Elon Musk
This has got to be illegal... Maga folks are so interested in voter fraud but not this type of fraud, right? Buying votes?
https://x.com/krassenstein/status/1907449158287372512These actions have raised legal and ethical concerns. Wisconsin's Democratic attorney general filed a lawsuit seeking to block Musk from distributing the $1 million payments, arguing that offering money to voters could violate bribery statutes. However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to hear the case, allowing Musk to proceed with the payments.
AP News
In summary, Elon Musk did endorse and financially support a specific candidate.
A new strategy: Move the goal posts. Why?
Musk Slashes DOGE Savings Forecast By 85% published at right wing Daily Caller (Apr 11, 2025)
https://dailycaller.com/2025/04/11/elon … 0-billion/
"Elon Musk announced Thursday that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is now targeting $150 billion in federal savings for fiscal year 2026 — dramatically scaling back earlier claims of slashing as much as $2 trillion.
Musk initially projected DOGE would deliver $2 trillion in savings by targeting government waste, fraud and abuse. That figure was halved to $1 trillion earlier this year, but Musk walked it back again at Thursday’s Cabinet meeting, saying the revised $150 billion projection will “result in better services for the American people” and ensure federal spending “in a way that is sensible and fair and good.”
Watch the 2+ hour Trump cabinet meeting with Musk midway in the article. Watch the 30+ minute Live Now from Fox video at the end of the article with Musk and some of his team members.Take a break from tariffs, deportation, and government cuts
ELON MUSK’S MOTHERS
From right wing Daily Caller newsletter, so is a copy paste. Pour that cup of coffee to get a little something to stimulate an intellectual(?) perspective on the richest man in the world and a creative genius.
ELON MUSK’S MOTHERS
What, if any, virtue is there in Elon Musk’s crusade to repopulate … his living room? The country? The human race?
Specifically I’m referring to his having 14 children with four women. The number has been widely reported and in an article today for the WSJ, “multiple sources” say the publicly known number is actually well short of the “real number.”
WSJ refers to the known women almost diminutively as his “harem” or possessively as his “mothers,” even while making the case that his sperm slinging – and I mean that literally, he’s actually been giving certain people samples – is part of a deeper pathology around declining birth rates.
That pathology is also well known in public. Musk has talked about it dozens of times in high profile venues. He believes that not only the West is in danger of decline, but humanity altogether, if the right people stop having babies.
He’s highly specific about that last part. It needs to be the right people. Smart people, successful people. He isn’t just dumping sperm samples on street corners in Baltimore, there is at least some standard Musk adheres to prior to shooting his shots, which WSJ also outlines.
None of this gets to the heart of the matter, though, at least for conservatives. The real meat of the current debate is nearly identical to the disconnect liberals were hoping to exploit between evangelicals and Donald Trump almost a decade ago.
How do conservatives square their traditional family and Christian values with Musk’s semi-unmoored progeny?
The answer to that question is pretty simple and they would know why the contradiction is not a sticking point for conservatives or Christians if they bothered really talking to any of them.
It’s become almost a trope at this point, especially with regards to the gay community, but put simply: Reject the sin, not the soul.
Musk can correct his ways any time he wants to, at risk of sounding cliche, come to Jesus.
The beauty of Christ and Christianity is in redemption. Of course, liberals would call that a copout and demand a more vociferous denunciation. Even though, “Yeah that’s bad, totally agree, he should be a better father” is perfectly in line with what anyone would expect a normal person, yes even a Christian, to say. Nevertheless, they want more.
What they really want is already obvious to you, Dear Reader.
It’s for that outcry on the right to become so loud that Trump simply has to part ways with Musk. As far as motivations go, this much could barely be described as ulterior. Onlookers in public can see the real goal.
So that’s definitely not going to happen.
But the original question was “what virtue” is there in Musk’s cultivation of a “harem” of mothers?
The virtue, as I see it, is that in a sea of misdirection, outright lies, and thinly veiled motives, Musk is at least authentic. His talk about repopulation isn’t just talk. It’s action. (It’s also arguably some highly effective action.)
Musk is unvarnished and direct and he does exactly what he says he’s going to do. He, in fact, often exceeds what he says he’s going to do.
We live in a world where doublespeak has become a dominant matter of discourse, where euphemism and rebranding and spin is always, 100 percent of the time, part of the equation when it comes to engaging with the public.
Not even the media’s focus on Musk’s disconnect with conservative values is explicitly stated. Can’t they just be honest? They want him out. They want his efforts to cut government waste stymied. They want to drive a wedge between him and public support in order to protect their beloved bureaucracy.
They also think you are all too stupid to see those true motives.
(Never mind us rapidly identifying the dissonance between a media generally working to denigrate the nuclear family suddenly being super concerned about Musk’s very un-nuclear families – what happened to strong independent women who don’t need a man, eh?)
When it comes to public trust, as shifts in the media landscape have shown more recently, authenticity is now the most compelling currency. You can be wrong, but for the love of God be honest. Be yourself. And, for God’s sake, stop lying.
Why, aside from the worldview on sin and forgiveness, would conservatives view any of this with a silver lining?
As we triage threats to public good, consenting, conservative, politically aware adults are unlikely to place Musk’s scattered brood above, say, the deep state. A subversive, unelected, anonymous hydra working as hard to strangle the will of the people as it is to fund transgender puppet shows in the third world.
Which one is more likely to rapidly deconstruct western values, Musk’s promiscuity or USAID subverting foreign elections?
It’s also garnish on the plate when I say that Americans historically love a flawed hero. Even the highly hyperbolized (fictionalized?) alcoholism of Ulysses S. Grant only deepened America’s fondness for the man.
He’ll save the nation despite his flaws! Heck, even priests drink, am I right?
So it goes with Elon’s mothers. He’s a man who acts on his beliefs and achieves greatness despite his inadequacies. He’s human and distinctly not a part of the soulless Washington borg.
He’s also done a pretty good job battling that borg.That was a nice break. A bit of morning confirmation bias for us Darwinists.
"Sperm slinging" brought a chuckle. Musk must see it as a 'good seed' vs 'bad seed' thing. His are probably wearing tiny white hats.
His legal arrangements with the mothers would be interesting. To me, the issue sounds like a win-win for everyone.
GAhmmm . . .
A lot could be unpackaged I imagine.The line between Genuis and Insanity is a very thin line...
If women want to have his kids... nothing wrong with that...
I think he can afford it... wonder if he plans on taking them to Mars with him?Now there's a train of thought: The Musk clan, pioneers of Mars.
He probably needs 15 years or so until some of the kids can fill their anticipated spots. It'll probably take that long to build the colony infrastructure. With all the different mothers, colony inbreeding probably isn't a worry.
Lil X seems to be the favorite, so he'll probably go first.
GAThere is a reason he has Tesla building the world's most advanced AI as well as robots.
It doesn't take a brainiac to figure out that we can't colonize Mars... Without first sending the materials and robots to build a place where humans can survive.
Probably his reason for the boring company he has as well.
One plan is to dig deep into the ground...requiring expertise in tunnel making. Necessary to protect from radiation....Mars does not offer much in the way of protection for life.I had the same thought about The Boring Company. A moon base would probably be the first 'test bed' for intelligent robots and boring machines. I think it has the same radiation issues as Mars.
Tie in his energy storage assets and autonomous robotics; he has the foundation needed for everything else.
GAAgreed, it is rather obvious when you think about it, why he has chosen the fields to delve into that he has... otherwise the boring company doesn't make all that much sense, not from an investment/return standpoint.
The foray into X (formerly Twitter) was a sidestep... but one I think he felt necessary for reasons outside of his goals of sustainable/renewable energy and his Mission to Mars.
It may seem logical to you or I that the Moon would be a logical first step...
Elon's mind doesn't work like that... he envisions the goal and how to achieve it... and anything... anything he can cut out of the process to getting it accomplished will be discarded.
That would be the moon... to Musk's mind it is an unnecessary and wasteful step... wasteful of time and resources... he could care less about the moon and will bypass it. And he could care less about what the government, any government, would like to do regarding the moon.
Just IMO... I don't know the guy personally or anything.Your Musk/Mars thought works. Several companies seem to already be working on 'moon base' stuff. From your perspective, it makes sense for him to focus on Mars and let others work on support facilities on the moon. They'll still be using SpaceX (primarily) for their moon efforts.
And, there is the plus of Musk not being entangled in the political fights that are sure to come over moon assets and positions. A win-win for him.
There's another train of thought; Musk focuses on Mars, and the world fights for control of supplying his colony.
Think of it as a prequel to The Expanse.
GAYeah ...it's possible that as he grew in power and began expanding on his ideas for being a two planet species...
As he moved into the realm of possibility of achieving such a goal. It became obvious the biggest threat to it was a government targeting those efforts...
Thereby forcing his foray into politics a byproduct of buying Twitter?
Or is he so insightful that the purchase of twitter was his first calculated effort against that threat?
I am more anxious than most to see a successful colonization of Mars, but lets sort the wheat from the chaff, shall we?
As for now, we have not even returned to the moon in over 50 years, colonization and exploration being far less involved technically due to its proximity to the earth. Space helmets and hard hats don’t mix well. A successful lunar colony should be our first goal, let’s walk before we run.
They talk about a 7-8 month transit time, there are no shuttles from earth for resupplies as for ISS. Supply ships could be sent to Mars or placed in Martian orbit, but from here the technology involved would be daunting.
Current chemical based propulsion systems are woefully inadequate for interplanetary travel where human beings are the cargo. While there are alternatives on the drawing board, theory will have to become practical application. How long will that take?
Robots and materials that will make a habitable environment there without human intervention, we are not there yet.
It would be smarter to build the craft in space and not have to lift so much out from Earths gravitational well. Are we able to do this? Not now.
My intuition continues to warn me that Musk is a man of hot air. This is not Star Trek. I would be lucky to see a man on Mars within my lifetime, mid century. And I will bet your bottom dollar that any real colonization ability will, if we don’t destroy ourselves first, be beyond Musk’s lifetime.You don't understand Musk if you think he could be interested/diverted to the Moon.
He has expressed his reasoning plainly and I tend to agree, but that aside, he makes the impossible happen... and if his goal is Mars then that is what he will set out for, or die in the attempt, as they say... he has no interest in the Moon, and he has a time limit on his goals of it being within his lifetime.
I have said for a considerable time that Musk is a turd. He is proving it, the richest man on earth is nothing but a pimp. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Prostitution at its highest levels? A stud and genetic purity service that can compete with any of the programs conducted by the Nazis. But, I forget he is from South Africa, how much racism and resentment is a part of his formula? He must have bought off the press so that this incredible story stays under wraps for so long?
He is an amoral goof from every angle. It proves that in America there is not necessarily a correlation between wealthy and “smart”You really are a becoming a consistently cantankerous commentator...
Might want to find another hobby to fit into your schedule, lighten your grumpy mood a bit... or maybe I'm just reading your comments in the wrong light ~shrug~Sometimes that is what it takes, strong to last long…….
Think about it, you don’t find anything odd about someone like this given the keys and trusted to run it all?
He can do me a favor and go Mars and stay there, in his genius he will figure out how to create a colony on a planet with a virtually non existent atmosphere.Oh yeah, I trust a corrupt warmongering bureaucracy and politicians that have made their families wealthy selling out Americans and starting endless wars to tell the truth...
Yeah ... like I have said before, no reason to debate really, anyone that still listens to MSNBC or CNN or their equivalent ilk in print that doesn't have a gag reflex from having the urge to puke isn't someone to debate or discuss things with.
Those poor souls are just regurgitating the mindless propaganda they are fed daily.Ken, Just my view --- Absolutely agree with you. There’s a deep psychological element at play here. What you're describing is a combination of confirmation bias and groupthink, but it goes even deeper. People who consume legacy outlets like MSNBC or CNN aren’t necessarily after the truth, they’re after a dopamine hit of validation. It’s a psychological comfort food. I honestly think they’ve become dependent on the emotional stimulation that comes from hearing their beliefs echoed back to them.
These networks don’t just report, they curate narratives that reinforce a preexisting worldview. That reinforcement isn’t just reassuring, it becomes a sort of psychological security blanket.
Over time, this evolves into identity-protective cognition—where any fact or perspective that challenges their group identity is instinctively rejected. Not because it’s false, but because accepting it would cause too much internal conflict. That’s why you can put obvious corruption, war profiteering, or blatant bias in front of them, and they’ll either tune it out or rationalize it away.Interjection with a slight bit of wandering . . .
A lot to ponder with what was proposed especially considering 'Identity' and the 'Self'. A lot to unpack with that. First, that leads to belief systems that begin to form pre-teen years and then is always being confirmed or challenged. There are several theories from Freud with Id, Ego, and the SuperEgo to symbolic interactionism of George Herbert Meade for the Identity/Self. Briefly, he says the self is defined through social interactions. I often ponder with that view if one does not interact then is identity/Self lacking or is the interaction taking place with the environment as an entity. And, then, what about God with prayer, meditation, and lifestyle. In the back of my mind is, say, a hermit or a monk.
Anyway . . .
To be true, always true
As you said each of those media sources with their bias has an audience seeking group think and confirmation bias. The range is far right to far left.
And, today, a growing and thriving form of media is podcasts.
Top Political Podcasts You Need to Listen to in 2025 by CallHub (Jan 31, 2025) They list their top 11. There are other sources with their recommendations.
https://callhub.io/blog/political-campa … -podcasts/That’s a really thoughtful and enriching interjection. Thank you for sharing it. I truly appreciate this kind of comment; it offers real insight and food for thought. You’ve opened up a deeper layer to the conversation by tying in identity and self through both psychological and sociological lenses.
I think you're absolutely right that our sense of self is shaped (and sometimes reshaped) through interactions, not just with people but also with ideas, nature, and, as you brought up so insightfully, with God through prayer or meditation.
Your mention of the hermit or monk really struck a chord. It reminds me that solitude doesn't necessarily mean the absence of interaction; it just transforms the kind. A monk in silent contemplation may not be engaging in social exchange, but there’s a profound dialogue happening, internally, spiritually, even symbolically with the world.
I also appreciate how you noted that belief systems begin forming early but are always being confirmed or challenged. That process never truly stops, and your comment shines a light on how essential that continuous engagement is, whether it's with others, with ourselves, or with something greater.
This kind of reflective wandering adds so much depth. Thanks again for taking the time to share it.I am happy something was obtained from my wandering. It's time for my 8am walk now.
I’ll be honest—I really enjoy your walks and the threads you post. They’re thought-provoking and refreshingly real, not the usual run-of-the-mill stuff. Always challenging, always worth reflecting on. Always worth taking time to reply.
These networks don’t just report, they curate narratives that reinforce a preexisting worldview. That reinforcement isn’t just reassuring, it becomes a sort of psychological security blanket.
Spot on... exactly the problem...
That it is being done deliberately by those that have ulterior motives, those who are using the angst they create by the divide and dissent they foster, is truly diabolical... it will be interesting to see who wins this "war of realities"... but as I have said, the team that can divert America from disaster is in place... we will not be getting anyone coming along better in our lifetimes to try...
Whether you have succumbed to the hatred that has been fostered by those who control the propaganda sources or not... if the Trump team fails in its efforts to save ship America... we (all of us on HubPages) will suffer economic hardships undreamt of for it.
Interesting poll on just who is most susceptible to MSM... no surprise really:
https://thepostmillennial.com/boomer-di … om-approveKen, Absolutely agree with your insight, it’s not just the information itself, but how it’s framed, selected, and repeated that shapes public perception. The psychological "security blanket" is a powerful metaphor, and it really captures how people cling to the narratives that affirm their sense of identity, especially in uncertain times.
What you said about the divide being deliberately fostered for political or ideological gain is, sadly, spot on too. A clear example of this manipulation can be seen in how different networks covered the 2020 riots versus the January 6th events, each side emphasizing or minimizing based on the political story they wanted to push. The goal isn’t clarity, it’s control through division.
As for your point about the Trump team being perhaps the last line of defense, there’s a very real sense among many that the stakes have never been higher. Whether one agrees with all of Trump’s approaches or not, the argument can be made that he and his team are uniquely qualified and willing to take on entrenched systems that others won’t even touch.
If that effort fails, in my view, we will see ripple effects—especially from unchecked spending, open-border policies, and a weak energy strategy, that could be devastating. It’s not fearmongering to say so; it’s a real concern many are echoing.
You have never really convinced me that your sources do not have its own biases. You folks attack the preponderance of mainstream media. Even Trump does the same. So, why should I give Trump or your sources any more credibility than my own. why should I dismiss stories and positions held by 90 percent of the media and cling to 10 percent reporting otherwise.
First... is the acceptance that what we had WAS corrupt... or run by corrupt individuals that had learned how to abuse the system and enrich themselves and their friends at the expense of the American people.
Once we accept that our government... which was spending trillions more every year than it takes in is BROKEN and in need of serious fixing... then we have to accept what tools we have available to get that job done.
Tackling the very large, very corrupt, federal government is no small task. It is a serious challenge that few could stomach even attempting, the resistance to it is... obviously... enormous.
So I, and everyone else, should consider who it is that has stepped up and try to fix the mess... drain the swamp... whatever you like to call it...
Trump aside... we have Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr., Marco Rubio (his family background from Cuba), and Elon Musk have all sacrificed to step forward and try to do what is best for America...
Perhaps I see this far more clearly because I ingest almost 0% of American media sources (left or right) but very much recognize how they have become propaganda outlets for an effort by Global Elites to disenfranchise the American people and strip them of their sanity, their freedoms and their rights.
Its like being a drug addict... you need your fix of Salon and CNN to give you that dose of confirmation bias...
Well I disconnected from that many years ago... the last remaining "fix" I get now is to occasionally visit HubPages and "debate" things with people like yourself, whom used to challenge my perspectives and make me consider their own."Perhaps I see this far more clearly because I ingest almost 0% of American media sources (left or right)"
Just curious . . . where do your sources get their information from? I know you just don't make things up out of thin air. You arrive at your thought processes from information from somewhere. Do you openly accept your sources as true or do you "Trust, but verify" as quoted by Reagan?
Frankly, I don't trust any type of media source including all of those links you post. If I am interested in what you posted and curiosity hits me I seek to verify it after listening/watching it.I like to think I trust but verify... when all pistons are firing... which is not always the case I admit... wear and tear on the mind...
Anyways... just for instance... I like to listen to Victor Hansen's snippets, he does 8 minute or so video posts on topics of interest:
Advice for Ivy League Universities: Take the Trump Deal, Before It’s Too Late | Victor Davis Hanson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix5Bq23gCMg
And when it is of something of particular interest I will go use what sources I can find to delve deeper... just not our MSM sources... perhaps government websites, perhaps foreign websites.
Years back when I was researching what happened in Benghazi I had to rely on all non-American websites to piece together what really happened, combined with my own background and sources, I figured out what was really occurring... those are the types of lies fostered on the American people that really bothered me back then...
Now, not so much, because I don't tune in at all to what they are saying on CNN or FOX so I don't get dragged into the gutter over what are really nonsense issues meant for consumer consumption... not meant to enlighten or elaborate on the real issues.
Mostly I am trying to pull out of the political discussion all together... with the exceptional forays here on HP... my stress level - blood pressure... is much better off when I do so.
The team Trump has assembled will fix the problems... stop the ship from leaking/sinking so to speak, or they will not, and we are all going down with the ship... that is my simplistic take on what is going on... no reason for me to fight to expose truth anymore... they will succeed or they will not." I was researching what happened in Benghazi I had to rely on all non-American websites to piece together what really happened, combined with my own background and sources, I figured out what was really occurring."
These years later, based on your findings, I'd be curious to know what you figured out. That's probably too "off topic" to go into here.
I'm probably interested because the commanding general of AfriCOM at the time is a personal friend.I wrote an article about it way back then... with plenty of information and a decent timeline of events tying it all together...
That article no longer exists but it had been posted many years ago here...
Anyways... we were using the Muslim Brotherhood to traffic Gaddafi's cache of surface to air missiles and anti-armor weapons to the American backed insurgents trying to overthrow Assad in Syria...
Team Trump, will success...its limit. But... Americans shouldn't hold them responsible for all the wrongs done. They part of the equation.
Rumor has it . . .
"Despite his sweeping claims about cutting trillions in waste and exposing government fraud, Elon Musk has yet to testify under oath before Congress about any of it. No documentation, no independent audits, just curated tweets and grand declarations. The only real revelations have come from those brave enough to speak out from inside the system he claims to be fixing.
This week, a federal cloud administrator named Daniel Berulis stepped forward and testified to something chilling: Musk’s DOGE team showed up at the National Labor Relations Board and demanded “god-tier” access to its internal systems. Not just admin rights, total control. Once inside, they disabled security tools, deleted activity logs, and began pulling enormous volumes of data out of the agency. Then came something no one expected: login attempts from a Russian IP address, with valid credentials.
Think about that. Sensitive information about labor organizing, corporate misconduct, and worker protections, all flowing through a system with compromised oversight, led by a man whose companies are under active investigation by the same agency. The richest man in the world, claiming neutrality while his operatives infiltrate the very institutions tasked with holding him accountable.
And at the exact moment this story breaks wide, Musk is on social media ranting about how “almost every major left-leaning NGO is funded by the government.” It’s not just deflection, it’s a blueprint. Discredit the watchdogs. Attack civil society. Then raid the infrastructure behind the scenes. The goal isn’t efficiency, rather it is domination.
What Musk doesn’t say, of course, is that right-wing NGOs are funded by the government too often at far higher levels. From faith-based crisis pregnancy centers to charter school lobbying groups, from border policy contractors to "pro-family" international aid agencies, government money has long flowed to conservative causes. But those aren't being targeted. Only the groups that challenge billionaires, defend workers, or organize for democratic accountability.
And that brings us back to the Russian IP. Why would someone in Russia be trying to access a U.S. government server with the right password after DOGE engineers had already stripped out the safeguards? Was it opportunism? A known backdoor? Or something darker?
Let’s not forget: Anonymous previously uncovered that Musk’s domain X.com was at one time hosted on servers located in Russia. This isn't ancient history or vague paranoia. This is a billionaire with deep financial, political, and technological reach who has already routed global communications infrastructure through adversarial territory. When you connect the dots, X.com’s Russian hosting, DOGE’s federal access, deleted logs, and credentialed Russian login attempts, you don’t get a tech visionary. You get a national security threat hiding behind memes and market-speak.
The Trump administration, long accused of being sympathetic to Putin, has enabled a massive breach of federal security.
And then arrives . . .
A whistleblower's disclosure details how DOGE may have taken sensitive labor data by NPR/kpbs (Apr 15, 2025)
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/15/nx-s1-53 … x-security
The article is a deep dive and very, very long. If venturing to read it have a pot of coffee, maybe. Interesting giving pause.I mean, who actually reads this kind of nonsense? I could barely make it past the title—seriously, the word "MAY" should be a red flag that you're about to dive into a mix of wild conjecture, conspiracy theories, and outright slander. LOL. "A whistleblower's disclosure details how DOGE may have taken sensitive labor data"
This reads like the kind of gossip an old lady would exchange over the clothesline. It was painful to get through, but it certainly explains why so many people today have such messed-up mindsets. But hey, the beauty of free speech is that I can share my opinion on the article, right?
This reads like the kind of gossip an old lady would exchange over the clothesline. It was painful to get through, but it certainly explains why so many people today have such messed-up mindsets. But hey, the beauty of free speech is that I can share my opinion on the article, right?
The article presents itself as a bold exposé, but it quickly veers into the realm of speculation and bias. The claim that Elon Musk’s DOGE team somehow infiltrated the National Labor Relations Board to steal sensitive labor data is introduced with all the gravitas of a thriller, yet the evidence provided is far from convincing. Instead of concrete facts or independent verification, we’re treated to a parade of dramatic phrases like "chilling" and "something darker," which seem designed more to stir emotions than to inform. The narrative leaps from one unfounded connection to another, making the bold assumption that Musk is somehow pulling strings behind the scenes without offering any real proof. The article also casually links Musk’s past use of Russian servers to some shadowy plot involving Russian IPs attempting to access U.S. government servers. Of course, this is all presented with little more than a raised eyebrow and a lot of question marks. The suggestion that Musk’s actions are a national security threat is a nice touch, but unfortunately, the article doesn’t quite deliver the necessary facts to back up such a dramatic claim. It seems the goal here isn’t to report facts but to connect dots in the most sensational way possible, all while ignoring the simpler possibility that maybe, just maybe, there’s more to the story than a conspiracy theory waiting to be proven.Enjoyed reading your creative expose. Nice! Your better at it than most. Kudos! Have fun, fun, fun . . .
This is whistleblower information though. So we respect some whistleblowers but not others? At the very least, the accusations deserve investigation.
Honestly, it’s laughable. Not that long ago, high-ranking IRS whistleblowers came forward, put their names and faces out there, testified before Congress, and what did the left-leaning media do? They tore them apart. Yet now, we're supposed to trust every dramatic headline based on some anonymous “senior official”? Come on. In my view, if the left media cites an anonymous source, it’s probably not true. It’s rare they ever have a real, named human being backing the claim. Like I said—laughable. But hey, that’s just my opinion.
I don't think there's anything wrong with confidential sources. It is an accepted part of journalism. Doesn't mean the information is not truthful. Thankfully in the US, journalists generally have a qualified right to protect the identities of their sources. Even more important in today's environment that sources require protection from reprisal. I'm sure you've heard Lisa Murkowski's recent statement about quieting one's voice because "retaliation is real".
LMFAO.... thanks for the laugh... still some things worth reading...
Yeah, Musk the big bad boogeyman... without whom the corrupt Biden government couldn't have pursued their war against Russia with any real effect... it is unfortunate he chose to allow Starlink to give the Ukrainian effort what they needed to keep from being completely wiped from the battlefield by Russia.
The same guy who proved how corrupt the government was exposing the Twitter files, the lies of our 51 highest ranking Intel Officials who signed off that the Hunter Laptop was a Russian conspiracy...
Oh my goodness... and now they are exposing that Musk himself is a Russian puppet!!! Is there anyone who waves an American flag who isn't a Russian conspirator these days???
Think of all the rockets they allow this man to launch... hundreds every year!!! With our most Top Secret military satellites being part of that!!
Every satellite they have relied on him getting into space has probably been corrupted with Russian viruses that steal all their information!!!
Oh my goodness... its an NPR article... the very NPR the Trump Administration no longer wants to fund with taxpayer dollars as all it spews is anti-American and anti-Patriotic dribble that only a brainwashed Progressive zealot could stomach to listen to... or read.NLRB whistleblower claims Musk’s DOGE potentially caused significant security breach published at PBS News Hour (Apr 16, 2025) Watch video interview with Daniel Berulis, National Labor Relations Board Whistle-Blower or read the transcript.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/nlrb- … ity-breach
Steve Rattner on the Doge "savings"
https://youtu.be/4ST6Qid-a-g?si=NYEfTbidmqO5GS9a
Musk has cut somewhere between 0% and 3% of what he promised and most of what was cut was not waste or fraud or abuse, but simply expenditures Musk did not personally favor for partisan reasons...
Doge is the biggest program failure in the history of American government.An official whistleblower disclosure shared with Congress and other federal overseers... a whistleblower in the IT department of the NLRB, who disclosed his concerns to Congress and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel in a detailed report.
The whistleblower's account is corroborated by internal documentation and was reviewed by 11 technical experts across other government agencies and the private sector.
The whistleblower's disclosure to Congress and other federal overseers includes forensic data and records of conversations with colleagues that provide evidence of DOGE's access and activities.
Yup. Sooo laughable.
Also, sooo anonymous.
"said the whistleblower, Daniel Berulis."Thank you!!
"A federal employee who described the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) actions within the federal government has said he was stalked and threatened by an unknown person while he was compiling his disclosure on the department.
Berulis' lawyer, Andrew P. Bakaj from Whistleblower Aid, disclosed: "While my client and my team were preparing this disclosure, someone physically taped a threatening note to Mr. Berulis' home door with photographs—taken via a drone—of him walking in his neighborhood.
"The threatening note made clear reference to this very disclosure he was preparing for you, as the proper oversight authority. While we do not know specifically who did this, we can only speculate that it involved someone with the ability to access NLRB systems."
No wonder these people would like to remain anonymous. As Lisa Murkowski said..."retaliation is real".
https://www.newsweek.com/doge-whistlebl … rm-2061087Daniel Berulis? It has not sent me laughing. Is America laughable?
Bottom line: there are some serious allegations here, especially with the Russia angle, but without more evidence, it’s hard to say whether this is a legit scandal or just sloppy implementation of a government project. Either way, it deserves a deeper investigation.
As of now, there doesn’t seem to be any public indication that Daniel Berulis has taken his claims to Congress or any official legislative body. Based on the interview, he went straight to the media with his concerns.
Typically, whistleblowers do have the option to report concerns to Congress, especially when it involves potential national security issues or governmental misconduct. However, whether Berulis has chosen that route or if he plans to hasn’t been mentioned in any of the reports.
It would be interesting to see if he decides to take this further by contacting lawmakers or requesting an official investigation. If the allegations are serious, it could lead to Congressional hearings or further scrutiny of the situation.Are Republicans going to even bother taking it up? Looks like not... Turning the other way.
Why ask me? I have no idea if the Congress will take it up --- as I stated in my comment--- Bottom line: there are some serious allegations here, especially with the Russia angle, but without more evidence, it’s hard to say whether this is a legit scandal or just sloppy implementation of a government project. Either way, it deserves a deeper investigation.
I have now found a couple of articles that indicate "The specialist, Daniel Berulis, made the allegations in a sworn declaration submitted to members of Congress and to a federal whistleblower office, asking them to investigate what he called a cybersecurity breach. His lawyer said that Berulis had also been targeted with a threatening note and photographs showing him near where he lives. The declaration was first reported by NPR, and NBC News has not independently verified the allegations. "
I feel it should be investigated by Congress.
Hi Friend,
I'll admit that over the past few years, I've grown a bit jaded when it comes to whistleblowers. The political noise, media spin, and conflicting agendas have made it hard to separate courage from opportunism. That said, I still firmly believe that when someone steps forward with serious claims, they deserve to be heard—and more importantly, those claims must be examined with real scrutiny and verified by evidence, not dismissed out of hand or accepted blindly.
Truth shouldn't depend on who's speaking, but on what can be proven. In times like these, discernment is everything.
But according to an official whistleblower disclosure shared with Congress and other federal overseers...
The specialist, Daniel Berulis, made the allegations in a sworn declaration submitted to members of Congress and to a federal whistleblower office, asking them to investigate what he called a cybersecurity breach...
From the first article, it was stated he made the report to Congress.My friend Esoteric has obtained this information for your perusal. it looks like Musk’s indiscriminate chain saw has been, as usual, callously applied. This is not the look of a great nation.
DID YOU KNOW THAT - that upwards of 40,000 people have died worldwide BECAUSE of Donald Trump's executive order barring aid through USAID.
You heard right! Trump is already killing people just like he did during Covid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St … hatgpt.comWhat a load of crud... Wikigarbage... Intels source of misinformation.
Globalist elites just love the dupes who buy into all this anti Trump and anti American garbage.
https://youtube.com/shorts/gtLowjkUR54? … 3jbCcf-Vuf
What Elon Musk Didn’t Budget For: Firing Workers Costs Money, Too
An expert on the federal work force estimates that the speed and chaos of Mr. Musk’s cuts to the bureaucracy will cost taxpayers $135 billion this fiscal year....
The Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit organization that studies the federal work force, has used budget figures to produce a rough estimate that firings, re-hirings, lost productivity and paid leave of thousands of workers will cost upward of $135 billion this fiscal year. At the Internal Revenue Service, a DOGE-driven exodus of 22,000 employees would cost about $8.5 billion in revenue in 2026 alone, according to figures from the Budget Lab at Yale University. The total number of departures is expected to be as many as 32,000...
Neither of these estimates includes the cost to taxpayers of defending DOGE’s moves in court. Of about 200 lawsuits and appeals related to Mr. Trump’s agenda, at least 30 implicate the department.
“Not only is Musk vastly overinflating the money he has saved, he is not accounting for the exponentially larger waste that he is creating,” said Max Stier, the chief executive of the Partnership for Public Service. “He’s inflicted these costs on the American people, who will pay them for many years to come.”
OH WELL. I guess it was fun while it lasted? This whole bunch is just beyond incompetent.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/24/us/p … -cuts.htmlDOGE has been smoke and mirrors since its inception, IMO along with gaining access to data through back doors. We don't know what they are doing behind closed doors. I ask, how do you do data analysis for the layoffs and other recommendations using the current software. I have my doubts they can. So, can we conclude they are downloading data onto separate unsecure servers. Remember a laptop is a server.
I know that is how I had to do it with my job doing data mining. I downloaded from the main server to my PC at my desk as cvs files and then did the work using Microsoft Excel in spreadsheets.That is possible...
It depends on what types of protections are in place, such as never leaving a secure site with any of those laptops or memory devices...
I do not know... I do know they have the ability to maintain security if they choose to... they have the ability to not expose that data if they put up some security measures...
What is more interesting is how people are buying into this idea that it is BAD for Musk's exceptionally qualified individuals having such access...
Who do you think had access to your information before hand?
Some highly qualified DEI hires no doubt...
So you choose to trust that a faceless bureaucratic government had extremely qualified individuals ensuring your money was well spent and your data was protected...
And now... because your Main Stream Media news sources are telling you Elon Musk is a Nazi... you are worried that someone may have access to that information?
~shrug~Hey, when Musk sides with Nazi's, what else are we to think?
And yes, it is BAD to let ANYONE who hasn't gone through a proper background check anywhere near sensitive data, let alone taking over the very systems the data resides on. No, Trump waving a magic wand doesn't count as a proper background check.
I suspect all that data will be misused for Musk's personal gain with his government contracts. This goes way beyond conflict of interest for sure. Hopefully, a lot of people will be prosecuted for violating privacy and other laws once real Americans (meaning independents and Democrats) retake the House, and hopefully the Senate in 2026. They are going to be busy for decades uncovering the mountains of corruption that is the Trump administration.
And now they are going after Legislative Branch offices like the Library of Congress. My God, have they no soul?
https://newrepublic.com/post/193015/elo … musem-imls
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … r-AA1EVOAj (I almost applied for a job at the GAO once.)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 49631.html
DOGE says it has canceled thousands of federal contracts, grants and leases. Here's a searchable list. by CBS News (May 14, 2025)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doge-cuts- … RJ0sN_SJ_A
"Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency has been publishing every contract, grant and lease it claims to have canceled on its website for months.
But DOGE's "Wall of Receipts" can't be searched, and its data can't be downloaded easily by those without programming knowledge. CBS News is publishing all the data available on DOGE's website in a searchable and savable format below. This page will refresh every morning at approximately 7 a.m. EST, but DOGE does not update its data each day.
DOGE calculates a contract's value as the total potential value — a method federal contracting experts have criticized and likened to a credit card maximum, rather than a realistic estimate of planned spending. It then subtracts the total amount obligated from that value to estimate "savings."
CBS News and other media outlets have identified numerous errors in DOGE's accounting, putting the savings far lower than the task force suggests on its website. And while DOGE touts massive budget cuts, a CBS News analysis found that the Trump administration actually spent more in its first 100 days than over the same period last year.
DOGE withholds data for some contracts without explanation, including all contracts from the U.S. Agency for International Development. That data is marked as "Not disclosed" in the tables below."I wonder what percentage of those are tied up in court.
How popular is Elon Musk? presented by Nate Silver's the Silver Bulletin (May 19, 2025)
https://www.natesilver.net/p/elon-musk- … r-bulletin
Worth of read or skim to see what the what is.
Updated May 19, 2025 at 5:08 PM
When it comes to the polls, last week was a good one for Elon Musk. Does most of the country still view him unfavorably? Yes. But are his most recent polls better than the numbers he was putting up in April? Also yes. Here’s what we added to the average last week:
** Ipsos/Reuters: -19 net favorability
** Echelon Insights: -10 net favorability
** Morning Consult: -14 net favorability
** Cygnal: -8 net favorability
** YouGov/Economist: -11 net favorability
"Because Musk’s net favorability was consistently breaking -20 in polls released in late April, he’s slightly improved in our average thanks to these new releases. As of today, Elon Musk’s net favorability rating is -13.8. That’s the highest it’s been since April 22nd, and a slight improvement from Musk’s favorability low of -16.1 on April 30th. -EMD, 5/18/25"
********************
A fairly lengthy read is offered by Politico giving an up-to-date on Musk.
Why has Elon Musk disappeared from the spotlight? presented by Politico (May 19, 2025)
The tech CEO isn’t exactly gone yet, but Republicans have stopped bringing him up.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/1 … d-00355313What goes up comes down. Is not it? It's not all up, up, up.
We probably know why Musk's latest rocket attempt failed - https://www.cnn.com/science/live-news/s … h-05-27-25
He criticized Trump's One Big Beautiful Tax Bill by saying it can be Big or it can be Beautiful, but it can't be both
Trump must have shot his spaceship down after hearing that, lol
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/27/politics … -bill-doge
Elon Musk singing Johnny Cash’s Ring of Fire
Living life the right way.
GAYou have to love it...
Puts everything at risk... life... fortunes... freedom...
Exposes corruption...
Gets eviscerated for it...
I mean... Stockholm Syndrome on steroids...
How much changed after exposing all the crimes and suspect expenditures?
How many people were held accountable for abusing the system and spending millions... billions... they had no right to?
Who became the villain for trying to fight the corruption?Consider the comparisons. Most billionaires celebrate or relax with fancy meals at exotic locations with other billionaire friends, and here's Musk celebrating and relaxing with co-worker friends by grilling on the factory roof with a glass of Jack Daniels.
I think he has his priorities right.
GAGreat! Why shouldn't he? Every good boy does it fine.
You do know when you are talking about Corruption, you are talking about Trump and Musk, don't you?
Trump's net worth has increased by almost 3 billion dollars since he took office... Where are the screams for investigations? His pay to play crypto scheme doesn't seem to bother Maga at all does it?
Yeah...
That's Trump's mugshot...
It's (obviously) hanging in the White House...
It's one big reason why Trump is back in the White House...
The endless vilification and persecution by the rabid progressive Left of Trump has more to do with him being back in the White House than any other single reason....
So... give yourself a pat on the back for supporting the true powers behind Trump's return to the Executive Office.So you don't think his crypto scheme needs to be investigated? No problem that his net worth has increased by 3 billion in 3 months? Nothing to see here huh?
Maga railed about the "Biden crime family" and turns a blind eye to Trump monetizing the office of the presidency... No one can accuse him of trying to hide anything though can they? He's doing it right out in the openI think you missed the obvious - especially since Trump said it himself - he ran again to take more bribes as president and to get on with his revenge tour.
And maybe Chief of Staff Susie had a lot to do with it too---- So funny she was in that shot.
Is anyone surprised? Isn't that one of the two reasons Trump wanted back in office - because it is a cash cow for him and to go on a revenge tour.
(BTW, I have been threatened with expulsion again for calling out the truth and pointing out lies in case I stop showing up.)
Does that fall under... "takes one to know one"
Or perhaps... "birds of a feather flock together"
Is the problem that one Mob family is moving in on another's turf?
Is that what you are alluding to... that the Swamp is being overrun?Not really. While corruption to some extent is everywhere, Trump et al take it to levels not seen before in American politics.
But it seems you are arguing that jay-walking is as bad as murder, are you not?
And if your are trying to refer to Biden personally, you will lose that one on the facts.You've already covered that you know. But why the repetition?
Just drinking a bottle of Jack Daoiels? Is Trump and Must the only corrupted public officers in the American Public Service?
Didn't say they were, did I. Trump is by far and way the most corrupt politician in American history. Musk is no push over either in that regard but doesn't hold a candle to Trump
Speaking of Corruption. The DOJ just opened investigations into 1) the cocaine found in the White House visitor's room, 2) the leaked Dobbs decision, and the legitimate one worth spending resources on 3) who left the pipe bombs at the DNC and RNC during the MAGA insurrection on Jan 6.
Concerning the first one, ironically, they are not opening an investigation into Elon Musk's drug use while advising Trump and being part of his inner circle.
The NYT's, based on private messages and photographs they obtained and interviews with those that knew, says Musk allegedly took ketamine, ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms and traveled with a daily medication box that held about 20 pills, including ones with the markings of the stimulant Adderall.
As is usual with Trump, he says he knows nothing about it. (At least he didn't deny knowing Musk, LOL)
https://www.newsweek.com/musk-drugs-response-2079275What matter much here is that Musk, has denied the allegations. And the Newsweek report seems to be fair, and not judgemental.
Musk is a known liar like Trump and the NYT is not. Consequently, I do not believe any denial he makes unless he has hard evidence. Plus, the NYT say they have photographs and private messages.
Musk has very openly talked about his Ketamine use .
Assuming it wasn't prescribed, why isn't DOJ investigating him like they are the Democrats?
Why would you make that assumption? Because Musk is associated with Trump and therefore "Bad" by definition?
They aren't investigating because his actions were legal.No, because Musk is a known liar and Bad in his own right, Trump has nothing to do with it.
What PROOF do you have that it was legal? Do you have his prescription or are you using your crystal ball?Have you ever heard the basis of our justice system - "Innocent until proven guilty"? That's all the proof I need to assume innocence.
Unlike you who declares those you don't like to be liars and therefore they are Bad and automatically guilty of anything and everything you can dream up, and guilty without need of proof or even evidence.Trump obviously doesn't believe that.
Using your paradigm, ALL people are innocent and no investigations should ever be started regardless of the reason. You may not know it, but that is exactly what you just said.Dan, You know what? I'm stepping out on a limb here—I truly wish this kind of derogatory slander could just be shut down. Personally, I'm tired of seeing posts that insult complete strangers just because someone feels like they can. Honestly, why indulge this kind of off-the-mark commentary? It ultimately feeds into a deeper sickness, a sickness we’re seeing far too often in our society today.
This far, Eco has insinuated Musk is a liar and asked that you prove that he has a prescription with a crystal ball. If more do not respond to these types of comments, he might stop adding them.I don't understand this. Wilderness made the claim that Musk HAD a prescription. Just like he does, I asked for proof of his claim. What in the world is wrong with that.
Also, since he insults me often for using a crystal ball, I had to wonder that if he didn't have a copy of Musk's prescription how he knew that he did with such certainty. Again, what is wrong with that?
Why am I not allowed to question such things but you guys are?
BTW, Musk is not a complete stranger, how is that possible? He is a massively public figure who, like Trump, says many, many things that aren't true. Am I not allowed to comment what I see?
Musk spoke of this in a Don Lemon interview. He said his ketamine use and dosage are prescribed by his doctor. Is that still just as bad?
GANope, not if it was prescribed. But since that interview was a long time ago, is his current use still legal? The problem he has is the NYT says it has hard evidence.
Well opioids are prescribed also... But ketamine is HEAVILY abused for its hallucinogenic properties.
Elon Musk has been open about using prescription ketamine to manage his depression. In an interview with Don Lemon, he shared that he deals with what he described as "a negative chemical state in [his] brain, a type of depression that isn’t necessarily caused by life events but more of a persistent, internal imbalance. He said ketamine helps lift that state, and it’s something he uses carefully and under medical supervision.
From my experience as an RN working with ketamine in a medical setting, I’ve seen firsthand how it's used in hospitals, primarily as an anesthetic for surgeries, but also for pain management, depression, and suicidal ideation when other treatments haven’t worked. It’s typically administered in a very controlled environment, often through IV infusions, because of its powerful effects and potential for misuse.
Musk seems to understand this balance well. He mentioned taking "a small amount once every other week" and clearly stated he doesn’t abuse it.
What really stood out to me was when he said, "If you use too much ketamine, you can’t really get work done, and I have a lot of work." That’s exactly the kind of insight you’d expect from someone who’s aware of the drug’s risks; too much can cause dissociation, confusion, and sedation, making functioning in daily life nearly impossible. This man is a successful businessman who runs several huge companies. I have never witnessed him appearing high or in a drug-induced state. Nor have any reports indicated he uses the drug improperly. Have you?Since Musk is known to lie a lot and addicts rarely admit they are abusing drugs, I'll take Musk's denials with a bag of salt. They could be true but the odds weigh heavily against it.
Since the NYT is a well-respected outlet whose investigative reporting is rarely incorrect I give them more weight. The pudding proof will be if they release the hard evidence they say they have with private messages and photographs and/or transcripts from reliable sources.I have a lot of concern with the use of ketamine being used off label. Particularly among the wealthy. I mean look what happened with Matthew Perry.
"I have a lot of concern with the use of ketamine being used off label. Particularly among the wealthy. I mean look what happened with Matthew Perry." Willow
I need to pause and ask—what exactly is your point? Are we still linking Musk to ketamine use here? Your comment to GA came across as vague. It seemed like you were just speculating about the drug itself rather than making a direct connection to Musk possibly abusing Ketamine. Where we going with this?
"GA Anderson wrote:
Musk spoke of this in a Don Lemon interview. He said his ketamine use and dosage are prescribed by his doctor. Is that still just as bad?
GA
Well opioids are prescribed also... But ketamine is HEAVILY abused for its hallucinogenic properties. Willow"
My response wasn't a judgment, it was an answer to a question.
GA
Didn't the NYT also say the Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation?
GANo, it actually didn't. What the NYT did was report that intelligence sources said the laptop episode had all the earmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign and even said that had no direct evidence supporting the claim. This is context that is ALWAYS left out by the Right. (But then again, so does the extreme Left, just to be fair.)
Then to you, Musk, has become a sexual predator like Trump(?).
No, why would you say something like that? The only thing that has come out is Musk uses drugs (which Trump does not, that we know of).
So, I guess that you can’t teach an old DOGE new tricks.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 61584.html
I told certain conservatives months ago, that anyone that hitches his or her star to Donald
Trump is no better than he is. They would have to be inherently corrupt to the core or not too terribly bright.
Musk trailed after Trump like a sick puppy DOGE only to have his chain yanked, Trump has no friends, just those that he can use and abuse for his expedience purposes.
Trump has made Musk the “fall guy”, having him receive the crème pie over angst over his ill considered draconian cuts to the federal government. He was risking his business prospects and his reputation as “America’s space cadet” in his occupy Mars movement. Tesla was held to an inexperienced scorn by many as a result of Musk’s government role.
Musk complains that Trumps Big Beautiful Bill adds to the deficit, that he risked his name and capital to rein it in for Trump. Musk was not smart enough to realize that Trump was not about effectively controlling spending more than simply moving the same or more funding to Republican sacred cows.
On a recent CBS interview, Musk was evasive about his role in the DOGE, not mentioning that he and Trump has had a falling out, regardless of Trump’s lies that he is still welcome.
We on the left continue to chip at the Trump interface, discrediting him at every opportunity as an entity that is simply “no good” and beyond redemption. Musk got burned, how many others will come to the painful conclusion that he did?
As for Elon Musk, he gets what he deserves. Any man in his position dancing around with a chainsaw making fun of the distress of millions of people, I have no sympathy for.
It is as a wiser man, Bill Gates says:
The world’s richest man is determined to kill the world’s poorest children…..
And as I always said, in America, the richest man is not necessarily the smartest.BTW, did you read where Joni Ernst told a woman in her audience who voiced concern about people dying because of Trump's cuts to Medicaid.
You know what her response was? "Well, we all have to die!
Can you imagine?? WOW!Yes, I did, a most callous and flippant response toward a constituent expressing a valid concern……
The foundation of the Republican Party is to punish the poor.That response was about as realistic and valid as the idea from the left that we will soon have thousands upon thousands of bodies littering our streets because people that do not meet medicaid requirements will not get medicaid.
“the left that we will soon have thousands upon thousands of bodies littering our streets because people that do not meet medicaid requirements will not get medicaid.”
As dirty, hypocrites and diabolical as rightwingers are, that outcome would not surprise me.They're alternative to Medicard, namely, Alternative Medicine. Here in Nigeria, chidrens are dieing and littering the streets, nor are pregmant women dxe to the cuts out the in America.
And many of them espouse their cruelty with an enormous crucifix around their neck. That really gets me. They'll use religion for political advantage but their actions and views are anything but Christ- like.
And many, many real Christians agree with that assessment of the fake Christians.
The statement "And many, many real Christians agree with that assessment of the fake Christians" itself is not Christian-like because it promotes judgment and division rather than love, humility, and understanding, values central to Christianity. Liberals have adopted this kind of resentment and use terminology as you just did. In my view, they label, they contrive to spread discontent, make something positive into something perverse.
Christian teaching emphasizes compassion, forgiveness, and leaving final judgment to God. Calling others "fake Christians" and asserting that "real Christians" agree with that judgment risks fostering division and self-righteousness, which goes against the example of Christ’s teachings about grace and mercy.
In essence, in my view, your statement contradicts the spirit of unity and charity that Christianity encourages among believers.I don't find the spirit of Christianity in much or any of Trumps rhetoric, do you?
I get where you’re coming from. Trump’s style definitely isn’t what most people picture when they think of traditional Christian rhetoric. He’s rough around the edges, no doubt. But I think it’s worth recognizing that some of his actions and messages do reflect core Christian values like protecting the vulnerable, standing up for religious freedom, and emphasizing family and patriotism. Maybe it’s not the polished, Sunday sermon version of Christianity, but there’s a side of him that shows a kind of faith-driven toughness that resonates with many believers. I won't deny I'm often disappointed in his words.
But honestly, a good Christian might not be quick to judge but instead look for the good in others, and hope for better. That kind of grace is something we could all use more of, regardless of politics.
Once again it appears I am being told not to present the facts. Also, I am not Christian - gave that up at 10 or 11 when I figured out I was being lied to.
Why do mainstream Christians say that of the evangelicals?
I've noticed the press conferences are different depending on if Karoline Leavitt is wearing her cross or not. Maybe I'm just weird. Oh well.
Jon Stewart Jokes That the More Karoline Leavitt Lies, the Bigger Her Cross Gets published by Cracked (Jun 2, 2025)
Stewart roasts the White House Press Secretary as the falsehoods pile up
https://www.cracked.com/article_46833_j … -gets.html
Excerpt . . .
"The Daily Show played a montage of Leavitt heaping hyperbolic praise on the President’s virtues, honesty, transparency and incorruptibility that would make a North Korean news anchor blush, closing on Leavitt’s ludicrous reprimand of the White House press corps as she told the room full of journalists, “It’s frankly ridiculous that anyone in this room would even suggest that President Trump is doing anything for his own benefit.”
“That’s all he’s doing!” Stewart exploded, then adding of Leavitt on a calmer note, “By the way, I think that the more she lies, the bigger her cross gets. Is that possible? It’s like some sort of weird pinocchio cross.”
A little more about her cross got bigger after being criticized while Bondi has one of her own.
Karoline Leavitt hits back with supersized signature accessory after being labelled 'a fake' published by the Irish Star (May 29, 2025)
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has seemingly ditched one of her signature accessories after being branded a 'fake Christian' by critics
https://www.irishstar.com/news/us-news/ … d-35308557She is completely ridiculous and brazen with her lies. I like to call her bullshit Barbie lol
I noted, and just saying. It seems you got in for very pretty, successful blondes. Come on, why the name-calling? All you need to do is fact-check her.
I think we can all agree that she lies pretty much on a daily basis... While wearing a nearly life-size crucifix. It's offensive,.
Note, I did not add my view regarding whether she lies or not, other than saying all you need to do is fact-check her, instead of labeling her on her looks. "Willowarbor wrote:
She is completely ridiculous and brazen with her lies. I like to call her bullshit Barbie lol"
Some people get really upset about making fun of someone’s appearance, like shaming them for how they look. Such as fat shaming... But isn’t it just as questionable to poke fun at someone for being good-looking? I’m not trying to be a B, but what’s the real difference?Were you referring to Trump mimicking the reporter with arthrogryposis who reported on many of the lies Trump told about the 9/11 terrorist attacks?
You know the one where Trump referred to the reporter as "a nice reporter," and then launched into an impression of him, pointedly flopping his right arm around with his hand held at an odd angle while saying (in imitation of Kovaleski): "Now, the poor guy, you’ve got to see this guy: 'Uhh, I don't know what I said. Uhh, I don't remember,' he's going like 'I don't remember. Maybe that's what I said'"
I still have images of that horrific scene in my head today.
This Snopes article has a picture of Trump doing what he does best - insulting people.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/07/28/ … -reporter/
How could ANYBODY of sound mind and body vote for something like that? Trump is barely human in that episode. Oh, don't forget, he is a serial felon, a serial liar, and a sexual predator - ALL FACTS.I guess the liberal cadre have not gotten around to recognizing\calling out blonde-shaming. Do they not recognize that they are doing the same kind of hate speech that they condemn in the conservatives?
Doesn't really have anything to do with her being blonde Barbies were brunette and redheads too... Let's just call her what she is, a liar. She is a prolific liar.
Do I need to create a post to recount her lies? I think we can all agree that she lies daily.
She has been caught in lie after lie, but continues to feed them to the American public while taking softball questions for right-wing influencers who are part of the press corps...Yes, start another thread, but do not forget to include all of the lies told by that woman that told us that Biden was sharp as a tack! I am not sure that you realize that part of those peoples jobs is to support the president they represent, even if they do not agree with them all of the time.
So tell me, why do you have so many posts where you complain about her, the AG, and the head of Homelands personal appearance? If you want to call her a liar you certainly do not support your cause by blonde-shaming.Prolific liar, hate speech, influencer. Interesting words you have chosen, Willow...
Careful AB, tread softly.I call a spade a spade. Her lies are well documented. Yes she is a prolific liar.
Calling someone a liar and not providing any evidence that they lied is just a lie. If you have any prooof then post it.
The only hate speech I am seeing here is from the person that is accusing another of hate speech.OK--- Time to ask, I might be sorry I asked, my friend. I don't follow the press conferences. What has she lied about?
Do I really need to list a fact check of her lies? Really? I'm thinking you know better.
Off the top of my head? Here's just one.. remember when she said..."tariffs are a tax cut for the American people". Yeah, that's a lie.
Oh yes and remember this one, this was a good one...
“DOGE and OMB also found that there was about to be $50 million taxpayer dollars that went out the door to fund condoms in Gaza.”
Here's another goodie...about judge Boasbeg
“He was appointed by Barack Obama, his wife has donated more than $10,000 to Democrats, and he has consistently shown his disdain for this president and his policies, and it’s unacceptable,” she said.
And about the budget bill?
"This bill does not add to the deficit," she said. This is also not true. Absolutely not a shred of support for that statement.
Who needs me to keep going? This woman lies like she breathes. The alternative? She's not very bright?Ok --- I found the transcript and the exchange. I think you might see a different context if you read the full exchange. Maybe not, but I did not find a lie in the full conversation from either. What I saw was an interesting back-and-forth.
Exchange
Josh Boak:
"If we could just step back for a second. When President Trump last addressed the BRT when he was on the campaign trail, his big push was on tax cuts. He's going there today as he's proposing tax hikes in the form of tariffs. And I'm curious why he's prioritizing that over the tax cuts."
Karoline Leavitt:
"Not true. He's not doing that. He's actually not implementing tax hikes. Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries that, again, have been ripping us off. Tariffs are a tax cut for the American people, and the President is a staunch advocate of tax cuts. As you know, he campaigned on no taxes on tips, no taxes on overtime, no taxes on Social Security benefits. He is committed to all three of those things, and he expects Congress to pass them later this year."
Josh Boak:
"I'm sorry. Have you ever paid a tariff? Because I have. They don't get charged on foreign companies. They get charged on the importers."
Karoline Leavitt:
"And ultimately, when we have fair and balanced trade, which the American people have not seen in decades—as I said at the beginning—revenues will stay here, wages will go up, and our country will be made wealthy again. I think it's insulting that you're trying to test my knowledge of economics and the decisions that this President has made. I now regret giving a question to the Associated Press."
In my view, both Karoline Leavitt and the reporter are technically right, they’re just looking at tariffs from two different angles. The reporter is correct that tariffs are paid by U.S. importers, and those costs can get passed on to consumers. So yes, in the short term, they can feel like a tax on Americans.
But Karoline’s framing isn’t baseless either, she’s speaking more long-term and strategically. Tariffs are meant to pressure foreign producers and bring manufacturing back home, which could raise wages and grow domestic jobs over time. If that plays out, the argument is that Americans benefit economically in the long run, which is where she gets the “tax cut” idea. I don't find this a lie; Leavitt's statement reflects the administration's perspective on tariffs as a tool for economic growth and job creation. Therefore, labeling her statement as a "lie" overlooks the nuance of differing economic interpretations and political rhetoric.
Now, it’s true that many economists push back on that idea, pointing out that tariffs are paid by importers and can raise consumer prices. But there are economists on both sides of that coin, some believe tariffs can be used strategically to rebalance trade and support domestic industry. So I don’t think it’s fair to call either side liars or “spreaders of untruth.” They’re interpreting the same tool differently: one focuses on immediate costs, the other on long-term gains.
It’s less about lying and more about competing economic worldviews.
This is a sticky issue. Like - I say growth, you say pain.You posted -
"Josh Boak:
"If we could just step back for a second. When President Trump last addressed the BRT when he was on the campaign trail, his big push was on tax cuts. He's going there today as he's proposing tax hikes in the form of tariffs. And I'm curious why he's prioritizing that over the tax cuts."
Karoline Leavitt:
"Not true. He's not doing that. (referring to prioritizing tax increases over tax cuts) He's actually not implementing tax hikes. Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries that, again, have been ripping us off. Tariffs are a tax cut for the American people, and the President is a staunch advocate of tax cuts. As you know, he campaigned on no taxes on tips, no taxes on overtime, no taxes on Social Security benefits. He is committed to all three of those things, and he expects Congress to pass them later this year."
Josh Boak:
"I'm sorry. Have you ever paid a tariff? Because I have. They don't get charged on foreign companies. They get charged on the importers."
The bolded portions are unadulterated lies! Why you want to defend that is beyond me, but you are.
She also had another lie embedded in there: ...again, have been ripping us off. and And ultimately, when we have fair and balanced trade, which the American people have not seen in decades. - Those are also demonstrable lies.
ANY Economist will tell you that, except in rare circumstances, trade deficits are not a sign we are being "ripped off", except in Trump's mind (and those who believe him). Trade deficits or surpluses (we had one with England, but Trump didn't care) are a natural outcome from free and fair trade between nations.
Are there some non-tariff trade barriers in place? Yes, we have them against others and other have them against us. Are the obscenely high tariffs for specific products? Yes, again. But, we have them against others and other have them against us.
For example, the Trump USMCA had a provision where Canada can charge up to 250% tariffs on American dairy products. What Trump and his supporters WILL NOT tell you is that rate only kicks in when sales reach a certain threshold. That threshold has NEVER been reached - not even close!Not interested in Trump bashing, that's off-topic when we're discussing whether Karoline Leavitt actually lied on multiple occasions. I'm also not here to debate tariffs. I have my own take on them, and it doesn't align with yours, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on that front. The subject has been beaten to death here on HP forum --- I have shared my thoughts in great depth.
"This bill does not add to the deficit," she said. This is also not true. Absolutely not a shred of support for that statement. " Willow
Reporter: "Is the President okay with this bill adding to the deficit
"Karoline Leavitt: "This bill does not add to the deficit. In fact, according to the Council of Economic Advisers, this bill will save $1.6 trillion. The President understands and hears the concerns of fiscal conservatives and Americans who want to get our fiscal house in order. That's what the intention of this bill is. There's $1.6 trillion worth of savings in this bill. That's the largest savings for any legislation that has ever passed Capitol Hill in our nation's history. The next bill that even comes close was $800 billion. That's less than half of the savings that we see in the One Big Beautiful Bill. The goal of this bill is to produce economic growth, to cut taxes, and to get our fiscal house in order, and this is the right step in the right direction towards doing that."
Yes, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) did issue a report in May 2025, which White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt referenced during a May 19 press briefing. In that briefing, she stated, "This bill does not add to the deficit. In fact, according to the Council of Economic Advisers, this bill will save $1.6 trillion."
The CEA's report, titled "Preserving and Expanding Low Tax Rates to Create American Economic Prosperity," discusses the economic impacts of extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and additional tax provisions proposed in the "One Big Beautiful Bill." The report outlines projected increases in investment, GDP, and job creation, as well as higher wages and take-home pay.
So, again, I would not say she was lying. She had a respectable source that she quoted, and it is her prerogative to believe in the source. As you have trusted and believed your sources.
Regarding Judge Boasberg, it’s true he was appointed by President Obama, and his wife has donated to Democratic campaigns. However, judges are expected to uphold the law impartially, regardless of their personal or family political affiliations. She was ill-prepared in my view, and yes, gave untrue information. The condom blurb, again, gave misleading information from the podium.
1. Claiming the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Is Partisan
2. Misrepresenting BBC Reporting on Gaza
3. Asserting Tariffs Are a Tax Cut
4. False Statement About U.S. Funding for Condoms in Gaza
5. Denial of Laura Loomer's Advisory Role
How many more do you want, I can go on all day.
In my view, they don’t even realize the hypocrisy they’re showing. Today, we see the left-leaning media, and some on the left doing almost every hateful thing they accuse the other side of. It’s really odd: good becomes bad, and bad becomes good, just because they say so. Take Willow bringing up women’s hair color, for example. We all know the stereotypes, like the “dumb blonde” or “Barbie” jokes. Isn’t that just another form of shaming? Like fat shaming, which, by the way, can be more justified since being overweight is genuinely unhealthy.
Personally, I think blondes have more fun— being blonde, I can say I certainly do. My skills, education, and wit have gotten me to a place where I can confidently say, “I got mine,” as the old slang goes, and all with a mop of blonde hair atop my head.
Of course someone is probably going to take offense at being told that truth.
Leavitt may be trying to catch up with all of Trump's lies, but she will probably die of old age before she surpasses his record.
I have actually had to mute the radio when she gets on a roll with her lies at a press conference just like I do as soon as I hear Trump start talking about "rigged elections" They literally make me sick to my stomach.
I just love how he made a big deal about her wearing a symbol of her religion. Maybe it really bugs him, kind of like Dracula seeing a cross. I wonder if she wears it partly to make sure she doesn’t get targeted by some leftist nut job who likes to pick on Jewish people. Because, you know, that’s apparently the kind of thing we have to worry about these days. I know I keep my eyes open, yes, they are a minority, but still, they're out there lurking around every corner.
I honestly think we need a copy-paste moment here, no, really. Hopefully, some folks will take the time to read through this mush. It’s actually decent food for thought for anyone leaning left. As for me, I was shocked that anyone would even post this article. It was poorly written and, in some parts, just plain silly, like the bit about Leavitt supposedly having plastic surgery. Seriously? Have you looked at some of the people you idolize? LOL.
If you're wondering how certain parts of society have gotten, for lack of a better word, odd, look no further. Articles like this actually make me feel good about how I view life and why I fight so hard to hold on to common sense. Honestly, did the authors get hired off Fiverr under the category “Mean Girls R Us”? Plastic surgeries, crosses, the size of crosses... Is this all ya got?
Jon Stewart was making a joke--- these authors were out and out hating on her. leaves me to wonder a bit about them. Why the obsession with Looks and religion? Well, that's for another day.
Enjoy!
Karoline Leavitt hits back with supersized signature accessory after being labelled 'a fake'
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has seemingly ditched one of her signature accessories after being branded a 'fake Christian' by critics
But while Leavitt batted away questions from the press, one item that was front and center was Leavitt's favorite accessory - and she seems to have supersized it.
Leavitt - who has been accused of multiple plastic surgeries - wore a chunky gold and diamond cross hanging around her neck. She's far from the only member of the MAGA mob to wear this symbol, broadly associated with many denominations of Christianity. (YIKES OH MY!)
Pam Bondi also proudly flaunts a diamond cross around her neck, a stylish nod to the gruesome method of execution endured by Jesus Christ, according to Christians.
Leavitt seems to have upgraded her formerly dainty diamond cross for a much larger piece, similar to Bondi's. She's now wearing a much larger, heavier, and presumably more expensive piece.
Patriot Takes on Bluesky brought attention to this on social media by posting a photo showing Leavitt in a soft blue blazer, her neckline noticeably bare.
The query they posed was: "Did Karoline Leavitt ditch her cross necklace? Maybe all that lying finally got to her," according to the Irish Star.
At the age of 27, Leavitt is no stranger to clashing with journalists, defending herself against claims of deception while charging the press with spreading untruths, which the White House says it will actively refute, reports the Mirror US.
From day one, Leavitt had set the tone at the podium, proclaiming, "I was very up-front in my briefing on Day One that, if we feel that there are lies being pushed by outlets in this room, we are going to hold those lies accountable."
Democratic Rep. Dave Min has previously leveled accusations at self-proclaimed Christian Karoline Leavitt, branding her a 'fake Christian'. This came on the heels of her comments regarding an executive order that temporarily put a stop to federal grants and loans.
Despite a federal judge putting the kibosh on the guidance on January 28, Leavitt underscored that policies zeroing in on funding for progressive causes, including LGBTQ+ organizations, were still in play.
In a stinging comeback, Min challenged Leavitt's faith, dubbing her display of a cross as "hypocritical."
On X, Min didn't hold back on social media, posting: "'Thou shalt not bear false witness...' @PressSec Karoline Leavitt is a Fake Christian, like so many in this Golden Calf administration."Ha, ha
I have always enjoyed your ability and capacity for wordsmithing. I usually learn something from many of your posts. Even the comic relief from the opening paragraphs above brought a few good chuckles. I would only caution using the word 'you'.You caught me — classic Freudian slip. I’m usually pretty careful with pronouns, but this happened when someone completely blew my mind. That article had the same effect. In this case, I used the pronoun to add a touch of irony.
I can never quite figure you out—is that a good thing? Maybe. You definitely keep me scratching my head… I should probably be charging you rent for all the space you’re taking up in there."I can never quite figure you out—is that a good thing?"
I don't know. I'll share a poem I wrote when I was about 19 - 20 that was published in an anthology. Maybe it will offer something.
The crazy man they call me,
Why? I know not why,
Each night I lay awake and think to myself,
For I am I, and, they are they,
And, only I know who I am.I love your poem... You offer such great food for thought. Sooooo---
Mysterious, poetic, possibly magical… Are you sure you’re not Rumpelstiltskin trying to sound deep so I won’t guess your name?
Okay, mysterious midnight poet, this poem gives serious “I’m misunderstood but magical” vibes.
So let’s unpack this. You start with “The crazy man they call me,” which is such a dramatic opening that almost expected lightning to strike. It’s like you’ve been exiled from the village for thinking too deeply or wearing your socks inside out. And then you go, “Why? I know not why,” but do you really not know? Or are you just pretending not to, because honestly, that’s the most poetic humblebrag ever. (“They call me mad because I see truth the rest cannot bear…”)
Then comes the classic “I lie awake and think to myself” line. Ah yes, the 2 a.m. philosopher’s hour. We’ve all been there, staring at the ceiling, solving the universe’s problems, and wondering why we didn’t just become a flutist or a swimming instructor.
“For I am I, and they are they.” Okay, Kierkegaard. I see you. That’s some deep individualist energy right there, like you just dropped the mic on society and walked away in slow motion. Honestly? Respect.
And finally: “Only I know who I am.” Boom. That’s the real heart of the poem, isn’t it? Forget what the world says, you know your own truth. It’s defiant, it’s proud, and yeah, maybe just a tiny bit emo.
All in all, it’s giving: misunderstood genius, night owl, possibly enchanted, possibly cursed, but definitely not boring. So again I ask: Rumpelstiltskin, is that you?Wow, just Wow!
Appreciated while would not have imagined any sense much less any truth would be derived from a dream speaking to a young lad late at night after an adventure with friends sitting around a fire at the beach under the moonlight while grunion challenged us to come play with them. (Insert exclamation marks here)
I had not thought of Kierkegaard, yet he is a fav on the top bookshelf maturing only needing a strong breeze for discovery of ancient lands once seen now not fading, but perhaps hidden by children playing with new toys.
Rumplestiltskin? hmmm . . . I hum more than sing to myself while a forest is a journey thus no secrets to share. The Christmas past only a few months I gifted each brother, sister, niece, and nephew two gifts of immense wealth beyond imagination, yet cost but a smile.
One I'll share is . . .
The Power of Humming by Psychology Today (Oct 7, 2024)
A simple technique for stress reduction and inner calm.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog … of-humming
Enjoy!
Jesus would have definitely designated these fake Christians as goats rather than sheep, or better yet goats in sheep’s clothing which is even worse.
Not a lot of deep thinking required to see the glaring hypocrisy.
This is so well known that I shouldn't have to do it, but I will anyway.
MUSK: Tweeted that he had secured funding to take Tesla private at $420/share. - That was proved a lie.
MUSK: Musk claimed in 2019 that Tesla had installed “thousands” of Solar Roofs. - Reporting by Reuters and Electrek showed the actual number He only installed a couple hundred
MUSK: Musk repeatedly stated that Tesla vehicles were capable of “full self-driving”, and in 2021 said that FSD was “safer than a human driver.” - Investigations by the NHTSA and multiple lawsuits (including wrongful death cases) show this claim to be demonstrably false.
MUSK: Musk stated as a fact said that March–April 2020 that “there would be close to zero new cases by the end of April.” - We all know that is a lie - but I will produce the data to any doubting Thomas'
MUSK: I don't do drugs. While not definitively disproven, multiple sources—including company insiders and board members—describe documented incidents consistent with misuse.
MUSK: In early 2022, Musk acquired more than 5% of Twitter's stock but failed to file the required disclosure with the SEC within the mandated 10-day period. He continued purchasing shares at lower prices before eventually disclosing his stake, leading to allegations that he saved at least $150 million at the expense of other investors. - he either lied to or misled the SEC and investors
MUSK: In 2023, Musk shared a video compiling headlines that appeared to show declining vaccine efficacy. Fact-checkers noted that the video was misleading, as it lacked context and misrepresented the data, potentially undermining public trust in vaccines.
MUSK: In 2016, Tesla released a video showcasing a vehicle purportedly driving itself without human intervention. Later reports revealed that the route was pre-mapped, and the vehicle had required human control during filming, contradicting the video's implications.
Musk is a known liar - SLANDER THAT IS NOT!DOGE finally rooted out one of its least efficient government workers: Elon Musk presented by the Daily Show / Jon Stewart
Note: Image is live link (Video = 7:28 min)
Comedian Jon Stewart ridicules ‘broken’ Elon Musk over Trump exit published by NJ.com (June 3, 2025; 3 min read)
https://www.nj.com/politics/2025/06/com … -exit.html
Opening paragraphs . . .
"Comedian Jon Stewart brutally mocked tech billionaire Elon Musk over his departure from President Donald Trump’s administration last week.
Stewart kicked off Monday’s episode of “The Daily Show” by declaring that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has “rooted out one of America’s least efficient government workers.” The comedian jabbed Musk over his appearance at Trump’s news conference on Friday, making fun of a black eye that Musk claimed his son gave to him."
hmmm . . .
"You either get the world to fit according to your views, or you need to change your views to fit the world"
~ Daryl Van TongerenMore Conservative Cancel Culture
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/03/us/unive … ty-floridaSanta Ono, the former president of the University of Michigan, has been actively involved in DEI initiatives throughout his academic leadership roles.
At the U of M, Ono played a significant role in the development and implementation of the DEI 1.0 and DEI 2.0 initiatives. These initiatives aimed to foster a more inclusive and equitable campus environment. In his leadership letters, Ono emphasized the importance of diversity as integral to the university's excellence, stating,
“We cannot be excellent without being diverse in the broadest sense of that word.” Santa Ono
He also highlighted the necessity of aligning DEI efforts with the institution's values and mission. In a message to the university community, Ono expressed,
“Our work in DEI 1.0 was an important step in our journey, but it is far from the end of our commitment.” Santa Ono
These statements reflect his commitment to integrating DEI principles into the fabric of the university's operations and culture.
While Ono has not published formal academic works on DEI, his public communications and leadership decisions at the U of M underscore his active engagement with DEI issues. His approach involved not only supporting DEI initiatives but also critically assessing and evolving them to align with the university's broader goals.
Regarding his departure from the University of Michigan, Ono did not voluntarily resign but was REMOVED from office amid political pressures and controversies surrounding his support for DEI initiatives. Guess CNN did not look at the other side of the coin."Santa Ono, the former president of the University of Michigan, has been actively involved in DEI initiatives throughout his academic leadership roles." - Good for him, it shows he doesn't go along with racism.
I don't know what CNN looked at, Fox was my source. What other side should Fox have looked at?"My Esoteric wrote:
"Santa Ono, the former president of the University of Michigan, has been actively involved in DEI initiatives throughout his academic leadership roles." - Good for him, it shows he doesn't go along with racism.
I don't know what CNN looked at, Fox was my source. What other side should Fox have looked at?" ECO
No you posted an article from CNN --- here is the comment you posted on this subject
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/362 … ost4371520
Here is the article you posted https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/03/us/unive … ty-florida
St. Petersburg, Florida — Longtime academic Santa Ono was rejected Tuesday for the University of Florida presidency by the state university system board amid sharp criticism from political conservatives about his past support for diversity, equity and inclusion programs and other initiatives they view as unacceptable liberal ideology.
The Florida Board of Governors, which oversees the state’s universities, voted 10-6 against Ono, who was most recently president of the University of Michigan. The University of Florida Board of Trustees had voted unanimously in May to approve Ono as the school’s 14th president, and it is unprecedented for the governors to reverse such an action.
Now the search will start all over.
Ono’s proposed contract included a number of ideological requirements, such as how well he stopped programs that focus on diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI. He was to cooperate with Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Office of Government Efficiency — similar to the office created by President Donald Trump — and appoint other university officials and deans who are “firmly aligned” with Florida’s approach.
Several prominent conservatives raised questions about Ono before the vote over pro-Palestinian protests, climate change efforts, gender ideology and DEI programs at the University of Michigan and his previous academic positions.
These actions, Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida said on the X social platform, show “he is willing to appease and prioritize far-left activists over ensuring students are protected and receive a quality education.” Others raising objections include Donald Trump Jr. and Florida GOP U.S. Reps. Byron Donalds, Greg Steube and Jimmy Patronis. Donalds is a Republican candidate for governor.
Writing in Inside Higher Ed, Ono said he supported DEI initiatives at first because they aim was “equal opportunity and fairness for every student.”
“But over time, I saw how DEI became something else — more about ideology, division and bureaucracy, not student success,” Ono wrote, adding that he eventually limited DEI offices at Michigan. “I believe in Florida’s vision for higher education.”
DeSantis, a Republican who has pushed reforms in higher education to eliminate what he calls “woke” policies such as DEI, did not take a public stand on Ono but did say at a recent news conference that some of his statements made the governor “cringe.”
Ono faced similar pointed questions at Tuesday’s meeting — especially from former Republican state House speakers Paul Renner and Jose Oliva — leading board member Charles Lydecker to object to the procedure.
“We have never used this as a forum to interrogate. This is not a court of law. Candidly, this process does not seem fair to me,” Lydecker said.
Oliva, however, questioned how to square Ono’s many past statements about hot-button cultural issues with his more conservative stance now that he sought the Florida job.
“Now we are told to believe you are now abandoning an entire ideological architecture,” Oliva said. “We are asking someone to lead our flagship university. I don’t understand how it becomes unfair.”
Steube, writing on X, praised the board for its decision.
“Great news for my alma mater and the state of Florida! The Board of Governors heard us loud and clear: Santa Ono was the wrong choice for UF,” the congressman said.
Ono was to replace Kent Fuchs, who became the school’s temporary, interim president last summer after ex-U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse stepped down. Sasse left the U.S. Senate, where he had represented Nebraska, to become the university’s president in 2023.
Sasse announced in July he was leaving the job after his wife was diagnosed with epilepsy.
Later reports surfaced that Sasse gave six former staffers and two former Republican officials jobs with salaries that outstripped comparable positions and spent over $1.3 million on private catering for lavish dinners, football tailgates and extravagant social functions in his first year on the job.
Ono is also the former president of the University of British Columbia and the University of Cincinnati.
Even though they called it a "rant", Fox actually did a credible job of reporting the push back Trump is getting for he debt busting bill (my words, not theirs).
Musk calls Trump's One Big Beautiful Tax Bill a "disgusting abomination". I always knew there was a speck of good buried somewhere in him.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-se … hatgpt.comInteresting....looks like Elon is committed to killing the bill. Who would have thought? Lol. The word is that Trump is furious.
I'm glad to see Musk has one redeeming factor.
Not sure what Musk is feeling or saying. But I am most likely with him. This bill needs a ton of work.
This bill is stirring up a lot of hypocritical noise from both sides. Democrats are shouting about the cost but aren’t offering real solutions to reduce it, just complaints about proposed cuts like those to Medicaid, which frankly seem exaggerated. Meanwhile, Republicans are all over the place, some say the bill needs to be completely overhauled, others want deeper cuts, and many are upset about what's already on the chopping block.
Over the past few weeks, I’ve skimmed through parts of the bill myself. The pork is all stacked at the end, and honestly, most of it could be trimmed without hurting anything essential. There’s room to shave some off the military budget; they’re asking for a ton, and the same with immigration funding. We could cut a bit and still keep things moving.
After looking at this bill, I’ll just say it plainly: I don’t think Trump is even aware of all the pork projects and what’s buried between the lines. It’s a massive piece of legislation (as usual), and I doubt many in the media are really digging into the details. It definitely needs work, but with some serious tweaks, it could turn into something worthwhile. Just my take.Democrats actually HAVE offered alternatives, But you know as well as I Republicans won't even listen to them.
Taxing the Wealthy and Corporations:
Senator Bernie Sanders advocates for higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy, including a top marginal income tax rate of up to 52% and a 65% estate tax on large inheritances. (Economist Thomas Piketty calculated 70% should be the max). He also supports increasing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 35%. (It should increase, but not sure that much, in my opinion.)
Senator Elizabeth Warren has proposed a 2% annual wealth tax on household net worth above $50 million and a 3% tax on net worth above $1 billion. She also introduced the "Real Corporate Profits Tax," a 7% tax on corporate profits over $100 million.
Expanding Child and Family Benefits:
Democrats have pushed to restore the expanded Child Tax Credit (CTC) from the American Rescue Plan, increasing it up to $3,600 per child. They also propose making the CTC fully refundable to benefit low-income families.
Vice President Kamala Harris has advocated for a $6,000 bonus for families with newborns and tax incentives for affordable housing construction.
Corporate Tax Reforms:
Democrats support increasing the corporate tax rate to 28%, partially reversing the 2017 tax cuts. They also propose implementing a global minimum tax to prevent profit shifting to low-tax jurisdictions.
Investments in Social Programs:
Proposals include significant investments in childcare, education, and healthcare, funded by increased taxes on high-income individuals and corporations. For example, the American Families Plan aims to provide universal preschool and two years of free community college.
THIS Democrat (me) recommends:
1. Expanding the CTC including the refundable part
2. A $1,000 middle class tax credit
3. Raising SALT cap to $15,000
4. Kill the OBBTB.
This way everybody's taxes remain the same or are cut, except the wealthy. PLUS, it will knock down the Deficit by $1 Trillion and about 10 million people can keep their health insurance.
I can't speak to RWM, but I think I am pretty well versed in what is in the bill which I have picked up from MSM.
Given Trump's well known aversion to detail, I suspect you are right that he doesn't know what is in it.I should have clarified, I meant suggestions that reflect the new President’s mandate. Trump was sent to Washington with a clear agenda, and all of Congress should respect that and work with him to help fulfill the promises he made to We the People. He wasn’t sent there to help the losing party push an agenda voters already rejected. If that’s what the country wanted, well… your side would’ve won.
Why should Congress be subservient to Trump? I don't think that is what our founders had in mind when they created three co-equal branches of government (that is now down to two, the Executive and the Judicial)
I think the Democrats are under the mistaken impression that we still have three co-equal branches.I moved my reply over to the Bold Agenda forum.
Agree. I appreciate your thoughtful look into this bill. It's obvious you do your homework. At this point, many Republican reps have spoken out about pieces of the bill being passed through the house that they actually don't support but they didn't know were in the bill... Because they obviously didn't read it all. Good on them for speaking up now but honestly why did they rubber stamp a thousand pages of something they didn't read thoroughly? Yes, it's too big and there are some real ugly details within.
I am very disappointed by what I see in this bill. It disheartens me to see the amount of overspending and pork-barrel projects attached to it. The media isn’t even addressing the pork, which tells me they aren’t digging deep enough. As I mentioned, much of this pork is pushed by Republicans for their own pet projects, and at a time like this, we simply have no room for that. This disappoints me greatly. While I understand some pork is to be expected, when you look at the overall cost and size of the bill, it’s clear that if they truly cared, they wouldn’t have loaded it up with so much waste. This tells me it’s the same old politics as usual. Additionally, the allocations for the military and immigration are badly bloated.
I can only hope the Senate stands strong, and that the handful of Republicans calling for the bill to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb are heard. I have always had my doubts about whether our representatives even read these bills. In my view, we are walking a very thin line with the growing national debt.I haven't either other than reporting others talking about it. Apparently specialty outlets like Arnold Ventures, Committee for Responsible Federal Budget, and Citizens Against Public Waste have taken an interest but that is all ChatGPT could find.
https://www.arnoldventures.org/stories/ … hatgpt.com
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/breaking-dow … hatgpt.com
Here is an excerpt from one;
"While many provisions aim to extend key elements of the 2017 tax law, they are overshadowed by costly, special-interest giveaways that do nothing to grow our economy and even less to simplify tax filing for taxpayers. We need stronger economic growth to generate the tax revenues necessary to get our fiscal house in order, but the bill neuters the most pro-growth tax cuts — incentives for capital investment, R&D, and business financing — and redirects the money to politicians’ pet causes.
In the tax space, the carve-outs add up fast. They range from narrow provisions benefiting niche industries — like fund managers in the Virgin Islands and banks making loans to agribusinesses — to much larger giveaways, including extending a Main Street business deduction to Wall Street private equity firms that own “business development corporations” and expanding the wasteful low-income housing tax credit for real estate developers.
On the spending side, the inclusion of the Orphan Cures Act would weaken the Medicare negotiation program by allowing more drugs to avoid price negotiation — a boon to pharmaceutical companies. This giveaway required the House to cut even deeper into Medicaid, sacrificing health coverage for pharma profits. And using the reconciliation process as a vehicle to expand farm subsidies that raise grocery prices hits American families twice — first as taxpayers and then as consumers. These policies should be debated out in the open as part of the regular Farm Bill process, not buried in the OBBB."
"Trump asks aides if they think Musk’s behavior could be related to alleged drug use, source says" - DUH.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/06/politics … -use-trumpwhat?
where are you on this one?
what am I supposed to extrapolate from that?
Excuse me??
Donald Trump Warns of 'Serious Consequences' if Elon Musk Backs Democrats
"If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that," Trump told NBC News in a phone interview, but did not specify what actions he could take against Musk. "He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that."
When asked if he has any desire to repair the relationship between the pair, Trump simply said "No," adding that he "would assume" that their relationship is over after the very public dispute.
Using the office of the President to retaliate against a private citizen?
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-w … ts-2082363Interesting to see ho the war between Trump and Musk will play out. Get the popcorn ready...
Trump can shoot anybody on 6th avenue and still lose no votes or have slept with a 13 year old girl on a plane from Epstein without shaking up the MAGA crowd.
Musk can basically buy out everything Trump owns and dump it on the market. Or buy CNN and use it for a 24h anti Trump campaign...
The war of the wicked!Somebody definitely needs to investigate WHY the lawsuit about the 13-year old was dropped right before the election in 2016. Was it like the felonious Stormy Daniels payoff?
Maybe Musk actually does know something about the Epstein files.
Where does Trump's war on the world stand today relative to what he promised?
(ChatGPT changed my format to make it more readable)
I’m using official government data through April 2025, which I trust. Given the credible reports that Trump’s administration may have tried to manipulate other official data in May reports, I treat anything published after April with skepticism.
That said, even with caveats (see below), Trump is failing to deliver on his tariff revenue promises, as measured from February 1, 2025, when he began implementing his economic “war on the world.”
Exports (Goods)
January 2025: $172.8B
April 2025: $155.6B
Change: -10%
Preliminary reports suggest exports fell further in May.
Imports (Goods)
January 2025: $329.5B
April 2025: $241.2B
Change: - 27%
May import volumes reportedly fell even further.
Tariffs: Promises vs. Reality
Trump promised tariffs would generate $23.3B per month in revenue — based on $2.8 trillion over 10 years. But this includes the existing average baseline of about $6.9B/month, so the true additional revenue promised from his 2025 tariff plan is roughly:
$16.4B/month, or $49.2B in new revenue over the first three months (Feb–Apr)
Actual Results (Feb–Apr 2025):
Total tariff revenue: ~$29.8B
Baseline revenue: $6.9B × 3 = $20.7B
New revenue generated: ~$9.1B
Shortfall vs. Trump’s promised increase: –$40.1B
The Caveat - Ramp-Up Adjustment
Of course, any Cost Analyst worth their salt would account for ramp-up time. Using a standard rollout curve (20% in Feb, 40% in Mar, 70% in Apr), the adjusted 3-month target becomes:
Feb: 20% of $16.4B = $3.3B
Mar: 40% = $6.6B
Apr: 70% = $11.5B
Total adjusted expectation: $21.4B in new revenue
Compared to Actual:
Actual new revenue: $9.1B
Still $12.3B short of even the ramped-up adjusted goal
Bottom Line:
- Trump policies and driven Exports and Imports down sharply, undercutting overall economic strength
- Tariff revenue is far short of Trump’s promised increase
- Even when giving Trump the benefit of a ramp-up period, his plan is underperforming by over $12 billion in just three months
- Meanwhile, trade disruption and price inflation are mounting
In short: Trump’s tariff strategy is failing on its own terms — and imposing real economic costs along the way.In my view, while it’s true that U.S. exports fell 10% and imports dropped by 27% between January and April 2025, interpreting these figures as an outright failure of Trump’s tariff policy overlooks some key strategic and global economic dynamics. First, a sharp drop in imports is not inherently negative, one of Trump’s core promises was to reduce reliance on foreign goods, particularly from strategic competitors like China. The import collapse reflects not only tariffs, but also corporate efforts to re-shore supply chains and pivot to domestic or allied production, trends which were already underway due to post-COVID resilience planning. Moreover, although the $9.1 billion in new tariff revenue falls short of the $16.4 billion/month headline promise, using a rollout-adjusted expectation of $21.4 billion (over Feb–Apr) softens the narrative. A $12.3B shortfall, while notable, represents early-stage underperformance in a long-term strategy, not definitive failure. Tariff policy effects are inherently lagging; revenue generation is only one measure, and focusing solely on it misses broader economic leverage goals. For example, Chinese FDI into the U.S. continues to stall, and several U.S. manufacturers have announced new plants domestically and in Mexico, developments some analysts attribute in part to trade pressure from tariffs.
Critics also often omit the inflationary context in which these tariffs were implemented. The 2025 tariff schedule was introduced during a high-interest-rate environment designed to tame inflation. In that context, import suppression may have a net-neutral or even deflationary impact, helping the Fed stay on course without additional rate hikes. Yes, trade flows have been disrupted, but calling that a failure ignores the intentionality behind the disruption. The aim was economic decoupling from adversarial regimes and realignment toward allies and domestic producers. Whether that realignment will yield long-term competitiveness gains is still unknown, but it's misleading to declare failure within three months of implementation.
That said, your analysis correctly notes that promised revenue is underdelivered so far and that early economic pain is evident, particularly for exporters facing retaliatory tariffs and foreign market uncertainty. The burden on American consumers and small businesses due to increased costs is also a genuine concern. If Trump cannot rapidly convert trade disruption into industrial reinvestment and broader economic resilience, the short-term pain may outweigh long-term gain.
Ultimately, the success or failure of this “economic war” depends not only on tariff revenue but on structural shifts in production, inflation control, and geopolitical positioning, metrics which will take at least a year or two to fully assess. I don't think at this point, we can really predict an outcome.
Source, that added to forming my view ---- https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/index.html
U.S. International Trade Commission Tariff Revenue Reports
Peterson Institute for International Economics – Tariff Analysis (2024–2025)
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Tariff Revenue Baseline Reports
Brookings Institution: The Real Economic Effects of Trump’s Tariff Regime (2025)
Reuters: U.S. Manufacturers Begin Re-Shoring Amid Trade Tensions (April 2025)But the tariff "revenue" is US?! Be tariff is being paid by the consumer by way of higher cost of goods. How is that a good thing
Even when tariffs are fair on both sides, they can still raise prices a bit because they add a cost to imported goods. But the point of fair tariffs isn’t just about price, it’s about protecting domestic industries, encouraging local production, and making sure trade is balanced. If both countries are playing by the same rules, it levels the playing field. Prices might go up at first, but over time, the economy can benefit through more jobs, stronger local supply chains, and better trade deals. I don’t think some are looking at the complete picture. Trump hopes to use tariffs not as a permanent fix, but as a tool to bring back manufacturing, reduce reliance on foreign goods, and negotiate better terms for American workers. I mean, this is how I understand Trump’s use of tariffs, alongside his efforts to attract investment back into the U.S.
Who is interested in paying higher prices for everything though? To finance a tax break? For me, that is completely nonsensical. We simply cannot afford the tax plan.
I can only speak for myself --- I am willing to pay more to create a country that can provide more of what we need, and become less dependent on China. I just think many overlook that we are becoming dependent on China for everything. I think that says it all.
" I am willing to pay more to create a country that can provide more of what we need, and become less dependent on China."
I agree ... and surely, over time, prices will come down.
Also, we have to realize that if we don't fight the insidious influence of the CCP, the consequences will be the loss of control over our own destiny.
https://www.gao.gov/u.s.-china-relation … interests.
The thing is, almost ALL nations WERE playing by the same rules before Trump started his war; you just believe his lie that it wasn't. As has been frequently proven now, that, which very few exceptions, nations were playing nice with America and America with them.
This unfair deficit thing is simply a figment of Trump's imagination.So, you say you are willing to pay MUCH HIGHER prices just to bring back manufacturing to America; something the manufacturers themselves don't want because it will cost most of them billions and bankrupt a few.
Another Bold Agenda item is removing immigrants, especially undocumented ones (regardless of their legal status on Jan 19, 2025) from America. Stephen Miller now Proudly claims he is removing 3,000 per day.
So, I asked ChatGPT what that rate of population reduction would mean to industries that rely a lot on immigrant labor. Here is what I got:
Stephen Miller says 3,000 immigrants are being taken off the street a day. How long before that impacts America's ability to produce foods and goods?
ChatGPT said:
If Stephen Miller’s claim is accurate — that 3,000 immigrants are being detained or removed per day — and these individuals disproportionately represent undocumented workers in agriculture, food processing, low-wage manufacturing, construction, and leisure, the U.S. could begin to feel production and supply disruptions within weeks, with severe labor shortages within 2–3 months.
Here’s a breakdown:
Scale of Impact
3,000 per day × 30 days = 90,000 per month
Over 3 months, that’s 270,000 individuals removed
The USDA and industry surveys estimate at least 50–70% of U.S. farmworkers are undocumented
Many food systems and factories rely on localized labor pools with few replacement options
Timeline of Disruption
Timeframe Impact
0–2 weeks Minimal operational impact; employers may assume it's temporary
2–4 weeks Visible strain: delayed harvests, slower meatpacking, missed shifts in warehouses
1–2 months Wage spikes, contracting failures, reduced output in produce and dairy sectors
2–3 months Widespread price increases, shortages of perishable foods, especially fruits & vegetables
3+ months Ripple effects: food inflation, labor hoarding, emergency foreign worker demand, policy pushback
Sectors Most at Risk
Agriculture – Especially fresh produce, dairy, and seasonal crops
Meatpacking & Poultry Processing – Already struggling with retention
Hospitality & Food Service – Dishwashing, prep, and cleaning roles
Light Manufacturing & Logistics – Assembly, packaging, and warehousing
Economic Risks
Reduced output → higher prices
Labor shortages → supply chain delays
Wage inflation → cost-push inflation across food and consumer goods
NOTE: The last major ICE workplace raids (e.g., 2019 Mississippi poultry plants) led to temporary shutdowns, food spoilage, and community economic disruption — even with far fewer daily removals.
If this policy continues unchecked and without replacement labor (e.g., H-2A visas, reforms, or automation), the U.S. food system could feel sustained, worsening strain by late summer 2025.
ManufacturingThe other side of the coin looks very different.
Your comment, while packed with statistics and dire forecasts, presents a highly skewed and alarmist interpretation of a policy that was central to Donald Trump’s 2024 election victory. To begin, it's important to ground the debate in the actual political mandate: Trump was re-elected on a platform that prioritized enforcing U.S. immigration law, securing the border, and deporting individuals who are unlawfully present in the country, particularly those with criminal records. The idea that this is simply a “bold agenda item” misses the point; it’s a direct fulfillment of what a majority of voters chose in the 2024 election, especially in states hit hardest by the social and economic costs of illegal immigration.
Now, to directly engage with the claim that deporting 3,000 undocumented immigrants per day will cause the food system and economy to collapse in 2–3 months, this is speculative, lacks nuance, and assumes the U.S. economy is static and incapable of adapting. Yes, some sectors ,agriculture, meatpacking, and hospitality, do rely heavily on undocumented labor. But that’s precisely the problem Trump’s policy is trying to correct. A nation that knowingly allows large-scale industries to function only by breaking the law (i.e., hiring unauthorized workers) has created an unsustainable, shadow-based labor system that suppresses wages, reduces job opportunities for citizens and legal immigrants, and disrespects those who follow legal pathways.
The argument about labor shortages also assumes no replacement or adjustment. Yet Trump’s team has repeatedly stated and clarified that legal pathways like H-2A and H-2B visas for seasonal workers would remain in place, and potentially even be reformed or expanded to better match needs with legal labor flows. This means that rather than “gutting the labor pool,” the policy aims to restore lawful hiring practices and end the under-the-table economy that exploits both immigrants and American workers alike. Industries are also increasingly investing in automation (especially in agriculture and food processing), and the wage pressures cited as harmful might actually benefit low-income American workers who have been priced out by illegal competition.
Additionally, we need to talk about priorities. The U.S. government’s first duty is not to preserve cheap labor for corporations, but to uphold the law and protect its citizens. The argument that we can’t enforce immigration law because certain sectors depend on illegal labor is an admission of policy failure, not a justification to continue it. There are millions of unemployed or underemployed Americans, particularly in rural and post-industrial regions, who could benefit from legal workforce development programs if wages are allowed to rise and job protections are enforced.
Finally, invoking isolated events like the 2019 Mississippi ICE raid ignores that those raids did not create long-term supply issues, and in many cases, companies were able to adjust. Yes, short-term disruption can occur, but it’s disingenuous to argue that any disruption equals policy failure. That’s how change works: it is painful at first, but it’s designed to correct systemic abuse, not sustain it.
Trump’s immigration enforcement policy is not “removing immigrants” broadly; it is targeting those here unlawfully, and starting with criminals, just as he promised. The economic consequences of this are manageable and correctable through legal labor programs, automation, and higher wages for citizens. The idea that enforcing immigration law will cause an economic collapse is not only speculative but reflects a warped value system that puts the convenience of lawbreaking industries above the rule of law and the rights of legal residents.
Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)
The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers (2023) estimates that “Americans now pay $150.7 billion annually due to illegal immigration” https://policycommons.net/artifacts/124 … /13301030/
ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO)
ICE’s official dashboard and FY2024 Annual Report show enforcement & removal statistics and a focus on criminal non‑citizens
https://www.ice.gov/statistics?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Congressional Research Service on H‑2A/H‑2B visas
CRS reports (March 2024 and recent overview) outline legal guest-worker programs and their designs
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R4 … hatgpt.com
Cato Institute – Guest worker visa analyses
Cato’s policy analyses argue for reforms to H‑2A and H‑2B programs to channel workers legally and reduce illegal immigration
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/ho … hatgpt.com
Stephen Miller regarding the replacement of undocumented labor with American workers, supported by legal pathways like H-2A and H-2B visas. While I couldn't locate a specific statement from Miller directly addressing this point, there are several reports and analyses that suggest his policies and the Trump administration's approach align with this objective.
For instance, an article from The Fern discusses how the Trump administration's deportation plan could lead to an increased reliance on migrant labor through the expansion of the H-2A visa program. It notes that agricultural lobbying groups have already met with Trump's transition team to urge the expansion of the H-2A program to replace undocumented farmworkers. This suggests that the administration is considering legal pathways, such as H-2A visas, to address labor shortages resulting from deportations. https://thefern.org/2025/01/how-trumps- … hatgpt.com
Trump himself uses visa workers on his properties, and has supported this form of legal workers."presents a highly skewed and alarmist interpretation of a policy that was central to Donald Trump’s 2024 election victory. " - HOW so? They are just reasonable extrapolations from what he is doing? You don't think you can deport 10% or more of America's workforce and have nothing bad happen do you?
I agree, ridding America of immigrants he doesn't like was high on his campaign agenda. If that is what they voted for, then they better be willing to accept the foreseeable negative consequences shouldn't they?think that’s where we’re missing the forest for the trees. No one is denying that mass deportation would have serious consequences if it meant indiscriminately removing 10% of our workforce overnight. But that's a strawman argument, not a realistic policy proposal. What’s actually being debated is restoring order to a chaotic, unregulated influx that sidesteps the very visa system that has worked effectively for decades.
We already have a functional, lawful system for bringing in workers, temporary visas, H-2A and H-2B programs, high-skilled H-1B visas, and more. These programs exist for a reason: they ensure fair wages, safe conditions, and accountability. When we allow illegal immigration to replace or bypass that process, we undercut the legal immigrants who did follow the rules, and we create a shadow labor force ripe for abuse and exploitation.
A large number of these migrants would absolutely take full advantage of coming in legally, and frankly, they’d be better off for it. Our visa laws give them legal protection, rights, and even a pathway to future opportunity. This isn’t about being anti-immigrant, it’s about respecting the rule of law and the systems we’ve already built to support lawful immigration and workforce needs. Ignoring that just invites long-term instability for both migrants and American workers.
Yeah, I’d say it’s expected that there’d be some turbulence when an administration takes on a problem that’s been festering for decades. I voted for leadership willing to tackle the issue, not let it spiral out of control. You could say I voted for someone with guts. I think it’s time more people recognize that there’s been a kind of uprising from a party that’s usually quiet and reserved. And wow, did we make ourselves heard.
I noticed you overlooked the significant financial burden migrants place on American taxpayers, which contributes to our growing national debt. Democrats may be loudly criticizing the deficit, but allowing migrants, particularly those who enter illegally, can exacerbate our fiscal challenges. While we have a longstanding and effective legal visa process in place (like H‑1Bs, H‑2s, etc.), which offers migrants protections, accountability, and lawful opportunities, bypassing this system undermines fairness and burdens communities. A recent Congressional Budget Office estimate shows that since 2021, over $16.2 billion has been spent on Medicaid for undocumented migrants under emergency services provisions (CBO). On top of that, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has allocated more than $1.4 billion since the fall of 2022 to address migrant-related needs through the Shelter and Services Program. These are not trivial amounts, they’re real costs that strain federal and local budgets and deepen our fiscal imbalance.
If we're serious about tackling the national debt and practicing fiscal responsibility, we must reinforce our legal visa system, acknowledge the ongoing costs of illegal immigration, and ensure future arrivals come through established channels, helping meet labor demands without increasing deficits.
https://budget.house.gov/press-release/ … hatgpt.com
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraharno … hatgpt.com
https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepoliti … hatgpt.com
"Now, to directly engage with the claim that deporting 3,000 undocumented immigrants per day will cause the food system and economy to collapse in 2–3 months, this is speculative, lacks nuance, and assumes the U.S. economy is static and incapable of adapting. " - The bolded part was never said nor implied. Why did you frame it in such a hyperbolic way?
And regardless to your answer to that, let me make these points:
- Yes, the economy is adaptive — but not instantly, and not without cost. - that is the nuance you speak of.
- However, unemployment is low (and you and Trump claim it will remain so), and these jobs are undesirable to most domestic workers due to poor conditions and wages. So, why do you think so many American companies employ undocumented workers. It is either that, or not be in business at all. Is the latter your preferred alternative?
- Yes, legal immigration channels, like H-2A and H-2B visas, are available, but in the short to mid-term, they effectively are not! They are already backlogged and will not be able to ramp up fast enough to replace 90,000–270,000 removed workers in a single quarter. let alone for multiple quarters.
- So yes, the economy can adapt — but it would require months to years, not weeks.. What do you recommend we do in the meantime?
As to the analysis being "speculative", it is not, it is based upon history. For example:
- After the 2019 Trump ICE raids in Mississippi poultry plants, production slowed, costs rose, and many jobs went unfilled — despite local recruitment.
- In Georgia (2011), strict immigration laws led to the loss of 11,000+ farmworkers. Result: millions in crop losses, and some farms shut down entirely. - Why won't that happen today across America?
- The UFW has repeatedly offered jobs to domestic workers — often to no takers, even during recessions.
You may believe the lies put out by this administration, but i don't!
It's misleading to frame the current immigration enforcement effort as narrowly focused on "criminals" or as easily offset by legal labor programs and automation - neither are even close to being true.
The scale of Trump’s policy — detaining or removing an estimated 3,000 individuals per day — is well beyond targeted criminal removal. - simple common sense, let alone logic tells you that.
The majority of those detained are not violent offenders, but workers embedded in industries like agriculture, food processing, construction, and hospitality.
While enforcing immigration law is a legitimate goal. But pretending that mass removals of undocumented workers — who make up over 50% of U.S. farm labor and large shares of other essential sectors — won't have consequences is economically naive.
We all know that automation can’t harvest strawberries - yet. As I previously mentioned, legal labor programs like H-2A are understaffed, underfunded, and slow to scale. And raising wages is not a silver bullet — it raises consumer prices, which disproportionately hurt working-class Americans. These aren't ideological objections — they’re hard constraints recognized by farmers, manufacturers, and economists alike.
No serious analyst has claimed economic “collapse." as you suggested above. But severe disruption, labor shortages, and food inflation are not speculative — they are historically documented consequences of broad enforcement crackdowns (see Georgia 2011, Mississippi 2019).Fiscal Burden is rebutted by these links, One, a right-wing libertarian think-tank. Cato Institute — "FAIR’s Fiscal Burden … Is Fatally Flawed" https://www.cato.org/blog/fairs-fiscal- … hatgpt.com
Another is American Immigration Council — "Statistical Hot Air: FAIR’s Report Lacks Credibility" https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil. … hatgpt.com
Two of your other links don't seem to add anything to the discussion while your third, another CATO report reinforces the contention that the legal pathways are not up to the job.
BTW, sorry for moving this to the Musk forum, it should be in the Bold Agenda forum.I strive to attempt to give sources that give both sides of the coin, as I did with the above-mentioned. I am not seeking to make waves, only ripples, and provoke thought. I think this is unsettling to some here. But I don't seek to say " hey, you're wrong." I hope to just say, have a look at what I read, there is another side to the issue.
I understand, but the source you gave, which I read from previous posts, doesn't appear to meet your laudable objective of giving both sides of the coin. That is why I presented two from across the political spectrum that I feel do.
"Trump was re-elected on a platform that prioritized enforcing U.S. immigration law,...'
The previous administration never broke immigration law. In my opinion, trump should have ran on REFORMING immigration law through legislation.Willow, I didn’t mention Biden or the current administration. My original comment was long, but it was entirely focused on Trump and his immigration policies. I do agree that immigration reform is something we need to prioritize. I’ve watched decades of candidates campaign, and win on the promise to fix it. I’m still waiting.
Frankly, it feels redundant to keep following the same path that always ends in broken promises and becomes the next guy’s campaign slogan. Trump, for better or worse, offered to flip the whole system on its head. I’m fully on board with at least trying his approach.
I also think there’s a generational divide here; many older folks have heard this same political song on repeat for so long, it’s no wonder we’re ready to try something different. It would be wonderful if we had congressional representatives who would put up a clean no no-nonsense bill to improve our immigration laws. I mean we have had a very, omg time to assess our mistakes, what needs attention. Just simple, clean laws.But Sharlee...is it any different? Yes, Congress needs to do its job with some honest diligence in terms of immigration. But what we have in Trump, is a man who prefers to govern by executive order. These orders aren't durable or lasting. He needs to let Congress do its job and legislate.
However, honestly, is it really that different with Trump compared to other presidents? Sure, Congress absolutely needs to step up and handle immigration with real effort and compromise, no doubt about that. But let’s not pretend Trump is the only one relying heavily on executive orders. Obama signed 276 executive orders during his two terms, and Biden has already signed over 140 in just his first three years. Trump signed 220 in his four years, so while he did use them a lot, he's not an outlier in the modern presidency.
The reality is, executive orders have become the go-to move for presidents of both parties when Congress is gridlocked, and Congress has been seriously gridlocked for years. It’s not ideal, but when you have urgent national issues and a Congress that can’t or won’t agree on much, presidents end up using the tools they have. It's a symptom of a larger problem, not something unique to Trump. So if we’re going to criticize Trump for using EOs, we have to be honest and apply that same lens to Obama and Biden too. This is really more about how broken the system is, not just who happens to be in the Oval Office.
Consider, take Obama’s DACA program, for example, it was created through executive action after Congress failed to pass immigration reform. While it offered protection to “Dreamers,” it also sparked a massive legal battle and was eventually ruled unlawful by a federal judge, though parts of it still linger today. Biden did something similar with his Executive Order 13985, which pushes federal agencies to prioritize “equity” in everything they do. Supporters cheer it, but critics see it as government-sanctioned favoritism based on race or identity. Both cases show how presidents from both parties have used executive power to bypass Congress, often with long-term legal consequences.
I think it’s reasonable to ask that you at least acknowledge how executive orders have become a common tool for modern presidents. The examples I mentioned—I actually opposed both, but I can still recognize that Obama and Biden used executive authority to pursue promises they genuinely believed in. I feel like Trump is doing the same. I'm just not sure which specific executive order you’re strongly opposed to.
Frankly, it’s become clear that Congress isn’t doing its job, especially when it comes to advancing or even addressing Trump’s agenda. I see no real movement on the other side. He faced similar obstacles during his first term, even when Republicans controlled both the House and Senate in 2017 and 2018. And now, in his second term, those challenges haven’t gone away. We’re already seeing congressional friction on key issues like funding, immigration policies. For example, Trump’s recent travel ban on 12 countries, which took effect on June 9, 2025, is already facing legal challenges and has sparked intense partisan debate.
Congress isn’t really legislating right now; they’re mostly stonewalling, which seems to be their usual approach. From my perspective, Trump can’t rely on Congress because many members come across as ineffective and insincere. That said, I genuinely appreciate what I’m seeing: a president who’s standing up to the Washington establishment with calm determination and a clear strategy. I think his strategy is brilliant. He’s largely ignoring Congress and relying on the Supreme Court to help push his agenda, facing the Court with case after case. Plus, he’s getting key support from the Supreme Court, and fast. I think he has 5 pending cases related to the Supreme Court at this point.It is completely incomprehensible, at least to me, that Republicans hold the house, Senate and the White House...yet they are unable to make some common sense reforms.that would be durable as they would be set into law. Executive orders are mere Band-Aids. As far as the Supreme Court goes, they aren't going to let him continue to break the law in terms of denying asylum.
In Trump’s second term, asylum policies have become much more restrictive. While asylum seekers can still apply, the administration has suspended much of the traditional asylum system at the southern border, resulting in significantly fewer admissions. Cases are being fast-tracked, with many claims dismissed quickly, which has led to record numbers of denials. Despite efforts to speed up processing, immigration court backlogs remain large, with over 3.5 million people waiting for hearings.
Regarding lawsuits, several lawsuits have challenged these policies. The legal situation remains fluid, with ongoing challenges and debates about the limits of executive power and due process protections for asylum seekers. It will be interesting to see the outcomes of the pending cases. I trust the Supreme Court to rule appropriately. Thus far, I have felt the rulings fair. and constitutional.Everything that he has done on asylum is clearly illegal and is working its way through the court. Absolutely none of it will stand. What he's doing in terms of limiting asylum is breaking the law.
He is still deporting, but under all the laws.
Supreme Court's Key Ruling
On May 16, 2025, the Court issued an unsigned emergency order in the WMM v. Trump case. The ruling:
Paused the Trump administration’s attempts to deport Venezuelan migrants under the AEA.
Reaffirmed that individuals must be given “notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.”
Did not address whether Trump can legally invoke the AEA in peacetime but did say due process is essential before removal .
In essence, while the Court didn’t forbid use of the AEA, it mandated that anyone targeted must receive proper legal procedures, including:
In essence, while the Court didn’t forbid use of the AEA, it mandated that anyone targeted must receive proper legal procedures, including:
Supreme Court Wins
1. Humanitarian Parole (“CHNV”) Case
On May 30, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a brief unsigned order allowing the Trump administration to suspend the CHNV humanitarian parole program, which had granted temporary legal status to ~500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela
This effectively stripped temporary legal status from those migrants pending a final Court decision
. 2. TPS (Temporary Protected Status) Case
On May 19, 2025, the Court similarly allowed Trump to revoke TPS protections, including those for Venezuelans, affecting about 350,000 individuals
So Did Trump “Win” on Protective Custody Refugees?
Technically, the Supreme Court lifted the lower court’s freeze, allowing removals to proceed in some cases, but only under strict conditions:
Migrants must be notified,
Allowed to bring habeas corpus petitions,
"However, honestly, is it really that different with Trump compared to other presidents? " -
Absolutely — and dramatically so. Trump’s approach to power, his disregard for democratic norms, and his brazen corruption arguably exceed that of any other modern American president, perhaps all of them combined. What makes it even more dangerous is that he’s not hiding it — he’s flaunting it.
He knows he has over 75 million Americans who will believe virtually any lie he tells. In fact, a significant portion of his base doesn’t just tolerate his abuses of power — they celebrate them. That’s not a typical political movement; it’s a personality cult that thrives on disinformation, grievance, and blind loyalty over democratic principles or factual reality. (Just consider that even today, fully 40% of his base STILL believe his lie that the 2020 election was rigged.)
Trump’s excessive use of executive power isn’t about filling in gaps left by Congress — it is about bypassing constitutional checks altogether. (Thank God we still have an independent Judiciary.) From his Unprecedented purging of inspectors general to weaponizing federal agencies, especially DOI, (formerly known is DOJ) against perceived enemies, he has repeatedly demonstrated a desire not to govern within a system, but to dominate it, to "dictate" it. He doesn’t want to work with institutions — he wants to bend them to his will or he will break them.
And unlike almost all past presidents (Andrew Jackson and Richard Nixon being the exceptions) saw their power as something to be exercised with caution, Trump views it as personal property. He surrounds himself with enablers and punishes anyone who questions him — not just opponents, but even former allies who fall out of step. His public statements, social media posts, and campaign rhetoric have steadily escalated toward overt authoritarianism, including promising mass deportations, retribution, and a “day one dictatorship.”
His stated worldview is fundamentally at odds with pluralistic democracy. His rhetoric doesn’t just challenge opponents — it dehumanizes them. He doesn’t just seek electoral victory — he seeks to delegitimize the entire electoral process unless he wins (ditto with the legal system). That is not normal politics. That is the logic of autocracy.
Comparisons to authoritarian leaders around the world aren’t hyperbole; they are warranted. Like Putin, Trump undermines free media. Like Orban, he cloaks repression in nationalist language. Like Bolsonaro, he stokes chaos to justify power grabs. And like those leaders, he is buoyed by followers who often know the truth but don’t care — because they believe the ends justify any means or they have become cult members and don't know what the truth is anymore. To that last group, Trump's lies are equivalent to the truth.
As to Trump's overly excessive use of EOs, you left out an important fact, his 2025 record, and normalizing the comparison. For completeness and because we are only 4 months into 2025, I will use a per month basis.
REAGAN - 4 per month
BUSH I - 3.5 per month
CLINTON - 3.8 per month
BUSH II - 3 per month
OBAMA - 2.9 per month
TRUMP I - 4.6 per month
BIDEN - 3.4 per month
TRUMP II - 39.3 per month!!!
(SO, you can see that Trump is VERY different from ALL other presidents in this regard)
Bottom Line: We’re not just debating executive orders or partisanship here — we’re confronting a movement that sees democracy as expendable when it’s inconvenient. That’s what makes Trump fundamentally different. And pretending otherwise is not neutrality — it’s complicity.That is my view, and it is all I have to offer. No, Trump is not fundamentally different in the ways his critics claim, and the hysteria around him often reveals more about the accuser than the accused. Every president has pushed the boundaries of executive power. Obama famously said he had “a pen and a phone,” and used executive action to bypass Congress on issues like immigration and environmental regulation.
Biden has done the same, whether with his student loan forgiveness attempts or border policies that have sparked legal battles. The difference with Trump is not abuse, it’s defiance of the establishment narrative and refusal to bow to the permanent political class, which has turned the media, DOJ, and even intelligence agencies into ideological battlegrounds. Claims that Trump “bends institutions to his will” sound dramatic, but ignore that much of the federal bureaucracy spent his first term resisting his directives, a fact that should alarm anyone concerned about unelected power. His supporters don’t worship him blindly; many see him as a flawed man standing up to a system that has ignored them for decades.
That’s not a cult, it’s a rebellion against bureaucratic overreach, elitist disdain, and a media complex that clearly plays favorites. As for the flood of executive orders in 2025, the comparison falls flat unless you acknowledge the obstructionism he's facing and the urgent need to reverse Biden-era policies that many Americans view as harmful. The deeper issue here is this: Trump’s critics claim to be defending democracy while cheering on institutions that silence speech, censor dissent, and criminalize political opposition. That’s not defending democracy, it’s redefining it to mean “our side stays in power.”
If you really want to worry about authoritarianism, look at the censorship industrial complex, lawfare against political enemies, and federal agencies acting like partisan tools. Trump may be blunt and unconventional, but what truly terrifies his critics is that he represents millions of Americans who are no longer willing to be ruled by those who despise them."If you really want to worry about authoritarianism, look at the censorship industrial complex, lawfare against political enemies, and federal agencies acting like partisan tools. "
This is exactly what we have gotten from this Administration thus far though? Look at the orders he's given to Pam Bondi in terms of investigating his critics, trying to take over the curriculum of private universities? Sending the military to deal with citizen protest, jailing people who write opinion pieces in student newspapers.... Denying due process.
To your comment "I’ve watched decades of candidates campaign, and win on the promise to fix it. I’m still waiting."
I thought you may find this interesting. I put this question to ChatGPT in Deep Research mode.
How many times did Democrats try to fix immigration in Congress since Reagan and were stopped by the Republicans. How many time did the Republicans try to fix immigration in Congress since Reagan and were stopped by the Democrats?
ChatGPT said:
Democratic-Led Reform Attempts Blocked by Republicans
Bipartisan agreement, then GOP opposition
- 2006 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (Senate S. 2611): Passed Senate 62–36 with bipartisan support (McCain‑Kennedy bill)
Blocked by GOP-controlled House—no conference, bill dead
- 2013 Gang-of-Eight bill (S. 744): Passed Senate with ~68 votes including 14 Republicans
Stopped by House Republicans under Speaker Boehner, never brought to floor
- 2021 U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 (Biden’s bill): Passed House on party-line votes; never received GOP support in the Senate, died in committee
- 2024 “Border Act of 2024” (S.4361) (Biden's other bill), A bipartisan bill brought up in the Senate and had broad support until Trump told Republicans to vote against it and it failed a procedural vote. Also, the thinking is that had it passed in the Senate, the Republicans in the House would have killed it.
Total: At least 4 major Democratic or bipartisan proposals advanced but were blocked by Republicans.
Republican-Led Reform Attempts Blocked by Democrats
While GOP-led efforts have focused on border enforcement and legal immigration reform, they’ve frequently failed due to Democratic opposition in the Senate.
- RAISE Act (2017, reintroduced 2019) – a GOP bill to reduce legal immigration. Received zero Democratic support, did not advance
- Secure the Border Act / End the Border Catastrophe Act (2023–24)
House Republicans passed border-enforcement bills along party lines
Senate Republicans blocked efforts to gain broader support, and Democrats opposed — failed to advance
Total**: At least 3 significant GOP-led bills (two were the same bill introduced at different times) stalled due to lack of Democratic, and in one case, Republican support.
So, out of the 7 attempts, Republicans killed or helped kill 5 of them and Democrats killed two on their own.
You can decide on who is more serious about immigration reform.I don't understand why people let Republicans off the hook so easily? Currently Trump has the trifecta, wouldn't it be easy to pass lasting reforms? You know it just seems like they'd rather hang on to the issue to use to enrage people.
It is understandable that Republicans would ignore how anti-immigration reform the Republicans are, but you would think Democrats would be shouting it to the rooftops.
God, I hope they get their act together soon. If not, we are lost and Russia will have America as one of its provinces. I wonder if Putin would let Trump stay on as governor, lol.
I have no bias on this issue. It has been a long-standing problem, and I believe Congress is to blame. I don’t think any single president is solely responsible for our broken immigration system.
This is a more complete synopsis of the party line regarding immigration
U.S. Immigration Law Reform: Party Stances and Key Moments
1. Early 20th Century (1900s–1920s): The Foundations
The Immigration Act of 1924, which established strict national-origin quotas, was passed overwhelmingly by a Republican-controlled Congress under President Calvin Coolidge (Republican). It aimed to restrict immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe and virtually barred Asian immigration.
The Republican Party at that time supported strong immigration restrictions, reflecting nativist sentiments.
The Democratic Party was more divided: Southern Democrats often supported restrictions to preserve racial hierarchy; Northern Democrats were more mixed, some representing immigrant constituencies.
2. 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act (Hart-Celler Act)
This landmark law abolished the earlier quota system based on national origins.
It was passed in a Democratic-controlled Congress and signed by Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson.
The Act was a bipartisan effort but primarily led by Democrats, marking a more open immigration policy era.
Supported heavily by Democrats, with Republicans more divided—some opposing increased immigration fearing job competition.
3. 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)
Passed under Republican President Ronald Reagan with a Democratic-controlled Congress.
It legalized roughly 3 million undocumented immigrants who met certain criteria (amnesty).
The Act was broadly bipartisan but faced opposition within both parties.
Republicans generally supported enforcement but split on legalization; Democrats tended to favor legalization.
4. 1996 Immigration Acts
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) and Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act were passed with Republican majorities, emphasizing enforcement and deportation.
The Clinton administration (Democrat) signed these into law, signaling a tougher stance on immigration enforcement.
This was a period when Republicans generally pushed harder for enforcement measures, while Democrats raised concerns about immigrant rights.
5. 2000s – 2010s: Increasing Polarization
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 passed under a Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Republican President George W. Bush, authorized extensive fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Attempts at comprehensive immigration reform under President Obama (Democrat) stalled in Congress:
The 2013 “Gang of Eight” bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support (10 Republicans and all Democrats voted yes) but died in the Republican-controlled House.
Republicans generally opposed pathways to citizenship or amnesty provisions.
Obama also implemented DACA (2012) via executive order after Congress failed to pass immigration reform.
6. Recent Years and Trump Era (2017–2021)
Trump (Republican) pushed for very strict immigration policies, border wall funding, and travel bans.
Republican control of Congress in early years provided mixed support—some Republicans backed strict policies; others worried about economic impacts.
Democrats largely opposed Trump’s immigration policies, focusing on protections for Dreamers and immigrant rights.
Legislative immigration reform efforts have been largely stalled due to partisan divides.
Summary of Party Trends:
Period Party More Supportive of Reform/Expansion Party More Supportive of Restriction/Enforcement
Early 1900s–1920s Mixed (Democrats divided) Republicans favored strong restrictions
1965 Reform Democrats Some Republican opposition
1986 IRCA Bipartisan (Democrats leaned pro-legalization) Republicans mixed
1996 Acts Democrats raised immigrant rights concerns Republicans pushed enforcement
2000s–2010s Democrats (DACA, reform efforts) Republicans focused on enforcement, opposition to amnesty
Trump Era Democrats are opposing strict measures
Republicans generally supporting strict policies
Like Trump, other Republicans are trying very hard to shut down America's Voice.
‘Our constitution is easy prey’: Republican-led states try to shut down liberal ballot initiatives
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/08/politics … n-missouriI guess I have to say I am flabbergasted. The subject is that relative to executive orders, Trump is no different from any other president. So, among other things I present hard facts like:
REAGAN - 4 EOs per month
BUSH I - 3.5 EOs per month
CLINTON - 3.8 EOs per month
BUSH II - 3 EOs per month
OBAMA - 2.9 EOs per month
TRUMP I - 4.6 EOs per month
BIDEN - 3.4 EOs per month
TRUMP II - 39.3 EOs per month!!!
(SO, you can see that Trump is VERY different from ALL other presidents in this regard)
This was totally ignored and doubled down on with a response that "Obama famously said he had “a pen and a phone,” to make the point that Trump is no different than Obama.
I am sorry, but it appears to me that this commenter is fully invested in trying make Trump look like something he so clearly isn't. That is what happens when one has blinders on.
Can someone explain how I am wrong in seeing it that way?You are not wrong, the differences are stark and quite obvious to anyone that is serious about the comparison.
Ha! I've seen folks try for over a dozen years. I don't think there is an explanation for it.
GA ;-)Oh man... ... that was killer... the heat off that one burnt me!
Trump1 EOs 4.6 equates that of Reagan 4. But Trump2, 39 is extreme. The times are different. The world is now more tuburlent than ever. Besides, biden, a puppet, and fellow Democrats created more problems for the USA than any one else.
Exactly problems did Biden create? Inflation was not one of them. Afghanistan is also off the table because that has been pointed out before. What, specifically, were the rest?
Another astonishing form of blindness is captured in statements like this:
“Claims that Trump ‘bends institutions to his will’ sound dramatic, but ignore that much of the federal bureaucracy spent his first term resisting his directives — a fact that should alarm anyone concerned about unelected power.”
This argument effectively reveals an alarming comfort with authoritarianism. It suggests that the President should wield unchecked power, and that career public servants exercising independent judgment is somehow a failure — rather than a constitutional safeguard. But that’s how dictatorships work, not democracies.
Yes, Trump has succeeded in bending institutions like the Department of Justice and FBI to his will. How, he appointed loyalist who hold their allegiance to Trump and not the Constitution nor America to lead these organizations. He didn't stop there, he appointed similar sycophants to the various deputy positions. Even further, he fired anybody who might the the duty or courage to challenge him. Putin couldn't have done it better himself!
But the threat goes far beyond law enforcement. Under his leadership, Trump has similarly politicized the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, and civilian agencies such as HHS, EPA, State, and Education. These departments are supposed to serve the public interest, guided by law, science, diplomacy, and policy — not partisan loyalty to a single man. It surprises me that educated Americans don't understand that simple principle of democracy.
We are seeing that play out in Los Angeles today. No Secretary of Defense whose allegiance is to America, would have sent the Marines to LA, not yet anyway.
In a functioning democracy, agency heads and civil servants are expected to weigh expert input, uphold ethical norms, and follow legal processes (which Trump has made sure the current crop won't do) — not merely obey presidential whims. When that independence is stripped away, when expertise is purged and dissent punished, what remains is a hollowed-out state apparatus, one that exists to serve power rather than the people.
The only reason the U.S. didn’t slide into full-blown autocracy during Trump’s first term is because some principled individuals in key positions acted as guardrails. They said no. They resisted. That is precisely what a healthy republic requires.
It may sound harsh, but it is undeniably true: when a leader demands absolute loyalty, installs loyalists to neutralize independent oversight, and uses the machinery of government for personal power, you no longer have a president — you have a dictator.Elon doing what he does best - Blowing things up.
[/b]See moment SpaceX Starship rocket explodes[/b]
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/19/science/ … ion-digvidYeah, that was a disappointment for many of us. How about you?
GAAmazing isn't it?
A failure for Space X is a failure for all humanity.
Some people only see Red or Blue.
On a personal observation. I find the less I pay attention to politics, the more rational my perspective feels.Exactly! It’s wild how one hiccup in a string of groundbreaking achievements suddenly becomes proof to some that Elon’s a failure. These people act like SpaceX hasn’t revolutionized space travel. Let’s not forget, when NASA couldn’t get our astronauts home from the ISS, it wasn’t some bureaucratic government program that stepped up, it was Elon Musk. SpaceX has been reliably ferrying astronauts to and from the space station, something that used to cost taxpayers billions and relied heavily on Russia for years.
Funny how the same folks cheering for a rocket failure were radio silent when Falcon 9s were landing upright like sci-fi movies come to life. The man literally made reusability in rockets a reality, something the experts once said was impossible. Let them sneer all they want, but history won't remember the critics, it'll remember who actually got us off the ground.I am not talking about that, am I? I am talking about well-deserved Karma for him being a rather bad man. As the name of that famous song in the play Chicago suggests: He's got it comin'
I don't know about you, but no matter how much I might agree with certain policies or actions taken by Donald Trump, and there are a few, I cannot overlook the profound flaws in his character. For me, leadership is not measured solely by outcomes—it is defined by integrity, judgment, and a moral compass. When someone repeatedly demonstrates a disregard for truth, decency, and the basic norms of democratic responsibility, it undermines any good they may have done.
Character isn't just a personal trait in a leader—it's a reflection of the values they bring into every decision, every crisis, and every public moment as well as reflecting how the world perceives us. Without that foundation, no achievement can truly be trusted or sustained.
Red and Blue have nothing to do with it. Remember Elon was very Blue until he saw he could gain a big advantage by flipping to Trump.
No, just as I suspect you may feel about people like Putin and Hitler and Maduro, I do not shed any tears when Karma catches up with people like him.
If you ignore politics when you have people like Trump and Musk running around, you run a great risk of losing the freedoms you have, assuming that is important to you, that is.
It has been shown time and again that masses of people will gladly give up their freedoms in the hopes the authoritarian they have chosen to follow will protect them. I am not sure their is one case in history where that kind of situation survives the test of time.
I am not one of those people, but MAGA, by and large, are.You gave me a hook for a story that was unrelated.
I stumbled across an Elon Musk vs. Bill Gates dust-up story after seeing an interview segment of Bill Gates saying he planned to, in the next 20 years, give away most of his money to causes he supported.
The 'details' are easy to find, it's about Bill Gates taking a very large Short position on Tesla stock in 2017(???) The numbers tossed around range from $500 million to $2 billion. *shrug* Musk tells the story, placing it at Tesla's weakest moment (so far). Those short positions were financially damaging at a make-or-break moment for the company.
Then, the newer story is that somewhere around 2021-2023, the short-position question popped up again when Gates was asked if he still held a short position. His answer was yes.
Musk's reply was mostly a question. To paraphrase: Why would one of the world's richest men and one of the strongest climate and environment advocates, who has publicly pledged to give away the majority of his wealth to promote those causes, make a financial decision that he knew would hurt one of the world's leading companies trying to promote and achieve those same goals?
Which looks worse, that he did it for money or to damage Musk?
GAElon Musk is trying to elevate humanity and aspires to go to Mars.
Bill Gates wants to de-populate the world and has done immense work toward that end.
Bill Gates is an above average intellect that pretends to be a genius and acts like an expert on everything.
Bill Gates didn't create Windows... he stole it... well... its foundation... the operating system (86-DOS) from Seattle Computer Company. Then he covered up his crime by quickly purchasing the rights to it very cheaply, before the media exposed him and IBM figured it out.The first sentence is most likely true.
The second sentence is demonstrably false
The third sentence is demonstrably false as well, Gates is considered a genius by almost everybody and his achievements prove it.
Gates didn't create Windows - FALSE. as is the rest of what you claimed
Gates and Microsoft did create Windows in the mid-1980s as a graphical user interface (GUI) to run on top of MS-DOS, which itself was based on a licensed version of another OS (see below). Windows was not stolen, but rather a strategic evolution of Microsoft's earlier software."[/i]Elon musk speaks of geniuses and genetic breeding in an article or two, spreading his superior genetic make up to random women to create his own tribe. How does this guy speak of elevating humanity. I wager that he wouldn’t live long enough for the technical challenges involved in sending people to Mars to come to fruition.
I will take Gates over Musk, any day….
I go with "for the money". Why? Unless it was to hurt Tesla reputationally, what Gates did at either the $500 million (.05%) or $2 billion (.2%) level would have negligible impact on Tesla's financial health.
So, Musk's statement that "Those short positions were financially damaging at a make-or-break moment for the company." is false.
But Elon Musk recently post on facebook, that he fail four attempts in launching Space X, before it become a success?
So they's no success ever in launching Space X?
I think that we need to go back to NASA, and leave this wonderkinder to himself. If we are going to Mars, we can’t have rockets exploding on the pad.
You're right... NASA has a spotless record and has never had anything blow up before.
Ken, think of the space Shuttle Challenger! After the very first successful mission to the Moon and back, NASA's Challenger with the ever first black astronaut, and a monkey, plus other astronauts was blown to piece while in the sky shortly after takeoff, right?
You’re right, true, yet my intuition tells me that Musk is not all that he appears to be for so many looking for a hero.
Bill Gates is the grownup and is more my style than Musk, if I had to pick my billionaire.I am not looking for a hero.
Musk has proven over and over the ability to turn his dreams into reality.
Bill Gates has shown little creativity since he has removed himself from Microsoft.So, because Hitler solved Germany's financial problems he is, in your eyes, a redeemable figure?
What has Musk's ability to organize a successful project or even have vision have to do with his terribly bad character?? You seem to be deflecting from the real question?I guess Ken couldn't respond to that truth.
I suspect you haven't attempted to accomplish one ten thousandth of what Elon Musk has attempted to accomplish.
As anyone who is even moderately successful in building or accomplishing anything of significant value knows... only those who fail over and over again are the ones that accomplish great things in life.So, Musk, must be an addict failure before he succeed? Edison failed just !0 times (and its not a life time) to give us the incandensence lamp.
Edison failed many many times before he got the light bulb to work. And if memory serves, it wasn't until Nikoli Tesla joined him, that he got it right.
As I told Sharlee, that has nothing to do with what I said. Musk is a very bad guy character-wise and Karma often finds a way to punish the bad guys sooner or later.
Trump is bad. Musk is bad. You'll later add Bill Gates, and the owner of Amazon I bet.
Why would I do that, although I think Ken listed Gates as having a very bad character. As to Bezos - he pissed me off when he bent his knee to Trump, but that doesn't make his character bad, just opportunistic, but not a liar and a cheat, or in Trump's case, a felon and sexual predator.
Love looking over all of the past praise and support of Elon ... Now dear leader is looking into deporting him.
Who here supports his deportation?Yep! They will turn on a dime against Elon.
It's fantastic that this forum doesn't allow the deletion of posts after a period of time
Just like two grade school kids fighting on a playground. The worlds richest man and the worlds dumbest man duke it out in the theatre of absurdity.
Only Trump is dumb enough to let the whole world know that he, erroneously, can have imported or deported any person he wants at will. It has nothing to do with anything substantive. From where does this awesome power derive? How petty and childish to use the government and its facilities for his silly feuds and vendettas.
This Trump is an idiot, I cannot understand why that is not evident to more people.
So, ladies and gentlemen, you pick the winner. Either side of this coin is a losing flip.It is evident to half the country. It is the other half who have willingly put blinders on.
Related Discussions
- 34
No longer a mystery! Elon Musk, Ramaswamy are on the Team!
by Tim Mitchell 8 months ago
Elon Musk, Ramaswamy land Trump admin roles by The Hill (Nov 12, 2024 7:57 pm ET)https://thehill.com/policy/4987402-trum … -spending/"President-elect Trump has tapped tech entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead an advisory group focused on cutting federal spending and...
- 209
DOGE vs Deep State - Trump’s Efficiency Crusade Left’s Hypocrisy
by Sharlee 3 months ago
My View, and added sources on statsAs I reflect on the current political climate, it's evident that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), spearheaded by President Trump and Elon Musk, has become a focal point of contention. The left's vehement opposition to DOGE's initiatives reveals a...
- 30
Trump doesn’t see the elephant in the room.
by Mike Russo 2 weeks ago
That elephant is mother nature. Al Gore, who was Clinton’s VP, made a film called An Inconvenient Truth. He predicted many years ago that because of Global Warming, storms of all types would become more severe. Politicians and others disregarded it as untruthful and conspiracy theory.However, we...
- 15
President Donald Trump Keeps Winning for the United States
by Readmikenow 2 months ago
President Trump secured the border in unprecedented fashion.Illegal border crossings have declined to the lowest level ever recorded — down 94% from last February and down 96% from the all-time high of the Biden Administration. In one sector, illegal border crossings are down 99% over 2023.Fox News...
- 37
Trump-Musk: The love affair is over...
by IslandBites 7 weeks ago
Many said their affair was destined to fail. Some said Musk wanted power and Trump wanted money and a scape goat. Were they right?When ratings got worse, DOGE was thrown from the spotlight. Then...(March 2025) Elon Musk said on Tuesday that he doesn’t like high or unpredictable tariffs.He recently...
- 98
Why is help so difficult and slow to reach Purto Rico?
by Jack Lee 7 years ago
After a major hurricane hit Purto Rico dead on, why is it so difficult to get them help? Food, water, and basic necessities...? We are only a few hundred miles away. There are ships and air transports and all kinds of relief efforts by private charities and our US military. There are many cruise...