News   Apr 10, 2026
 554     0 
News   Apr 10, 2026
 968     0 
News   Apr 10, 2026
 1.5K     0 

President Donald Trump's United States of America

It's funny how people have this notion that Democrats are somehow good guys capable and willing to do good things for the good of the country, the people, and the world. I guess, compared to GOP, even a turd looks like a gold nugget. But don't fool yourself into thinking that the DNC has any intention of being a force for good.
 
It's funny how people have this notion that Democrats are somehow good guys capable and willing to do good things for the good of the country, the people, and the world. I guess, compared to GOP, even a turd looks like a gold nugget. But don't fool yourself into thinking that the DNC has any intention of being a force for good.
Yeah, except that there's a wave of change happening within the Dems right now; one that cares more about justice than lip service.

And it's not like the Democrats haven't already bent towards recognition of the ICC; it's ultimately been Republicans who eschew it.
 
Yeah, except that there's a wave of change happening within the Dems right now;
Yeah, and the DNC is fighting every single Justice Democrat tooth and nail at every primary, and then constantly undermine, belittle and attack the few that manage to slip through the cracks and get elected. DNC is literally doing everything so that popular candidates never enter their party on popular platforms. Justice Democrats will never become the mainstream DNC, and unless that happens, mainstream DNC will never be the force for good (or a force for change, for that matter).
 

Judge says Pentagon must restore press access​

A federal judge ruled the Defense Department violated a court order requiring it to ease stringent restrictions imposed on reporters who cover the Pentagon and blocked a new press policy issued by the department last month. U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman again sided with the New York Times and its reporter Julian Barnes, who filed a lawsuit last year that argued the new Pentagon policy violated the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and due process provision of the Constitution. Last month, Friedman struck down some of the Pentagon's strict controls on how journalists with Pentagon press passes are allowed to report — ending a policy that has caused many news outlets, including CBS News, to leave the Pentagon. Friedman ruled that the Pentagon failed to comply with his March order and said a revised press policy, which the Pentagon instituted after his order, was also unlawful. The new Pentagon rules expelled all reporters from the building unless they were accompanied by government escorts and removed media outlets' office spaces from the building. "The Department cannot simply reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking 'new' action and expect the Court to look the other way," Friedman wrote. "Nor can the Department take steps to circumvent the Court's injunction and expect the Court to turn a blind eye."
Friedman's March ruling halted some of the most onerous restrictions imposed on news outlets, including one provision that said reporters who "solicit" classified or sensitive information from military personnel could be deemed a security risk and barred from the building. He also struck down a section that referred to Pentagon access as a "privilege" rather than a "right." Some sections were left in place, including restrictions on where reporters are allowed to go in the Pentagon without an escort. The March ruling also ordered the Pentagon to reinstate Barnes and several other Times reporters' press passes. It's not clear what the impact will be on other news outlets."This ruling powerfully vindicates both the Court's authority and the First Amendment's protections of independent journalism," attorney Gibson Dunn, who represents the Times, told CBS News in a statement. Friedman's order Thursday requires a Pentagon official "with personal knowledge" to sign a sworn declaration to him by April 16 "describing the steps taken to ensure compliance" with the order. "The Court cannot conclude this Opinion without noting once again what this case is really about: the attempt by the Secretary of Defense to dictate the information received by the American people, to control the message so that the public hears and sees only what the Secretary and the Trump Administration want them to hear and see," Friedman wrote Thursday. "The Constitution demands better. The American public demands better, too. Over the past few weeks, the Court has received dozens of letters and postcards from people across the country explaining what the First Amendment means to them." Although a Pentagon spokesperson said the department would pursue an appeal of Friedman's ruling last month, the Justice Department has not yet filed one.
 
It's funny how people have this notion that Democrats are somehow good guys capable and willing to do good things for the good of the country, the people, and the world. I guess, compared to GOP, even a turd looks like a gold nugget. But don't fool yourself into thinking that the DNC has any intention of being a force for good.
...I think the problem is Americans don't have much of choice to choose from. That is, a right wing party that is often out of touch with the needs of people, or the Rethuglicans....so it's always a choice between finding the lesser of two evils here. Which to me is a real travesty of democracy where there's always a hunger to move forward. And always a temptation to throw up the hands and give up come voting time. It's in part how Trump eked out a win in the last election. /bleah

------
@thettctransitfanatic: Did Trump just post something really vile on Truth Social again? Don't post it here if it's going give your posting privileges a vacation. (Yeah, I've heard it was that bad.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PL1
Did Trump just post something really vile on Truth Social again? Don't post it here if it's going give your posting privileges a vacation. (Yeah, I've heard it was that bad.)
He sure did. He attacked his right wing media friends. Let's just say, here's a song for all the MAGA commentators now turning on him:

 
Yeah, and the DNC is fighting every single Justice Democrat tooth and nail at every primary,
What’s a Justice Democrat? Is that one that cares about social justice issues (BLM, DEI, DACA, etc.) or criminal justice issues (law enforcement, sentence reform, border protection, etc.)? That’s a big difference. If it’s the SJW sort, I would argue that they cost the Dems the 2016 and 2024 elections.
 
Last edited:
What’s a Justice Democrat? Is that one that cares about social justice issues (BLM, DEI, DACA, etc.) or criminal justice issues (law enforcement, sentence reform, border protection, etc.)? That’s a big difference. If it’s the SJW sort, I would argue that they cost the Dems the 2016 and 2024 elections.
Justice Democrats are the anti-establishment folk who fund their elections through grassroots small donations and refuse corporate PAC money. I.e. not beholden to the corporate overlords that turned American politics into what it is today. Their mission is to get the money out of politics by overhauling campaign finance, curbing lobbyists, and repealing Citizens United (which alone would go a long way towards fixing the broken American political system).
Unfortunately, there are also plenty of SJW types among the Justice Democrats, so it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
Justice Democrats are the anti-establishment folk who find their elections with grassroots small donations and refuse corporate PAC money.
Ah, I see it now.
The US could really benefit from Canada's campaign finance limits, especially corporate donations. Our national voter ID and registration model and campaign time limits would also be beneficial.
Unfortunately, there are also plenty of SJW types among the Justice Democrats, so it is what it is.
Indeed, their own website has a real whiff of SJW.
Their candidate profile page looks like someone used Ai to create a DEI spoof (for fun I asked ChatGPT for the below). You couldn't find a single white guy when they represent over 30% of the total United States population?

1775826759235.png
 
Last edited:
I mean, fighting for progressive causes is not the same thing as being SJW. But some people in their caucus say things that can only be described as "what the f..."
Not the 2026 NDP convention level of cringe, but close.
The Wikipedia page above does a much better job of presenting many positions that average Americans could get behind.
 
Interesting timing for Melania to make an announcement to deny that she personally had ties with Epstein. Especially when the general public has shifted their focus away from the investigations for a while.

 
Er...why is this unfortunate?
Because that's how you lose elections, activate moderates and undecideds to either stay home or vote GOP, and eventually end up in as a fringe backwater, like the federal NDP.
Middle of the road Americans don't care about diversity, equity or alphabet (is that now MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA+?) issues, but about jobs, social/economic mobility, homelessness, crime and safety, affordability, housing, accessible/affordable/quality healthcare and education, income disparity, safe borders and immigration reform, fare taxation (closing loopholes for billionaires), and (for some) environmental protections, freedom of the press, privacy protections, and public transit. None of these are what most perceive as SJW issues, but instead focus on the pocketbook and safety. That's where the Dems need to fight.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top