Or for that matter, caring how it affects the little guys! I think we can agree that Trump isn't doing any of us any favors with his tariffs and other machinations to trade and our alliances.
He may mouth that he wants to help _ake _merica _reat _gain, but I think he's more concerned about himself and his cronies.
I am confused about this. Can someone mansplain it to me?
“ President Trump has sworn to root out corruption within the government, yet one of his first acts as president was to fire over a dozen independent watchdogs who did exactly that.”
Well, honey, let me explain this Trump-watchdog situation to you real slow, since it’s got you all puzzled. President Trump kicked off his second term in January 2025, swearing up and down he’d root out government corruption—same tune he’s been humming since 2016, when he called D.C. a ‘swamp’ on the campaign trail.
Fair enough, we’ve all seen the headlines about waste and cronyism. But then, one of his first moves—reported by outlets like AP and Reuters—was to fire over a dozen inspector generals, those independent watchdogs who keep tabs on federal agencies.
Now, I know you’re thinking, ‘Wait, aren’t they the corruption fighters?’ Yep, they are. Take folks like Glenn Fine—axed from the Pentagon’s IG gig in April 2020 during Trump’s first term—or Steve Linick, canned from State in May 2020 after probing Pompeo’s Saudi arms deals. These guys, per their job under the 1978 Inspector General Act, dig into fraud, abuse, the stuff Trump says he hates.
So why’d he fire ‘em?
Here’s the explanation:
Trump’s never been shy—check his tweets or Fox interviews—about wanting loyalists, not naysayers. He’s called IGs ‘Obama holdovers’ before, like in 2020 briefings, and prefers his own crew calling the shots. Is it hypocritical? Maybe, if you squint. But in his world, it’s less ‘clean the swamp’ and more ‘my swamp, my rules.’
Let's get back to the original 3/4 or 75% equation. The article states one poll source was CBS news. Do we suppose they focused on Republican aligned results?
Here's what I found, or at least what was reported by Chatty-G.
Data-wise, AllSides rates CBS News as “Lean Left” based on editorial patterns and audience perception, while Media Bias/Fact Check tags it “Left-Center” with high factual reporting but a tilt in story selection. Its audience skews older and slightly more liberal than the U.S. average, per Pew stats, but it’s not a monolith.
I'm leaning toward there are far more Americans fed up with the status que than are angry with the current course. Something like 3 out of 4.
You can lean where you will and believe what you want. CBS News’ political bent is irrelevant; unless you know the methodology of the specific poll anything you believe is conjecture. No one called me but I didn’t waste my time on the self-serving speech as I am fed up with the current chaos. Confirmation bias is difficult to avoid for some people.
I don’t say any of this to begin a philosophical debate with you.
I did not watch it and do not approve of his message. I did see a video of the speech described below and encourage everyone to do so.
“A French politician by the name of Claude Malhuret has unexpectedly gained a global following after an eight-minute address to his colleagues in the French Senate on Tuesday went viral.”
Fine, skip Trump’s speech—his rhetoric isn’t for everyone, and I won’t strong-arm you into listening. But swapping it for Claude Malhuret’s viral eight-minute (French) Senate rant doesn’t make it gospel. His call to rebuild Europe’s defenses as America’s shield supposedly wobbles? Sharp take, sure—but let’s add some context. The U.S. still pours a staggering $800 billion annually into defense, yet with its debt soaring past $34 trillion and its gaze shifting toward Asia, Europe’s $300 billion collective military budget does look lean. France alone spends $50 billion, and Malhuret’s pushing for more as NATO’s piggy bank creaks. Fair enough—self-reliance isn’t cheap. But is he dialing up the alarm bells too high when EU economies are already strained?
Skipping Trump while nodding along to Malhuret’s summary isn’t critical thinking—it’s cherry-picking. If you want the full picture, watch both or neither. But don’t anoint one as truth just because it’s trending (and in French). Engage, then decide.
Since the State of the Union address was #1 in the 7 Other Things today, I thought this from the Phoenix, AZ newspaper is ironically relevant:
“According to the AI chatbot called Grok, which was developed by Elon Musk’s company xAI, there is a “75-85% likelihood” that the person who delivered the State of the Union address on Tuesday night is a “Putin-compromised” Russian asset.”
“In describing Grok, by the way, Musk said it is a “maximally truth-seeking AI, even if that truth is sometimes at odds with what is politically-correct.”
The claim from Grok, estimating a ‘75-85% likelihood’ that Trump’s a ‘Putin-compromised’ asset, makes for a catchy headline. Musk calls Grok ‘maximally truth-seeking,’ and it’s digesting public data—like Trump’s general reluctance to criticize Putin since the ‘80s while readily slamming allies.
That contrast is fair to note.
But the prompt ‘use all publicly available information from 1980 on and his failure to ever say anything negative about Putin but has no issue attacking allies’ nudges the AI to a conclusion rather than letting the record stand on its own.
Yes, Trump’s business ties and praise for Putin—like calling him ‘genius’ during Ukraine—raise eyebrows. Yet it’s not the whole picture: in April 2018, he directly attacked Putin, tweeting, ‘Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad’ after a Syrian chemical attack.
That jab undercuts the ‘never negative’ claim. The Phoenix piece rides an AI’s educated guess—based on a leading prompt. Intentionally misleading and a clear demonstration of what plagues our press and an example of how AI can be misused.
Warren Buffett’s sounding the alarm: leveraged bets are a ticking time bomb when the unknown strikes. The market’s no crystal ball—it’s just a tool. Stick to the basics—invest what you’ve got, in what you know, with the time you’ve got. Big players like Buffett move markets, sure, but he’s not the U.S. right now. We’re more like John Bolton—overleveraged and swinging. The world’s not buying our debt anymore, leaving us $10 trillion short in six months.
So, let’s talk: how do we bridge that gap? Higher taxes or some creative cash flow?
I find myself asking the same question lately, whether I’m talking with people face-to-face or online: 'With everything happening—wars, mounting debt, inflation, overblown asset prices, a global population crisis, declining health, and a growing indifference—is the problem in what’s being done, or who’s doing it?' People’s memories, beliefs, and political loyalties seem to shift more than I’ve seen since George W. Bush’s second term. It’s unsettling. Can we strip away the political clamor and focus on the actual issues? Because as we age, the wars, the debts, the fading care—it’s all starting to feel overwhelming, and frankly, frightening.
I can't help but wonder how much it cost the big 3 automakers to get Trump to grant a 30 day exemption. Probably no more than a million each.
Unless they flew south for the meeting sans candles.
“And, it’s a reminder that sometimes big guys get together and wreak havoc — without even noticing how it affects little guys.”
- Bill Murphy, Jr.
Or for that matter, caring how it affects the little guys! I think we can agree that Trump isn't doing any of us any favors with his tariffs and other machinations to trade and our alliances.
He may mouth that he wants to help _ake _merica _reat _gain, but I think he's more concerned about himself and his cronies.
What percentage of the poll respondents were republicans ?
If you poll mostly republicans, you get high approval percentages.
Not news!
“… 3/4 of Americans who watched…”
Indeed. Probably 75%. 🙈
I am confused about this. Can someone mansplain it to me?
“ President Trump has sworn to root out corruption within the government, yet one of his first acts as president was to fire over a dozen independent watchdogs who did exactly that.”
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Does it really seem that those "watchdogs" were doing their jobs effectively and efficiently?
https://doge.gov/
Obfuscation doesn’t negate.
Well, honey, let me explain this Trump-watchdog situation to you real slow, since it’s got you all puzzled. President Trump kicked off his second term in January 2025, swearing up and down he’d root out government corruption—same tune he’s been humming since 2016, when he called D.C. a ‘swamp’ on the campaign trail.
Fair enough, we’ve all seen the headlines about waste and cronyism. But then, one of his first moves—reported by outlets like AP and Reuters—was to fire over a dozen inspector generals, those independent watchdogs who keep tabs on federal agencies.
Now, I know you’re thinking, ‘Wait, aren’t they the corruption fighters?’ Yep, they are. Take folks like Glenn Fine—axed from the Pentagon’s IG gig in April 2020 during Trump’s first term—or Steve Linick, canned from State in May 2020 after probing Pompeo’s Saudi arms deals. These guys, per their job under the 1978 Inspector General Act, dig into fraud, abuse, the stuff Trump says he hates.
So why’d he fire ‘em?
Here’s the explanation:
Trump’s never been shy—check his tweets or Fox interviews—about wanting loyalists, not naysayers. He’s called IGs ‘Obama holdovers’ before, like in 2020 briefings, and prefers his own crew calling the shots. Is it hypocritical? Maybe, if you squint. But in his world, it’s less ‘clean the swamp’ and more ‘my swamp, my rules.’
Simple as that, darlin’—no need to overthink it!
Honey, darlin? I agreed with your comment but that part took away credibility. My wife would take offense.
You asked someone to mainsplain it. The point is to be a bit sexist, demeaning, and offer no greater understanding.
I hope your wife is the one with the sense of humor.
It was a rhetorical question.
Let's get back to the original 3/4 or 75% equation. The article states one poll source was CBS news. Do we suppose they focused on Republican aligned results?
Here's what I found, or at least what was reported by Chatty-G.
Data-wise, AllSides rates CBS News as “Lean Left” based on editorial patterns and audience perception, while Media Bias/Fact Check tags it “Left-Center” with high factual reporting but a tilt in story selection. Its audience skews older and slightly more liberal than the U.S. average, per Pew stats, but it’s not a monolith.
I'm leaning toward there are far more Americans fed up with the status que than are angry with the current course. Something like 3 out of 4.
You can lean where you will and believe what you want. CBS News’ political bent is irrelevant; unless you know the methodology of the specific poll anything you believe is conjecture. No one called me but I didn’t waste my time on the self-serving speech as I am fed up with the current chaos. Confirmation bias is difficult to avoid for some people.
I don’t say any of this to begin a philosophical debate with you.
I think the more important thing is to ask who didn't watch it and whether or not they approve of him or any of his speechifying.
I did not watch it and do not approve of his message. I did see a video of the speech described below and encourage everyone to do so.
“A French politician by the name of Claude Malhuret has unexpectedly gained a global following after an eight-minute address to his colleagues in the French Senate on Tuesday went viral.”
Fine, skip Trump’s speech—his rhetoric isn’t for everyone, and I won’t strong-arm you into listening. But swapping it for Claude Malhuret’s viral eight-minute (French) Senate rant doesn’t make it gospel. His call to rebuild Europe’s defenses as America’s shield supposedly wobbles? Sharp take, sure—but let’s add some context. The U.S. still pours a staggering $800 billion annually into defense, yet with its debt soaring past $34 trillion and its gaze shifting toward Asia, Europe’s $300 billion collective military budget does look lean. France alone spends $50 billion, and Malhuret’s pushing for more as NATO’s piggy bank creaks. Fair enough—self-reliance isn’t cheap. But is he dialing up the alarm bells too high when EU economies are already strained?
Skipping Trump while nodding along to Malhuret’s summary isn’t critical thinking—it’s cherry-picking. If you want the full picture, watch both or neither. But don’t anoint one as truth just because it’s trending (and in French). Engage, then decide.
I watched both do I get a prize?
To measure irrational hate? I mean if they didn't watch how in tune are they and that's how relevant is their opinion?
Reading factual news sources and corroborating. You don’t have to hate people, just the things they do.
For this to be even close to valid, the pollsters should have asked what percentage of Americans want no part of this hootenanny and refused to watch.
That would be me…
Since the State of the Union address was #1 in the 7 Other Things today, I thought this from the Phoenix, AZ newspaper is ironically relevant:
“According to the AI chatbot called Grok, which was developed by Elon Musk’s company xAI, there is a “75-85% likelihood” that the person who delivered the State of the Union address on Tuesday night is a “Putin-compromised” Russian asset.”
“In describing Grok, by the way, Musk said it is a “maximally truth-seeking AI, even if that truth is sometimes at odds with what is politically-correct.”
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2025/03/05/trump-speech-state-union-russia-elon-musk-grok/81507335007/
The claim from Grok, estimating a ‘75-85% likelihood’ that Trump’s a ‘Putin-compromised’ asset, makes for a catchy headline. Musk calls Grok ‘maximally truth-seeking,’ and it’s digesting public data—like Trump’s general reluctance to criticize Putin since the ‘80s while readily slamming allies.
That contrast is fair to note.
But the prompt ‘use all publicly available information from 1980 on and his failure to ever say anything negative about Putin but has no issue attacking allies’ nudges the AI to a conclusion rather than letting the record stand on its own.
Yes, Trump’s business ties and praise for Putin—like calling him ‘genius’ during Ukraine—raise eyebrows. Yet it’s not the whole picture: in April 2018, he directly attacked Putin, tweeting, ‘Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad’ after a Syrian chemical attack.
That jab undercuts the ‘never negative’ claim. The Phoenix piece rides an AI’s educated guess—based on a leading prompt. Intentionally misleading and a clear demonstration of what plagues our press and an example of how AI can be misused.
For shame, Ed Montini, for shame!
I don’t need AI to tell me what I can already see.
But you started by posting the AI goop was relevant.
Your interpretation.
Warren Buffett’s sounding the alarm: leveraged bets are a ticking time bomb when the unknown strikes. The market’s no crystal ball—it’s just a tool. Stick to the basics—invest what you’ve got, in what you know, with the time you’ve got. Big players like Buffett move markets, sure, but he’s not the U.S. right now. We’re more like John Bolton—overleveraged and swinging. The world’s not buying our debt anymore, leaving us $10 trillion short in six months.
So, let’s talk: how do we bridge that gap? Higher taxes or some creative cash flow?
I'll take the cash flow. Maybe Toyota and Tesla dividends. They stand to benefit most from tariffs since they are the most American made cars.
I find myself asking the same question lately, whether I’m talking with people face-to-face or online: 'With everything happening—wars, mounting debt, inflation, overblown asset prices, a global population crisis, declining health, and a growing indifference—is the problem in what’s being done, or who’s doing it?' People’s memories, beliefs, and political loyalties seem to shift more than I’ve seen since George W. Bush’s second term. It’s unsettling. Can we strip away the political clamor and focus on the actual issues? Because as we age, the wars, the debts, the fading care—it’s all starting to feel overwhelming, and frankly, frightening.
How old are you?
54, how about you?
Grabbing my popcorn, I'm intrigued to see what age has to do with it.
So this is saying that 4 of our supreme court justices did not believe that contractors should be paid for work that they have already done?
Indeed. And who has a pattern of employing that strategy?
Bummer no one seems to have noticed the main content of the newsletter today.