Emoluments are a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.
The Emoluments Clause of the US Constitution aims to prevent corruption and foreign influence on government officials.
The Qatari Jet Controversy
When Donald Trump accepted a 747-8 luxury jetliner from the Qatari government, it raised concerns of a potential violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the US Constitution, which prohibits federal officeholders from accepting gifts, payments, or titles from foreign governments or the US government without the consent of Congress.
I doubt Donald Trump, who demonstrates ignorance and disdain for our Constitution on a regular basis, give’s a flying fuck about the Emoluments Clause. According to Donald Trump, “It would be stupid not to take the gift.”
Here are the tids and the bits:
Qatar reportedly gifted a luxury Boeing 747-8 to President Trump, intended for use as Air Force One and later transfer to his presidential library.
Critics argue this is a clear violation of the Emoluments Clause, especially since the jet is valued at $400 million or more.
Legal experts and former ethics officials say the gift appears to benefit Trump personally, even if routed through the U.S. military.
A DOJ memo reportedly justified the acceptance, but its contents haven’t been publicly released and are now the subject of a lawsuit
And although Trump claims the plane is a “GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE,” the American taxpayer will foot the bill for retrofitting the plane, just so our American Dumbo can fly his Qatari Jumbo.
The cost estimate for retrofitting the gifted jet liner for presidential use is between $400 million and $1 billion or more, the latter amount taking into consideration advanced security systems, encrypted communications, anti-missile defenses, and a full sweep for espionage threats.
The Qatari Jet Controversy isn’t the only potential violation of the Emoluments clause. Here’s a look at other Trump political initiatives and actions that have enriched him personally during his presidency.
Political Initiatives that Enriched Trump Personally
Retention of Business Empire
Trump refused to divest from his businesses while in office, maintaining ownership and control of the Trump Organization.
His properties—including hotels, golf courses, and real estate—continued to operate and profit during his presidency.
Foreign Government Patronage
Over 150 foreign officials from 77 countries stayed at or hosted events at Trump properties.
The Chinese government alone reportedly spent at least $5.5 million at Trump-owned venues.
Domestic Government Spending
U.S. government agencies spent taxpayer money at Trump properties, including Secret Service lodging and event hosting.
State governments also used Trump venues for official functions, raising concerns under the Domestic Emoluments Clause.
Promotion of Trump-Branded Products
Trump promoted personal products like branded Bibles, cologne, and even guitars during his presidency.
His media ventures, including Truth Social and Trump Media & Technology Group, gained visibility and investment while he was in office.
International Real Estate Deals
Trump’s business pursued or maintained real estate developments in Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the UAE, some allegedly funded by foreign entities.
These ventures continued without congressional approval, despite constitutional requirements.
Emoluments Clause Violations? You Be the Judge!
The U.S. Constitution contains two key provisions:
Clause
Description
Alleged Violation
Foreign Emoluments Clause
Prohibits federal officials from receiving gifts, payments, or benefits from foreign governments without congressional consent (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8)
Trump received millions from foreign governments via business transactions without congressional approval
Domestic Emoluments Clause
Prohibits the president from receiving any benefit from the federal or state governments beyond salary (Article II, Section 1, Clause 7)
Trump profited from federal and state spending at his properties
Should a sitting president be allowed to retain ownership of private businesses that receive payments from foreign or domestic governments?This question strikes at the heart of the Emoluments Clause debate. Trump’s refusal to divest created a direct conflict of interest and undermined the Constitution’s anti-corruption safeguards.
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.
A few days ago, I had dinner with an acquaintance from China. He is an engaging and inquisitive young man, interested in America and American culture.
From our conversation, I learned that to the Chinese citizens, America is still that shining city on the hill. Well-off Chinese parents send their children to American prep schools, colleges, and universities because they believe doing so gives their children an advantage they can’t get in China.
I learned that in China, breaking free of the class you are born into is nearly impossible and that even white-collar professionals struggle to buy homes and save money, often relying on parents for support.
We discussed the many differences between our two countries before sitting down to dinner. Even though our countries couldn’t be more different, we connected on a human level. We loved our families and wanted a better world for them.
After dinner, I broached the subject of our President, asking my acquaintance how people in China view President Trump. He smiled politely and chuckled. “We refer to him as Comrade Trump – a member of the Chinese Communist Party.”
“We think he is insane, but ultimately helpful to China.”
Orange is the new Red
The unpredictability of Trump’s aggressive tariff policies, shifting trade strategies, and draconian immigration tactics presents an opportunity for China.
Here’s how China is taking advantage of President Trump’s ham-fisted and chaotic approach to global trade and why some Chinese refer to him as “Comrade Trump.”
Perception Shift
A global analysis reveals that while the U.S. has experienced a decline in favorability due to Trump’s tariffs and immigration policies, China’s image has improved in many countries.
China now enjoys a net favorability rating of +8.8, compared to the U.S.’s -1.5, marking a significant gain in soft power.
Trade Diversification and Realignment
China has responded to U.S. tariffs by intensifying trade with other partners, including the EU, ASEAN nations, and Belt and Road countries.
Trump’s tit-for-tat tariff war prompted China to reduce its reliance on U.S. imports and strengthen its domestic supply chains.
Boost to Domestic Industries
U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods have led to price hikes in the U.S., making Chinese alternatives more attractive in other markets.
China has used the opportunity to promote its own tech, energy, and manufacturing sectors, especially in regions where U.S. influence has waned.
Diplomatic Leverage
The Trump administration’s erratic trade policies have alienated traditional allies, giving China room to present itself as a more stable and predictable partner.
China has capitalized on this by deepening ties with countries affected by U.S. tariffs, including those in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia.
Economic Resilience and Adaptation
Despite high tariffs (some reaching 145% on Chinese goods), China has adapted by shifting exports, investing in domestic innovation, and retaliating strategically.
The disruption has accelerated China’s push for self-reliance in key sectors like semiconductors, green energy, and AI.
Despite what he says, Donald Trump is not making America great or putting America first. Instead, his inability to read the “global” room, his misunderstanding of how tariffs work, combined with a noxious personality, inflated self-image, insatiable greed, and an unquenchable desire to be the center of attention, is causing irreparable harm to America while creating unprecedented opportunity for China.
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 ontheir 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.
Let’s Ask Arty uses existing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to query LLMs about politics in these troubled times.
Query: Did the forefathers who drafted the US constitution warn about the dangers of state sanctioned religion? Can you provide a list of the warnings about religion in government?
The Founding Fathers were deeply concerned about the entanglement of religion and government, and they left behind a trail of warnings, principles, and legal safeguards to prevent state-sanctioned religion. Their views were shaped by centuries of religious conflict in Europe and the oppressive state churches many colonists had fled.
Constitutional Safeguards
First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This dual clause protects both freedom from government-imposed religion and freedom of personal religious practice.
Article VI: Prohibits religious tests for public office — a radical move at the time, ensuring that no one could be excluded from government based on faith.
Founders’ Warnings and Beliefs:
James Madison:
Warned that if Congress could define “general welfare,” it might “take the care of religion into their own hands” — appointing teachers, funding churches, and undermining limited government.
Championed the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom alongside Jefferson, opposing religious taxes and state interference.
Thomas Jefferson:
Coined the phrase “wall of separation between Church & State” in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that government would not interfere in religious matters.
Authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, declaring that no person should suffer for religious opinions.
Benjamin Franklin:
Believed that corruption would lead people to demand despotism, including religious control, if they became “incapable of any other” form of government.
John Adams:
Declared: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” While he valued religion’s moral influence, he opposed state endorsement of any particular faith.
George Washington:
In his Farewell Address, warned against the “baneful effects of the spirit of party” and the consolidation of power — including religious authority — in one branch of government
Philosophical Foundations:
Many founders were influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, who argued that belief cannot be coerced and that religious liberty is a natural right.
They saw religious pluralism as essential to civic virtue and feared that state religion would lead to tyranny, division, and persecution.
My Input
Today’s MAGA Republican party lends vocal and legislative support for injecting Christianity into our government and embracing Christian nationalist rhetoric, which threatens to erode America’s secular rule of law and Jefferson’s “wall of separation between Church & State.”
There is a growing trend in the Trump administration (which is becoming increasingly authoritarian) to integrate Christianity with politics. Historically, Fascist governments have used religion to legitimize their rule, unify support, and suppress dissent.
With some help from Arty, here are some notable examples of how religion is infecting our politics:
Support for Declaring the U.S. a Christian Nation
According to a University of Maryland poll, 61% of Republicans support officially declaring the United States a Christian nation, even though a majority also acknowledged that doing so would violate the Constitution.
In the past, traditional conservative values celebrated religious liberty and pluralism, but with today’s MAGA-influenced Republican party, we’re seeing a shift towards a more exclusivist religious identity in politics.
Prominent Republican Figures Embracing Christian Nationalismand the idea of relying on the bible for public policy
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has openly called herself a “Christian nationalist” and stated that the GOP should embrace that identity.
Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado declared, “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk,” and claimed, “the church is supposed to direct the government”.
Doug Mastriano, a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Pennsylvania, dismissed the separation of church and state as a “myth.”
Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson stated publicly that his Christian faith informs everything he does, shaping his perspective and views on law, policy, and public service. In an interview on Fox News, Johnson said, “Someone asked me today in the media, ‘People are curious, what does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun?’ I said, ‘Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it — that’s my worldview”
Christian Nationalism in Policy and Education
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has promoted a Civics Literacy Excellence Initiative that reportedly teaches students that the Founders didn’t really believe in a strict separation of church and state.
In Louisiana, a new law mandates the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, raising concerns about government endorsement of religious doctrine.
Oklahoma incorporates the Bible into public school lessons (so much for religious neutrality in education — at least in Oklahoma).
Religious Identity as Political Identity
A leaked recording of Justice Samuel Alito advocating a “return to godliness” has heightened concerns about religious conservatism influencing the Supreme Court’s decisions.
A slew of bills introduced by Republican lawmakers have prioritize religious values in areas like abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and school prayer — often citing biblical principles as justification.
The Republican base, infected by MAGA influencers and believers are increasingly made up of evangelical Christians, with many viewing their religious identity as inseparable from their political beliefs.
If we lived in a completely homogeneous society where everyone believed in the same version of Christianity (the version that preaches taking care of the impoverished and suffering, turning the other cheek, and loving your neighbor), then the danger to individual rights, free thinkers, and democracy might feel overblown.
But what we’re seeing with the growing numbers of MAGA-Christians in America is what we’ve seen with the more violent offshoots of Islam and the ultra-orthodox strains of Judaism — that Religious views can be interpreted differently by different groups and individuals, and when people with a literal or militant view of a religion come into power, be it in Israel, Iran, or the United States, they tend to push their specific interpretation of scripture to justify policies and laws that strip rights from the marginalized or anyone who doesn’t conform to their religious views. That is precisely what Madison warned us of when he said that if Congress could define “general welfare,” it might “take the care of religion into their own hands” — appointing teachers, funding churches, and undermining limited government.
There is a deepening divide between MAGA-aligned Evangelical Christian leaders and traditional non-political Christian leaders, which is altering the politics in our country and reshaping the landscape of religious institutions and churches from sea to shining sea. With some help from Arty, here’s a breakdown of how their views differ—and how those differences are playing out.
Key Differences in Christian Worldview
Subject
MAGA Evangelical Leaders
Traditional Non-Political Christian Leaders
Role of Christianity in Government
Advocate for Christian nationalism; believe America was founded as a Christian nation and should reflect biblical values in law and policy
Support religious pluralism and separation of church and state; see faith as personal and communal, not political
Jesus’ Teachings
Emphasize moral absolutes, spiritual warfare, and cultural dominance (e.g., anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ+ policies)
Focus on compassion, justice, and inclusion—especially for marginalized groups like immigrants, the poor, and LGBTQ+ individuals3
Political Engagement
Highly partisan, often aligning with Republican candidates and causes; some leaders openly support Donald Trump as a divinely chosen figure
Avoid partisan politics; prioritize community service, peacemaking, and dialogue across divides3
View of Opponents
Frame political and cultural opponents as enemies of God or threats to religious freedom2
Encourage empathy, bridge-building, and respectful disagreement—even with those outside the faith8
How This Division Is Manifesting
In Politics
Christian Nationalism Surge: MAGA leaders promote policies that elevate Christianity in public life, such as flying Christian flags on government property or restricting LGBTQ+ and racial justice symbols.
Partisan Loyalty: Many MAGA Evangelicals view Trump as a “warrior king” defending their values, even if his personal behavior contradicts traditional Christian ethics2.
Pushback from Traditional Christians: Leaders like Russell Moore and Jim Wallis have criticized this politicization, warning it distorts the gospel and undermines democracy10.
In Churches
Congregational Splits: Churches are fracturing over political allegiances. Some congregations have lost members due to COVID policies, racial justice sermons, or perceived political bias10.
Rise of “Refugee Christians”: Many believers are leaving MAGA-aligned churches in search of communities that prioritize spiritual growth over political ideology.
New Movements: Groups like Red Letter Christians and Evangelicals for Social Action are reclaiming Jesus’ teachings on justice and peace, distancing themselves from partisan culture wars.
The Bigger Picture
This Christian divide in America is not solely theological—it’s cultural, generational, and deeply emotional. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve listened to the grievances from MAGA Evangelicals, bemoaning about being under siege in America’s changing landscape. At the same time, traditional Christians look to adhere to a faith that transcends politics. The tension is reshaping denominations, remaking evangelicalism, and challenging what it means to follow Jesus in the 21st century.
Weirdly, with all the goings on in the Evangelical church related to the state of politics in America, Trump himself is not religious (even when he embarrassingly pretends to be). Unlike the Supreme Leader in Iran and the Hasidic Rebbes in Israel, Trump is a different type of Mullah, one motivated by money and a quest for power and attention, rather than deeply held religious beliefs.
Donald Trump (let’s call him the Moola Mullah) would make abortion mandatory if he thought it would win him an election or put some extra coin in his pocket. That said, Trump (like other Fascist leaders) is taking full advantage of the divide in the Evangelical church, siding with extremists in that movement to legitimize his rule, unify support, and suppress dissent.
We’re seeing the cultural amalgamation (especially in the Bible Belt region of the US) of a specific brand of “MAGA-infected” Republicanism with MAGA-infected Christianity, which seems to be the dominant version of Evangelical faith (or at least the loudest), and that should scare the shit out of true Christians, non-Christians, and non-believers alike.
But when it comes to Trump policies flying in the face of Christian values, those loud, hardline Evangelicals stuff their Bibles in their belts and become as quiet as church mice.
In the face of family separations, mass deportations, and reduced refugee admissions that are terrorizing immigrant communities in America, ALL Evangelicals should be protesting loudly based on these bible passages:
Leviticus 19:34“The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt.” → This verse calls for equal treatment and love toward immigrants, reminding the Israelites of their own history as outsiders.
Deuteronomy 10:18–19“He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.” → A direct command to care for and love immigrants, grounded in empathy and divine justice.
Matthew 25:35“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in.” → Jesus equates welcoming strangers with serving Him, making hospitality a spiritual imperative.
Exodus 22:21“Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.” → A warning against oppression, rooted in shared experience.
Zechariah 7:10“Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.” → A broader call for justice and protection of vulnerable groups, including immigrants.
The meek might inherit the Earth, but they don’t run the show when religion and government become bedfellows. And so, in the face of Trump’s Gestapo tactics against immigrants, MAGA Evangelicals turn a blind eye, abandon the core principles of their faith, and become deaf as posts. Like all the cowards and traitors to the Christian faith in history, they know when to keep their mouths shut.
I have four college friends with whom I meet every few months for dinner and drinks. It’s always a great evening. We relax, catch up, and laugh.
We’ve had two get-togethers since the 2024 presidential election.
Because one of our friends is a staunch Republican, we don’t talk politics at these dinners. It’s strange because if that one friend was not sitting with us, we’d be talking politics – not the entire evening, mind you, but at some point. How could we not? Look at what’s happening to our country – not talking politics in this day and age feels like a dereliction of civic duty – at least to me, it does.
Since Donald Trump won the presidency, we’ve seen firsthand the harm a dictatorial know-nothing president can inflict on Americans and citizens across the globe – every one of our allies hates us (even Canada!) now, and rightfully so – fuck, I hate us – we’ve become the nation-state version of the ugly American – taking on the personality of our intellectually vapid, bloviating, bigoted, bully of a president.
On one level, I think we feel that talking politics might reveal something about our Trump-voting friend that contradicts the deeply held values the rest of us have about truth, honesty, the rule of law, Democracy, and the country we live in. We don’t want to deal with all that on a casual night out, where the primary goal has always been to enjoy each other’s company.
And so, in this unprecedented era of political upheaval, we choose to bite our tongues. We keep our views on Trump to ourselves – sticking to familiar and comfortable topics like family, work, retirement, sports – everything and anything under the sun – except the fall of America’s Democracy at the hands of a deranged and narcissistic demagogue.
We sipped wine and whisky at our most recent get-together and indulged in expensive appetizers, never speaking about America’s seismic political shift and disastrous effects on our friends and allies worldwide. It’s a strange dichotomy—like we sense the orange elephant at the table and simply talk around it.
Sometimes silence (whether for fear of retribution by a government or to avoid feeling uncomfortable with a friend) isn’t the best approach. Fascist movements grow when citizens bow to fear and go silent. Silence can also damage friendships differently. When we hold our tongues to avoid being uncomfortable around a friend, we subconsciously fill the quiet with preconceptions. When that happens, we attribute characteristics and hardened views about that friend, which may or may not be true. Over time, these views can weaken the friendship.
Maybe it’s better to discuss everything openly so we truly know what each other thinks about America’s current situation.
I’ve had conversations with 3 of my friends who, like me, are appalled at the shitshow that is Donald Trump – and none of us can understand how an educated person capable of critical thought would ever consider voting for Donald Trump, especially after what played out before our eyes on January 6th, the stolen documents case, and Trump’s 34 felony convictions. I always thought that even for diehard Republicans, all of Trump’s negative baggage would be enough to say, “I’m done with this guy.” That doesn’t necessarily mean they would vote Democrat — just that they would not / COULD NOT cast a vote that would hand America’s policy keys to a malevolent malcontent who is drunk and hellbent on retribution and indebted to Russian mobsters and oligarchs.
POLITICS FEEL DIFFERENT TODAY BECAUSE IT IS DIFFERENT—In the past if a Republican won the presidency, I was disappointed for a few weeks, and then I moved on. I wasn’t worried about American Democracy crumbling when Reagan or George Bush was president. I understood that even though my politics didn’t align with theirs, we believed in the same core principles that define America.
Recently, I saw a post on social media categorizing Trump voters into nine groups. It’s less complicated than that. In my view, Trump voters fall into three (sometimes overlapping) groups:
The ignorant/uneducated
The misinformed
The selfish
The 2024 election taught us that when combined, these three groups—the ignorant, the misinformed, and the selfish—outnumber voters who think critically, and we’re seeing chaotic and tragic results on the national and international stage.
By the way, I know how I come across when I lump people into three negative categories—I come off as a judgmental elitist / absolutist. But here’s the thing: I had never categorized voters like this before Donald Trump became president.
Before Trump, the difference between Democrat and Republican voters wasn’t perplexing. Elections before Trump didn’t cause me to look for a deeper understanding of “what went wrong” by digging into the cult-like psychology of Republican voters. Before Trump, voters differed on policies and social issues but not on truth, integrity, and what it meant to be an American — that is not the case with Trump Republicans. Honestly, I hesitate to call Trump supporters republicans, because they are askew of traditional Republican values, such as free-market capitalism and a more internationalist approach to foreign policy.
I don’t associate my friend (who I admire on many levels) with any of these groups. I began to think that I was oversimplifying or over-generalizing people who voted for Trump.
The Ignorant/Uneducated
Voters in this group see a candidate holding a bible and humping the American flag while saying over and over Make America Great Again, and that’s enough for them. They either don’t care much for thinking critically or are incapable of doing so. They go with their gut because their gut is all that they got. These voters represent low-hanging fruit for populist demagogues like Donald Trump.
My friend is well-read, educated, and not a piece of fruit; he does not fall into the Ignorant and Uneducated group.
The Misinformed
The misinformed consist of the conspiratorial deep-state fear mongers who live on an intellectually unhealthy diet of Reddit communities, YouTube channels, and Joe Rogan podcasts and who believe that by consuming copious amounts of content, they somehow become experts in climate, health, immunology, geopolitics, the Kennedy assassination, and fake moon landing or whatever the fuck they happen to be watching while eating Cheetos and drinking beer – they gravitate to content that confirms their conspiratorial beliefs and hunker down in those polluted ecosystems. I include the Fox News audience in this group because Fox News is not a news channel – they are a rightwing opinion and entertainment platform. While trying to defend themselves in an 800-million-dollar lawsuit in which they admitted to lying about a rigged 20/20 election, part of their defense was, “We are not a news channel, so don’t hold us to that standard; we’re an entertainment channel.”
Fox News is largely a Trump propaganda machine that is on its way to becoming the equivalent of RT (Russia Today), the Russian state-controlled international news television network funded by the Russian government.
I don’t know which cable news station my friend has on at his house. But I know if it’s Fox News, he’s not getting a fair and balanced view (despite their tagline) of Donald Trump as a person or as a president.
I don’t think we can underestimate the negative impact Fox News has had on our nation and our family and friends who rely on Fox as their primary source for news.
The Selfish
Here is where things get tricky.
If we’re honest with ourselves, we’d say all humans are selfish to a certain degree. We get behind a presidential candidate or a set of ideas when we believe that candidate or those ideas will help us prosper and take care of our family.
Voters who fall into the “Selfish” group know in their hearts that Donald Trump is an intellectually lazy criminal thug and a liar. If they looked more deeply at Trump’s history, they would probably be open to the likelihood that Trump’s been compromised by Russian mob bosses or Putin himself. Still, even all that is not an impediment to them supporting an administration that they believe benefits them financially.
What matters most is taking care of their family and (if they own a small business) their employees. Never mind the fact that historically, America’s economy does better when Democrats are in charge or that Trump is a horrible person. If you honestly feel that Trump is better for your business and your family, I can see how that might override all the other shit for some people. I am not one of them.
At dinner, my friend broke the unspoken rule and brought up Donald Trump by saying his business had gotten better in the four months of his presidency. He couldn’t say for sure that Trump was a cause, but to him, there was at least a correlation, and he said multiple times that “facts are facts” and that his business was doing better. I’m glad my friend’s business is doing better—truly, I am.
But the country is not doing better; the world is not doing better; our Democracy is not doing better; the markets are not doing better; people’s retirement accounts are not doing better – legal residents are being snatched from the streets by masked agents of the government and whisked away without due process – there’s a measles outbreak in Texas where two kids have died. The leader of our country is demonstrably incompetent and cruel daily. America’s president has been credibly charged and civilly convicted of sexual assault and fraud; he pardoned dangerous and violent criminals who assaulted the capital. Trump is demonstrably a shitty human being – and I don’t think my friend would dispute that (because really, how can you?) and when I kept saying over and over that Trump is a shitty human being, he never disagreed. Things got heated for a bit, but we were able to transition to normal non-political talk seamlessly, which I took as a credit to the strength of our friendship.
On the walk back to our cars, we talked a little bit more — and we agreed that we look at Trump from different perspectives — him on a micro-level where a Trump presidency seems to favor his business and his ability to take care of his employees — where I look at the macro impact of a Trump presidency on Democracy, individual freedoms, social safety nets for the most vulnerable of us and adherence to western democratic principles.
My friend and I are in our sixties—we’ve got 20 years left if we’re lucky—and my question to him the next time we sit down is, what kind of country do you want for your kids or grandkids—a democratic and free country (like the one we grew up in) or an authoritarian oligarchy that cracks down on individual freedoms and forces political, social, and religious beliefs on its citizens?
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 uses existing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to query LLMs about politics in these troubled times.
Query 1: Is the measles virus dangerous?
Yes, measles can be quite dangerous. It’s a highly contagious viral disease that can lead to serious complications, especially for young children, pregnant women, and individuals with weakened immune systems. Some of the complications include pneumonia, encephalitis (swelling of the brain), and even death.
In the U.S., measles was declared eliminated in 2000, but outbreaks still occur, often due to unvaccinated individuals. Vaccination is the best way to protect against measles and prevent its spread.
Query 2: Robert Kennedy Jr (the head of HHS) says that the measles outbreak in Texas is not unusual. Is that true?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. did indeed say that the measles outbreak in Texas is “not unusual”. However, health experts disagree with his assessment. The outbreak has resulted in the first measles death in the U.S. since 2015, and the number of cases is significant, with 124 confirmed cases since late January.
The outbreak is primarily affecting unvaccinated individuals, particularly in the Mennonite community in Gaines County. While measles outbreaks do occur, the severity and spread of this particular outbreak make it more concerning than Kennedy’s statement suggests. Vaccination remains the best way to prevent measles and its complications.
Query 3: Is Robert F Kennedy Jr a doctor or scientist? Does he have expertise in the field of health and medicine?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is not a doctor or scientist. He has a background in law, with degrees from Harvard University, the University of Virginia School of Law, and Pace University. His expertise lies in environmental law and policy, and he has worked extensively as an environmental lawyer and activist.
While he has been a prominent voice in public health debates, particularly regarding vaccines, his educational background and professional experience are not in the medical or scientific fields.
Kennedy has been a controversial figure due to his promotion of vaccine misinformation and public-health conspiracy theories. Despite his lack of medical or scientific qualifications, he was confirmed as the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services in February 2025.
Query 4: Tell me about Robert Kennedy Junior’s involvement in the Soma Measles outbreak several years ago
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. played a controversial role during the measles outbreak in Samoa several years ago. In 2019, Samoa was facing a crisis due to a significant drop in vaccination rates after an improperly prepared vaccine led to the deaths of two infants. This incident caused widespread fear and skepticism about vaccines among parents, leaving many children unprotected against measles.
Kennedy, who was then the chairman of the anti-vaccine group Children’s Health Defense, visited Samoa in June 2019. He saw an opportunity to promote his anti-vaccine agenda and proposed a system to track the health outcomes of unvaccinated children. Despite the resumption of vaccinations, Kennedy’s influence and the spread of misinformation contributed to the hesitancy among parents.
Months after Kennedy’s visit, a deadly measles outbreak swept through Samoa, resulting in thousands of infections and 83 deaths, mostly among small children. Kennedy continued to stay connected with the island, providing medical guidance to local anti-vaccine activists and raising concerns about the vaccination campaign.
My Input
Robert F Kennedy Junior is just one example of the dangerous weaponization of ignorance and stupidity by the Trump administration.
In the past, Donald Trump has bragged about having “the best people” in his cabinet and administration. In the first Trump administration, there were some bright and accomplished people in cabinet positions and in the administration. They were experts in their fields. Many of those experts have since spoken out against their boss, warning Americans of his incompetence and fascist tendencies.
In the first administration, these experts provided guardrails for our democracy and government institutions by pushing back against an increasingly autocratic President who often drifted outside his extremely narrow lane of expertise.
This time around, Donald Trump is not concerned with appointing experts with deep experience to cabinet positions — instead, he appoints loyalists with little to no experience who will toe the line and disregard the rule of law, facts, and truth when Trump asks them to.
Trump’s disastrous pick for HHS will prove dangerous for the health and well-being of Americans, especially in cases of outbreaks like the Measles outbreak in Lubbock, Texas. His appointees to the FBI, Intelligence Service, and Justice Department will also prove dangerous to the health and well-being of our Democracy.
This time around, the purpose of Trump’s appointments is to appease the conspiratorial nature of his base voters – the anti-science, deep-state fearmongers, and Qanoon cultists, as well as Christian Nationalists and Trump’s Pro-Russian puppet handlers.
bendingtheneedle 