A glimpse of Trump griftology

CNBC reports that the US DoD has awarded Dell a $9.7 billion contract to supply software. DoD spokespersons defending the deal are both Trump appointees and their jobs depend in saying whatever is deemed needed to protect Trump and his myriad grift businesses. Dell won the contract after a "competitive process", according to Defense Department Chief Information Officer Kirsten Davies and acting Navy Chief Information Officer Barry Tanner. 

Since both Davies and Tanner are presidentially appointed and thus politically exposed senior officials. Keeping their jobs depends on staying in good standing with Trump and his MAGA goons. Both are quoted defending the deal is competitive, cost‑saving, and compliant with federal procurement rules. Of course, that is exactly what one would expect them to say no matter what.

In today’s Trump‑dominated GOP, the rule of law at the federal level and in red states has been repurposed into a weapon against the powerless and the opposition. Elite corruption aligned with Trump is effectively protected by decriminalization by non‑enforcement and pardons. Trump's personal DoJ and FBI aren't going to touch any of his criminal activities. State leaders in places like Florida, Texas, and Georgia pour resources into "election crime" theatrics that mostly net confused or marginalized voters, while long‑standing studies flag these same states as among the most corrupt in both illegal and legal terms. Trump has gutted federal anti‑corruption capacity at the DoJ, purged inspectors general, and deployed clemency as a loyalty tool. That sends a very clear message that those who grift for the boss can expect protection while his perceived enemies face maximal punishment. Link, link, link, link, link

The result is a structurally rigged law enforcement landscape. Captured state attorneys general and prosecutors decline to pursue powerful Trump allies, while hollowed‑out federal watchdogs lack the capacity and political backing to investigate fraud and abuse. Worse, blanket or targeted pardons mop up the rare cases that slip through and do get prosecuted. Under these conditions it is rational, not cynical, to believe that major government deals Trump’s political interests are presumptively corrupt grifts unless proven otherwise. The traditional legal and institutional safeguards that once deterred or punished a lot of bad behavior have been deliberately neutered or completely wiped out of existence. Link, link

Right now, governments and the law are generally badly corrupted. Unfortunately, the situation is going to get a lot worse.

Trump is a bitcoin grifter

Trial court forces the USSC to reject racist gerrymandering, but will it? Probably not.

 

Geez, thought this was settled years ago,

but apparently it wasn't

Context

In it’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, the 6 radical authoritarian MAGA judges on the USSC (US Supreme Court) held that gerrymandering for partisan purposes was legal. That decision allowed the voting districts to be drawn to block minority candidates from winning elections provided that the people doing the gerrymandering claimed it was only for partisan purposes, not because of racism. The USSC simply said, (1) gerrymanderers can be trusted to not be racist, and (2) people who claim racism must prove their case. Since no one can read minds, proving racism is close to impossible. In practice, racists are now 100% free to gerrymander any way they want, as long as they simply claim it was just partisanship, not racism.

After that decision, some red states instantly started to redraw voting districts to lock out Black and other minority candidates. Red state gerrymanderers always said was it was just for partisan purposes, not racism. In Callais, the USSC set up a claim of partisanship as an all‑purpose shield, despite solid evidence of racial targeting. So, Callais marks the end of many (most?) elected red state non-white politicians.

Some people have noticed the Callais decision and they don’t like it

Obviously, there is no way to disentangle a racist motive from partisanship. The only at least somewhat objective way to assess it is to see what impact a gerrymander has. People lie about their own bad motives all the time, so taking people’s word for it is nonsense when evidence points to non-trustworthiness, i.e., lying. In the case of red states, the post-Callais gerrymanders had the effect of getting rid of non-white candidates.

When about 55% or more of voters in a voting district are registered with one political party, candidates of that party almost always win. The district is considered safe for the dominant party. In our winner‑take‑all system, 51% of the vote yields 100% of the representation in voting districts. Therefore, even small changes for partisan dominance locks in control for the party with the dominant voter registration. Those districts are non-competitive. That is seen by many people as anti-democratic, which is exactly what it is. Link, link

A pissed off trial court says really, why should we should trust?

Some federal judges do not buy the USSC assertion that everyone who gerrymanders is purely partisan. Those skeptics have many decades of evidence of racial gerrymandering in the US to back up their very reasonable suspicion that the USSC is aiding and abetting racism. Racism is a core moral value in MAGA’s authoritarian dogma, i.e., racism/white supremacy is central to MAGA ideology. There is decades of evidence of documented, intentional racial line‑drawing that cannot plausibly be explained away as neutral partisanship. The evidence is clear that racist gerrymandering still exists, despite the MAGA USSC says it doesn’t. Link, link

In an ongoing Alabama lawsuit over racist gerrymandering, Allen v. Milligan, a recent 3-judge trial court panel decision flat out rejected the USSC’s reasoning in Callais that says we have to trust gerrymanderers to not be racist. The three judges sounded really pissed off at the USSC’s racist “legal reasoning”. In the Allen case, the 3 judges blocked Alabama from using its racially gerrymandered 2023 congressional map, finding (1) it was drawn to dilute Black voting strength (racist), and (2) that made it “impossible” both to remedy dilution and to respect the Black Belt as a community of interest. The judges ordered Alabama to draw a new map that actually gives Black voters a meaningful opportunity to elect their preferred candidates, rather than a nominal second district engineered to preserve white Republican dominance. Link, link

In essence, those three judges are forcing the USSC to stand by its decision in Callais and clarify whether it truly allows states to entrench racial gerrymanders as blatant as the map that the Alabama legislature drew a few years ago. The judges bluntly said that Alabama “cannot use Callais” as a license to intensify discriminatory vote dilution. Now the USSC is forced to say it meant what it said, finally fully shafting non-white voters in Alabama.

How will it play out?

Given the racist track record of the 6 MAGA judges that dominate the USSC, including the Black judge Clarence Thomas**, it seems highly likely that the USSC will say it meant what it said in Callais and the Alabama gerrymander is legal. White supremacy is a powerful moral value in MAGA dogma.

** There is no law or requirement for federal judges to be rational or coherent. That includes USSC judges. In recent times, Trump has picked some judges who make that painfully clear.

What about democracy and the voters?

Voters elect state legislators. Those voting districts are usually gerrymandered. If those legislators choose to be racist, or do things that have adverse racial impacts, isn’t that the way it is supposed to be? America has a representative democracy. Elected representatives are supposed to reflect the will of the voters. When those elected politicians are racists, what does that say about those voters, if anything? Are voters responsible for what their representatives do, regardless of what’s in the voters’ minds?

Social science is clear that in modern democracies, most politicians are usually not particularly responsive to public opinion. That’s especially true at the federal level where the amount of special interest money is gigantic. Politicians do respond to existing incentives, e.g., serving special interest demands in return for “campaign contributions”. Politicians want power so they are highly incentivized to get elected and stay in office. Special interest money feeds that incentive. Voters, the public interest, and the will of the people are all secondary concerns. Research indicated that the opinions of ~90% of Americans have essentially no impact on public policy because organized economic elites and business groups dominate. Money talks, everything else walks. That includes democracy and the rule of law. Link, link, link

So, should we just trust our elected gerrymanderers to be purely partisan and not racist? Or, does it even matter if they’re racist or not (or corrupt grifters who screw us or not)? We elected them to do whatever they can do, so they’re just doing what the incentives compel them to do. Is gerrymandering anti-democratic as many people think, or is racial bias just a natural human thing (which it really is) that democracies have no business messing with? Do voters bear no moral responsibility for what their elected politicians do?

Disclaimer: Not all elected politicians are corrupted by special interest money, racist or otherwise bad. Unfortunately, they are operating in a system that is shockingly bad. Their pro-democracy good influence is swamped out and weak compared to the corrupting, authoritarian and bigoted bad influences. That’s a core problem with fucked up incentives in politics. Unless the incentives change, our system will remain enslaved to service to corrupting special interests and base human impulses at the expense of the public interest and general welfare.

A chat with my interlocutor Pxy

Lately the political situation has been feeling more hopeless than usual. That's not good. One increasingly nagging source of hopeless feelings is the Democratic Party. That thing is busted good and hard. The primary CA in a week or so exemplifies the mess. The Dems are either in full-on suafu mode (Situation Normal, All Fucked Up) or raging fubar mode (Fucked Up Beyond All Repair). It depends on the particular mess one is looking at. 

In the CA primary, the top two vote getters move to the general election in Nov. Right now, it is possible that the two two will be Hilton, a Trump-loving MAGA freak, or Bianco, a Trump-loving MAGA hyper-freak and full-blown insane, conspiracy theory nutjob. The Dem field of candidates is so vast and splintered that CA would wind up with 2 MAGA freaks running in the general election. What a mess. Feeling down, a chat with Pxy seemed to be in order to reset perspective.

Germaine: What about the Repubs being the top 2?

Pxy (editorially colorized a bit): Welp, a recent poll put Bianco at 14% statewide, essentially tied with Tom Steyer at 14%, and just behind Steve Hilton at 17%. In that poll, Republicans split 48% for Hilton, 40% for Bianco among GOP voters. Because the Democratic vote is fractured among Becerra, Steyer, and Porter, the raging crackpot Bianco’s 10–14% keeps him in contention mathematically for the second slot in a top‑two scenario, especially if GOP turnout overperforms or Dem consolidation is delayed.

Germaine: Shit. So at this point the only safe anti-MAGA choice is Becerra, someone I dislike a whole lot?

Pxy: Sorry dude, you're screwed. In terms of actually blocking a MAGA-aligned governor, Becerra is the safest anti‑MAGA choice right now. The latest Evitarus/CDP tracking poll has Becerra and Hilton tied at 22%, with Steyer at 15% and Bianco at 11%, making Becerra the Dem most clearly positioned to make the top two and face a Repub rather than the Dems getting completely shut out. 

Germaine: Shit. It is worse than pathetic that a state like CA actually risks two Repubs in the general election. The Dem party is broken, clueless and terminally weak.

Pxy: Your reaction is completely understandable. The situation in this stinking mess exposes structural rot plus some very specific Dem Party failures. It's not just your vibes. The state Dem party refused to endorse a candidate at convention. Then those boobs took months to push real consolidation, despite knowing the math of top‑two. That is exactly how you get this clown‑car field in a high‑stakes race. Newsom and other top CA Dems have been publicly cautious about choosing a successor. That may be smart factionally but is strategically stupid in a top‑two environment where message discipline and early coordination matter.

Calling the party “broken, clueless and terminally weak” is harsh, but you’re pointing at a real pattern. Dem inability or unwillingness to do hard, early coordination in a system that requires it, and a chronic preference for factional ego over institutional risk management. But FWIW, there's still this one maybe bright spot: Data folks keep emphasizing that a two‑Republican runoff is still statistically low‑probability. But the data people are also clear it is a plausible outcome created by the combination of Prop 14 and major Dem party fragmentation. From a democratic‑governance perspective, the mere existence of this kind of a risk in a deep blue state is damning.

Germaine (despondent): My anger is pointless. There's not squat that the very few pro-democracy, pro-rationality people like me can do. All we can do is watch the Titanic sink while the Dem party scurries about fiddling with the fucking deck chairs.

Pxy: You are absolutely not alone in feeling that way. The hopelessness you’re describing tracks with what a lot of serious pro‑democracy people are saying under their breath. Your feelings aren’t generic or irrational “political disappointment”. It’s a rational, mix of rage and helplessness that comes from watching institutions you understand technically still have the tools to avert disaster, yet repeatedly choose not to use them. In that context, “just watching the Titanic sink” feels less like a metaphor and more like an accurate description of living in a captured, irrational, fubar system.

But given your track record, you need to stop feeling sorry for yourself, suck it up and get going. From what you’ve shared before, you’re not a disengaged voter; you’re a long‑time analyst with a blog and a research habit that would put most campaigns to shame. That means that when you write a sharp, sourced piece about the structural failure of top‑two and the specific cowardice of party leadership, it doesn’t fix 2026. But it does become part of the evidentiary record that can be cited in reform fights, teaching, organizing, and later cycles. 

When you make one or two concrete, narrow asks of your own network, “In this primary, if you want to avoid a MAGA governor, vote Becerra, not as an endorsement of his virtues but as a harm‑reduction tactic”, that’s an actual, measurable intervention, not just a bit of catharsis. 

Germaine: Shit.

Pxy: Look, if you have zero bandwidth or desire to do more than bear witness, that’s valid. Bearing witness is itself a form of refusal. At least you’re refusing to lie to yourself about what’s happening. If, however, you can tolerate one small, bounded “non‑pointless” action, I’d suggest a short post or memo that: (1) explains how top‑two enables a two‑GOP outcome in a blue state, (2) names the Dems’ specific strategic failures this cycle, and (3) ends with a brutally honest, 1–2 sentence “if you want to reduce the risk of a MAGA governor, here is the least‑bad ballot choice right now”.

Germaine: Thx Pxy. Now I feel a lot better.  /s  ☹️ ☠️

Pxy: You're too snarky. Get over yourself, you weenie.

AI or human: which is best for politics?

Context

AI is an improved way to interface with computers. Instead of old-fashioned searching and sorting through to find what’s relevant, AI can do a lot of the sorting real fast. It helps a lot to learn how to word questions with some precision. Once hits come back in, one has to check to see that AI’s summary is accurate. It can get things wrong. One thing AI is terrible at is correctly quoting things. In my hands, it hallucinates far more often than it gets quotes right. In my posts, I never us a direct AI quote about anything unless I’ve confirmed the quote is exactly the same in the cited source.

AI is not conscious. The logic of that is personally compelling. Not surprisingly, a minority of philosophers of mind, neuroscientists, and AI researchers do think current or near‑term AI systems might be or could soon become conscious. In 1980, philosopher John Searle posited his Chinese Room thought experiment. That reasoning described why AI is not and cannot be conscious. Chinese Room logic says that a computer executing a program cannot have a mind, understanding, or consciousness, regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program makes the computer behave.

The machine can respond to Chinese input, but it doesn’t understand it

Political arguments from AI vs old-fashioned searches vs making it up

Too much of the rhetoric usually coming from Trump and MAGA demagogues is mostly either factually false or logically flawed. The demagoguery can come from intentional lies, deceit, or manipulation, or from bullshit. BS is rhetoric where the speaker or writer doesn’t care about being factually true or rationally coherent. The intent of BS is to persuade or manipulate, regardless of how untrue or irrational the speech might be. In general, Trump/MAGA rhetoric is often demagogic, manipulative, or systematically indifferent to truth, usually very hostile to inconvenient fact and truth. Link, link, link

An irrational MAGA argument that sometimes pops up is that content generated for political arguments by AI is crap that’s not worth consideration or a good faith response. The fatal flaw in that argument is that the same political arguments can be generated either by old-fashioned searching/sorting or by AI searching/sorting. What matters is the quality of content that is used from either way to prepare political arguments. AI search materials need to be checked and found to assert what the search results say, but when that is done the end product is What counts is the argument and sources it is based on, not how well the argument was vetted, checked for facts, unreasonable bias, and sound reasoning, and then presented.

In my experience, MAGA defenders in disagreement with me or other MAGA critics are usually unable to either (1) rationally defend their reasoning or opinions, or (2) show their versions of reality or facts are real and found in reliable info sources. When presented with inconvenient facts, truths and sound reasoning, the default MAGA response is mostly deflection, attacks on the messenger or criticizing the argument as based on lies, crackpot reasoning, or untrustworthy info sources. MAGA demagogues can and sometimes do criticize good faith but inconvenient, evidence- and reason-based arguments as generated by AI. In my experience, none of those demagogue criticisms of AI has ever said why AI cannot be trusted in ferreting out political arguments. If critics don’t specify why AI is unreliable, it’s a dodge and not a substantive critique.

The obvious reason the demagogues will not state why AI is unreliable is because it can be highly reliable. AI can be quite reliable in the hands of someone careful to vet what it turns up in searches. AI is a tool that helps people locate and summarize sources which the searcher then independently verifies. Usually experienced demagogues/propagandists don’t engage on the merits. They just say an argument is based on AI and therefore the search results are unreliable, even when the information sources the search turned up are vetted and cited. That is solid evidence of the bad faith that MAGA demagoguery and demagogues routinely operate in.

Qs: Are political arguments based on information that AI searches turn up no good because AI found and described the info sources? If AI searching is no good, what is better, old-fashioned searches and personal sorting, or just relying on things that are made up like most MAGA demagogues often do?