Let’s Ask Arty – bendingtheneedle

Let’s Ask Arty About Democratic Socialism

Let’s Ask Arty uses existing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to query LLMs about politics in these troubled times.

What is Democratic Socialism?

Democratic socialism is a political and economic philosophy that advocates for a democratic political system alongside a socially owned or regulated economy. It emphasizes both political democracy and economic fairness, aiming to reduce inequality through collective decision-making and public control over key sectors.

How does Democratic Socialism differ from “Traditional” Socialism?

Democratic socialism differs from traditional socialism primarily in its commitment to political democracy and its approach to economic reform. While both advocate for social ownership and reducing inequality, democratic socialism insists on maintaining democratic institutions and civil liberties.

Key Differences Between Democratic Socialism and Socialism

Feature	Democratic Socialism	Traditional Socialism
Political System	Emphasizes democracy, free elections, and civil liberties	May support centralized or authoritarian governance
Economic Ownership	Advocates social ownership of key industries, not all	Seeks complete public ownership of the means of production
Implementation Method	Uses gradual reforms through democratic processes	Often involves revolutionary change or centralized planning
Individual Freedoms	Strong focus on protecting rights and liberties	May subordinate individual rights to collective goals
Examples	Nordic countries (in practice), Bernie Sanders (in rhetoric)	Historical models like USSR, Maoist China

🧠 Philosophical Distinctions

Democratic socialism is a subset of socialism that integrates democratic governance with socialist economics. It aims to balance individual freedom with collective welfare.
Socialism, broadly defined, focuses on economic equality and communal ownership, but doesn’t always specify how political power should be structured.

🔍 Why the Confusion?

In the U.S., the term “socialism” has often been used pejoratively, leading to misunderstandings. Democratic socialism is sometimes conflated with authoritarian socialism or communism, despite its emphasis on democracy and civil rights.

Core Principles of Democratic Socialism

Political democracy: Free elections, civil liberties, and rule of law are essential. Democratic socialists reject authoritarianism in all forms.
Economic democracy: Major industries and services—like healthcare, education, and energy—should be publicly owned or heavily regulated to serve the public good rather than private profit.
Social justice: Policies aim to reduce inequality, protect workers’ rights, and ensure universal access to basic needs like housing, healthcare, and education.
Environmental sustainability: Many democratic socialists advocate for green policies and sustainable development as part of their platform.

🏛️ How It Differs from Other Systems

System	Ownership Model	Political System	Economic Focus
Democratic Socialism	Public/social ownership of key sectors	Democratic (multi-party)	Equity, welfare, and public good
Social Democracy	Capitalist economy with strong welfare state	Democratic	Redistribution through taxation
Communism	Full state ownership of all property	Often authoritarian	Classless, stateless society
Capitalism	Private ownership of most industries	Democratic or authoritarian	Profit-driven, market-based

Sources: Wikipedia, Britannica, Democratic Socialists of America

🧠 Key Takeaways

Democratic socialism is not communism—it supports democracy and civil liberties.
It seeks to balance individual freedoms with collective responsibility.
It’s gaining traction in the U.S. through figures like Bernie Sanders and organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America.

What Countries have implemented Democratic Socialism most effectively? How can one measure the success of Democratic Socialism?

Nordic countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland are widely considered the most effective examples of democratic socialism. Success is typically measured through metrics like economic equality, universal access to services, democratic stability, and overall well-being.

🌍 Countries with Effective Democratic Socialism

These nations blend market economies with strong welfare states and democratic institutions:

Sweden: Known for universal healthcare, tuition-free education, and strong labor protections.
Norway: Combines oil wealth with public ownership and generous social programs.
Denmark: Offers robust unemployment benefits, free education, and high civic trust.
Finland: Ranked as the world’s happiest country, with strong public services and low corruption.
Iceland and Netherlands also integrate democratic socialist principles, though with more market liberalism.

These countries maintain multi-party democracies, free markets, and civil liberties, while ensuring universal access to healthcare, education, and housing.

📏 How to Measure Success in Democratic Socialism

Success isn’t judged solely by GDP—it’s about how well a society meets collective needs.

Key metrics include:

🧮 Economic and Social Indicators

Income equality: Measured by the Gini coefficient—Nordic countries consistently rank among the most equal.
Universal access: Availability of healthcare, education, housing, and childcare regardless of income.
Labor rights: Strong unions, collective bargaining, and worker protections.
Social mobility: Opportunities for upward movement across generations.

😊 Quality of Life Metrics

Happiness and well-being: Finland, Denmark, and Sweden top global happiness rankings.
Life expectancy and health outcomes: Universal healthcare contributes to better public health.
Education outcomes: Free and high-quality education systems promote equity and innovation.

🗳️ Democratic Health

Political participation: High voter turnout and trust in institutions.
Freedom of press and speech: Strong protections for civil liberties.
Low corruption: Transparent governance and accountability.

My Take

Language resonates, and misinformation denigrates.

Americans have a Pavlovian response to the word “socialism.” If Socialism is in the name, most Americans want nothing to do with it. When they hear it, they blanch and recoil reflexively, never taking the time to differentiate Socialism from democratic Socialism.

Many citizens view Socialism as anti-American, even if it has the word “democratic” attached to it.

For years, politicians in both parties have successfully leveraged America’s innate fear and disgust of Socialism to denigrate and lie about Democratic Socialism. For example, as Arty stated, it falsely equates it to traditional Socialism or even communism.

But voters in New York City are on the verge of shaking things up in American politics by electing a Democratic Socialist to lead the most strategic, culturally and financially influential city on Earth.

Zohran Mamdani is a young, charismatic, and savvy candidate, but for most Americans (even New Yorkers), youth, charisma, and political chops have never been enough to clear the hurdle of being a Socialist.

So, why is Mamdani on the verge of becoming New York City’s mayor?

What’s changed?

I’d argue that the most significant change driving America’s willingness to look at Democratic Socialism with a more critical and unbiased eye is the policies of Donald J Trump, which are turbo-charging the rise in economic inequality across the country.

Middle- and lower-income New Yorkers are feeling the impact of unfair economic policies and the very real consequences of those policies — and on this election day, New Yorkers are a microcosm of Americans across the country.

And I believe that in America today, the conceptual and philosophically based fear of Democratic Socialism is less than the very real fear of not being able to afford housing, groceries, healthcare, and education.

Americans are looking for a government that balances economic fairness and personal freedom. Most Americans don’t want to abolish capitalism entirely, but rather tame its excesses, which have exploded over the last several decades and worsened further under Donald Trump.

The gap between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of the population has widened, with income and wealth increasingly concentrated at the top. According to Arty, economic inequality has been trending upward for decades:

Post-WWII to 1970s: This era saw broadly shared economic growth. Incomes across all levels rose at similar rates, and the middle class expanded.
Since the 1970s, Income growth has slowed for most Americans, while the top 1% has captured a disproportionate share of income and wealth gains.
By the 2010s and 2020s: The top 5% of households saw their share of total income rise significantly, while the bottom 60% experienced stagnation or modest gains.

And by comparison, income inequality pales to the extreme wealth inequality in America, where the top 1% of households now hold more wealth than the bottom 90% combined.

But it’s what lurks behind the wealth and income numbers that truly matters and should keep average Americans up at night.

Rising inequality affects:

Social mobility: It’s harder for people to move up the economic ladder.
Political power: Wealth concentration can distort democratic processes.
Economic stability: Inequality can lead to reduced consumer spending and greater financial volatility.

Democratic Socialism isn’t just a policy shift—it’s a philosophical challenge to the idea that markets should dominate society. By prioritizing human needs over profit, it exposes the limitations and inequalities of unfettered capitalism. That’s why it’s seen as a threat—not because it seeks chaos, but because it seeks a different kind of order.

We’re about to see just how fed-up New Yorkers are with our current system of government. Today’s mayoral election may be a harbinger of change and political revolution in America.

If you haven’t had a chance yet, please check out my book, My Paper, My Words: Rantings from a Progressive Boomer and Peeved Parent, from Amazon. And if you feel moved to write a review of the book, on Amazon, or anywhere else, I’d be honored.

My Paper, My Words is a collection of essays, stories, and poems that reflect the challenges of a middle-class husband and father trying to navigate a rapidly changing political, religious, and technological landscape of post-911 America.

Let’s Ask Arty about Donald Trump’s Characterization of President Reagan’s views on Tariffs

Let’s Ask Arty uses existing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to query LLMs about politics in these troubled times.

Query 1: Donald Trump stated that Ronald Reagan “Loved tariffs for our country and its national security.” Does Donald Trump’s statement accurately reflect President’ Reagan’s views on tariffs?

No, Donald Trump’s statement that Ronald Reagan loved tariffs for our country and its national security does not accurately reflect President Reagan’s views on tariffs.

Reagan was a strong advocate for free trade and often spoke against tariffs, viewing them as harmful to economic prosperity.

In fact, in a 1987 national radio address, Reagan explicitly criticized tariffs, stating they “hurt every American” and arguing that protectionist policies like tariffs lead to “shrinking markets, collapsing businesses, and widespread job losses”. He believed that while tariffs might seem patriotic or protective in the short term, they ultimately stifle innovation, provoke retaliatory trade measures, and damage the broader economy.

Query 2: Donald Trump stated that an Ad created by the Government of Ontario of Ronald Regan criticizing tariffs was “fake.” Is Donald Trump telling the truth? Was the ad fake?

No, Donald Trump was not telling the truth.

A recent controversy arose when the Ontario government aired an ad using clips from Reagan’s 1987 speech to highlight his anti-tariff stance. Donald Trump responded by calling the ad “fake” and claimed it misrepresented Reagan’s views. However, fact-checks and the full context of Reagan’s speech confirm that he genuinely opposed tariffs and championed open markets.

While Reagan did occasionally use targeted trade measures for strategic purposes, his overall philosophy was rooted in free and fair trade, not broad protectionism or nationalistic tariff policies.

So, while Trump may frame tariffs as essential for national security, invoking Reagan as a supporter of such policies misrepresents the former president’s well-documented economic views.

My Take

Anyone with a cell phone or computer can do a quick Google search and know definitively that Trump was lying about the Ontario government’s Ad being fake and lying about Ronald Reagan “loving tariffs.”

It took me less than 5 minutes to debunk President Trump’s statements.

The more prescient issue is how fluidly this administration weaponizes lying.

Most politicians (and non-politicians for that matter) lie to get out of a jam. The Trump administration’s repetitive lying is part of a strategy to manipulate public opinion.

This administration is taking a page from the 1930s Nazi party playbook, where writings and speeches consistently emphasized emotional appeal, repetition, and the subordination of truth to political strategy.

More from Arty

According to Arty, Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, believed:

Propaganda as Emotional Weaponry: Goebbels believed propaganda should appeal to emotions, not intellect. He once wrote that the goal was to make people “succumb to it utterly and can never again escape from it”.
The “Big Lie” Technique: While the phrase “big lie” is often attributed to Hitler, Goebbels is frequently associated with the idea that a lie, if colossal and repeated often enough, becomes accepted as truth. He accused others—like Winston Churchill—of using this method, even as he employed it himself.
Truth as a Tool, Not a Principle: Goebbels preferred to use partial truths or truths that served his agenda, but he was not above outright lies when necessary. He believed that the effectiveness of propaganda lay in its ability to shape perception, not in its factual accuracy.
Propaganda as Art and Power: In a 1936 commentary, Goebbels described propaganda as “a political power of the highest magnitude,” emphasizing its role in shaping national spirit and identity.
Creating a False Reality: His propaganda efforts aimed to construct an alternate reality in which the Nazi regime appeared righteous and justified, even as it committed atrocities. This manipulation of truth was central to his strategy.

The Trump administration has been widely criticized for employing repeated falsehoods as a political strategy, often aligning with the idea that repetition can foster belief.

Here are several notable examples of falsehoods repeated by Donald Trump and his administration:

1. Election Fraud Claims

Claim: The 2020 election was stolen or rigged.
Reality: These claims were repeatedly debunked by courts, election officials, and independent audits.
Strategy: Trump and allies repeated this claim hundreds of times across rallies, social media, and interviews, leading many supporters to believe it despite a lack of evidence. This lie continues to this day.

2. COVID-19 Misinformation

Claim: COVID-19 would “disappear” or be “under control.”
Reality: These statements contradicted public health data and expert warnings.
Strategy: Trump repeated these claims to downplay the crisis and maintain public confidence, even as cases surged.

3. Tariff Economics

Claim: China was paying the tariffs imposed by the U.S.
Reality: Importers, usually American businesses and consumers, pay tariffs.
Strategy: Trump repeated this economic falsehood to frame the trade war as a win for the U.S., despite its domestic costs.

4. Climate Change Denial

Claim: Climate change is a hoax or exaggerated.
Reality: Scientific consensus affirms climate change as real and human-driven.
Strategy: Trump used repetition to cast doubt on climate science and justify environmental deregulation.

5. George Soros Conspiracies

Claim: Soros funded protests and radical left movements.
Reality: No credible evidence supports these accusations.
Strategy: Trump repeatedly invoked Soros as a villain to energize his base and delegitimize opposition.

A 2023 study published in Public Opinion Quarterly found that repeated falsehoods from Trump’s presidency significantly influenced public misperceptions, especially among partisan audiences. The more often Trump or officials from his administration repeated lies, the more likely people were to believe them, even after the falsehoods had been publicly debunked.

Let’s Ask Arty About JD Vance’s Claim of Taxpayer-funded Healthcare for Illegal Immigrants

Let’s Ask Arty uses existing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to query LLMs about politics in these troubled times.

Query 1: Is Vice President JD Vance’s claim that democrats are demanding billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal immigrants true?

What the Vice President Said:

Vance stated that Democrats are “threatening to shut down the entire government because they want to give hundreds of billions of dollars of health care benefits to illegal aliens”.
He cited two Biden-era programs that he claims provided emergency healthcare and Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies to undocumented immigrants

What the Facts Show

Federal law prohibits undocumented immigrants from receiving federally funded healthcare programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and ACA subsidies.
The Democratic budget proposal aims to:
- Extend ACA subsidies for legal residents and citizens.
- Reverse Medicaid cuts from the Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” that would affect lawfully present immigrants, such as refugees and those with Temporary Protected Status.

There is no provision in the Democratic proposal that offers free healthcare to undocumented immigrants.

What Democrats Say:

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries stated: “Federal law prohibits the expenditure of taxpayer dollars on providing healthcare to undocumented immigrants. Nowhere have Democrats suggested that we are interested in changing federal law”.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the Republican claims “utter bull,” emphasizing that the dispute is about healthcare for American citizens, not undocumented immigrants

The claim that Democrats are shutting down the government to fund healthcare for illegal immigrants is FALSE. The dispute centers around extending healthcare subsidies for legal residents and reversing Medicaid cuts—not providing benefits to undocumented immigrants.

Here’s a detailed breakdown of how healthcare access works for different immigrant groups in the U.S., based on federal law and recent policy developments:

U.S. Citizens and Naturalized Citizens

Full access to federally funded healthcare programs like:
- Medicaid
- Medicare
- Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace subsidies
Eligibility based on income, age, and other standard criteria.

This includes green card holders, refugees, asylees, and those with humanitarian parole or Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

Medicaid & CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Prhogram):
- Eligible after a 5-year waiting period, unless exempt (e.g., refugees, asylees, veterans).
ACA Marketplace Subsidies:
- Eligible immediately if lawfully present.
State Variations:
- Some states offer Medicaid/CHIP to lawfully present children and pregnant women regardless of entry date.

🔵 DACA Recipients (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)

Not eligible for Medicaid, CHIP, or ACA subsidies under federal law.
May access state-funded programs in select states.

Undocumented Immigrants

Not eligible for:
- Medicaid
- Medicare
- ACA marketplace coverage or subsidies
Emergency Medicaid:
- Covers urgent medical conditions (e.g., ER visits, childbirth) regardless of status.
Community Clinics & Safety-Net Providers:
- Often serve undocumented individuals, especially in mixed-status families.

⚪ Mixed-Status Families

Households with members of different immigration statuses (e.g., U.S.-citizen children and undocumented parents).
Citizen children may qualify for Medicaid or CHIP.
Parents may avoid seeking care due to fear, confusion, or legal uncertainty.

🏛️ Recent Policy Changes & Debates

The Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” restricted Medicaid eligibility for many lawfully present immigrants.
Democrats are seeking to restore pre-2025 rules, allowing broader access for refugees, asylees, and parolees.

Query 2: What changes to ACA subsidies are in Republican’s Big Beautiful Bill and how will that affect healthcare costs for American citizens who get their health insurance from the ACA?

The Republican-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act makes significant changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies, and the consequences for Americans relying on ACA marketplace insurance could be severe.

🧾 What Changed in the Bill

No extension of enhanced ACA subsidies: The bill omits renewal of the expanded premium tax credits that were introduced during the pandemic and extended through 2025.
Cuts to Medicaid and ACA eligibility:
- Stricter eligibility rules for Medicaid.
- ACA subsidies will no longer be available to many lawfully present immigrants, including refugees and asylum seekers.
Codifies Trump-era ACA rules: These rules increase cost-sharing and reduce affordability for middle-income enrollees.

Impact on Healthcare Costs

Premiums could double: Without the enhanced subsidies, average monthly premiums may rise from $888 to $1,904—a 114% increase.
Out-of-pocket costs will spike: Families could face $900 higher deductibles and $313 more in monthly premiums.
Millions may lose coverage:
- The Congressional Budget Office estimates 4.2 million people will lose ACA coverage by 2034 due to subsidy expiration.
- Another 3.1 million could lose coverage due to ACA marketplace changes in the bill.
Uninsured rate will rise: The U.S. uninsured population could grow by 16 million over the next decade.

🧠 Who’s Most Affected

Working- and middle-class Americans who don’t qualify for Medicaid but rely on ACA plans.
Residents of Republican-controlled states that haven’t expanded Medicaid.
Self-employed individuals and gig workers who buy insurance on the marketplace.

This policy shift is at the heart of the current government shutdown, as Democrats are refusing to pass a funding bill that doesn’t include a renewal of these subsidies

Query 3: Where do the savings from cuts to the ACA in the Big Beautiful Bill go? Who benefits from getting rid of ACA subsidies?

The savings from cuts to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act are largely redirected toward tax relief and deficit reduction, with the biggest beneficiaries being high-income earners, corporations, and defense spending priorities. Here’s how it breaks down:

💰 Where the Savings Go

Estimated $1.1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and ACA subsidies over 10 years.
These savings are used to:
- Fund tax cuts for individuals and corporations.
- Offset increases in defense and border security spending.
- Reduce the federal deficit, though critics argue the impact is minimal compared to the human cost.

🏦 Who Benefits Most

Group	How They Benefit
High-income earners	Receive larger tax breaks due to reduced progressive taxation and capital gains reforms.
Corporations	Benefit from lower corporate tax rates and relaxed healthcare mandates for employees.
Defense contractors	Gain from increased military and border security allocations funded by healthcare cuts.
Private insurers	May profit from reduced competition and fewer subsidized plans on ACA marketplaces.

🚫 Who Loses Out

Middle-class and working Americans who rely on ACA subsidies to afford insurance.
Rural hospitals and clinics, which face reduced Medicaid reimbursements and may close.
Lawfully present immigrants, including refugees and asylum seekers, who lose access to subsidized coverage.

The bill’s supporters argue it reduces “wasteful spending,” but critics say it shifts costs from the wealthy to vulnerable populations and destabilizes the healthcare system

My Take

JD Vance was lying when he said, “Democrats are threatening to shut down the entire government because they want to give hundreds of billions of dollars of health care benefits to illegal aliens.”

The Republican Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, was lying when he said, “The Democrats said instead that they wanted to give healthcare to illegal aliens instead of keeping critical services provided for the American citizens.”

Both these men, along with the President and Republicans in Congress, want to feather the pockets of the wealthiest Americans and fill the coffers of corporations at the expense of the poor and middle class.

I hope Democrats stick to their guns in the Government funding debate and fight republican cuts to ACA subsidies, which will hurt middle-class Americans by doubling monthly healthcare premiums, increasing out-of-pocket costs for families, and resulting in a loss of healthcare coverage for millions of Americans.

Let’s Ask Arty About President Trump’s UN Speech

Let’s Ask Arty uses existing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to query LLMs about politics in these troubled times.

Query: Can you please fact check the speech and statements that President Trump gave at the United Nations on 09/23/2025?

President Donald Trump’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, 2025, included several claims that have been widely fact-checked and found to be misleading or false across multiple topics. Here’s a breakdown of the most notable inaccuracies:

🌍 Claims About Ending Wars

Trump stated:

“I ended seven wars… Cambodia and Thailand, Kosovo and Serbia, the Congo and Rwanda, Pakistan and India, Israel and Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia, and Armenia and Azerbaijan.”

Fact Check:

Cambodia and Thailand: A truce was reached, but it involved mediation from other leaders and was not solely brokered by Trump.
Kosovo and Serbia: No war was actively occurring; Trump’s administration previously brokered an economic agreement, not a peace treaty.
Congo and Rwanda: Fighting continues despite a peace agreement; rebel groups were not part of the deal.
Egypt and Ethiopia: No war existed—only a dispute over a dam project.
Pakistan and India: India denies Trump’s involvement in the May ceasefire.
Israel and Iran: A ceasefire followed U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, but the situation remains volatile.
Armenia and Azerbaijan: A peace declaration was signed, but its long-term impact is uncertain.

🌡️ Climate Change and Renewable Energy

Trump called climate change “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world” and claimed renewable energy sources “don’t work” and are “too expensive.”

Fact Check:

In 2024, renewables and nuclear accounted for 40% of global electricity generation, with solar and wind surpassing coal in the U.S..
Over 90% of new renewable projects are now cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives.
Solar PV and onshore wind were 41% and 53% cheaper, respectively, than the lowest-cost fossil fuels.

📉 Economy and Poll Numbers

Trump claimed:

“I have the highest poll numbers I’ve ever had.”

Fact Check:

Public polling averages show his approval rating around 42–44%, down from 51–52% earlier in the year.
No public data supports the claim of record-high approval.

🛂 Immigration

Trump described U.S. immigration laws as “suicidal” and blamed them for economic and social decline.

Fact Check:

These statements are opinion-based and not supported by data presented in the speech. Experts widely dispute the characterization of immigration laws as inherently destructive.

🕊️ Criticism of the United Nations

Trump said:

“All they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up.”

Fact Check:

While the U.N. has been criticized for slow responses, it continues to play active roles in peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, and global coordination. Trump’s portrayal oversimplifies its functions

My Take

I’ve given up on President Trump ever speaking truthfully about anything. Whenever he opens his mouth, lies spill out. Lying is his default setting.

I can’t see how anyone with even an ounce of intelligence could watch that speech and not be embarrassed and ashamed of who we put in office.

We all knew the speech (like all of Donald Trump’s speeches) would be littered with lies and misinformation, so no surprise there. But the boorish and self-congratulatory tone was off the charts, even for Trump. If the delegations had any courage at all, they would have stood up and walked out.

Let’s Ask Arty About Gerrymandering

Let’s Ask Arty uses existing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to query LLMs about politics in these troubled times.

Query 1: What is gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering is the practice of manipulating the boundaries of electoral districts to favor a particular political party, group, or incumbent. It’s a way of shaping the political landscape—literally—by drawing district lines in a way that influences election outcomes.

Query 2: How does gerrymandering work?

There are two main tactics used in gerrymandering:

Cracking: Splitting up a group of voters (usually of the opposing party) across multiple districts so they don’t form a majority in any of them.
Packing: Concentrating a group of voters into one district to reduce their influence in other districts.

Query 3: Why is gerrymandering (which seems like cheating) allowed?

Great question—and you’re absolutely right to call it out as feeling like “cheating.”

So why is gerrymandering allowed?

Constitutional Loophole

The U.S. Constitution requires redistricting every 10 years after the census to reflect population changes, but it doesn’t specify how districts must be drawn.
That power is left to the states, and in most cases, state legislatures control the process—which means the party in power can draw maps to its advantage

Supreme Court Decisions

In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering is a “political question” and not something federal courts can regulate. This gave states a green light to continue the practice without federal oversight.
Earlier rulings had chipped away at protections in the Voting Rights Act, making it harder to challenge racial gerrymandering as well.

Query 4: Why does gerrymandering persist even though the public views it as an unfair practice?

Gerrymandering persists due to:

Entrenched Interests: Politicians benefit from drawing safe districts, so there’s little incentive to change the system.
Lack of Transparency: Redistricting often happens behind closed doors, with minimal public input.

Single-Party Control: When one party controls both the legislature and the governor’s office, they can gerrymander with few checks.

Query 5: Have there been efforts to reform gerrymandering at the state and federal level?

Some states have adopted independent redistricting commissions to reduce bias, but these reforms are uneven across the country. Congress has tried to pass national legislation to ban gerrymandering, but those efforts have stalled due to partisan gridlock.

Query 6: Which political party gerrymanders more aggressively?

Although both major political parties in the U.S. have used gerrymandering to gain electoral advantage, recent data suggests that Republicans have been more aggressive and systematic in their use of the tactic, especially in key battleground states.

Query 7: Is it true that when put to a congressional vote to end gerrymandering, the vast majority of Democrats voted Yes, and all Republicans voted No?

Yes, in recent congressional efforts to ban gerrymandering—particularly through the Freedom to Vote Act and the earlier For the People Act—Democrats overwhelmingly voted in favor, while Republicans uniformly opposed the measures.

This stark divide reflects broader tensions over voting rights, election integrity, and partisan control of the redistricting process.

Query 8: In 2025, Did President Trump request that Governor Abbot of Texas to gerrymander districts in Texas?

Yes, according to multiple reports, former President Donald Trump has actively encouraged Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Republican lawmakers to redraw congressional districts in Texas to favor the Republican Party.

What Trump Requested

Trump reportedly asked Abbott to call a special legislative session to redraw Texas’s congressional map in a way that could flip up to five seats from Democrats to Republicans.
In a CNBC interview on August 5, 2025, Trump stated, “We are entitled to five more seats” in Texas, signaling his belief that redistricting should be used to secure partisan advantage.

Query 8a: What has been the political fallout of President Trump’s request to redraw districting maps in Texas?

Political fallout from Trump’s request includes the following:

Governor Abbott added redistricting to the special session agenda, citing a controversial memo from the U.S. Department of Justice that questioned the legality of certain districts based on racial composition.
Democratic lawmakers fled the state to prevent a quorum and block the vote, triggering a constitutional standoff and threats of arrest from Abbott.
The redistricting plan is widely seen as part of a broader strategy to entrench Republican control ahead of the 2026 midterms and potentially influence future presidential elections.

Critics argue this effort undermines democratic norms and disproportionately targets districts with large Black and Latino populations.

The term “Trumpmandering” has emerged to describe this aggressive form of partisan redistricting.

My Input

Gerrymandering is a form of cheating and should be illegal, regardless of which party practices it.

Suppose a political party can’t win an election based on the policies it champions and implements. In that case, they shouldn’t be allowed to rig the outcome in their favor with the stroke of a redistricting pen – that’s ludicrous and unethical.

Recent polling in Texas shows that most Texans oppose gerrymandering. Texans aren’t stupid. They understand Governor Abbot’s motivation. They see the unquestioning loyalty, knee-bending, and ring kissing as a blatantly partisan power-grab that serves Trump and Governor Abbot but does nothing for the citizens of Texas.

The backlash in Texas to a corrupt process where politicians pick their voters instead of the other way around has been swift and decisive, particularly among Democrats and independents.

The sentiments nationally are similar, with voters across party lines supporting independent redistricting commissions and opposing partisan manipulation of district maps. For example, a recent poll in Ohio showed 57% of voters supported a neutral redistricting commission when asked in unbiased language—even though the measure was ultimately defeated due to misleading ballot wording.

If Texas succeeds in its efforts to gerrymander districts, it will be another nail in the coffin of American democracy.

My Paper, My Words is a collection of essays, stories, and poems reflect the challenges of a middle-class husband and father trying to navigate a rapidly changing political, religious, and technological landscape of post-911 America.

Let’s Ask Arty About President Trump’s Comments on Wind Turbines

Let’s Ask Arty uses existing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to query LLMs about politics in these troubled times.

Query 1: Arty, please fact check recent comments Donald Trump made from the oval office about windmills as a source of energy.

Donald Trump has made several recent comments criticizing wind turbines as a source of energy, but many of his claims are either misleading or factually incorrect.

In press conferences and meetings—including one with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen—Trump referred to wind turbines as:

“Ugly monsters” that ruin landscapes
A “con job” that harms whales and birds
The “most expensive and inefficient energy” source
Prone to “rust and rot in eight years,” with blades that “can’t be buried”

He also claimed he would not allow any new windmills to be built in the U.S. and signed an executive order halting federal wind energy permits.

Let’s break down the accuracy of President Trump’s claims about wind turbines:

Claim	Reality
Wind turbines are the most expensive energy source	❌ False. Wind is one of the cheapest forms of electricity today, especially onshore. Offshore turbines cost more to build but still compete economically with fossil fuels.
Wind turbines rust and rot in 8 years	❌ Misleading. Most turbines are designed to last 20–25 years, and many components are recyclable.
Turbine blades can’t be buried	✅ Partially true. Blades are made of fiberglass, which is non-biodegradable, but they’re often repurposed (e.g., as highway noise barriers).
Wind turbines kill whales	❌ No evidence. The NOAA and U.S. Department of Energy have found no scientific link between turbine noise and whale deaths.
Wind turbines kill birds	✅ True, but context matters. Turbines do kill birds, but far fewer than buildings, cats, or fossil fuel plants.

Trump’s opposition to wind energy appears rooted in personal grievances—especially regarding turbines near his golf course in Scotland. While wind power isn’t perfect, it’s a proven, cost-effective, and increasingly vital part of the global energy mix.

My Input

Every time Donald Trump opens his mouth (on any subject), the result is a firehose of falsehoods. And because Trump lies with impunity, fact-checking him has become a Sisyphean task if ever there was one.

President Trump’s lies about wind turbines are a component of his bigger lie that climate change is “a hoax.”

News Alert: Climate change is not a hoax.

Over 97% of climate scientists agree that Earth’s climate is warming and that human activity is the leading cause.

The hot air that Trump produces every time he opens his pie hole is arguably enough to melt a glacier.

At this point, human inactivity is just as significant a factor in the climate crisis. Rather than be proactive in the fight against climate change, we’ve chosen to sit on our hands.

The evidence of a changing climate is clear:

Global temperatures have risen by about 2°F (1°C) since the late 19th century.
Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are shrinking rapidly.
Sea levels are rising, and extreme weather events are becoming more frequen

And though we haven’t passed a universal “point of no return” for climate change, we are getting dangerously close to triggering multiple tipping points, as Arty informs us below.

What Is the “Point of No Return” in Climate Science?

It’s not a single moment or threshold. Instead, scientists talk about climate tipping points—critical thresholds where ecosystems or Earth systems (like ice sheets or ocean currents) begin to change irreversibly.
Once crossed, these changes can accelerate global warming and become self-reinforcing, making it harder or impossible to reverse.

Scientific Evidence of Approaching or Crossing Tipping Points

Here’s what recent research and global observations show:

Global Temperatures: In 2024, Earth’s average temperature hit 1.52°C above pre-industrial levels, breaching the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target.
Melting Ice Caps: Antarctic and Arctic sea ice have hit record lows for multiple years. Scientists warn we may see an ice-free Arctic summer by the late 2020s, which would drastically alter climate feedback loops.
Ocean Heat: Oceans are absorbing 90% of the excess heat. In 2025, marine heatwaves led to widespread coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef and Caribbean reefs.
Wildfires & Extreme Weather:Mega-fires and extreme weather events are becoming increasingly frequent and severe. These release more CO₂, creating a vicious cycle.
Carbon Emissions: Global emissions hit an all-time high in 2025, making it harder to stay below critical warming thresholds

What Scientists Say About “No Return”

Some experts argue that we’ve already crossed local tipping points, such as irreversible warming in parts of the ocean.
Others emphasize that while some damage is locked in, we still have time to prevent cascading global tipping events—but only if we act fast.
A 2024 study found that overshooting the 1.5°C target significantly increases the risk of destabilizing major Earth systems, such as ice sheets and ocean currents.

Putting aside Fat Donny’s lies about Wind Turbines, here are some ways we can harness the wind to fight climate change (with some help from Arty):

Wind energy is one of the most effective tools we have to combat climate change:
Massive Impact: Wind and solar combined could deliver over one-third of the emissions reductions needed by 2030 to stay on track for the 1.5°C goal.
Zero Emissions: Wind turbines generate electricity without releasing greenhouse gases.
Scalable & Affordable: Wind is now among the cheapest sources of electricity globally, often cheaper than fossil fuels.
Rapid Deployment: Wind farms can be built quickly and scaled to meet growing energy demands.

The climate change threat to humanity is existential and urgent.

Wind energy is a difference maker. It is a powerful, proven, and implementable solution, and it is clean, cost-effective, and scalable.

Let’s Ask Arty About the Correlation Between Religiosity and Authoritarianism

Let’s Ask Arty uses existing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to query LLMs about politics in these troubled times.

Query 1: Are religious fundamentalists drawn to authoritarian political leaders? If so, why?

Yes, religious fundamentalists often show a strong affinity for authoritarian political leaders – and there’s a fascinating psychological and sociological logic behind it.

Shared Traits and Psychological Alignment

Rigidity and Certainty: Fundamentalism is rooted in the belief in an inerrant set of religious teachings; religious rigidity and certainty mirror Authoritarianism’s emphasis on strict rules, obedience, and moral absolutism.
Low Openness to Experience: Both religious fundamentalists and authoritarian personalities tend to resist ambiguity, novelty, and complexity.
Cognitive Simplicity: Studies show that fundamentalists often prefer clear-cut answers and hierarchical structures, which align with authoritarian leaders who promise order and control.

Perceived Threats and Social Change

Fear of Cultural Shifts: Fundamentalists may feel threatened by secularism, liberal social movements, or pluralism, as they perceive these as challenges to their traditional values. Authoritarian leaders often position themselves as defenders of “traditional values,” making them appealing protectors.
Us vs. Them Mentality: Authoritarian rhetoric thrives on identifying enemies—whether immigrants, minorities, or dissenters. An us vs. them mentality resonates with fundamentalist groups that view the world in moral binaries.

Political Strategy and Mobilization

Christian Nationalism: In the U.S., for example, white evangelical Protestants and Christian nationalists score high on authoritarianism scales and are more likely to support leaders who promise to restore religious dominance in public life.
Religious Endorsements: Authoritarian leaders often co-opt religious symbols and institutions to legitimize their rule. This creates a feedback loop where religious fundamentalists feel seen and empowered

Query 2: So, do all religious people have an affinity for authoritarians?

No, not all religious people are drawn to Authoritarianism.

The link between Religiosity and Authoritarianism is strongest among those with rigid, dogmatic beliefs. More open, reflective forms of spirituality tend to correlate negatively with authoritarian attitudes.

Query 3: Is there a link between Religiosity, the MAGA movement, and Authoritarianism?

Yes, there’s a well-documented link between religiosity, the MAGA movement, and authoritarianism—though it’s nuanced and varies across race, gender, and religious traditions.

How Religiosity Connects to MAGA and Authoritarianism

White Christian Nationalism plays a central role. Surveys show that white evangelical Protestants and Christian nationalists are among the strongest supporters of authoritarian politics and the MAGA agenda.
Dominionist Ideologies like the Seven Mountains Mandate—which calls for Christians to control key societal institutions—are embraced by some MAGA-aligned religious leaders.
MAGA figures frequently use Religious Rhetoric and Symbolism to frame political battles as spiritual warfare, reinforcing authoritarian narratives of good vs. evil

Psychological Drivers

Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) is a key predictor of MAGA support, especially among white men and white women. RWA includes submission to authority, aggression toward outgroups, and adherence to traditional norms.

Social Dominance Orientation—a belief in group-based hierarchies—also correlates with MAGA support, even among some women and people of color.

Race and Gender Matter

White Women show surprisingly high levels of authoritarianism and MAGA support, challenging assumptions that women are uniformly progressive.
Women of Color, by contrast, consistently show the lowest levels of authoritarianism and MAGA support, even when controlling for religiosity.

Religion as a Political Tool

MAGA leaders often invoke religious identity to legitimize their authority and mobilize voters. Trump’s use of phrases like “our religion” signals a vision of America as a white Christian nation.

Some former members of religious sects have even compared MAGA’s structure and messaging to authoritarian religious movements they escaped.

My Input

Religious fundamentalism and nationalist-tinged religious views are fueling authoritarian politics within the MAGA movement, putting Americans on a dangerous path, unseen since our war of independence in 1776.

Many of us probably never imagined America, a country that fought a world war to end fascism in Europe, would be on the precipice of falling to it at home. But we are.

Religion is fueling America’s flirtation with fascism.

We’re in a high-conflict / high-stakes environment, where groups (like MAGA) with an undying commitment to religious, political, and cultural identity flourish. Through Group Cohesion, Mobilization Power, and Clear Identity, MAGA’s loyalty, zeal, and adherence to rigid beliefs serve as the engine to Trump’s authoritarian politics.

To many in the MAGA movement, America’s constitutional democracy takes a back seat to religious and cultural identity. When MAGA members think the Constitution infringes on their perception of America’s religious or cultural identity, they’re okay with disregarding or tossing the Constitution altogether.

So, how do millions of Americans who don’t have the Group Cohesion, Mobilization Power, and Clear Identity of MAGA fight fascism and save democracy?

Because honestly, this fight is coming.

Fascism doesn’t go away on its own – it either takes root, or it’s rooted out.

Donald Trump manufactures and feeds the MAGA mob a constant diet of chaos, grievance, conspiracy theories, and lies. It’s the lifeblood of that movement.

Authoritarian forces are clamping down on democratic institutions and values in America. And because the confederacy of cowards in Congress refuses to serve as a check on executive power and because the judiciary continues to provide cover for Trump’s unchecked power, the last line of defense is citizen resistance, led by the pragmatic and morality-driven.

Pragmatic and morality-driven groups tend to be more adaptable and sustainable over time, as explained here by Arty:

Flexibility: Pragmatists can adapt their strategies to changing conditions, which is crucial in complex societies.
Cooperation: Morality-driven groups foster trust and reciprocity, which are essential for large-scale collaboration and innovation.
Reduced Internal Conflict: Moral norms help regulate behavior and reduce destructive competition within the group.

“While fanaticism is a high-risk, high-reward strategy that can dominate revolutionary movements like MAGA, it often burns out or fractures when the environment shifts. Whereas morality and pragmatism are slower-burning fuels that build civilizations, institutions, and long-term alliances.”

With the Epstein files we’re seeing a slight shift in the environment, causing some turmoil and fractures in the MAGA-sphere. But I don’t think we can rely on an Epstein-file-fueled MAGA collapse to save America.

Here is how American citizens can push back against fascism, with some help from Arty:

Build Parallel Structures of Power

Grassroots organizing: Form local networks that provide mutual aid, legal support, and community safety. These become lifelines when official institutions fail.
Alternative media: Create and support independent journalism to counter propaganda and amplify truth.
Solidarity economies: Support cooperatives and local businesses that resist authoritarian influence.

Shift the Narrative

Expose authoritarian tactics: Use storytelling, art, and social media to reveal abuses and rally public opinion.
Frame resistance as patriotic: Reclaim national symbols and values to show that defending democracy is not fringe—it’s foundational.

Strategic Nonviolent Resistance

According to civil resistance experts like Gene Sharp and Erica Chenoweth:

Disruption works: Strikes, boycotts, and mass noncooperation can paralyze authoritarian regimes.
3.5% rule: Movements that mobilize at least 3.5% of the population in sustained nonviolent protest have historically succeeded in toppling regimes.

Forge Broad Coalitions

Cross-ideological unity: Bring together liberals, conservatives, religious groups, labor unions, and marginalized communities around shared democratic values.
Intersectional movements: Link struggles—racial justice, climate action, LGBTQ+ rights—to build a united front.

Protect Vulnerable Communities

Rapid response teams: Organize legal observers, medics, and safe houses.
Digital security: Train activists in encryption and surveillance evasion.

Defend Electoral Integrity

Even if institutions are compromised:

Monitor elections: Document abuses and mobilize international attention.
Run insurgent candidates: Use local races to build power from the ground up.

Learn from Global Movements

South Korea: Citizens blocked martial law by physically surrounding Parliament.
Chile: Small affinity groups quietly resisted Pinochet’s dictatorship through coordinated strikes and art.
Belarus: Decentralized protests nearly toppled Lukashenko despite brutal repression.

Let’s Ask Arty About the Impact DOGE Cuts had on Forecasting the July 4th Texas Flood

Let’s Ask Arty uses existing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to query LLMs about politics in these troubled times.

Query: Did DOGE cuts weaken Texas flood forecasting capabilities?

Yes, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts appear to have significantly weakened Texas’s flood forecasting capabilities, contributing to the tragic July 4 flooding in Kerr County.

The following list calls out the key impacts DOGE cuts had on forecasting and responding to the Texas flood:

Staffing Reductions: The National Weather Service (NWS) lost nearly 600 employees in early 2025, including critical roles like warning coordination meteorologists. These vacancies disrupted coordination with local emergency managers, delaying evacuation efforts.
Forecast Accuracy: The NWS forecast underestimated rainfall totals—predicting 4–8 inches in the Hill Country, while actual totals exceeded 15 inches in some areas. This gap was partly due to reduced resources, including fewer weather balloon launches used for atmospheric data2.
Warning Dissemination Delays: Although the NWS issued a flash flood emergency at 1:14 a.m., local alerts (like Kerrville Police’s Facebook post) didn’t go out until hours later, when the Guadalupe River had already surged over 20 feet3.
Systemic Vulnerabilities: DOGE cuts also affected NOAA’s broader operations, including climate research and disaster preparedness programs, leaving communities more exposed to extreme weather events.

Even Elon Musk’s AI tool, Grok 3, flagged these cuts as a contributing factor to the disaster, citing degraded forecasting and communication breakdowns.

It’s a sobering reminder of how vital real-time data and expert coordination are when nature turns volatile.

My Input

Texas is a MAGA map of where our country is heading as it relates to climate disasters, science, and religion.

Donald Trump is a climate-change-denying fool and shill of the fossil fuel industry, and Texas consistently carries water for him (to the detriment of its citizens). Well, as the old saying goes, the chickens have come home to roost, and in Texas, they roost over the dead bodies of children swept away by flood waters, incompetence, greed, and, yes, religion.

Texas has a strange history of injecting religion into the climate discussion, with Republican officials in the Lonestar state sometimes linking skepticism of climate change policy with religious beliefs, including the moronically simplistic and scientifically deaf idea that God controls the weather (If that’s the case, God must have been pretty pissed on July 4th, 2025).

In 2011, Governor Rick Perry’s official proclamation for “Days of Prayer for Rain” during a historic drought drew national attention, while Texas government officials have consistently downplayed climate science, even going so far as to sue the EPA over greenhouse gas regulations.

More recently, current Texas Governor Greg Abbot and several state legislators issued public statements indicating skepticism or resistance toward climate change policy, even in the face of increasing climate-related disasters.

Today, I’m waiting for the usual “God works in mysterious ways” suspects to appear on social media channels, in television news reports, and from church pulpits, telling Texans not to ask too many questions, including why a God who controls the weather simply didn’t prevent raging flood waters from sweeping children to a terrifying death.

And what’s worse in my mind is that the “it’s not for us to question God’s plan” madness is strategic — a way to get citizens to trust and submit to a higher power (be it religious or political) and sweep aside the possibility that we humans play a role in our destiny.

Just keep on keeping on.

Nothing to see here.

Why do we continue to put our blood, sweat, tears, blind faith, and money into a faulty, poorly thought-out, riddled with holes and inconsistencies, idea of God? Because doing so keeps us at bay and benefits those in power.

Hey, I’ve got an idea! Instead of relinquishing our destiny to a non-existent entity with zero accountability, let’s put our blood, sweat, tears, money, and good-faith efforts into developing our ability to learn, understand, and implement solutions to problems like climate change.

Let’s shift our approach from relying on thoughts, prayers, and avoiding questions to embracing innovation and action (including reinstating Government funding for key agencies that keep us safe). That way we can mitigate future human loss and suffering from tragedies like the flooding in Texas.

Just a thought.

In the meantime, let’s remember these facts from Arty about Texas politicians and climate change:

Texas lawmakers have repeatedly blocked bills that would require state agencies to plan for climate-related impacts. Since 2009, legislation mandating climate adaptation strategies has consistently failed to pass committee hearings.

In 2023, the only climate-related law passed was designed to prevent local governments (like El Paso) from implementing their climate mitigation policies.

Texas emits over 800 million tons of greenhouse gases annually—comparable to Germany—but has no comprehensive state climate plan.

Local governments, such as Dallas and Austin, have attempted to fill the gap with climate action plans; however, state-level resistance has hindered broader progress.

State Representative Matt Krause (2023): Krause criticized federal climate regulations, stating that “man cannot control the climate—only God can.” He argued that climate policies were economically harmful and ideologically driven.

Senator Bob Hall (2022): Hall dismissed climate science as “alarmist propaganda,” suggesting that weather patterns are part of a divine plan and not influenced by human activity. He has repeatedly opposed incentives for renewable energy.

General Legislative Pattern: As reported by MIT’s Climate Portal, Texas lawmakers have consistently blocked bills requiring state agencies to plan for climate impacts. Some legislators have described climate advocacy as a “cult,” framing environmentalism as a challenge to traditional values.

These views often coexist with efforts to protect fossil fuel industries and resist federal environmental regulations.

Let’s Ask Arty about the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Let’s Ask Arty uses existing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to query LLMs about politics in these troubled times.

Query 1: Do DOGE employees have access to classified information, and do they have access to the social security data of private citizens? Who oversees DOGE to make sure they are not breaking laws or violating privacy rights of US citizens?

DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) employees have reportedly gained access to classified information and sensitive data, including Social Security records, through various federal systems. Concerns have been raised about the lack of transparency regarding how DOGE staff are vetted and monitored before being granted such access.

Regarding Social Security data, DOGE has been accused of accessing sensitive information, such as names, birth dates, and earnings, as part of an anti-fraud initiative. This has sparked legal challenges and privacy concerns, with unions and advocacy groups seeking court intervention to block DOGE’s access.

Oversight of DOGE appears to be limited, as it operates under the Trump administration’s directives to streamline government operations. However, lawsuits and congressional inquiries have been initiated to address potential violations of privacy rights and ensure compliance with laws like the Privacy Act of 1974.

The situation has prompted calls for greater transparency and accountability in DOGE’s operations.

Query 2: Please provide a detailed list of the erroneous information posted on the DOGE wall of receipts.

The “wall of receipts” from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been criticized for containing numerous inaccuracies and misleading claims.

Here’s a detailed breakdown of some of the errors:

Overstated Contract Values:
- A contract listed as an $8 billion savings for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was actually worth only $8 million.
- A $232 million savings claim for the Social Security Administration turned out to be a much smaller $560,000 project.
Duplicate Listings:
- A $650 million USAID contract was listed three times, inflating the savings.
- A single $25 million Department of Agriculture contract was quadruple-counted, resulting in a false claim of $100 million in savings.
Misrepresentation of Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs):
- DOGE included BPAs, which are catalogs of potential purchases rather than actual spending, as canceled contracts. This exaggerated the savings by at least $1 billion.
Credit Lines Misrepresented as Savings:
- Some contracts, like the ICE contract mentioned earlier, were credit lines that might never have been fully utilized.
Savings from Previous Administrations:
- Certain cuts, such as a $1.9 billion reduction at the Treasury Department, occurred under President Biden’s administration but were claimed by DOGE.
Errors in Real Estate Savings:
- DOGE attributed $144.6 million to real estate savings without providing supporting details, making independent verification difficult.
Deleted Claims:
- After scrutiny, DOGE removed its top five savings claims, including the ICE and USAID contracts, but did not adjust the total savings figure, which continued to grow without explanation.

These errors have raised significant questions about the credibility of DOGE’s claims and the methodology behind their calculations.

Query 3: Please list the “mistake firings” that DOGE made and the potential impact those firings had on America’s national security.

DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) has faced significant criticism for its mistake firings, which have had serious implications for America’s national security. Here are some notable examples:

Mistake Firings

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA):
- DOGE mistakenly fired hundreds of employees working on nuclear weapons programs, including those responsible for reassembling warheads. These roles require the highest levels of clearance and expertise.
- Many of these firings were later rescinded, but the disruption caused confusion and delays.
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA):
- DOGE laid off 130 employees from CISA, which plays a critical role in defending against cyber threats. This move weakened the agency’s ability to counter malicious cyber activities, particularly from adversaries like China.
Department of Agriculture:
- Employees working on combating bird flu were mistakenly terminated. This error jeopardized efforts to control the outbreak and ensure food safety.
Veterans Affairs (VA):
- DOGE planned to cut contracts and lay off workers essential for veterans’ healthcare, including those involved in sterility certification and air quality testing. These cuts risked compromising patient safety and care quality.

Potential Impact on National Security

Nuclear Security: The firings at NNSA undermined the systems securing the nation’s nuclear arsenal, raising concerns about the safety and readiness of these critical assets.
Cybersecurity: The loss of skilled personnel at CISA weakened the U.S.’s ability to defend against cyberattacks, leaving vulnerabilities that adversaries could exploit.
Public Health: The termination of experts working on bird flu and food safety posed risks to public health and the agricultural sector.
Veterans’ Care: Cuts at the VA threatened the well-being of veterans and the operational integrity of healthcare facilities.

Query 4: Compare the dollar amount of savings from the cuts made by DOGE to the deficit increase expected from the proposed budget from the Republican Congress.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) claims to have saved $105 billion through various measures like asset sales, contract cancellations, and fraud detection. Meanwhile, the proposed budget from the Republican Congress is expected to increase the deficit by $3 trillion over the next decade, primarily due to $4.5 trillion in tax cuts offset by $1.5 trillion in spending cuts.

In comparison, DOGE’s savings amount to just 3.5% of the projected deficit increase from the Republican budget. This stark contrast highlights the scale of the deficit challenge and the relatively modest impact of DOGE’s savings in addressing it.

My Input

Imagine the collective apoplectic outrage from MAGA morons had a democrat President hired a private citizen (like George Soros) with deep partisan ties to the democratic party and no expertise in government to go on a slash-and-burn operation, with no concern about the impact on individual privacy rights, national security, and the health and wellbeing of American citizens. That is happening today with Elon Musk’s inexperienced, incompetent, unaccountable, and callous DOGE team.

There is a right way to audit government agencies for waste, fraud, and abuse, and then there’s the DOGE way.

The right way is to rely on non-partisan Inspectors General (IGs), which serve as watchdogs investigating waste, fraud, and abuse within federal government agencies. Trump undermined the independence of IGs when he fired (without cause) 17 of them early in his presidency and replaced them with loyalists. Trump’s claim that it is standard practice for an incoming president to fire and replace IGs is a lie (shocking, I know).

IGs are meant to transcend political transitions.

DOGE is supposed to collaborate with IGs in their federal agency audits. The Treasury Department’s office of the IG has already raised concerns about the collaboration. It recently launched an audit to investigate DOGE’s access to federal systems and handling of sensitive data. This audit of DOGE by the Treasury Department IG was fueled by concerns about DOGE’s potential misuse of government resources and the lack of transparency in DOGE operations (as mentioned by Arty).

The anti-government sentiment that propels DOGE is so prevalent and infective with MAGA that millions of MAGA followers don’t seem to care about the truthfulness of DOGE claims, the damage to America’s national security, the human cost to our fellow citizens, or that DOGE has no oversight or accountability for their actions.

And finally, the cartoonish display from Elon Musk at CPAC with his chainsaw encapsulates the lack of empathy and the dangerous and Social Darwinistic direction America is heading.

When it comes to DOGE, let’s be courageous and call out the outrageous.

Let’s Ask Arty What it Means to “Be an American”

Let’s Ask Arty uses existing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to query LLMs about politics in these troubled times.

Query 1: What does it mean to “be an American”

The idea of “being an American” is deeply tied to the nation’s founding principles and values. While interpretations can vary, there are some core ideals that are often associated with the American identity:

Freedom and Liberty: The United States was founded on the belief in personal freedom, whether it’s freedom of speech, religion, or the press. The idea of individual liberty is enshrined in foundational documents like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Equality: The notion that “all men are created equal,” as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is a key American value. While the country has faced challenges in fully realizing this ideal, the principle of striving toward equality remains central.
Democracy: The U.S. stands for the right of its people to have a voice in their governance through elections and civic participation.
Opportunity and the American Dream: The belief in the possibility of upward mobility, where hard work and determination can lead to success, has long been part of America’s narrative.
Innovation and Individualism: Americans often value creativity, entrepreneurship, and the pursuit of personal goals, reflecting a culture that celebrates independent thinking and innovation.
Diversity and Inclusion: Although the journey toward this ideal continues, the U.S. is seen as a melting pot of cultures and backgrounds, and many celebrate the richness of its diversity.

Query 2: What are American Values on a global stage – what has America stood for internationally?

On the global stage, American values have often been associated with ideals such as democracy, freedom, human rights, and economic opportunity. These principles have shaped the nation’s foreign policy and international actions over the years. Here are some key aspects of what America has stood for internationally:

Promotion of Democracy: The U.S. has historically supported democratic movements and institutions worldwide, advocating for free and fair elections, rule of law, and accountable governance.
Human Rights Advocacy: America has often positioned itself as a defender of human rights, speaking out against oppression and supporting initiatives to protect individual freedoms and dignity.
Economic Leadership: Through institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. has played a significant role in shaping global economic policies, promoting free markets, and fostering international trade.
Global Security: The U.S. has been a key player in maintaining international security, often leading efforts to combat terrorism, prevent nuclear proliferation, and address global conflicts.
Humanitarian Aid: America has provided substantial humanitarian assistance in response to natural disasters, health crises, and conflicts, reflecting its commitment to global welfare.
Cultural Influence: Through its media, technology, and cultural exports, the U.S. has shared its values and ideals, influencing global perceptions and fostering cross-cultural exchange.

Can you explain how America promotes democracy internationally?

America promotes democracy internationally through a combination of diplomacy, aid, advocacy, and partnerships. Here’s how it generally operates:

Diplomatic Support: The U.S. provides diplomatic backing to nations transitioning to democracy or facing challenges in maintaining democratic systems. This can include offering guidance on structuring constitutions, electoral processes, and governance.
Economic and Technical Aid: Through organizations like USAID, America provides funding and technical assistance to support democratic institutions, civil society organizations, and free press initiatives in developing democracies.
Education and Training: The U.S. funds programs that educate citizens, journalists, and political leaders about the principles of democracy, human rights, and accountable governance.
Election Monitoring: By working with international bodies and sending observers, the U.S. promotes transparency in electoral processes, ensuring that elections are free, fair, and credible.
Sanctions and Incentives: The U.S. can impose sanctions on governments that undermine democracy or provide incentives for reforms that align with democratic values.
Global Partnerships: America collaborates with international organizations like the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and other allies to advocate for democracy on a global stage.

My Input

Arty articulates that “being American” transcends mere geography or ink on a birth certificate.

“Being American” comes with firmly formed and instilled principles and values crafted painstakingly by our forefathers – principles that we’ve fought for proudly at home and abroad, both individually and collectively – values that feel intrinsic to our identity.

Our forefathers didn’t conjure up the American system of government in a vacuum. They considered admonitions from two of the greatest thinkers in world history (Aristotle and Plato) who stated, “Inequality brings instability, and demagogues exploit free speech to install themselves as tyrants.”

Our forefathers were so concerned about the rise of tyranny that they devised a system of governmental checks and balances to prevent it from occurring on our shores. Today, we’re discovering that the system they devised is only as strong and viable as the humans who serve in it.

Donald Trump is the tyrant that our forefathers feared. He is “American” by birth and residence only. His actions, deeds, words, and values are ardently un-American and tyrannical.

With backing from his Russian BFF, Donald Trump is twisting our Democracy by the nuts into submission. He is hammering, bending, and malforming America into an ugly, extortionist, and oligarchic fiefdom.

Unless true Americans stand up to him and the congress of cowards who fear him (as well as the billionaire class that sustains him), the definition of what it means to be American will change forever.

We must not let that happen.

What makes America’s drift towards oligarchy and fascism so difficult for many to handle is that it involves the dissolution of our American identity.

Our parents and teachers taught us that America welcomes immigrants, detests fascism, and protects the vulnerable – and we were proud to be associated with these values – so much so that these values became our values – they defined who we were as individuals and as Americans.

I always viewed myself and most of my fellow citizens as kind, tolerant, and fair. My view changed almost overnight when America elected an unkind, intolerant, and unjust leader to represent our nation on the world stage.

The impact of the 2024 election felt seismic and personal all at once. And when I witness my fellow citizens support America’s shift towards fascism and authoritarianism enthusiastically, well, that’s been a fucking gut punch that I wasn’t ready for.

But I’ve absorbed it, and now I’m ready to move on.

I cannot love, respect, or maintain friendships with people who casually voted for a convicted felon and serial sexual abuser.

I cannot go back to the relationship I had with them before the election, knowing that they support the chaos, vindictiveness, cruelty, and anti-intellectualism going on around me.

What America do you want to live in?

That’s going to be decided in the next 2 to 3 years.

My Republican friends and family members seem unable (or unwilling) to contrast the Republican party of their past with what that party represents today. It’s a party that your father, mother, and younger self would never have supported years ago and it’s a party unworthy of your support today.