Can't wait for my $1.25 Doge dividend.
re the polls, fear not, the focus will shift back to the border and tax cuts, and the people will once again be all smiles. 

Trump has lost an incredible 0.2 points of favorability daily for his first 100 days... down 20.8 points.

This is as much about the stupidity of the electorate as it is his inability to hide any of his autocratic impulses.

The following was part of a daily newsletter I get, which pretty much sums up how Trump has destroyed an incredibly resilient economy with foolish policies and an inability to think beyond his next "truth":

The unpredictability of President Trump’s stop-start trade offensive is paralyzing companies on just about every front except one—taking an ax to costs. The chemical company Dow is delaying construction of a new plant. Boston Scientific, the medical-device maker, is speeding up efforts to cut discretionary spending including travel.

The railroad operator Norfolk Southern, meanwhile, is more closely scrutinizing consultant fees.

Andre Schulten, chief financial officer of Procter & Gamble, said: “We will have to pull every lever we have in our arsenal to mitigate the impact of tariffs within our cost structure.”

Few companies have announced large-scale layoffs, though they are making some adjustments that workers are starting to notice. Companies are slowing hiring, leaving roles unfilled and scrutinizing spending on consultants and contractors.

As they outlined cost-cutting measures on earnings conference calls in recent days, many chief executives used language that boils down to a corporate version of the Serenity Prayer.

“Control the controllables and try to help mitigate some of the things we can’t control,” Norfolk Southern CEO Mark George told investors and analysts as he cited plans to wring savings out of fuel and labor costs, among other areas.

All of those people who said "he's so successful"... don't have a clue how the world, business, and most importantly governments work.  DOGE is a perfect example of the stupidity... promise $2T, reality brings that down to $100M, all while delivering chaos and distraction.  In any real organization, the entire DOGE team would be fired, and the CEO would be fighting for their job.

And then those charged with upholding law and order and due process ...
Former New Mexico Judge Admits To Destroying Evidence Related To Tren de Aragua Member Living In His House
FBI arrests Wisconsin judge and accuses her of obstructing immigration officials

Says the one who said and vigourously defended the position that the only way we could secure the border was with new laws, even if they were bad ones.  As if the new laws would be enforced by the Biden administration to begin with.  You believed that they would when he hardly enforced any laws he didn't like, but you were ok with that.

You wanted to encode into our laws to allow 5000 illegal border crossings per day when the number should have been zero.

We now have a very secure border without any new laws.  Something you believed impossible without new ones.

And you also believed that Biden was Mensa material all the way up to the debate with Trump.

So much for your judgment capabilities.

  yeah, right. 

... in order to maintain economic stability.

And then there is the Sanctuary City.  The concept flies directly in the face of US law.  No different than how the Confederate States of America acted against the Union.

You cannot support Sanctuary Cities and States and also be for due process and the rule of law at the same time.

Yes I did read it and in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the legal status of the parents had everything to do with it.

The parents had to be here legally and have an established domicile or residence.

Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States

so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. . . .

I will ask the same question of you that I asked Dave.

How do you reconcile your call for law and order and due process when you are in favor of open borders and illegal immigration into this country ?

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

The draft Fourteenth Amendment was introduced in the House of
Representatives in May 1866, and adopted by the House without any
citizenship language.82 The Journals of the Joint Committee of Fifteen thus
shed no light on its drafting; neither do the initial debates on the draft
amendment in the House, because the draft did not address citizenship
when adopted by the House. The only debate that can shed light on its
intent is that which took place on the Senate floor during the process of
adoption and amendment of the citizenship language.

When it came to the floor of the Senate on May 23, Senator Benjamin
Wade proposed an amendment that would remove the word ―citizen‖ from
what became the ―privileges or immunities‖ clause and substitute language
barring states from abridging ―the privileges or immunities of persons born
in the United States or naturalized by the laws thereWade explained,

the word ―citizen‖ . . . is a term about which there has been a good deal
of uncertainty in our Government. The courts have stumbled on the
subject, and even here, at this session, that question has been up and it is
still regarded by some as doubtful. I regard it as settled by the civil
rights bill, and, indeed, in my judgment, it
was settled before. I have always believed that every person, of
whatever race or color, who was born within the United States was a
citizen of the United States; but by the decisions of the courts there has
been a doubt thrown over that subject; and if the Government should fall
into the hands of those who are opposed to the views that some of us
maintain, those who have been accustomed to take a different view of it,
they may construe the provision in such a way as we do not think it
liable to construction at the time, unless we fortify and make it very
strong and clear.

This is an unmistakable reference to the restrictive reading of citizenship
given by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott, and Wade‘s change seemed to
be designed to forestall a racial reading of citizenship by later judicial
construction of the Civil Rights Act. Wade‘s definition of citizenship, in
his words, was that ―every person, of whatever race or color, who was born
within the United States was a citizen of the United States.
An instructive colloquy ensued between Wade and Senator William Pitt
Fessenden of Maine, chair of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction. As
reported by Wade, ―he Senator from Maine suggests to me, in an
undertone, that persons may be born in the United States and yet not be
citizens of the United States. Most assuredly they would be citizens of the
United States unless they went to another country and expatriated
themselves . . .
Fessenden then suggested the very question that concerns us today:
―Suppose a person is born here of parents from abroad temporarily in this
country. Wade answered,

The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. I know
that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers
who reside "near" the United States, in the diplomatic language. By a
fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and
under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the
United States, although born in Washington. I agree to that, but my
answer to the suggestion is that that is a simple matter, for it could hardly
be applicable to more than two or three or four persons; and it would be
best not to alter the law for that case.

Debate then turned to the meaning of other provisions of the draft
amendment, particularly the language regarding apportionment of
representation to states that restricted the franchise by race. After
adjournment that day, Senate Republicans met in a private caucus to
consider the issues that Wade‘s amendment had brought up.
When the measure returned to the floor on May 30, Senator Jacob
Howard of Michigan, a member of the Joint Committee and the Senate
sponsor of the draft amendment, proposed new language: all persons
born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.‖ 91 The
debate on this new language forms the core of the evidence for a restrictive
reading of the Citizenship Clause; but read in full, the debate suggests
precisely the opposite reading.

Howard explained the meaning of the new language as
simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that
every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to
their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of
the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the
United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of
ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the
United States, but will include every other class of persons.

The whole elephant in the room thing here, aside from the legality, is that immigration is what makes economies strong.

It is also becoming an absolute necessity in aging western democracies. 

Says the one who said and vigourously defended the position that the only way we could secure the border was with new laws, even if they were bad ones.  As if the new laws would be enforced by the Biden administration to begin with.  You believed that they would when he hardly enforced any laws he didn't like, but you were ok with that.

You wanted to encode into our laws to allow 5000 illegal border crossings per day when the number should have been zero.

We now have a very secure border without any new laws.  Something you believed impossible without new ones.

And you also believed that Biden was Mensa material all the way up to the debate with Trump.

So much for your judgment capabilities.

Either he knows very little about economic terms or is deliberately lying. (...)

🤡

The whole elephant in the room thing here, aside from the legality, is that immigration is what makes economies strong. It is also becoming an absolute necessity in aging western democracies. 
This entire myth of the "bad ones who just come here to steal our benefits/way of life/live off of our backs, etc." is pure bullshit contrived for political reasons. Even if there are "bad ones" or immigrants just here to reap state benefits, of which there are no doubt a few, their kids are nevertheless a major resource, that with the right education will generate far more in wealth for the nation than any cost involved to look after their parents. 

BTW.. California, that cesspool of immigration, recently overtook Japan to become the fourth largest economy in the world.