when i'm president

The purpose of there even being media offices in the Pentagon goes back to a decision in 1982, specifically because of the tension of US-involved conflicts. News companies originally were contracted by a singular member of the company being assigned to focus on the Pentagon's affairs, usually these people were former military or at least well-versed in political affairs. With the historical problems of wire transfers being expensive and the difficulties of having only one source, the Pentagon Press Corps served to have multiple sources should specific concerns come up. An example could be a bigger media company recieveling news from a paid infomant over wire transfer that the Department of Defense plans on withdrawing from X country. In the past, this would be endlessly repeated in an echo chamber as ground breaking news without any ability to actually double check or even corroborate. The best document I could find about the history of the Pentagon Press Corps was document ADA135525, which describes the system and its history, as well as ways to smooth the entire process. It does not explain its modern purpose, but gives perspective as to how it arose.

Based on AllSides' wonderfully collected data, relative leanings for each of these outlets goes as follows- Politico is the most central bias media source, with -1.20 (0 being central), NBC News having a left leaning of -1.80, NPR News leaning left just slightly more with -2.00, and New York Times being the most left group, with a score of -2.20. All of these estimates have medium confidence, except New York Times, which has high confidence. Please note that the opinion articles for both NPR and New York Times has been ignored, as it is not relevant to the media reporters within the Pentagon, these are reporters skilled in interpreting military information and financial details, usually focusing on giving the direct data and technical explanation to other teams in the company.

These four media companies are being replaced with One America News Network, The New York Post, Breitbart News, and HuffPost. The ratings of these media companies are as follows- One America News with 3.10, leaning right, with 0 being central, the New York Post with 2.93, Breitbart News with a 6.00, and HuffPost with a -4.30, the only left leaning or left group. HuffPost has a high confidence rating, with Breitbart has a low confidence rating, and the other two have medium confidence rating. Please note the distinction between the New York Times and New York Post. Also, mildly amusing, HuffPost is owned by BuzzFeed.

Regardless of political leaning, all four of the removed groups have a more central view on average than the four proposed News groups. The highest leaning media company of the first group (-2.20, New York Times) is still lower than the most central media company of the second group (2.93, New York Post).

Take everything here with a grain of salt, and research on your own, as you should do with everything. I can't say what I would do as president, because I do not know what the true intentions behind this Press Corps are, and whether or not they are helpful in the modern age. There is much I do not understand, and I defer to the expert's knowledge of the subject. I, however, would watch this carefully, as any favoring from the government is suspicious at best.

Call your representatives, tell them you want Donald Trump impeached on crimes related to abuse of power. There's two options- we're ignored, or we're listened to. After that, we can learn how far gone our government is in terms of Trump owning congress.

If impeachment is brought up, Congress must go over the facts and 'convict' the impeachee in a 2/3s majority vote. Last time (the second time) Donald Trump was impeached, Senate brought forth the charges, but only the House of Representatives voted on impeachment. Senate failed to reach the 2/3s majority vote to remove Trump, and the charges were dismissed. In August 2023, Trump was twice indicted for the conduct at issue in his impeachment, once in Georgiaand the other federally. The federal charges were dismissed in November 2024 due to the Department of Justice's policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents, subsequent to Trump's re-election that month. The Georgia one went through, with Trump and 13 other conspirators being found guilty of charges of forgery, impersonation (of a public officer), RICO violations (the state's anti-rackettering law), and perjury. Trump specifically was found guilty of RICO violations, false statements, impersonation of a public officer, and forgery. It doesn't seem like he was jailed or fined for these offenses.

Except- he's been doing this the whole time. He's been pushing down innocents since the moment he had power, money, or fame.

1- The CDC is not allowed to speak to the public.

Despite being a public health awareness agency, the CDC is currently banned from speaking to the press, or utilizing their own public speakers to release information on health concerns. This is dangerous because it limits the intervention that officials can provide on public health emergencies and alerts, such as disease outbreaks.

2- The CDC website is under construction, not down.

This is an important distinction, but equally as dangerous. The site is still accessible to visual readers, though actual accessibility such as screen readers, large font, and other features is not on most pages. These pages are being revamped visually everywhere on the site, but so far, I cannot find any actual missing data on the web pages I have visited. There are thousands of web pages, I cannot visit them all to confirm, and the Internet Archive does not save every single page. Even worse, science is an ever changing field, and pages even a year old are not useful when comparing to the current pages. There are so many web pages, I doubt they could be removed methodically in the way the pages have been modified on the site. This is optimistic, but optimism with more evidence then the alternative. The alternative seems true upon first glance, but with further digging, I have found only surface level proof to the panic.

3- Other sources are available.

Scientists use other websites to gain information, usually NIH's systems for research papers. This is not useful to the public, because these papers can be painful to read. But with that in mind, the primary source material is FAR more powerful than any transliterated report, because it contains minute details that are essential in science but unhelpful to the public. They contain data, collection methods, other referenced sources, and so much more information that the friendly-to-read versions cannot provide. The best part? Getting rid of these are close to impossible. I, personally, have hundreds of these papers downloaded on 6 different topics and 48 different specifications on my 1 TB hard drive, and that takes up less than 7% of the entire drive. I am not even a professional researcher, just a nerd who works in applied science. Can you imagine how much the researchers hold? Imagine the back ups in the cloud, the forgotten paper files in the library, the teachers and professors in colleges? The more understandable information can be given from the complex later, if they choose to remove data on the CDC.

Download more, please. This isn't perfect, and every page lost is a tragedy to humanity. Freely available information is the greatest feat humanity has achieved, along side the Tropical Neglected Disease project and the obliteration of Smallpox. Every page saved, is likewise, a boon to society. If papers are truly being removed, or worse, destroyed by our current suspected regime, let them know backlash, and let them know that nothing is ever lost on the internet. Put it on the dark web for all I care, next to hacker forums and suspicious ads, so long as that informative stays in the world, I can have hope.

Finally, for those who threaten this modern burning of Alexandra. Count your happy days. Count your blessed moments. Every page you ruin, every second you waste burying information that ultimately benefits lives you deem lower, will be counted on your death toll. When the bell finally stops ringing, you won't even be able to enjoy the blessed silence before I cut you down. Your actions threaten lives outside of what you target. You target gender care, you risk patients with chromosomal abnormalities. You target sexuality studies, you threaten mental health research and psychology as a whole. You target medical papers that threaten your pathetic understanding of the world, and you will watch hundreds of children die from disease forgotten long before your miserable exsistence.

Worst part? At least two of these are know for publishing conspiracy theories (One America News and Breitbart News). Both are far-right and One America is pro-Trump. The last is a freaking tabloid (New York Post). The final one is owned by BuzzFead (HuffPost), which no offense, BuzzFead, you are not my go-to source for anything but puppy interviews with celebrities.

The time in which America is going through its most aggressive changes is the time in which the press and news sources that we normally trust are removed from primary sources. Take that as you will.

0.007 times 4000 is 2.8. At least 2 people should be prior convicted, though realistically this number would be far higher depending on what a person deems as an actual prior convict. Someone who spend ten days in jail, or 5 years in prison? Additionally, the proper number would be 0.027 times 4000, which equals 108. 108 people would be prior convicts of any crime.

The current appointees (from data of December 2024) that were previously convicted of a crime is 2, one of which served 4 months for contempt of court for refusing to comply with a subpoena about the Jan 6 riots (Peter Navarro) and the other convicted of tax evasion and illegal campaign contributions, serving 14 months in prison (Charles Kushner). Despite the obvious favoritism (Charles Kushner is his son-in-law's father, and Peter Navarro refused to give up information related to the case of Jan 6 riots), Trump at least got that right.

Just because someone committed a crime doesn't mean they should live the rest of their life struggling, or forced into illegal acts because of it. Half of this can be blamed on the fact that rapists and predators can get out at all, let alone within a year of their arrest. Not even their conviction, their arrest. We feel we can't trust anyone convicted because there is a higher probability that a child predator is standing next to you then a prior drug dealer of weed. Even if you know the exact nature of the crime, why hire someone convicted when there is a perfectly good 17 year old that has no record at all?

30 members of Congress were born in 1925 to 1945

264 members of Congress were born in 1946 to 1964

179 members of Congress were born in 1965 to 1979

67 members of Congress were born in 1980 to 1994

1 member of Congress was born in the 1995 to 2012 range. He was born in 1997, and served originally the House of Representatives for Florida's 10th district.

As such, if it is banned, it is simply because they do not agree with it. If the government, state or federal, can support book banning because someone simply does not agree with it, that is not the country I was raised in, born in, vote in, or protest in.