The removal of the Constitution from the White House website is undeniably a significant event, sparking a whirlwind of speculation and concern. The immediate reaction ranges from outrage to suspicion, with various explanations being proposed. Some believe it was a deliberate act, a symbolic rejection of the very document that underpins the nation’s governance. The phrase “fuck the constitution” echoes in the background of this interpretation, adding fuel to the fire of this particularly cynical view.
Conversely, others suggest it was a simple mistake, perhaps an unintentional oversight by a new IT staff member. This explanation, while seemingly innocuous, struggles to fully alleviate the anxieties surrounding the incident.… Continue reading
Following a brief shutdown, TikTok resumed service after President-elect Trump intervened, pledging an executive order to allow more time for a sale to a US buyer. This action has been met with skepticism, with critics alleging the situation is a calculated “scam” to portray Trump as a savior of the app, despite his prior calls for a ban. The incident raises concerns about potential influence over tech companies and the circumvention of existing federal laws. Trump’s shift in stance, coinciding with increased TikTok following and his claim of its electoral impact, underscores the political complexities surrounding the app.
Read More
Trump falsely suggested that the New Orleans suspect, who drove a truck into a crowd of New Year’s Eve revelers, was an immigrant. This claim, made on his Truth Social platform, directly followed the tragic event and attempted to tie the incident to his past rhetoric on immigration. The timing of the statement, made hours after the tragedy, felt exploitative, using a horrific event to further his political agenda.
This assertion was demonstrably false. Authorities quickly identified the suspect as a U.S.-born citizen and a veteran of the U.S. Army, shattering Trump’s narrative. The suspect’s identity, readily available from official sources, directly contradicted Trump’s attempt to paint the perpetrator as an undocumented immigrant.… Continue reading
Donald Trump’s repeated claims of a “massive mandate” in his recent election victory are demonstrably false, easily refuted by examining both the Electoral College and popular vote results. His assertion of a 129-year unprecedented victory is unsubstantiated, with recent presidents exceeding his margin. This fabricated claim, likely motivated by insecurity regarding his narrow win, exemplifies the manipulative tactics of successful liars, adding specific details to lend false credibility. Ultimately, Trump’s repeated use of the term “mandate” is a disingenuous attempt to bolster a weak claim to overwhelming popular support.
Read More
Despite spending tens of millions of dollars on anti-transgender campaign ads, President-elect Trump now claims the bathroom debate is unimportant, affecting a “very small number of people.” He suggests the Supreme Court should decide the issue and agrees with Rep.-elect Sarah McBride that other matters warrant congressional attention. Trump’s recent statements directly contradict his campaign’s aggressive rhetoric targeting transgender individuals, particularly in ads falsely portraying Democratic nominee Kamala Harris’s stance on gender-affirming care. He now asserts his support for fair treatment of all people, irrespective of majority or minority status.
Read More
Trump disavowed Project 2025 during the campaign. Not anymore. This shift is less a surprise and more a stark reminder of a consistent pattern of behavior, leaving many to question why anyone expected anything different. The initial disavowal, conveniently timed before the election, served a calculated purpose: to appeal to a broader base of voters, particularly those wary of the extreme policies outlined in Project 2025. It was a masterful, if cynical, political maneuver.
The post-election embrace of Project 2025 feels less like a sudden change of heart and more like a calculated unveiling of a plan that was always lurking beneath the surface.… Continue reading
President-elect Trump’s transition team plans to deviate from the standard FBI background checks for some of his Cabinet picks, opting for private companies instead. This decision stems from a belief that the FBI process is slow and prone to political manipulation. While the president ultimately decides who receives intelligence access, circumventing traditional background checks is a departure from Washington norms. The move reflects Trump’s distrust of the national security establishment and raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest, particularly regarding controversial nominees like Matt Gaetz and Tulsi Gabbard, who have faced prior investigations and criticism for their stances on foreign policy.
Read More
The allure of figures like Baudet, AfD, and Salvini lies in their ability to exploit the very real anxieties and insecurities of certain segments of society. Their followers, often those with limited resources and education, feel a sense of desperation amidst economic instability and social change. They are easily manipulated by the narrative of “the other,” the migrant, the LGBTQ+ individual, the “undeserving” recipient of government aid, who is presented as the enemy stealing their hard-earned privileges and leaving them behind.
This fear is skillfully amplified by these politicians, who paint a picture of a zero-sum game, where any benefit given to “the other” comes at the expense of their own wellbeing.… Continue reading
Elon Musk is setting up campaign websites and text alerts posing as the Harris Campaign, which raises serious ethical and legal concerns. It feels like we’re living in an unprecedented time where the boundaries of acceptable political behavior are being pushed to their limits. The notion that someone with Musk’s resources and influence would impersonate a political campaign is not only baffling but also profoundly troubling. It’s hard to understand how anyone could justify this kind of blatant election interference.
The legal implications of impersonating a candidate are staggering. In many ways, this feels like a direct assault on the democratic process.… Continue reading
I was absolutely appalled when I saw the deceptive editing tactics employed by Fox News during Kamala Harris’s interview. It’s clear to me that they were trying to push a specific narrative, and it backfired spectacularly. As I watched the clip, I couldn’t help but feel disgusted by the blatant gaslighting and manipulation being carried out by the network.
Kamala Harris’s swift response to the edited clip was nothing short of impressive. She didn’t falter for a second and called out Brett Baier on his dishonesty. It was evident that she was prepared for any gotcha moments Fox News might try to pull, and she handled the situation with grace and intelligence.… Continue reading
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker