Skip to content
Trump’s case isn’t likely to succeed on legal grounds—New York Times v. Sullivan sets a high bar for defamation. But that may not be the point.
What this implies:
This isolates his followers from any independent source of verification—making journalism itself the enemy.
1. He’s almost completely invisible to the public
2. He operates through permanence, not popularity
3. He has billion-dollar influence with zero accountability
4. His agenda is deeply ideological — and strategic
Why He’s Dangerous
Why People Overlook Him
Public Opinion (2023–2024 polls):
Partisan Divide:
Why People Support Popular Vote:
Why People Defend the Electoral College:
Compromise in the Works?
Summary:
Posts in Category: Politics
Politicians Make Promises With No Binding Obligation To Deliver
On
- Commentary, Politics
-
Why it won’t go anywhere:
-
The Constitution protects broad political speech. Campaign promises are legally treated as opinions or aspirations, not contracts.
-
Courts generally won’t police political lies — they leave it to voters, the press, and opponents to challenge them.
-
Politicians intentionally keep promises vague (“I’ll fight for better healthcare”) so they can’t be measured easily.
-
-
Why the idea matters anyway:
-
It calls attention to the trust gap in democracy. People are sick of being sold hype with no follow-through.
-
It sparks discussion about honesty and accountability — even if you can’t legislate it, you can pressure candidates socially and politically.
-
-
Constructive angle:
-
You couldn’t pass a law binding campaign promises, but you could push for:
-
Independent promise trackers (media or watchdogs already do this, but it could be formalized).
-
Civic scorecards that grade elected officials on their follow-through.
-
Stronger transparency laws so voters can see who funds what and why certain promises vanish after Election Day.
-
-
Share this:
Get Back to the Issues
/
RSS Feed
Election season is here, and with it comes a flood of ads and fundraising emails. Most of them have a familiar rhythm: tell us the country is on the brink, paint the other side as evil, and finish with “chip in now if you’re a true patriot.”
What’s missing? The issues that actually affect us.
Where are the promises to make healthcare more affordable? To create better jobs and protect small businesses? To tackle inflation in a way that makes sense to working families? To make sure veterans have the care and respect they’ve earned?
Voters deserve more than fear and name-calling. It doesn’t matter if the attack ads come from the right or the left—they’re distractions. What matters is whether a candidate will look us in the eye and tell us what they plan to do for our families, our communities, and our future.
Ignore the hype. Don’t let the noise drown out the questions that matter most. We have the power to demand real answers about healthcare, jobs, inflation, and veterans’ care. If someone wants our vote, that’s what they should be talking about.
Share this:
Betting Against The Economy, why would Trump do that?
/
RSS Feed
It’s one thing for ordinary investors to bet against the economy—it’s another when those in power do it. Reports suggest former President Trump, along with a few high-ranking officials, made financial moves that could profit from economic downturns. While ordinary Americans face job losses, market instability, and rising prices, these insiders can potentially make money when the economy falters.
This isn’t new. During the early days of COVID-19, several U.S. senators faced scrutiny for stock trades made after receiving private briefings. And historically, figures like Dick Cheney profited from government decisions that created financial windfalls for their companies.
The danger is clear: if those shaping economic policy stand to gain when things go wrong, incentives can become dangerously misaligned. Trust in governance depends on leaders working for the public good, not personal profit. Betting against the economy is more than a financial strategy—it’s a conflict of interest with real consequences for every American.
When leaders or high-ranking officials make financial moves that profit from economic decline, it undermines the very foundation of public trust. Reports suggest former President Trump and some government officials may have engaged in activities that allow them to benefit if the economy falters. These actions are troubling because while ordinary Americans face layoffs, inflation, and market volatility, insiders with privileged information can stand to gain.
This isn’t a new phenomenon. In 2020, during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, several U.S. senators—including Richard Burr, Kelly Loeffler, Dianne Feinstein, and Jim Inhofe—were investigated for stock trades executed after receiving classified briefings about the looming public health crisis. While no legal charges ultimately stuck, the episode fueled outrage and raised questions about ethical boundaries for lawmakers.
Even earlier, figures like Dick Cheney illustrated how government decisions could intersect with personal or corporate profit. Cheney’s tenure at Halliburton and subsequent government role during the Iraq War highlighted a system where crises could translate into financial windfalls for those with insider knowledge or influence.
The broader problem is structural: if policymakers benefit when the economy or public welfare suffers, their incentives can conflict with the public good. Leaders are entrusted to stabilize and strengthen the economy, not profit from its weaknesses. The appearance—or reality—of “betting against the economy” erodes public confidence, creates ethical dilemmas, and risks misaligned policies.
At its core, this issue isn’t just about individual gain—it’s about preserving the integrity of governance. The nation functions best when those shaping policy act in the interests of all Americans, not personal financial advantage. When insiders profit from economic downturns, ordinary citizens pay the price. Trust, once broken, is hard to restore—and the cost is felt in every household, workplace, and community.
Share this:
10% government stake in Intel – Good or Bad
On
- Commentary, Politics
/
RSS Feed
1. What Trump Did
-
The administration reportedly secured a 10% government stake in Intel, and has intervened directly in markets.
-
This marks a shift from the Reagan-era conservative doctrine of deregulation, privatization, and “government out of the way.”
-
Instead, it leans toward industrial policy—the government actively picking winners and reshaping industries.
2. How It Changes Things
Potential Benefits
-
Strategic control: In critical sectors like semiconductors, government ownership could ensure national security and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains (esp. China).
-
Public leverage: A stake means taxpayers share in profits, not just subsidies. If Intel succeeds, the public could benefit directly.
-
Rapid mobilization: In crises (like war or supply chain breakdown), the government can direct resources more efficiently.
Potential Risks
-
Erosion of free-market discipline: When government owns part of a company, it can distort competition and reward political allies rather than the best performers.
-
Politicization of business: Decisions might be driven by electoral or partisan considerations, not long-term stability.
-
Crony capitalism: The line between legitimate national security intervention and favoritism for friends/donors becomes blurry.
3. Implications for Democracy
This is where it gets tricky:
-
Better for democracy (if done transparently):
-
If citizens see that government stakes mean accountability, profit-sharing, and national resilience, it could rebuild trust that democracy delivers.
-
Industrial policy, done openly, shows government is actively trying to protect workers, jobs, and sovereignty.
-
-
Worse for democracy (if done opaquely):
-
If Trump (or any leader) can direct state capital toward allies, donors, or politically useful industries, it becomes a tool of authoritarian-style control.
-
Concentrated power in the executive branch—deciding which companies thrive—weakens the role of Congress, markets, and watchdog institutions.
-
Citizens could lose faith that the economy is fair, seeing it instead as rigged by political power.
-
4. Historical Context
-
Reagan: Deregulation + belief in private sector efficiency.
-
FDR / WWII: Heavy government involvement in production—seen as necessary in an existential crisis.
-
China today: State-capitalist model—government directs investment, controls key industries, uses companies for geopolitical leverage.
Trump’s move edges the U.S. slightly toward the China model, away from the Reagan model.
5. The Democratic Bottom Line
-
If transparent and accountable → could strengthen democracy by showing government works for the people.
-
If secretive and politicized → could weaken democracy by concentrating power and blurring public/private interests.
So the real test isn’t just the Intel stake itself—it’s whether it’s managed with checks, balances, and public oversight, or whether it becomes another lever of personal power.
Trump’s Economic Shift: What It Means for Democracy
The Change
Trump is moving away from Reagan-era free-market conservatism by having the government take direct stakes in companies (Intel being the headline example) and intervening in markets.
Potentially Strengthens Democracy (Pro Case)
-
Shared Prosperity – If taxpayers hold equity, the public—not just private investors—benefits from profits.
-
National Security – Strategic industries (like semiconductors) stay resilient and less dependent on adversarial nations (esp. China).
-
Visible Action – Citizens see government actively solving problems, restoring some trust that democracy “delivers.”
-
Crisis Readiness – In moments of emergency, government stakes allow faster mobilization than free markets alone.
Analogy: FDR’s New Deal and WWII mobilization — heavy government involvement, but ultimately seen as strengthening democracy by protecting people and the nation.
Potentially Weakens Democracy (Con Case)
-
Politicized Economy – Leaders may favor allies, donors, or swing-state industries, eroding faith in fairness.
-
Crony Capitalism – Public stakes become a cover for funneling wealth or contracts to insiders.
-
Erosion of Checks & Balances – The executive, not Congress or independent regulators, ends up controlling major sectors of the economy.
-
Authoritarian Drift – Citizens may see government as a tool of one leader’s power rather than an impartial institution.
Analogy: China’s state-capitalist model — stability and strength for a time, but at the cost of transparency and individual freedom.
The Democratic Bottom Line
-
If transparent and accountable → this could look like a 21st-century New Deal: democracy showing it can adapt, protect, and deliver for its people.
-
If opaque and self-serving → this could be one more step toward government by strongman, where the economy is bent to political loyalty instead of public good
-
Here’s what public sources indicate regarding whether Donald Trump or his family personally hold any financial interest in Intel:
No Personal Financial Stake Reported
All credible reporting confirms that the 10% stake in Intel is held by the U.S. government, not any individual, including Trump or his family.
-
Financed through grants: The government converted roughly $11 billion from previously allocated CHIPS and Secure Enclave grants into a non-voting equity stake—approximately 9.9% to 10% of Intel.
-
Passive investment: The government’s ownership is described as passive—no board seats, no governance or information rights, and agreement to vote with Intel’s board in most cases.
-
Not Trump-family property: None of the reports mention any personal ownership by Trump or his family. The capital involved came strictly from federal funds, not private assets.
Financial Disclosure Context
-
Trump’s known investment profile: Public records and reporting show he has diversified holdings across multiple sectors (stocks, real estate, funds, etc.), including historical past holdings in companies like Intel. Yet, there is no indication that he or his family currently hold private Intel stock or a stake in this government-led deal.
-
The recent Intel stake is clearly portrayed as a federal government transaction, with no intermingling of Trump’s personal finances.
Summary Table
Entity Reports Indicate Stake? Notes Donald Trump (personal) No No evidence of ownership tied to this Intel stake Trump Family No No public disclosures connecting family to Intel equity U.S. Government (Trump administration) Yes 10% non-voting stake acquired from federal grants
Bottom Line
-
There is no public information or credible report showing that Trump or his family has any personal financial interest or greed in Intel related to this deal.
-
The 10% stake is strictly a federal government investment, backed by grants—not private funds.
.
-
Share this:
Gerrymandering, The Cowards Confession
On
- Commentary, Politics
/
RSS Feed
Gerrymandering: The Coward’s Confession
“Gerrymandering isn’t politics, it’s theft.”
“It’s how cowards confess they can’t win fair and square.”
“It’s cheating, dressed up in legal paperwork.”
Gerrymandering isn’t politics, it’s theft. It’s the art of stealing voters’ voices before they ever reach the ballot box. A strong leader convinces the people. A weak leader redraws the lines until only his loyalists remain.
MAGA, well the girly boys finally show their pedal pushers.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t clever strategy, it’s cowardice. It’s the political equivalent of moving the goalposts because you’re afraid to lose a fair fight. Even when done in retaliation, it’s still rigging — a confession that persuasion has failed, that truth has lost, and that the only path left is manipulation.
The real crime is not just that districts are warped beyond recognition. It’s that a president — the one person sworn to serve the whole country — openly asked for it. Not because it serves democracy, but because he knows he wouldn’t stand a chance in an honest contest.
Gerrymandering is not a show of strength. It is the signature of weakness, stamped across the map of our democracy.
It’s the Coward’s Tool
Gerrymandering as a politician’s admission that they can’t win a fair fight.
Line of attack: “It’s the political equivalent of asking to move the goalposts because you’re afraid of losing.”
Cheating the People
Compare it to rigging a casino — the house always wins, but the citizens are the ones paying.
It’s not just local greed, it’s a national power grab.
“Strong leaders convince the people. Weak ones redraw the lines until only their friends are left.”
Sorry MAGA but is this what Trump has turned you into?
Share this:
Gerrymandering: The Fire Trump Lit—and Why Everyone’s Getting Burned
On
- Commentary, Politics
/
RSS Feed
In a democracy, voters are supposed to choose their leaders. But once again, in 2025, Donald Trump has flipped that idea on its head—this time by pressuring Texas Republicans to redraw their congressional map mid-decade. Not because the population changed. Not because there was a court order. But because they saw a political opportunity.
The new Texas map, rammed through under Trump’s influence, would give Republicans nearly 80% of the state’s congressional seats—even though they win just over half the vote. This isn’t just a tilt; it’s a landslide created by slicing up Democratic communities, particularly Black and Latino districts, and burying their votes under carefully carved boundaries. It’s called gerrymandering, and Trump’s making it an art form.
Naturally, it didn’t stop there. Democrats—especially in California and New York—are now gearing up to respond in kind. California Governor Gavin Newsom has already signaled that if Texas wants to play dirty, California’s ready to fight fire with fire. And suddenly, the very people who pioneered this game—Trump’s MAGA base—are screaming foul.
That’s the hypocrisy of the moment. After more than a decade of Republican-led redistricting across states like North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Ohio, Trump has simply escalated the tactic to a new level. And now that Democratic states are considering similar power plays, the cries of “unfair” from the GOP ring hollow.
But let’s be clear: this isn’t a win for either party. It’s a loss for the country. Gerrymandering erodes the principle of one person, one vote. It rigs the game before it starts. And when both sides begin weaponizing redistricting, we move further away from representative government and deeper into partisan trench warfare.
This isn’t about balance—it’s about manipulation. And the more we normalize it, the more we teach future leaders that power matters more than process, and winning matters more than fairness.
So yes, Trump lit the fire. But now it’s spreading. And unless we find the courage to put partisan advantage aside and restore independent redistricting across all states, we’ll all be standing in the ashes—wondering when democracy burned down.
Share this:
Politicization of Economic Data. When it sounds too good to be True, it Usually Is
/
RSS Feed
Firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner
On August 2, 2025, Trump abruptly dismissed Erika McEntarfer, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), after a jobs report showing slow employment growth. He accused her of fabricating data without evidence—a claim widely condemned by economists and former officials who argue this politicization could seriously undermine faith in U.S. economic statistics and market stability. Experts warned such actions risk eroding credibility in one of the world’s most respected data agencies
Below we get into more specific areas of how The Trump Administration is falseifing economic data. A feel good tactic for the Loyalist and a way to hide correct data for everyone else. Investing for our future and budgeting for today is impossible when the TRUTH is hidden, and the LIES are the only barometer we have to ‘depend’ upon.
1. Labor‐Market Statistics (BLS Reports)
What’s changing?
The BLS’s monthly employment and unemployment figures—long regarded as nonpartisan—are now subject to leadership appointments based on political loyalty rather than technical expertise. Surveys that underlie these reports already suffer from declining response rates (down from ~82% to 57.6%), increasing volatility and revisions in the headline numbers .
Threats:
Erosion of credibility in one of the world’s most trusted labor‐market gauges, which companies and policymakers rely on for hiring and rate‐setting decisions .
Heightened market volatility, as investors demand larger risk premiums to compensate for “flawed instrument panels” when interpreting jobs data .
2. Inflation Measurement (CPI & Producer Price Index)
What’s changing?
The BLS also compiles the Consumer Price Index and Producer Price Index—benchmarks for cost‐of‐living adjustments, Federal Reserve inflation targets, and Social Security benefits. Staffing cuts and budget shortfalls have already forced the BLS to scale back data collection, relying more heavily on statistical models rather than fresh survey information .
Threats:
Misleading inflation signals, which could delay or accelerate interest‐rate changes inappropriately, risking either unnecessary tightening (stoking recession) or easy money (fueling runaway prices).
Undermined public trust in price‐stability measures, potentially spurring “second‐order” effects like wage‐price spirals if workers and businesses doubt official CPI figures.
3. Federal Reserve Governance
What’s changing?
By publicly disparaging Fed Chair Jerome Powell and engineering board vacancies (e.g., the recent resignation of Governor Adriana Kugler), the administration is seeking a more “rate‐cut‐friendly” leadership team .
Threats:
Compromised central‐bank independence, which is crucial to anchoring inflation expectations. If markets believe the Fed must defer to political pressures, long-term borrowing costs rise and the U.S. dollar’s reserve‐currency status could weaken .
4. National Accounts & Trade Data
What’s changing?
While less visible, the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (GDP, trade balances) and Census Bureau (manufacturing, retail data) could face similar leadership swaps or budget assaults, tilting headline growth and trade‐deficit figures to suit political narratives.
Threats:
Distorted growth metrics, making it harder to gauge the true health of the economy and leading to ill-informed fiscal and monetary policies.
Diplomatic friction, if “adjusted” trade stats are used to justify tariff escalations, it could fuel international legal disputes and market dislocations.
Bottom Line
Political control over these data channels risks undermining the bedrock of policy and market decision‐making. Without reliable, transparent statistics:
Investors face murkier risk assessments.
Policymakers lose their compass for calibrating interest rates and fiscal stimulus.
The public may come to distrust not just one agency but the entire system of U.S. governance.
Restoring trust will require both technical fixes (e.g., adequate funding, survey improvements) and institutional safeguards (statutory protections for data‐agency independence), lest the U.S. slide toward the very instability past cases in Greece, Argentina, and elsewhere have shown.
When power resides in one man, and one man alone, you might as well bend over and say goodbye. Jerome Powell isn’t one man giving orders, he is the front man for a board that evaluates the economy and then sets interest rates. Trump want to be in charge of everything and is destroying America in the process.
Your voice does count and is heard. It may sound weak and small by it’s self, but when it joines 10 thousand voices, it starts to demand attention. Get the picture?
Share this:
WOKE – Got Lost
/
RSS Feed
When Woke Became a Weapon
A prime example is what just happened to Sydney Sweeney and American Eagle Jeans.
And naturally, the internet lit up — because what’s more American than a blonde woman in tight jeans under a waving flag?
To some, it was patriotic.
To others, it was white nationalism in high-waisted denim.
Because apparently, if you’re blonde, busty, and not apologizing for it, you’re now one step away from a book burning.
Like MAGA, the Woke just became angry, if it wasn’t their way, it was wrong, so wrong it was as affront. They had to have demonstrations, they needed to shout, when all they really had to do was calm down. Not everything is a personal attack.
Good movements can lose their way when they become obsessed with control. The ideals that began as a call to conscience slowly hardened into a set of dogmas, and then into a kind of cultural authoritarianism.
In the name of inclusion, speech was policed. In the name of justice, individuals were shamed, fired, or silenced for using the wrong word, asking the wrong question, or simply disagreeing. Forgiveness was replaced with punishment. Grace became weakness. The only safe position was total, uncritical agreement.
Soon, people began to notice that the movement had stopped persuading — and started enforcing.
Woke culture turned into something that often felt more like a religion than a political cause: complete with rituals, heresies, and moral purges. Even longtime progressives — writers, professors, comedians, feminists, even civil rights leaders — found themselves under fire for stepping slightly outside the ever-shifting lines of acceptable thought.
Worse, the obsession with language and symbolism began to overshadow real progress. Elite institutions performed grand gestures of virtue signaling while doing little to address deeper problems like poverty, housing, education, and opportunity. Identity became the central lens for everything, while class — the great unifier of struggle — was pushed aside.
As the movement turned inward, it lost public support. Ordinary people, even sympathetic ones, began to walk away — not because they didn’t believe in justice, but because they didn’t recognize the movement anymore.
Share this:
WOKE – In the Begining
/
RSS Feed
The Heart of the Movement
There was a time not long ago when the progressive Left captured the moral imagination of an entire generation. The promises were simple, powerful, and overdue: treat people with dignity, include those left out, right the wrongs of history, and build a more compassionate society.
The movement that would later be labeled “Woke” began as something far more grounded: a call to awareness. Awareness of how racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of exclusion had quietly embedded themselves in the systems we live under. Schools, police departments, housing, healthcare, hiring — none of it was ever neutral, and people began to wake up to that.
Young people especially were drawn to the energy. They saw injustice and wanted to fix it, now — not later. They marched, they organized, they read and listened and learned. They believed that progress wasn’t just possible — it was urgent. Many institutions, from universities to corporations, responded with new policies and pledges. In those early days, the moral center of the Left was strong: driven by empathy, energized by truth, and guided by a desire to include, not exclude.
This was the Left at its best — idealistic, honest, impatient in the right ways, and serious about improving the lives of others. No reasonable person could deny the importance of what they were trying to do.
But over time, something changed.
Share this:
WOKE – What It Can Be
/
RSS Feed
Growing Beyond Woke
There’s a better way forward.
The solution isn’t to abandon the values of justice, inclusion, and equity — it’s to grow up with them. Maturity doesn’t mean compromise with cruelty; it means knowing the difference between real harm and honest disagreement. It means building bridges, not burning them. It means remembering that people are flawed, not evil — and that progress is measured by outcomes, not slogans.
The future of the Left — the sane, principled Left — will be made by those who:
-
Refuse to dehumanize people they disagree with
-
Embrace open dialogue instead of purity tests
-
Fight for fairness without becoming fanatics
-
Focus on policy over posturing
-
Reclaim empathy as a strength, not a weakness
If the original Woke moment was a kind of moral adolescence — angry, idealistic, sensitive to hypocrisy — then this next phase must be adulthood. Clear-eyed. Humble. Strategic. Compassionate.
America still needs a Left that speaks to its better angels — that reminds us of our shared responsibilities, not just our separate identities. A Left that stands for something, not just against everything. A Left that leads by inspiration, not intimidation.
We don’t need to tear down the house of justice. We just need to rebuild it with stronger beams and wider doors.
Share this:
MAGA – Is it too Late Getting Back on Track
“The Middle Way Forward”
So where do we go from here?
We don’t need to abandon what we believed — we need to reclaim it. Not with rage, but with resolve. Not by burning everything down, but by rebuilding what’s worth saving.
Border security still matters. So does fair trade. But we can defend our borders without losing our soul. We can prioritize American jobs without picking scapegoats.
We need leaders who speak to working people — and actually know what work is. Leaders who serve, not perform. Who understand that compromise is not weakness — it’s how democracy breathes.
We need to stop mistaking cruelty for strength. And start valuing competence over charisma.
It’s time to turn off the noise machines — the talk show politics, the endless culture wars, the rage-for-ratings economy. And get serious again.
The path forward isn’t extreme. It’s steady. Practical. Real. It’s the road where decency isn’t mocked, facts still matter, and being wrong isn’t a sin if you’re willing to learn.
You don’t have to abandon your values to escape the chaos. You just have to decide: What kind of country are we trying to save?
Because if it’s one worth saving — it won’t be saved by a circus. It’ll be saved by grown-ups who show up, think clearly, and still believe in something bigger than themselves.
Share this:
MAGA – What Trump Turned It Into
“Hijacked by the Showman”
We started with ideas — real concerns. We wanted jobs brought back, borders respected, and a government that actually worked for its people. But somewhere along the way, it stopped being about the country… And became entirely about one man.
Trump didn’t build on the core of MAGA — he hijacked it. He turned a movement meant to restore dignity into one that demands loyalty over honesty, anger over results, and spectacle over service.
He didn’t drain the swamp. He waded in and brought his own gators — using the presidency to enrich himself, reward allies, and punish anyone who dared tell the truth. It became less about what we believed, and more about who we hated.
Concerns about immigration turned into cruelty at the border. Valid skepticism of government turned into unhinged conspiracies. Criticism of media turned into an all-out war on reality.
The promise of “America First” became “Trump First, Always.” Every institution that didn’t bow — the courts, the military, elections themselves — became the enemy.
MAGA was supposed to be a wake-up call. Instead, it became a cult of grievance, a reality show powered by rage and reruns.
We didn’t get better jobs or stronger families — we got hats, hashtags, and a heap of broken trust.
If you ever felt disillusioned, it’s not because you were wrong to care. It’s because the man who claimed to represent you used your hope as a prop. And he’s still doing it — running again, not for your future, but for his freedom.
Share this:
MAGA, What is MAGA? Before Trump Turned it into a Cult
/
RSS Feed
When we look at the original core beliefs of MAGA — before they were distorted by authoritarianism, disinformation, and grievance theatrics — there were some genuinely resonant themes that connected with millions of Americans. Here’s a breakdown of those core ideas, framed without the Trump spectacle:
1. Economic Nationalism
Belief: American jobs should come first — especially in manufacturing and industry.
Motivation: Decades of globalization and free trade deals like NAFTA were seen as hurting U.S. workers while benefiting multinational corporations.
Goal: Bring jobs back to American soil, reduce outsourcing, and protect domestic industries with fair trade policies.
2. Border Security and Immigration Reform
Belief: A sovereign nation must control its borders.
Motivation: Concerns over illegal immigration, wage suppression, and national security — mixed with cultural anxiety about changing demographics.
Goal: Enforce immigration laws, secure the border, and reform the system so it serves U.S. interests while maintaining lawful pathways.
3. Government Accountability & Drain the Swamp
Belief: Washington is corrupt, elitist, and out of touch.
Motivation: Anger at career politicians, lobbyists, and bureaucrats who seemed to serve donors and corporations instead of the people.
Goal: Shake up the system, reduce special interests, and return power to voters.
4. America-First Foreign Policy
Belief: The U.S. should stop being the world’s policeman.
Motivation: Frustration with costly wars (Iraq, Afghanistan) and foreign aid while domestic problems were ignored.
Goal: Focus on national interests, avoid entangling alliances, and use diplomacy and economic leverage over military force.
5. Respect for Working-Class and Rural Americans
Belief: The voices of rural and working-class people have been ignored or mocked.
Motivation: Cultural resentment toward urban elites, media, academia, and Hollywood.
Goal: Reassert the dignity and importance of everyday Americans — especially those in smaller towns and traditional industries.
6. Skepticism of Global Institutions
Belief: Organizations like the UN, WTO, and WHO don’t always act in America’s best interest.
Motivation: A feeling that globalism had undermined American sovereignty.
Goal: Reassert national independence in decision-making.
7. Cultural Traditionalism
Belief: Traditional values — faith, family, patriotism — are under assault.
Motivation: Rapid cultural change, secularism, and progressive social norms created anxiety and backlash.
Goal: Defend what many saw as the moral foundation of the country.
Summary:
MAGA began as a reaction to lost trust in institutions — economic, political, and cultural. It channeled authentic frustration with globalization, elitism, and cultural displacement. Many of its early supporters were not racist, authoritarian, or conspiracy-driven — they were disillusioned voters looking for someone to listen.
What Went Wrong:
Trump harnessed that energy but weaponized it, shifting the focus from policy solutions to personal loyalty, vengeance, and spectacle.
MAGA became less about “Make America Great Again” and more about “Make Trump Untouchable.”
But if you strip the narcissism and noise away, what remains are concerns that deserve serious, non-extremist attention — and could form the basis of a healthier populism if reclaimed from demagogues.
Part 2: What Trump Turned it Into
Part 3: Is It Too Late Getting Back on Track
Share this:
Reporting Under Fire: How Trump’s Lawsuit Against Murdoch Is Reshaping Political Journalism
On
- Commentary, Politics
/
RSS Feed
The most recent development in the lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump against Rupert Murdoch, The Wall Street Journal, and its parent companies, Dow Jones and News Corp, occurred in July 2025. Trump initiated a $10 billion defamation lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida federal court on July 18, 2025, following a Wall Street Journal article published the previous day. The article alleged that Trump sent a “bawdy” birthday letter and a sexually suggestive drawing to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003. Trump denies the authenticity of the letter, calling it “fake” and claiming it does not reflect his writing style or behavior, and accuses the defendants of acting with malicious intent to harm his reputation.
The lawsuit names Murdoch, News Corp CEO Robert Thomson, and reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo as defendants, alleging libel and slander. Trump’s legal action followed his direct warnings to Murdoch and the Journal’s editor, Emma Tucker, against publishing the story, which he claims they ignored. The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones have stated they stand by their reporting and will vigorously defend against the lawsuit.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles, who previously handled a 2023 lawsuit Trump filed against his former lawyer Michael Cohen, which Trump dropped before a scheduled deposition. Legal experts have expressed skepticism about the lawsuit’s merits, noting that Trump must prove “actual malice” to succeed in a defamation case, and the $10 billion damages sought are considered unusually high and potentially unrealistic.
The lawsuit has strained the long-standing, complex relationship between Trump and Murdoch, a media mogul whose outlets, including Fox News, have historically supported Trump but have also faced his criticism. Some reports suggest the suit serves as a warning to other media outlets, raising concerns about press freedom. There are no updates beyond July 2025 indicating further court proceedings or resolutions as of my last available information.
This isn’t just a defamation suit—it’s a tactic. Trump’s lawsuit is part of a larger pattern in which journalism isn’t merely questioned, but threatened—by legal firepower intended to force editorial compliance, intimidate sources, and discourage scrutiny. It tests whether a free press can operate freely when powerful political figures use litigation to police narrative boundaries.
1. Weaponizing Lawsuits to Regulate Truth
Trump’s case isn’t likely to succeed on legal grounds—New York Times v. Sullivan sets a high bar for defamation. But that may not be the point.
Like SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), this action imposes financial and legal burdens meant to:
-
Stall or chill investigative reporting
-
Shift editorial policies toward “safer,” less critical ground
-
Force outlets to weigh the legal cost of “getting it wrong” against journalistic boldness
What this implies:
A political figure can regulate journalism not with laws, but with lawyers.
2. Political Oversight Through Fear, Not Policy
Unlike traditional government censorship or regulatory control, this is oversight through intimidation:
-
Editors become risk managers
-
Reporters self-censor to avoid being the next target
-
Media companies weigh “is it worth it?” instead of “is it true?”
This form of “soft censorship” doesn’t require legislation—it requires deep pockets, loyal followers, and a willingness to attack institutions.
3. Eroding the Public’s Trust by Destabilizing the Source
When Trump sues The Wall Street Journal, it’s not just about setting the record straight. It’s a message to his base:
“Even your trusted conservative outlets are lying—only I speak the truth.”
This isolates his followers from any independent source of verification—making journalism itself the enemy.
The result?
-
Loyalty trumps objectivity
-
Tribal narratives override shared facts
-
Journalism is seen as either “ours” or “theirs”
4. The Long-Term Cost: Press as Political Risk, Not Public Service
The chilling effect doesn’t stop at WSJ. Smaller outlets, freelance journalists, even whistleblowers see what happens when you challenge political power with inconvenient facts.
If the new precedent is:
-
“Report on power at your own risk,”
then journalism is no longer a civic tool—it’s a liability.
In an era where power no longer needs to pass laws to control speech, it simply needs to raise the cost of telling the truth. And that cost is now being paid in court.
And one more thought, just who do you think is paying for all this?
Share this:
Seeking the Truth as opposed to Affirmation
On
- Commentary, Politics
/
RSS Feed
In an age of rampant misinformation, understanding the distinction between genuine fact-checking and merely seeking evidence to support a preconceived notion is crucial. While both involve reviewing information, their fundamental goals and methodologies are worlds apart. Actual fact-checking is a process of impartial verification, while searching for supporting documentation is often an exercise in confirmation bias.
The Goal: Truth vs. Affirmation
The primary objective of fact-checking is to determine the accuracy of a claim, regardless of the outcome. A fact-checker starts with a question: “Is this statement true?” They then embark on a comprehensive and unbiased investigation, gathering all relevant evidence, both for and against the claim. The ultimate goal is to present a verified and accurate picture to the public.
Conversely, the principal aim of searching for supporting documentation is to find evidence that validates a pre-existing belief or argument. The starting point is not a question, but an assertion. The individual is not seeking to test the validity of their claim, but rather to find proof that they are correct.
The Process: Investigation vs. Advocacy
The methodologies employed by fact-checkers and those simply seeking support differ significantly.
Fact-checking is a meticulous and often lengthy process that includes:
-
Identifying verifiable claims: Not all statements can be fact-checked. Opinions, for instance, are not subject to this process.
-
Gathering diverse evidence: Fact-checkers consult a wide array of sources, including primary documents, expert opinions, and data from reputable institutions. They actively look for conflicting information to ensure a well-rounded view.
-
Evaluating sources: A critical component of fact-checking is assessing the credibility and potential bias of each source of information.
-
Synthesizing and concluding: After weighing all the evidence, a conclusion is drawn about the veracity of the claim, often with a nuanced explanation of the findings.
Searching for supporting documentation, on the other hand, is often characterized by:
-
Cherry-picking data: Individuals may selectively choose evidence that aligns with their views while ignoring contradictory information.
-
Ignoring source credibility: The reliability of a source may be overlooked if the information it provides is favorable to the individual’s argument.
-
Avoiding contradictory evidence: There is no active effort to find information that might challenge the initial belief.
The Mindset: Objectivity vs. Confirmation Bias
At its core, the difference between these two activities lies in the mindset of the individual. A fact-checker approaches a claim with a healthy dose of skepticism and a commitment to objectivity. The goal is to be a neutral arbiter of facts.
In contrast, someone searching for supporting documentation is often operating under the influence of confirmation bias. This is the psychological tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values. This can lead to a skewed and inaccurate understanding of an issue.
In essence, a fact-checker’s loyalty is to the truth, wherever it may lead. For someone simply seeking to support their own views, their loyalty lies with their pre-existing beliefs.
Share this:
Covert Agency Manipulation
On
- Politics
COINTELPRO, short for Counter Intelligence Program, was a series of covert and often illegal projects conducted by the FBI from 1956 to 1971, aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic American political organizations deemed subversive.
Authorized by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, it targeted groups like the Communist Party USA, civil rights movements (including Martin Luther King Jr.), Black Panther Party, American Indian Movement, and anti-Vietnam War organizers, among others.The program used tactics like wiretapping, smear campaigns, forged documents, psychological warfare, and encouraging violence between groups (e.g., between the Black Panthers and other organizations).
Notable examples include attempts to discredit MLK by spreading false information about his personal life and pressuring him to commit suicide. COINTELPRO’s actions often violated civil liberties and constitutional rights.It was exposed in 1971 when activists stole documents from an FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania, and leaked them to the press.
This led to public outcry, congressional investigations (notably the Church Committee in 1975), and the program’s official termination. However, its legacy raised lasting concerns about government overreach and surveillance of citizens.
MKUltra was a covert CIA program, officially running from 1953 to 1973, focused on developing mind control and interrogation techniques through human experimentation. Authorized by CIA Director Allen Dulles, it aimed to counter perceived Soviet and Chinese advances in brainwashing during the Cold War. The program involved illegal and unethical experiments on unwitting subjects, including U.S. and Canadian citizens.Key aspects:
-
Experiments: MKUltra tested drugs (notably LSD), hypnosis, sensory deprivation, electroshock, and psychological manipulation. Subjects included prisoners, mental patients, and unaware civilians, often without consent.
-
Scope: It spanned 80+ institutions, including universities, hospitals, and prisons, with 44 colleges involved. Over 150 subprojects explored everything from chemical interrogation to behavioral modification.
-
Notable Cases: Experiments like dosing people with LSD in public settings (e.g., Operation Midnight Climax in San Francisco) or the death of Frank Olson, a scientist who was unknowingly given LSD and later died under suspicious circumstances, highlight the program’s recklessness.
-
Secrecy and Destruction: In 1973, CIA Director Richard Helms ordered most MKUltra records destroyed, leaving limited documentation. Surviving details emerged through 1975 Freedom of Information Act requests and investigations.
The program was exposed publicly during the 1975 Church Committee hearings, alongside COINTELPRO, revealing gross violations of ethics and civil rights. It was officially halted, but its legacy fuels distrust in government and speculation about continued covert programs.
The following is a fictionalized storyboard outlining potential Covert Programs, fictionalized to avoid legal or other repercussions. But feel free to read between the lines. The setting is somewhere else.
“Invisible hands leave visible fingerprints.”
“The Architects of Influence”
The Setting: Republica
A modern democratic nation, constantly on edge. Its people vote, protest, and dream freely — but shadows linger behind the curtain.
1. The Watchtower Agency
(Inspired by the CIA)
A secretive agency born after the Great War. Officially foreign-focused, it keeps Republica safe. Unofficially, it seeds coups abroad and whispers narratives at home.
Key Tactic: “Feather & Quill” — placing storytellers in key media posts to control the plotline without writing it themselves.
-
Notable Operation: “Mockbird” — where agents whispered headlines into trusted ears, shaping what the people feared, hated, and ignored.
-
Modern Twist: Funded a network of independent news “hubs” that subtly echoed official lines with a local accent.
2. The Sentinel Bureau
(Inspired by the FBI)
Meant to defend from internal sabotage, but often defined what “subversion” meant based on the politics of the day.
Key Tactic: “Echo Disruption” — infiltrating activist circles and sowing paranoia, false friendships, and betrayal.
-
Notable Operation: “Harpy” — a campaign to dismantle the Unity March Movement by labeling them enemies of order and peace.
-
Fallout: The movement imploded from within; the leaders never fully trusted each other again.
3. The Listening Vault
(Inspired by the NSA)
A faceless cathedral of code. It doesn’t act — it watches, collects, connects.
“If you whisper, they can hear it. If you think it, they may predict it.”
Key Tactic: “Mind Lattice” — linking data from every citizen into behavioral profiles for “national security modeling.”
-
Revelation: A rogue technician leaked the truth to the public. Instead of outrage, the people shrugged. “If you have nothing to hide…”
4. The Forge
(Inspired by Cambridge Analytica, military psyops, and political data firms)
A private, unregulated lab where public will is melted and recast into programmable segments.
Key Tactic: “Soul Maps” — personalized emotional profiles built from likes, clicks, and idle complaints.
“They don’t sell ads — they sell certainty.”
-
Use Case: A political faction buys access before the election, deploying fear-based ads to suppress enemy voters and ignite their own.
5. The Ministry of Tomorrow
(A fictional mashup of think tanks, media outlets, and social platforms)
Not officially government. Not officially anything. But its ideas somehow always reach the top.
Key Tactic: “Consensus Sculpting” — the art of turning radical ideas into breakfast-table common sense.
“The people chose it — we just helped them want it.”
-
Example: A new law restricts protest zones. Within a week, every morning show host is saying “Well, you can’t just let mobs run the streets…”
Epilogue Chapter: The Mirror Room
A small room beneath the Capitol of Republica. No one lives there — but the walls reflect every decision made upstairs.
In the center, a marionette stage, strings dangling. But no puppets.
The message?
“If the people believe they chose the show, do they need to know who built the stage?”
Republica isn’t real. But the shadows behind it often are.
We’re not told to think anymore — just to choose sides.
But when the stage is rigged and the script already written… what good is a vote?
Share this:
Meet the Man America Should Be Watching, But Isn’t
On
- Conspiracy theories, Politics
Meet the Man America Should Be Watching, But Isn’t
By Elephants Ink Room
Most Americans can name Donald Trump. Many can name Joe Biden. Fewer can name Brett Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett. But almost no one knows the name Leonard Leo — and that’s exactly how he prefers it.
While the country fights over policies, Leo quietly builds the structures that decide them. He’s not an elected official. He doesn’t run for office. But over the past 20 years, Leonard Leo has done more to reshape the American legal landscape than any senator, any president, or any judge. And he’s done it behind the curtain.
A former vice president of the Federalist Society, Leo helped handpick the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, narrowed voting rights, and stripped environmental protections. But he didn’t stop at the high court — he built a pipeline. From district courts to appeals courts, Leo’s influence extends like a legal shadow network, placing loyal ideologues where precedent used to live.
And now he has the money to go even further.
In 2022, Leo received a jaw-dropping $1.6 billion donation — the largest single political gift in American history. Not to fund a campaign, but to build the future of American governance in his image. That means legal challenges against government regulation, climate policy, abortion access, and even how elections are certified. The playbook? It’s already written. It’s called Project 2025, and Leonard Leo is one of its architects.
He’s also the man behind the lavish, undisclosed gifts and trips to Supreme Court justices like Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — the kind of perks that would get a public servant fired, but which glide past ethics rules in a judiciary with no meaningful oversight.
And yet, the headlines rarely mention his name. That’s the danger. While we’re busy arguing on social media about candidates and slogans, Leonard Leo is writing the footnotes of history — in fine print most of us never see.
This isn’t conspiracy. It’s coordination. And it’s working.
So the next time you wonder how a fringe legal theory became binding law, or why public trust in the courts has cratered, remember this name. Not because he shouts it — but because he doesn’t have to.
Leonard Leo. The most powerful unelected man in America. And we’re letting him do it in silence.
1. He’s almost completely invisible to the public
Most Americans couldn’t pick him out of a lineup, and yet he has arguably reshaped more of the American political landscape than any living figure — without ever running for office.
2. He operates through permanence, not popularity
While presidents come and go, Leo’s real power comes from engineering a judicial supermajority and embedding his ideology into the law for decades — particularly through lifetime federal judges.
3. He has billion-dollar influence with zero accountability
Through his networks (like the Marble Freedom Trust), he’s moved $1.6 billion from donors into judicial appointments, legal activism, and media shaping — with almost no oversight or press scrutiny.
4. His agenda is deeply ideological — and strategic
This isn’t just about being “conservative.” It’s about remaking the constitutional framework:
Weakening federal oversight
Empowering state-level theocracy
Rolling back decades of precedent on voting rights, reproductive rights, regulatory power, and civil protections
He’s the architect behind decisions like Dobbs, Shelby County, and now the Chevron deference rollback — each systematically shifting power away from elected government and toward courts, corporations, and Christian legal theory.
So, a quick recap:
Former executive vice president of the Federalist Society
Longtime judicial kingmaker on the American right
Architect of the conservative legal revolution, including stacking the Supreme Court
Quiet hand behind Project 2025 — the policy playbook for a post-democracy conservative state
Why He’s Dangerous
He doesn’t run for office. He runs people who do.
He’s behind the curtain shaping judicial, legal, and policy infrastructure that outlasts any election.
His fingerprints are on decisions gutting voting rights, abortion access, campaign finance law, and federal agency power.
He builds systems, not headlines.
While Trump tweets and shouts, Leo writes the manual, places the judges, and engineers the undoing of the administrative state.
Bureaucratic reprogramming disguised as “liberty.”
He understands how to leverage chaos.
The louder the MAGA noise, the more quietly Leo’s network rewires the levers of power: Supreme Court, state AGs, education boards, religious coalitions, media outlets.
He has billions at his disposal now.
In 2022, he received $1.6 billion from Barre Seid, the largest known political donation in U.S. history — and he’s using it not to run ads, but to reshape the legal battlefield.
Why People Overlook Him
No bombastic rallies, no orange spray tan, no obvious cult of personality.
The media mostly sees him as “that judicial guy from the Federalist Society.”
But under the radar, he’s weaponizing legal legitimacy, which is far more enduring than any single politician’s charisma.
If Trump is the actor, Leonard Leo is the playwright — and the stage manager, and the guy who installed the trapdoor under the audience.
Share this:
Do some elites or movements support depopulation — quietly or not?
Do some elites or movements support depopulation — quietly or not?
Yes, in the shadows of policy — though rarely called that:
-
Through environmental Malthusianism: “Too many people, not enough resources.”
-
Through selective policy neglect: Cutting public health programs or social safety nets knowing full well which populations will suffer.
-
Through experimentation: Historically, there’s a dark record — from Tuskegee to forced sterilizations — where “health” was used to justify control or reduction.
RFK Jr.’s rhetoric around detoxing children, rejecting vaccines, and elevating “natural immunity” taps into those old, unscientific veins — and when implemented from a position of power, they do carry population-level consequences.
It’s not always a Bond villain with a red button — sometimes it’s slow, ideological erosion of protections that keeps the vulnerable… vulnerable.
Share this:
Project 2025 and Donald Trump
On
- Commentary, Politics
/
RSS Feed
ChatGPT said:
Project 2025 is a comprehensive plan developed by the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank, to reshape the U.S. federal government if a Republican—likely Donald Trump—returns to power in 2025. It’s officially called “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise.” The project is a 900+ page policy and staffing blueprint aiming to overhaul the federal bureaucracy, expand presidential power, and implement far-right conservative policy across all agencies.
Key Points of Project 2025
-
Presidential Power Expansion
-
Dismantle the “administrative state” (career civil servants) and replace them with loyal political appointees.
-
Use the Schedule F executive order (briefly enacted by Trump in 2020) to reclassify tens of thousands of federal workers and fire those deemed disloyal.
-
-
Departmental Overhauls
-
Eliminate or consolidate federal agencies viewed as obstacles to conservative goals (e.g., Department of Education, Department of Energy).
-
Replace leadership and staff at agencies like the FBI, DOJ, IRS, CDC with political loyalists.
-
-
Rollbacks of Social Programs and Regulations
-
Roll back climate initiatives, LGBTQ+ protections, DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) programs.
-
Reverse clean energy policies and environmental protections.
-
Privatize social safety net programs and reduce federal oversight.
-
-
Immigration Crackdown
-
Mass deportations using expanded military powers.
-
Restore and expand the travel ban and public charge rule.
-
Push for ending birthright citizenship through executive action or reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.
-
-
Education
-
Ban “critical race theory” and DEI from public education.
-
Promote school choice, religious schooling, and parental control over curriculum.
-
-
Culture War Agenda
-
Advance anti-abortion policies (including national restrictions).
-
Use federal agencies to promote “biblical” values.
-
Restrict rights of transgender individuals.
-
-
Foreign Policy Shift
-
Dismantle globalist institutions and alliances.
-
Favor unilateral military action and protectionist trade policies.
-
-
Law and Order
-
Expand policing and surveillance powers.
-
Curtail protest rights and restrict civil liberties in the name of “order.”
-
-
Media & Censorship
-
Investigate and potentially prosecute journalists or tech platforms accused of “bias.”
-
Defund or dismantle public media (like NPR, PBS).
-
How Trump Already Aligns with or Has Acted on Project 2025 Goals
-
Schedule F (Civil Service Purge Tool)
-
Trump signed this executive order in October 2020. Though it was never widely implemented before Biden rescinded it, Trump has promised to revive it on Day One of a second term—Project 2025 heavily relies on it.
-
-
Loyalty-Driven Appointments
-
Trump has already shown preference for personal loyalty over qualifications—Project 2025 calls for a “deep bench” of vetted loyalists ready to take over federal positions.
-
-
Agency Overhauls
-
Trump previously tried to slash the budgets or eliminate agencies like the EPA, NEA, and even the Department of Education. These goals are reiterated in Project 2025.
-
-
Immigration
-
He implemented family separations, “Remain in Mexico,” and tried to end DACA. Project 2025 recommends going further, including using the military for mass deportations.
-
-
Anti-DEI & Anti-Trans Policies
-
Trump banned diversity training in federal agencies and military.
-
Project 2025 would expand these efforts system-wide and implement national restrictions on transgender healthcare and visibility.
-
-
Abortion
-
Trump appointed the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. Project 2025 advocates using the Comstock Act (an 1800s anti-obscenity law) to ban abortion pills nationwide.
-
-
Climate and Energy
-
Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement, slashed EPA regulations.
-
Project 2025 calls for ending all “green energy” subsidies and fast-tracking oil and gas drilling.
-
-
Election Law and DOJ Interference
-
Trump repeatedly pressured DOJ to support false election claims; Project 2025 wants to remove independence from DOJ and make the Attorney General fully answerable to the President.
-
-
Christian Nationalism
-
Project 2025 openly aligns with Christian nationalist language. Trump has embraced this in speeches, portraying himself as a protector of Christian values against secular liberalism.
-
Why This Matters
Project 2025 is not just a policy document—it’s a staffing and execution plan for a second Trump term. It represents the culmination of efforts to institutionalize authoritarian tendencies, weaken checks and balances, and reorient federal power toward a hard-right ideological agenda. Trump has endorsed its ideas indirectly through campaign promises, and many of his allies are directly involved in the project’s creation.🇺🇸 Trump vs. Project 2025: Policy Comparison Chart
| Issue Area | Trump 2016–2020 | Project 2025 (Heritage Plan) | Trump 2025 Campaign Promises |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal Workforce | Tried to “drain the swamp,” fired Comey, but most bureaucracies remained intact | Replace 50,000+ civil servants with loyalists via Schedule F | Reinstate Schedule F, purge “Deep State” on Day One |
| DOJ & FBI | Pressured DOJ to investigate enemies; fired AGs | Place DOJ under direct White House control | Pledge to prosecute political opponents |
| Civil Liberties | Banned DEI trainings, proposed protest crackdowns | Expand surveillance, restrict protests, remove agency independence | Restore “law & order,” crack down on “radical left” groups |
| Climate Policy | Left Paris Agreement, deregulated emissions | Eliminate EPA powers, end green energy programs | “Drill baby drill,” withdraw climate funding |
| Abortion | Appointed justices who overturned Roe v. Wade | Use Comstock Act to ban abortion pills nationwide | Open to national restrictions, vows to punish “blue states” |
| LGBTQ+ Rights | Banned trans military service, cut protections | Erase federal recognition of trans people, ban gender care | Reverse Biden-era LGBTQ+ protections |
| Immigration | Family separation, travel ban, built parts of wall | Use military to carry out mass deportations | Deport millions, end birthright citizenship |
| Education | Pushed school choice, downplayed CRT fears | Eliminate Dept. of Ed, ban CRT & DEI, increase parental control | Promote Christian curriculum, cut “woke indoctrination” |
| Media & Free Press | Called press “enemy of the people,” revoked CNN credentials | Investigate journalists, defund public media | Threatens major media outlets with legal action |
| Foreign Policy | “America First,” left global treaties, embraced autocrats | Gut international alliances, increase military autonomy | Leave NATO if not “paid up,” realign with strongmen |
| Military Use | Used military for Lafayette Square photo-op | Use military for domestic law enforcement & immigration | Send military into blue cities for “crime cleanup” |
| Christian Nationalism | Courted evangelicals, referenced “God” often | Promote biblical values via federal policy | Declares fight is “between good and evil” |
| Elections & Voting | Claimed 2020 was rigged, tried to overturn results | Reduce federal oversight, allow state purges of rolls | Vows to end mail-in ballots, restrict early voting |
| Agency Control | Tried but failed to shrink government | Consolidate/dismantle agencies, remove independent commissions | Staff entire government with loyalists only |
Summary of the Evolution
-
2016–2020: Trump disrupted norms, tested legal limits, but was often restrained by courts, staff, and institutions.
-
Project 2025: Turns Trumpism into a systematic roadmap with legal and staffing tools to prevent resistance next time.
-
Trump 2025 Promises: Closely follow Project 2025—his campaign adopts many ideas almost verbatim but adds rhetoric promising vengeance and retribution.
Share this:
Electorial College or Popular Vote
Public Opinion (2023–2024 polls):
~60% to 65% of Americans support deciding presidential elections by popular vote.
~35% to 40% prefer keeping the Electoral College.
Source: Pew Research, Gallup, Axios/Ipsos, and others.
Partisan Divide:
Democrats: Around 80% favor the popular vote.
Republicans: Around 60–65% prefer the Electoral College.
Independents: Lean toward popular vote, but less strongly (~55–60%).
This split has grown since 2000 and 2016 — both years where Republicans won the presidency while losing the national popular vote.
Why People Support Popular Vote:
Simpler and more democratic: each vote counts equally.
Avoids “swing state” bias — candidates currently focus on a handful of battlegrounds.
Prevents outcomes where the Electoral College winner loses the popular vote.
Why People Defend the Electoral College:
It protects smaller states from being ignored by big population centers.
It forces candidates to build broader coalitions across regions.
It’s part of the federalist structure — states choose electors, not individuals directly.
Compromise in the Works?
Yes — the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is a workaround gaining traction:
States agree to give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote — once enough states join to reach 270 electoral votes.
So far, 17 states + D.C. have joined (totaling 205 electoral votes as of 2025).
Summary:
Most Americans support a national popular vote.
But political self-interest and structural inertia keep the Electoral College firmly in place — for now.
The path forward may come through the NPVIC, not a constitutional amendment.
Here’s the chart showing support for the Popular Vote vs. Electoral College across major political groups. As you can see:
-
Democrats overwhelmingly favor the popular vote.
-
Republicans strongly prefer the Electoral College.
-
Independents lean toward the popular vote but are more divided.
-
Overall, most Americans favor switching to a popular vote system.
Share this:
Anger in America, Part 1: Why People Are So Angry
Anger doesn’t just happen in a vacuum. It builds. It festers. It grows out of a thousand little cuts and a handful of gaping wounds. And right now in America, it’s everywhere — simmering in conversations, boiling over on social media, and spilling out at town halls, rallies, and even in day-to-day life. The question is: why?
The truth is, millions of Americans feel cheated. They feel as if the deck is stacked against them, no matter how hard they work or how carefully they play by the rules. They see the system tilted toward insiders and special interests. They see rules bent and laws gamed. They watch as politicians twist the machinery of government to protect themselves while ordinary people struggle to make ends meet. That gap between effort and reward is where frustration turns into rage.
And the politicians don’t make it better. In fact, they make it worse. Instead of honesty, we get double talk. Instead of accountability, we get excuses. Instead of transparency, we get cover-ups. At some point, a citizen watching all this can’t help but feel powerless. And when people feel powerless, anger is the natural response.
This is not a partisan observation. Republicans and Democrats alike are furious. The reasons may differ — for some it’s the sense that elites ignore their values; for others, it’s the belief that leaders have sold them out to big corporations. But the common denominator is the same: distrust. And distrust corrodes everything it touches.
Then there’s the noise. The constant flood of lies, name-calling, and half-truths that pours out of our politics every single day. Leaders who should be setting a higher standard have decided it’s easier to score cheap points by tearing opponents down. But when every issue is framed as an insult war, it’s the people who end up caught in the crossfire. They don’t get solutions — they get slogans. They don’t get progress — they get poison.
It’s little wonder, then, that so many Americans feel they’ve had enough. Anger is not weakness here. It’s the logical response to being ignored, misled, and manipulated. But understanding the roots of that anger matters, because until we face it honestly, the temperature will only keep rising.
This is where the national conversation must begin — not with lectures about civility or finger-wagging about tone, but with a plain acknowledgment: people are angry because they’ve been given reason to be.
Share this:
Like this: