March 30, 2026

It's time for a new bloc within the Democratic Party

Let me start off with a story... a young man just becoming a young adult and he thinks electoral politics is the solution, is the way to make things better, and that the person with the rational and reasonable arguments will be the one with the edge.

He voted in 2006 and was proud to be a part of the blue wave that provided a much-needed check and balance against the Bush administration... even if they didn't impeach Bush.

He voted in 2008 and voted for Barack Obama; hope and change, he remembered all the sci-fi stuff about the 21st century he grew up with as a millennial, and silly him, he thought this would be it, this would be the catalyst for a new era... humanity unshackled.

This would have been the time to start a family, get a house, live a brand new American dream.

We just had to mop up the Republican mess.

And that's all it became about... fighting back against Republicans acting in bad faith, and they emboldened some of the worst Americans, crystalized in the birthers which gave them a platform to legitimize their racism, and their birther leader: Donald Trump.

In the time followed, in politics and outside of it, he lost... everything. The family he wanted to make, the career path he wanted to follow, and his faith in the system. Followed by years of nothing, just getting by.

---

But it's not time to give up, but you know what? But I am giving up on something: No more mopping up Republican messes.

Because now there is a new spark.

This is not proposing what's going to be happen, this is what is going to happen, this is going to be the course of action, and the results of the election in November will just decide some of the avenues in which it all happens.

So read and read well:
* I'm not dead yet. You're not dead yet. So there's still room for OUR agenda, for what we WANT, and not cleaning up after Republicans, not simply undoing what Republicans do. I want to achieve the things I saw that could be done through politics, and I want that for you too.
* I don't want to see young people entering politics be faced with the same heartbreak I encountered. This is for them.
* And let's light the fuse for this firework right now... There needs to be permanent and severe consequences for the 2024 election. People who voted for a bankrupt felon need to pay. There needs to be a complete loss of political capital for the Republican, for the conservative, for the Christian nationalist, for the one who said Kamala Harris was a warmonger and that voting Trump means no new wars, for the one who said Trump would pave the way for a golden age, for the media that lowered the standards to make room for Trump, for the billionaire, for the one who said Republicans are "better" on the economy, and the swing voter. Their hands have just a little of blood from this war's injured and dead on them to say the least.

How will this be achieved? Here's a non-exhaustive list that will grow after November for this bloc:

* Jury nullification. Promote it, advocate for it, use it in the jury box. If conservatives have made it illegal, nullify in the jury box. If it's a part of the disastrous war on drugs, nullify in the jury box. I have already done so myself for a case of possession. If a woman had an abortion and it's illegal, I will nullify that. If a doctor is on trial for choosing a woman over a fetus, then I'm going to nullify.
* Sorry not sorry, you're gonna have to take directions from people with funny hair colors. I don't have blue hair, I don't have piercings, and I don't have tattoos... but after the disaster Trump voters caused, I want them far closer to the steering wheel than any of them ever again. The woke, the other, the marginalized... they're gonna have a seat at the table.
* Taking All Lives Matter and making it All Lives Matter More than Healthcare Profits. It's our thing now, you lost it, people who used it as a thought-terminating cliche against people who said that black lives matter. It's all lives matter more than healthcare profits now.
* Unacceptable. Make this the image for the word itself:
* Word association. Every. Every what? Every billionaire is a policy failure. Let's normalize that. We need to do this so much that when one hears the word "every" then they automatically think that they are going to hear "billionaire is a policy failure" next.
* Confiscating a certain pharmaceutical slogan. Try it for yourself. It's going to become more of a thing.

And untethering employment, the job market, employers from the political system. Not individual employers, no. Employment. We shouldn't really care if the unemployment rate goes down or up at all if having a job really just means it is something to stay fed and housed. No and NO. Say it with me: No. If employment doesn't mean having a voice at work, if it means just a paycheck but not growth and fulfillment, if it doesn't mean being a part of cutting edge innovation, progress, and more; then we should want no part of this. I'm actually trying something out: making a comparison, "almost as bad as the job market" and so let's make it a benchmark. Let's divide the political system from employment.

No more mopping up Republican messes!

January 26, 2026

You know... I'm starting to think the government isn't actually a good judge on whether something is "terrorism" or not

... because it really isn't. The government shouldn't be calling things terrorist at all.

Here's this from 2015:



He ran around with the Confederate flag, the Rhodesian flag, and wanted to kick start a race war... YOU CAN NOT GET MORE POLITICAL THAN THAT!

Now let's see this compared to...



I don't care... I don't care if the President is a Democrat. I don't care if the President is a Republican. I don't care if the government is controlled by Democrats or controlled by Republicans. And I don't care if the person on the receiving end is a Muslim, a white guy, a person protesting against ICE, someone really against taxes, antifa, whatever.

From here on out, if the government says someone is a "domestic terrorist", then I will assume they came around to calling that person based on a game of spinning a bottle and it pointing to a grid of alternating "terrorist"/"not a terrorist" spaces.

The government doesn't know what terrorism is.

October 29, 2025

"Leave it to the states" is dead. Trump works against state moves to bar unreliable medical debt from credit reports

NEW YORK (AP) — The Trump administration is moving to overrule any state laws that may protect consumers’ credit reports from medical debt and other debt issues.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has drafted what’s known as an interpretative rule related to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, interpreting the law in a way that says the FCRA should preempt any state laws or regulations when it comes to how debt should be reported to the credit bureaus like Experian, Equifax and Trans Union.

This repeals previous Biden-era rules and regulations that allowed states to implement their own credit reporting bans. More than a dozen states like New York and Delaware prohibit the reporting of medical debt on a consumers’ credit report. Medical debt is often the most disputed part of a consumer’s credit report, because insurance payments can take time, and oftentimes patients do not have the means to fully pay a medical bill if insurance is not covering a procedure that has already taken place.

The three credit bureaus jointly announced in 2023 they would no longer track any medical debts below $500, which at the time the bureaus said would eliminate 70% of all medical debts reported on consumers’ credit files. But some states have gone further than that. New York, Delaware and others passed laws where medical debts can no longer be reported to the credit bureaus.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/medical-debt-cfpb-fcra-equifax-experian-trans-union-fdb5ad61e4ca0f18943045d314dd7b3b

You have to have either serious dementia or you are just not good at basic math to think one's ability to pay medical bills has anything to do with credit worthiness.

July 22, 2025

The right's love for Pinochet and the kicking leftists out of helicopters memes makes a whole lot more sense now

Pinochet was friends with a pedophile too.

Let's be real here: Pinochet knew what Paul Schafer was doing in Colonia Digniad. He knew exactly what he was doing to little kids when Pinochet's secret police was using Schafer's cult compound as a torture center. There's no way he didn't know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonia_Dignidad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Sch%C3%A4fer
Secrets of ex-Nazi's Chilean fiefdom

July 8, 2025

How many Robert Goddards do you think are being stifled today?

Robert Hutchings Goddard (October 5, 1882 – August 10, 1945) was an American engineer, professor, physicist, and inventor who is credited with creating and building the world's first liquid-fueled rocket, which was successfully launched on March 16, 1926. By 1915 his pioneering work had dramatically improved the efficiency of the solid-fueled rocket, signaling the era of the modern rocket and innovation. He and his team launched 34 rockets between 1926 and 1941, achieving altitudes as high as 2.6 km (1.6 mi) and speeds as fast as 885 km/h (550 mph).

Goddard's work as both theorist and engineer anticipated many of the developments that would make spaceflight possible. He has been called the man who ushered in the Space Age. Two of Goddard's 214 patented inventions, a multi-stage rocket (1914), and a liquid-fuel rocket (1914), were important milestones toward spaceflight. His 1919 monograph A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes is considered one of the classic texts of 20th-century rocket science. Goddard successfully pioneered modern methods such as two-axis control (gyroscopes and steerable thrust) to allow rockets to control their flight effectively.

Although his work in the field was revolutionary, Goddard received little public or financial support for his research and development work. He was a shy person, and rocket research was not considered a suitable pursuit for a physics professor. The press and other scientists ridiculed his theories of spaceflight. As a result, he became protective of his privacy and his work.

The New York Times editorial division thought Goddard's work was ridiculous and had this to put out about A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard

Oh another fun fact, the "only Dr. Einstein and his chosen dozen, so few and fit, are licensed to do that" referred to Einstein disputing the notion that space was full of a mysterious substance called luminiferous aether, which was believed that it "just had to exist" for no reason... take that as you will.

- The New York Times’ 1920 Editorial Mocking Space Travel Remains a Classic

We live in a society where the median voter believes Facebook memes are a trusted source for news and people think we have the greatest healthcare system in the world simply because we spend so much on it. So, there are still so many people like the NYT editorial author or authors still with us even today.

So we have to ask ourselves... how many people like Robert H. Goddard are getting their dreams dashed today?

July 6, 2025

Doublestandardgate - NYT's unacceptable coverage of Mamdani labeled "Pathetic. A scandal in itself"

On Thursday, the Times published a report citing hacked Columbia documents that revealed the New York Democratic mayoral nominee identified as "Black or African American" on his college application. Zohran Mamdani, who is of South Asian heritage, was born in Uganda, where his family had lived for approximately a century, according to the article.

The Tennessee Holler, a progressive news outlet, wrote on X, "So the @nytimes tried to slime Zohran using hacked materials given to them by an admitted race scientist/eugenicist who they kept anonymous even though he is publicly known — about races he checked on an application to a school he didn't get into? Pathetic. A scandal in itself."

During last year's presidential campaign, the Times, along with other publications, were given a leaked dossier on JD Vance, then-Republican vice presidential nominee, compiled by the Trump campaign. But the paper chose not to publish its contents. That decision stood in contrast to its approach in 2016, when the Times reported on hacked campaign emails from John Podesta, who was serving as Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman at the time.

https://www.newsweek.com/new-york-times-mamdani-article-healy-responds-2094926

I don't really care what box Zohran Mamdani checked on a college application, I think the NYT should be focusing on the scandal of politicians saying we have the greatest healthcare system in the world even though we lead in industrialized countries in women dying in childbirth.

The NYT wants us talking about the former so we're not talking about the latter.

And they would sell out their standards to make it happen.

March 14, 2025

So "regular people" don't talk about oligarchs, yet "oligarchy" is searched along "Olivia Rodrigo", "Olive Garden"

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) pushed back as MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle pressed him to criticize President Donald Trump’s relationship to billionaires like Elon Musk. In the extended version of their Tuesday MSNBC interview for The 11th Hour, Ruhle noted that Trump’s administration is the “wealthiest in modern history” and asked Fetterman if we are creating “American oligarchs.”

Fetterman suggested Musk and others aligning themselves like Trump are motivated by more than just simply making money. He also urged Democrats to begin using language that doesn’t involve words like “oligarch.” “I would just ask democrats to start talking like a regular person. Most people don’t know what an oligarch is,” the senator said.

https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20134078

It's time for Fetterman to get out from under Elon Musk...

Put the first three letters in and see what you get. What are regular people searching for?

Bing:


DuckDuckGo:


I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Olivia Rodrigo is a pretty big deal. She is up there for a reason, and "Oligarchy" is up there as well because people are interested in the topic, and I think they want to know what our government is going to do about it.

Should we ignore them?

January 22, 2025

Immoral. Should be illegal. Stealing. Should not be like this. Why is it like this? Where is it going? UNACCEPTABLE.

Government and media is going to lie to our faces and tell us it's the greatest healthcare in the world? No. Unacceptable.

Conservative Christians are going to tell us being GLBTQ is a sin and yet won't even use the word to refer to this joke of a system that is ripping us all off while turning around and saying we're a Christian Nation despite Jesus healing people for free? No. Unacceptable.

Fox News wants us to panic over shoplifters and has nothing to say about this? No. Unacceptable.

I'm supposed to be afraid of an illegal immigrant taking my job, yet here we have a system taking my money and my life? No. Unacceptable.

And, frankly, any institution or politician who looks at this and does not say "Unacceptable" and not "Unacceptable, but..." needs to be dismantled or seen as illegitimate respectively.

Unacceptable.

January 22, 2025

Crisis in American Faith: Christianity is 43 percent of population as Conservative Christianity becomes own religion

"The most popular religion in the United States is Christianity, comprising the majority of the population (73.7% of adults in 2016)..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

Seem to be about 30% of the population, so I think Christianity dropping from 73% to 43% is fair, give or take a little bit.

I mean, let's call it what it is...

* If you white-out Matthew 19:24 but highlight Romans 13

* If you want to call being GLBTQ a sin but ignore the commandment that is, you know, "Thou shalt not steal", something that is held sacred to adherents of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I actually read that commandment, it does not read "Thou shalt not steal unless thou be rich and powerful". If you can call GLBTQ a sin, but you suddenly shut your trap when people are defrauded by the rich and powerful (Which is... anyone, anyone? ... STEALING), then don't call yourself a Christian, you can call yourself a Conservative Christian, but not a Christian. You outright reject a commandment held not just by Christianity but by other Abrahamic faiths as well, I mean come on.

* If, and going on healthcare, you actually say we have the world's greatest healthcare and we have a "Christian nation", but we pay the most for healthcare. Is it because of that, is it because we pay the most? Jesus healed people for free. You wanna rip the Christ out of your supposed Christianity any other ways while you're at it? Goodness.

* If you have a cargo cult of billionaires, prosperity theology, and Donald Trump.

* If you consider the teachings of Jesus to be "woke"

Then stop calling yourself a Christian, you're a Conservative Christian.

I'm not a super-believer in religion, I'm a critic of organized religion as a whole, but I do believe in something... maybe it's God, maybe it's oneness, I don't know. But I try to respect people who do believe and are respectful of others; Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Bahai, Hindu, etc., and those who do not believe as well and are respectful of others.

You can have money-makes-right, power-makes-right, stick it to the woke, it's not the sin of stealing when the rich do it, cargo cult belief system or you can have Christianity. But not both. So, it is because of this respect and belief for mutual respect that, in good conscience, I can no longer associate Christianity with the Conservative Christianity that has taken root in the American political landscape today.

January 22, 2025

Look! Right Reverend Mariann Budde criticized him to his face

No death squads are coming, nobody snatched her up in the middle of the night, the Episcopal Church wasn't declared a terrorist organization.

These right-wing authoritarians want you to be scared, end of democracy, just submit, blah blah frickity blah. Let's all hide, run for Canada...

They'll say they have a mandate.
They'll say they are backed by God.
They'll say they are unstoppable due to plutocrats like Elon Musk (but they're not elitists by the way because... reasons)

The tragedy of Uvalde shown us something though... the moment that right-wing authoritarians and so-called tough guy conservatives actually encounter something that does not go their way, they will use kids and teachers as human shields. Of course, nobody is shooting anybody here, but I'm starting to think that we can go low, we can fight dirty, we can advocate for jury nullification for nonsense conservative laws, we can talk about what to do in The Way Forward, and we can use tough but non-violent tactics like those described in the works of Gene Sharp... and the only shooting they are going to do is a yellow stream in their pants.

If I'm wrong, they are free to track me down and do what they're gonna do. But I am not wrong, so they can throw a temper tantrum... but that is all it is going to be.