may be the exception that proves the rule.
Tabacco kills but doesn’t impair judgement, so there is that.
ethyl Alcohol does both.
I have no problem keeping up with the intelligence in this smart blog and even make my own contributions.
————————-
…. OK, who’s gonna tell him?
😀
Neo:
THANK YOU for pointing out FEWER rather than LESS boomers. That drives me to distraction!
huxley,
In my own anecdotal case, I was not high at all; that was gone by the next morning. However, it was very apparent that the higher level thinking I needed for dealing with complex math and physics was impaired. It returned a few days later. The “experiment” was repeated and the same results reproduced. The half life data and residency in fatty tissue is well-documented in many research journals. The implications of such are up to the user.
I grew up in a dry house because my mother’s mother was a drunk. Both she and my mother’s little sister drank themselves to death. I never had any alcohol until last year of HS. A couple of years ago my wife lost one of her BFFs to drink before she hit 50. Her last words to my wife at the intervention before she was taken to rehab were “I hate you and I will never give up alcohol.” Lady was rich from a rich family of drunks. It was too late and she died a couple of months later. The Husky marching band played at her service.
GB-I do watch the carbs, but with advancing age may have to enact greater restrictions. 4 years ago I started excising seed oils and they are so pervasive, though we do our own cooking and eat out infrequently–no fast food, it took about 2 years before I can say the only ones I ate was food eaten out or prepared for me by friends. My decision to excise alcohol and sugar was an effort to regain my health following 2 years of viral infections erupting (a new problem since Covid in 2020) and my weight concerns for the arthritis in my feet. This combination (no seed oils, no sugar, no alcohol) resulted in an amazing benefit–no cravings. I’ve watched my weight my entire life utilizing exercise and diet alone–eat the right things and less of them, but this has been a 1st. My husband enjoys wine with dinner and a square of dark chocolate after, things we used to enjoy together, but it doesn’t bother me at all. As of December I have knocked anything with “natural flavorings” off our list and as of January this year–citric acid, which though available naturally utilizing lemons, grapefruits and oranges–sadly is 99% commercially derived and I decided we don’t want it. Increasingly stabililzers are being added to foods I used to buy–example, heavy cream or ricotta–you really have to search to find the brand that doesn’t now have the additives. And of course you have to pay more. For me, it’s worth it and it matters.
huxley, you are clearly an exceptional person.
I’ve noticed that as boomers die, I see many more pre-owned Rolex watches on sale. I cruise a lot and they show up on ships and in jewelry stores throughout the Caribbean. Didn’t use to be that way and makes me wonder what might happen to my Rolex with I die.
Throw out those cheap thrills like Boone’s Farm, Ripple, T.J. Swan, Bartle’s & James wine coolers; your sales will sky rocket!
What percentage of crime has been, is being committed by immigrants?
Having written here before about government perverting statistics i.e.–if you don’t want to know, fear what the answer will be, just don’t collect the statistics, or collect them, but don’t release them, or if you do release them, fudge them–see the article below discussing how hard it is to arrive at what appears to be a reasonable estimate, when no one in authority has apparently been collecting the statistics which might be useful in answering the above question.*
* See https://pjmedia.com/scott-pinsker/2026/02/26/how-much-was-the-government-lying-about-the-illegal-immigrant-crime-wave-n4949983
Whether the slithery serpent Schumer realizes it or not, the whole lot of his venomous friends made themselves props in Trumps show.
P.S. Of course, another key statistic which the Obama-Biden Administrations have not been interested in collecting is just how many illegal immigrants they have let invade the U.S. and/or are currently here.
Kinda hard to estimate crime–or any other statistics for that matter–when you have no real idea of what the number of people in the population you are trying to evaluate might be.
Is that number ten million, twenty million, thirty million, or even more?
While I think generational preference, pot and other demographic factors comes into alcohol use decline, I think a big one is the change from “a glass of wine a day is good for your health” to “any amount of alcohol is bad for you”.
If you watch various documentaries on wine making, vintners all talk about how wine drinking took off in the early 80s with a 60 Minutes episode and follow-up press pieces on how the Mediterranean diet and moderate wine use is good for the heart. I remembering hearing how the alcohol “cleared out the plaque from the arteries in low doses). Middle age people back then (Boomers) flocked to wine drinking as basically a health drink that was also fun.
Today if you are even casually on social media there is now a steady drum beat that not only was the study wrong, but there is a consistent message that alcohol is poison in any amount and even a little is bad for you. This change, along with the dying out of the Boomers who took up wine drinking, is helping to a mass decline.
For me personally I was from a non-drinker as a young adult to a heavy drinker in my late 30s to 40s then hit some sort of metabolic wall in my late 40s where I couldn’t tolerate alcohol very much. Good for me as I am not sure I would have cut down on my own. I now only have an occasional craft beer or wine, which I think is the balance of enjoyment and health. But my low consumption is not helping the industry.
Did he seriously leave GenX out of his generations discussion? I’m flabbergasted.
— whatever
The trouble with the ‘it’s good for you’ idea is that a lot of the studies and stories that supported the idea turned out to be (big shock) funded by the booze industry.
I have absolutely no doubt that tiny amounts of ethanol have a few modest benefits for some people. The arteries/plaque thing was being noticed way before the 80s, but there was a hesitation about saying it aloud because the benefits (such as they were) would accrue from half a glass of wine with dinner every other day, or such like amounts, and many doctors knew that people would take it to mean ‘knock back a six pack, it’s good for you!’.
Then the industry got hold of it and hyped it.
As I said, I don’t doubt some minor benefits exist. I also don’t doubt that for most people the negatives outweigh them. No responsible doctor is going to recommend that a non-drinker start drinking for his or her health under most imaginable circumstances. We’ve known since almost forever that alcohol in substantial amounts is bad for you.
Sometimes, historically, the quality of water supplies was such that it was still safer to drink weak wine or weak beer instead. Some people might benefit more from the relaxation and pleasure they get from an occasional drink than the harm that comes from the negatives of it.
But the keyword is ‘occasional’ or ‘moderate’, and ‘moderate’ means very little, especially for women. One (1) small glass of wine with dinner. Not half a bottle, not a six pack, not drinking yourself into a coma, and even if you restrain yourself to that small amount, the benefits will be small and probably about cancel out with the harm. For a non-drinker, the best advice will always be ‘don’t start’.
Sometimes reality just won’t cooperate.