By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court has dealt a significant blow to the president’s signature economic policy, ruling that he overstepped his authority by imposing sweeping global tariffs without congressional approval. This decision, which found that 60 percent of Americans approve of the ruling, directly challenges the notion that these tariffs benefit the nation. In fact, a majority of citizens believe the president’s policies have made their lives more expensive, a sentiment echoed by businesses forced to pass on increased costs to consumers. The ruling and public sentiment surrounding affordability further complicate the president’s messaging on economic issues heading into crucial elections.
Read the original article here
The notion that Donald Trump is unconcerned with his poll numbers is, frankly, quite alarming, especially when coupled with his continued inclination towards protectionist trade policies. His recent announcement about raising global tariffs to a considerable 15% suggests a deliberate move away from seeking broad public approval, and this should be a cause for concern for everyone. This apparent disregard for his popularity implies a lack of intention to moderate his approach, raising questions about his future actions and motivations.
Some observations suggest that he isn’t concerned with his popularity, viewing his actions as a deliberate move in the opposite direction, particularly with the proposed tariff increases. This lack of concern about his standing should be a deeply worrying sign for the general populace, hinting at a strategy that doesn’t involve departing from the political scene anytime soon. The idea that he might be unconcerned about his popularity should be concerning to everyone else, suggesting a trajectory that is not necessarily aligned with the public good.
The assertion that he is unconcerned with his popularity is particularly telling when juxtaposed with the idea that most Americans are celebrating a recent Supreme Court ruling that, in essence, declared his tariff actions overstepped his authority. It’s a stark contrast: Trump, on one hand, is reportedly “whining” about the ruling, while on the other, a significant portion of the American public is reportedly in celebration. This disconnect highlights a fundamental divide in how different groups are perceiving these events.
The media’s frequent use of the word “devastating” in relation to poll numbers might be an oversimplification, but the situation at hand is indeed significant. The true devastation lies in the fact that such policies and actions persist, and the fact that he remains in office after each controversial decision. The lack of cohesive and forceful opposition from political figures is also a recurring point of frustration, suggesting a need for more proactive and visible campaigns to counter what are perceived as detrimental policies.
It’s interesting to note that the Supreme Court, comprised of conservative justices, including those personally nominated by Trump, ruled against his tariff authority. This decision, where justices like Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett sided against his actions, is seen by some as a testament to their commitment to the law over political loyalty. The very fact that his own appointees rebuked his tariff policy is seen as a strong indicator that his approach was legally questionable, and Trump’s reported reaction of calling them “an embarrassment to their families” further solidifies the perception that they did the right thing by upholding constitutional principles.
This judicial rebuke of Trump’s tariff policy is a significant event, with a YouGov poll indicating that a substantial 60% of Americans approved of the ruling. Furthermore, a high 66% of respondents believed that the tariffs had actually increased prices, underscoring a widespread perception that these policies were not beneficial to the average American consumer. The fact that a conservative court made this decision, with three justices being Trump’s own appointees, adds a layer of irony and highlights that even within his own chosen ranks, his authority was deemed overstepped.
Despite this significant Supreme Court ruling and widespread public disapproval of his tariff policies, Trump has, rather astonishingly, announced a new 10% global tariff. This move is viewed by many not only as a continuation of policies perceived as detrimental but also as a signal of his disregard for established legal and economic norms. The perception is that such actions are not aimed at benefiting the American people but rather serve other, less transparent objectives.
The narrative that Trump is unconcerned with polls is complicated. Some believe he likely doesn’t even see the current negative poll numbers, being fed curated information by loyalists who present him with outdated or fabricated data. This selective information diet, combined with his tendency to dismiss any news that contradicts his narrative as “fake news,” creates a bubble of distorted reality. This, in turn, fuels his continued actions, as he genuinely believes he has widespread support, even when evidence suggests otherwise.
The idea of his base remaining steadfast is a persistent theme, as is the observation that those who are not actively engaged with political discourse continue their disengagement. This creates a peculiar political equilibrium where poll numbers may fluctuate slightly but rarely undergo seismic shifts. This static support base, coupled with the disinterest of others, makes it difficult to gain traction for any significant change in public opinion that might impact his standing.
The sentiment that the Supreme Court ruling is a positive development is echoed by many who express satisfaction in seeing Trump’s authority challenged. The relief that constitutional principles were upheld, even by his own appointees, is a source of celebration for some. This is not just about a policy win but about a fundamental affirmation of the rule of law over what is perceived as executive overreach.
However, for some, the celebration is tempered by the reality that even with this ruling, the “devastating” situation, which includes the prolonged tenure of Trump and his policies, continues. There is a palpable frustration that more concerted efforts are not being made by political opposition to counter his influence. The call for more aggressive and widespread campaigning, especially through social media, reflects a desire for a more robust challenge to his ongoing political presence.
The executive branch’s potential to ignore Supreme Court rulings, or at least to find ways around them, is a significant concern. While the Court may issue rulings, their enforcement relies on other branches of government. The question of how such rulings are enforced, especially when faced with a seemingly defiant executive, is a critical point of discussion and anxiety. This raises the specter of a breakdown in the checks and balances that are fundamental to a democratic system.
The continuous announcement of new tariffs, even after being told his previous actions were illegal, is seen as a sign of his continued disregard for the law. The question “When are prices going to go down?” highlights the tangible impact of these policies on everyday Americans. His continued actions are described as those of a “reprehensible scofflaw,” indicating a deep dissatisfaction with his behavior and its consequences.
The idea that Trump’s “big amazing plan to ‘make money'” through tariffs has been deemed illegal is not surprising to many observers. The polling data, showing a significant percentage of Americans still supporting him or his policies, is sometimes viewed with skepticism, with some suggesting that a large portion of the population is “brainwashed” or not paying close enough attention. The belief is that his tariffs are inherently negative for most Americans, and any continued approval reflects a misunderstanding or manipulation of information.
The frustration with sensationalist media coverage is also evident, with calls for r/politics to discourage “yellow journalism.” This sentiment suggests a desire for more substantive and less clickbait-driven reporting. The underlying issue, for some, is not just Trump’s poll numbers but his continued presence in office, which they view as a failure of the political system and the electorate.
The observation that Trump might not care about polling because he is “very old now, and the GOP do not intend to surrender the executive ever again” presents a rather cynical, long-term view of political strategy. This perspective suggests a strategic entrenchment by the Republican party, where the individual popularity of Trump becomes secondary to maintaining control of the executive branch indefinitely. This implies a deep-seated plan that transcends immediate electoral cycles.
Another interpretation is that his advanced age might lead him to a point where he’s less concerned about legacy or future elections, a sentiment captured by the phrase “I’ll probably be dead, what do I care?” This adds a layer of existential detachment to his current actions, suggesting that his decisions are less about the future of the nation and more about immediate gratification or a sense of finality.
The notion that he’s out of touch with current polling is also a common belief, with the idea that his advisors feed him only positive or fabricated information. This creates a distorted perception of his popularity, leading him to dismiss genuine negative feedback as fake. This self-imposed ignorance, fueled by sycophantic circles, allows him to maintain a consistent narrative, even when it clashes with reality.
Looking ahead, some speculate that if he were to run again in 2028, it might not go well, suggesting a potential decline in his enduring appeal. The belief that he might be rigging future elections or that his supporters simply tell him what he wants to hear reinforces the idea that he operates in an echo chamber, detached from the true sentiment of the electorate.
The idea that the media is attempting to “normalize” unpopular policies through polling is a critical observation. The framing of poll results, where a significant minority still supports certain positions, is seen by some as a strategic ploy to make extreme views appear more acceptable. The argument is that these numbers, even if statistically significant, don’t represent a genuine consensus but rather a vocal minority or those who are unconcerned with the erosion of freedoms.
However, the assertion that poll numbers never change is directly challenged by those who closely monitor them. Evidence is presented that Trump’s approval ratings are indeed decreasing, and importantly, that disapproval among Republicans themselves is on the rise. This suggests a fracturing within his core support base, which could be a significant indicator of future shifts in public opinion.
The idea that MAGA supporters expect justices to be “loyal” simply because Trump nominated them is highlighted as a fundamental misunderstanding of the judicial role. This expectation is seen as a sign of ignorance about how the legal system is supposed to function, where judges are expected to apply the law impartially, not to serve the personal interests of the president who appointed them.
The sentiment that the Supreme Court’s ruling is a cause for celebration is strong, rooted in the idea that the justices chose the Constitution over loyalty. This is viewed as a moment of mature thinking and a necessary affirmation of democratic principles, especially in contrast to what is perceived as a chaotic and often irrational political landscape.
The continued presence of Trump and his policies for “nearly 3 more years to endure” is a source of dismay for many. The frustration is palpable, and there’s a desire for more effective political action, including the use of extensive advertising campaigns to counter his influence. The mention of specific individuals or groups, like Howard Lutnick and his sons, suggests a desire for greater accountability from those perceived to be benefiting from or enabling his administration.
The complex issue of political funding and influence, particularly concerning organizations like AIPAC and their impact on Democratic politicians, is raised as a factor that complicates political action. The idea that some Democrats might be “controlled opposition” or influenced by agendas that don’t align with the general public’s interests is a significant concern for those seeking genuine change.
The notion that the executive branch might simply ignore the Supreme Court, or that the Court lacks the authority to enforce its rulings, points to a potential crisis in governance. The question of how to hold individuals accountable when they seem to defy legal and judicial authority is a critical challenge for the American system of checks and balances.
Ultimately, the situation is characterized by a deep divide: a former president seemingly unfazed by negative poll numbers and actively pursuing policies that are met with public celebration of judicial oversight, yet simultaneously announcing further controversial actions. This creates a climate of uncertainty and frustration, where the perceived disregard for law and public sentiment is a central theme. The calls for more active political engagement and a clearer understanding of the nation’s trajectory highlight a deep-seated desire for stability and adherence to democratic norms.