The SpaceX and AI IPOs: Financial catastrophes in the making?

CONTEXT

In coming ~4-10 months, three behemoths plan to file papers for IPOs, Musk’s SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic (also AI). None of these IPOs make a lick of sense based on current company valuations, the cash already sunk in, and their vaporware business models. When retail and professional investors buy IPO stock and the insider lock-up periods expire within ~6 months, they are going to lose, lose, lose. 

Despite the obvious but nonetheless breathtaking stupidity of it all, most MSM reporting focuses on the galactic size of the deals or on the juicy personalities involved, e.g., Musk owns ~85% of SpaceX and his IPO would push him close to being a trillionaire. Most of the MSM loves reporting all the big numbers and juicy gossip. They fucking ignore the hyper-crappy business models behind these IPOs. 

Here's a fun example of the MSM’s irrational exuberance reporting. Nicolas Owens, an equity researcher with the investment research firm Morningstar, said that while SpaceX’s IPO was enormous, commenting: “A trillion-dollar market capitalization for a company going public used to be unheard-of. Now it seems normal.” [1]

Germaine: No, a trillion market cap does not seem remotely close to normal, you blithering idiot. How much is Musk paying Morningstar to say such outrageous bullshit? It must be a lot. 

Idiot squad: Yee-Haw! Musk has 13 babies we know of, with some attached baby lawsuits. Now back to the deal, what comes after trillion? Oh yeah, quadrillion (1,000 trillion)! That's the next new thing!! I wanna buy into a quadrillion deal, right now!!

The SPACEX deal

Public information releases indicate SpaceX is targeting a valuation in the roughly 1.5–2.0 trillion dollar range. The IPO would raise roughly 50–75 billion dollars in the offering. That’s the largest IPO in history. SpaceX generated ~18–19 billion dollars of revenue in 2025 and still loses billions per year. That valuation implies ~60–100 times forward sales, and near 100 times trailing sales. Those multiples are far above the most highly valued mega‑cap tech firms usually get. Independent analysts who try to back into earnings needed to justify a $1.5 trillion market cap estimate that SpaceX would have to be earning roughly $80 billion/year within about a decade. FFS, that’s more than Berkshire Hathaway’s recent profits and in the same neighborhood as the “Magnificent Seven” giants. WTF? Link, link

To make those numbers work, Musk’s IPO marketing blither leans on a fantastically large total addressable market (TAM) covering not only launch and satellite internet, but also AI infrastructure, cloud compute, consumer subscriptions, advertising, and enterprise AI applications. One widely discussed Musk “analysis” attributes roughly $28–28.5 trillion of future annual TAM to SpaceX’s combined businesses. There is a few hundred billion for space “solutions” (whatever that means), about 1.6 trillion for Starlink broadband and mobile, 2.4 trillion for AI infrastructure, hundreds of billions for consumer subscriptions (bullshit alert!) and digital ads, and more than 22 trillion for enterprise AI applications (whatever that means). Analysts note that this implies (1) a target market roughly the size of the entire current US economy, and (2) an enterprise AI market tens of times larger than today’s entire enterprise software industry, while also effectively assuming that every single household will come to use Starlink connectivity. These inputs are not professional, mainstream consensus forecasts. Those numbers are Musk’s blue‑sky fantasy, Musk‑centric marketing bullshit. Musk’s BS is presented to rationalize the IPO numbers and sell the deal to people and investors dumb enough but believe Musk’s BS and rich enough to piss away some of their own, or someone else’s, money. 

Verdict: The SpaceX IPO is a vaporware rip-off, but it probably is legal!

The OpenAI, and Anthropic deals

This story is just as good a deal, or bad depending on how you see it. 

The lock-up story: As with the SpaceX deal, these two companies may be considering a “staggered lock‑up”, where existing shareholders can sell in waves rather than a single cliff, potentially starting almost immediately after the IPO. The lock-up is a period where insiders who bought stock at a low price before the IPO have to wait a while before they can sell after an IPO. Once those lock-up periods expire, usually 90-180 days, the stock price can drop like a rock, leaving the IPO investors eating huge losses. 

There are variations. SpaceX’s IPO uses a staggered, tiered lock‑up where insiders can sell specified percentages at multiple dates instead of a single 6‑month cliff. Some selling is allowed relatively soon after the IPO and around earnings. No final lock‑up language is public yet for OpenAI and Anthropic.

The business hype and fantasy: OpenAI and Anthropic both lean hard on “world‑defining” narratives and trillion‑scale market projections to justify IPO‑level valuations. However, their hype rhetoric glosses over very large, long‑term loss profiles and massive execution risks. Recent marketing hype paints OpenAI as a hyper‑growth but deeply loss‑making “juggernaut”. By contrast, Anthropic spin is it’s the more “disciplined, safety‑centric” alternative, Both companies assert huge, largely unproven assumptions about how big and profitable their modeled market actually gets. Link, link, link

OpenAI: Reporting to investors emphasize that OpenAI’s run‑rate revenue could hit roughly 20 billion annually, but notes forecasts of around 14 billion in losses in 2026 and cumulative losses potentially exceeding 100 billion by the end of the decade due to compute and infrastructure spending. The core argument is that enormous, upfront expenses will eventually create a dominant AGI platform with decades of high‑margin returns, while near‑term modeling is spun as “spend first, profits much later”. 

Reporting to retail investors repeat projections that the addressable AI market will be measured in the tens of trillions over time. The hype implies that OpenAI is poised to capture a huge slice of that, but while also warning that its valuation relative to its actual sales is stretched and that profits may not arrive until the 2030s. Link

Anthropic: Multiple reports say Anthropic is pursuing, or has privately discussed, valuations on the order of 900 billion, with funding‑round coverage emphasizing that it has “closed in on a 1 trillion valuation” ahead of an IPO. That puts Anthropic fairly close to OpenAI, despite being smaller in revenue. 

Anthropic’s marketing and sympathetic commentary spin a “do more with less” strategy. That emphasizes algorithmic efficiency, better training data, and more careful deployment, whatever that means. It does not try to match OpenAI’s extreme compute arms race. Pieces on its communication strategy stress that it is deliberately telling a “profitability and integrity” story, arguing revenue increase of 10x per year for several years, a dedicated “social impacts” team (whatever that means), and a brand built around safety and trust as a differentiator. 

That sales pitch is flimsy at best. Deceptive is a better description of Anthropic hype.

Probably the most likely way that OpenAI, and Anthropic marketing can come remotely close to business projections is to believe that their main product will be replacing millions of workers from their jobs. Consumer subscriptions and other BS markets cannot come anywhere close to meeting the sales propaganda behind their gigantic IPO scam.

Verdict: These IPOs are a vaporware rip-off, but they probably are legal!

Q: Could the end of the lock-up periods for SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic trigger a massive collapse of American financial markets and economy?[2]

Footnote:

1. In it's defense, Morningstar explicitly says that the targeted $780 billion IPO valuation implies that the company is significantly overvalued. It warns that investors might get better stock prices after the IPO. But it does not say investors will ever make any money.  

2. Consensus financial expert analysis says that the end of the lock-up periods will not trigger a massive collapse of American financial markets or the American economy. Maybe that expert analysis is correct. We might get an opportunity to find out. As the experts tell us over and over, past performance does not predict future returns. 

Sooner or later we will be dragged down by, the combination of (1) MAGA’s economically inefficient corruption and gross governance incompetence, plus (2) massive growing and unsustainable federal debt (~$40 trillion on the books, and ~$75 trillion off the books), plus (3) vast damage to democracy, rule of law, civil liberties, and the public interest. Sooner or later something is going to snap. The herd (investors and the public) will spook. The stampede for the exit doors will blow the building to smithereens. Arguably, the question is when, not if. 

A summary of Trump/elite MAGA environmental policy: Tracking the flow of wealth and power, cost and benefit

 CONCLUSION

In summary, analyses of Trump/MAGA policy estimate that their deregulatory program sacrifices over a hundred billion dollars a year in public health and climate benefits, including thousands of avoidable deaths and tens of thousands of new asthma cases. That public cost saves a smaller number of fossil‑fuel and industrial firms their costs of complying with pollution controls. Legal scholars argue that the administration has deliberately rewired environmental law and cost‑benefit analysis so that regulatory power and wealth flow upward. That flow is from American society, which bears the pollution and climate damage, to a few elites and corporations who profit from polluting on us.

TRUMP AND MAGA ELITE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & TACTICS

Researchers show that major oil, gas companies, plastics and other pro-pollution companies knew about climate and related risks decades ago. Nonetheless, they poured large amounts of money into lobbying, political influence buying, and disinforming the public. The obvious pro-pollution propaganda goal, just like cigarette companies’ pro-lung cancer-for-profit propaganda goal years before, was to block, delay or weaken regulations that would affect their business models for as long as possible, preferably forever. Pro-pollution companies engaged in a well-funded, decades-long disinformation and mass deceit and political influence-buying strategy specifically to prevent significant climate laws and regulations from coming into effect, or from being enforced. By the 1960s, major oil companies knew that fossil-fuel combustion caused climate change, so they responded by funding political and social denial and delay campaigns to block regulations.
https://commonhome.georgetown.edu/topics/climateenergy/defense-denial-and-disinformation-uncovering-the-oil-industrys-early-knowledge-of-climate-change/
https://www.ucs.org/climate/accountability

Tech and auto companies aggressively brand themselves as green while relying heavily on offsets and systems that allow continued pollution. Tesla and some other Big Tech actors use climate propaganda and market positioning enable them to profit off people’s climate anxiety while still engaging in pro-pollution businesses with their carbon-intensive supply chains.
https://gizmodo.com/five-of-2020s-top-climate-grifters-1845803712

The ask: At an April 2024 Mar‑a‑Lago dinner, Trump met with top oil and gas executives and asked them to raise $1 billion for his campaign. He told them it would be a great deal compared with the taxes and regulations they would avoid if he returned to office. A 2025 analysis of fossil‑fuel donors and Trump’s policy agenda notes that “Trump asked oil and gas executives in 2024 to raise $1 billion for his campaign and told them he’d grant their policy wish list if he won.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/09/trump-oil-industry-campaign-money/
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/fossil-fuel-industry-donors-see-major-returns-trumps-policies
https://blog.ucs.org/laura-peterson/trumps-handouts-to-fossil-fuel-industry-will-cost-public-80-billion-over-next-decade/

The payoff: Trump has (1) systematically gutted the EPA’s regulatory and enforcement capacity and authority, and (2) blocked or dismantled enforcement of essentially all major environmental and climate rules, especially greenhouse gas laws and regulations. In return of polluter payoffs, Trump and MAGA elites gutted the EPA’s scientific and legal backbone in what Trump bluntly calls the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history. He gutted the EPA’s rule eliminating the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding. That had been the legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The final rule rescinds the finding and all federal GHG emission standards for vehicles and engines, and explicitly states that EPA “has no legal basis” to regulate GHGs under section 202 going forward. By revoking the Endangerment Finding, the federal government can no longer regulate greenhouse gases. That includes emissions from cars, trucks and power plants. That was a gigantic neutering of climate policy. Eliminating the finding completely stopped enforcement of carbon emissions limits. That is a huge payoff.
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/president-trump-and-administrator-zeldin-deliver-single-largest-deregulatory-action-us
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0zdd7yl4vo
https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/trump-administration-plans-to-roll-back-epa-regulations-could-harm-health/

The deceit and betrayal: As we know by now, Trump and MAGA elites always do their best to deceive the public about whatever corruption and dictatorship/oligarchy/ theocracy they are up to. From a public interest, pro-democracy and pro-rule of law point of view, their lies, crackpottery, and emotional manipulation are shameless, blatant, malicious, and morally rotted. Trump and MAGA elites frame deregulation as re‑directing enforcement, not gutting regulations for polluters. An EPA news release describes gutting laws and regulations as redirecting enforcement resources to relieve the economy of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens. That is a clear signal of a deliberate shift away from enforcing certain pollution regulations and laws. MAGA propaganda casts it as efficiency, but in reality it’s cessation of enforcement.
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-launches-biggest-deregulatory-action-us-history
https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2025/trump-epa-rollbacks-would-weaken-rules-projected-to-save-billions-of-dollars-

The impacts on public health and the flow of wealth and power: The Trump/MAGA environmental and deregulatory agenda is projected to produce major adverse environmental and health impacts, along with a massive shift in power and wealth toward fossil‑fuel and other regulated industries from the public and the public interest to special interests. The second Trump administration’s rollbacks of environmental and energy regulations could cost about $156.6 billion per year in net social benefits that existing rules would have delivered. Approximately 3,299 additional premature deaths annually, 7,461 new child asthma cases per year, roughly 3,922 extra hospital and ER admissions annually, and hundreds of thousands of lost work and school days as a result of weakened air‑quality and climate rules. Greenhouse gas regulations reduce co‑pollutants including fine particulate matter and ozone. Eliminating regulations will increase heat‑related mortality, wildfire smoke exposure, respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations, preterm births, and asthma attacks. Trump’s gutting of environmental deregulations walks back pesticide bans, weakens methane and CO₂ emissions rules, and narrowed the definition of waters of the United States, allowing for more a lot more pollution of fresh waters.
https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/trump-administration-plans-to-roll-back-epa-regulations-could-harm-health/
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-trump-administrations-major-environmental-deregulations/
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administrations-assault-on-environmental-protections-will-give-polluters-a-free-pass-while-causing-millions-of-asthma-attacks/

Trump and MAGA elites do not care about public opinion

By gutting rules and neutering enforcement that generated net economic and health benefits, the Trump Administration has taken away billions in benefits from the American public. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of cost savings from deregulation flow to a relatively small number of regulated firms and individuals. Meanwhile the foregone benefits or cleaner air, avoided deaths, lower medical costs, are spread across millions of people. Society eats the damage, while a few elites reap the rewards. Trump officials reshaped cost‑benefit analysis, cynically undervalued pollution harms, and adopted novel statutory interpretations that abdicate EPA authority to regulate. These moves created explicit preferences for the interests of regulated industries over communities most affected. The Trump/elite MAGA goal is to lock in a long‑term transfer of wealth and power from public regulators to private industry. Oil and gas firms will gain tens of billions in avoided compliance costs and new drilling opportunities. That will be financed in part by the loss of the public’s health and climate protections and the transfer of environmental and social damage back onto American society. Benefits flow up to a few elites and corporations, while costs and damages flush down onto society.
https://policyintegrity.org/tracking-regulatory-rollbacks
https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/deconstructing-environmental-deregulation-under-the-trump-administration/
https://climatepower.us/news/new-report-oil-and-gas-industry-spent-450-million-to-influence-trump-and-the-119th-congress/
https://www.nrdc.org/resources/white-house-watch-tracking-attacks-our-environment-health

That stuff is toxic

Source: https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2025/6/23/voters-are-concerned-about-rolling-back-epa-power-plant-regulations-want-current-pollution-limits-kept-in-place

Trump guts a major ocean climate science research project to hide terrifying inconvenient facts to protect polluters

Trump’s intense hostility to climate science is not merely irrational and stupid. It is mentally deranged and extremely dangerous to everyone. Various sources are reporting that Trump and ordered his MAGA goons to destroy the the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI). That is a US funded, $368 million deep-ocean monitoring network that has been central to understanding climate-relevant ocean processes and coastal risks. Trump has ordered it to be taken out of the water. More than 900 instruments deployed off Alaska, Washington/Oregon, the East Coast, and the Irminger Sea between Greenland and Iceland are to be removed and shut down. 

The system became operational in 2016. It was designed to last for about 25 years. The cost to operate it was ~$48 million per year. Trump repeatedly tried to slash the program’s budget by about 80 percent for 2025 and 2026. OOI instruments off the coast of Newport, Ore., and Grays Harbor, Wash., collected and transmitted temperature, acidity, and oxygen level data that is needed for predicting climate-related environmental changes, and the health of the region’s commercial fishing industry. 

An OOI data transmission buoy

Long-term observing systems like OOI are critical for detecting climate change because climate changes typically emerge over a period of decades from noisy weather patterns. Once a continuous record is broken, especially in key locations like the subpolar North Atlantic or deep sea upwelling locations, scientists cannot go back and reconstruct the missing years with anything close to the accuracy of direct ocean measurements. The OOI underpins our current understanding of marine heat waves, ocean heat uptake, and biogeochemical processes that directly affect fisheries and coastal communities. From a scientific-program point of view, shutting down a system designed for 25 years after roughly a decade is another example of Trump and MAGA politics gutting the public interest to pay off special interests who profit from continuing to pollute.

The shutdown of OOI cannot be rationally understood to be a claimed neutral budget decision. The shutdown fits squarely into Trump’s and MAGA elites’ objective of (1) dismantling climate science, gutting NOAA and NSF climate research, and (2) erasing data that document fossil‑fuel damage, all while pledging to end what Trump and MAGA elites like to call the Green New Scam.

Q: Is a deceived, ignorant electorate easier to deceive, exploit and profit from than an undeceived and informed electorate?

Q: What or who is the real scam here, climate science research or Trump, MAGA elites and their way of doing business?

Info sources: Link, link, link, link, link

Trump subverts the rule of law — federal law is now the rule of the tyrant

The first pardon on the list is Jan. 21, 2026, the day after Trump was sworn into office

Trump and MAGA elites have made clear that they use the rule of law as a special interest-serving partisan tool. To them, it’s not a neutral institution for vindicating laws or defending the public interest. AP-Frontline reporting makes the painful truth undeniable.

In this instance of Trump personally, directly subverting the rule of law, he has quietly ordered his personal DoJ to stop investigating Venezuela’s acting president and major drug dealer, Delcy Rodríguez. Rodriguez has been a target of the US Drug Enforcement Administration due to her drug kingpin activities. As can be expected from our now corrupted DoJ, they lie to us about it, a spokesperson saying “there was never an investigation into her to shut down”. This is an example of how Trump and MAGA elites have degenerated our rule of law into corrupt, cruel rule of tyrants.

AP and other sources have reported that Delcy Rodríguez was on the US Drug Enforcement Administration’s radar for years. She was designated a DEA “priority target” in 2022. That label is reserved for suspects believed to have a significant impact on the drug trade. Link

By now, Trump has a solid track record of sympathy for drug dealers, which Rodriguez seems to be. That is in addition to sympathy for rioters, tax cheats, inside stock traders, fraudsters and various other criminal miscreants and thugs who can afford to buy a pardon from Trump for their crimes. The going rate for buying a Trump pardon is estimated to be least about $1 million/pardon (and this). The DoJ still keeps track of his pardons. The DoJ makes the pardon list public at this link. At least until March of 2026, the DoJ updated the pardon list. Since then, public updates to the list have stopped. Of course, that is exactly what one would expect from Trump hiding his deep moral rot from the public.

Anyway, Trump’s protection for criminals is not new or out of character. Trump is a criminal with his own track record of criminality and contempt for the rule of law. Here are more of Trump’s pardons for criminals convicted of selling or trafficking marijuana, cocaine, or other drugs.

Trump loves pardoning criminals, assuming they can afford to pay him his pardon fee.

Q: Why do you think that the DoJ no longer publicly updates Trump’s list of pardons and commutations?

Q: Given Trump’s rock solid track record as a criminal, chronic liar and morally rotted tyrant who demands loyalty to himself over all other things, is there any solid reason to believe that (1) his loyalist DoJ is not protecting his pardons-for-profit business by no longer updating the public pardons list, or (2) Rodriguez has not engaged in any drug dealing activities?

Congress and Trump sell out the US to Israel

Fusing the US taxpayer and US military with the Israeli military

Something new has gone terribly wrong. This is just as bad as most awful things Trump and MAGA are these days. In its cowardice, corruption, staggering incompetence and seething hostility to democracy and the rule of law, our MAGA congress has quietly started a horrible, taxpayer-funded process of aggressively integrating the US and Israeli militaries.

An article by Responsible Statecraft, Congress quietly moves to integrate US and Israeli militaries, reports that buried in the House 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), there is a section entitled “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative”. The provisions there do more to intertwine the US and Israeli militaries than anything the $200 billion+ in inflation adjusted military assistance Israel has received from the US since its founding in 1948. 

Section 224 provides for expanded bilateral research and development, co-production of weapons, joint ventures, licensing agreements, and basically all kinds of US-Israeli military-industrial complex cooperation. That greatly expands already major cooperation on missile defense. In essence, 224 greatly expands coordination to all areas of defense tech. That includes AI, quantum, and autonomous systems (drones, weaponized robots), directed energy weapons, cyberwar, and biotech (WTF, germ warfare???). Section 224 also proposes “network integration” and “data fusion”. US military data will also be Israeli military data.

Worse than all of that, the MAGA House bill strips away political and diplomatic oversight mechanisms that make the US-Israeli relationship publicly accountable. Section 224 guts the current visible annual aid vote into an opaque, basically secret machinery of taxpayer-funded defense acquisition. Section 224 limits oversight, and meaningful, honest political accountability is minimal to non-existent. The result is a defense deeper defense relationship that is basically run in secret.

Unlike other weapons agreements where the US supplies weapons and the buyers sometimes make some parts for them, Section 224 is nothing like that at all. This deal fuses US and Israeli defense sectors in multiple areas that are vital to future battlefields, e.g. autonomous systems and cyberwar. The House has also tucked provisions in 224 that would create extraordinary Israeli influence in the US, far beyond what it already has through the Israel lobby and its social media influencers. Section 224 gives the Israeli government the option to greatly expand one of the most powerful levers of influence in US politics, namely jobs. By expanding or starting new co-production facilities like it already has in Mississippi and Arkansas, the Israeli government could boast of providing jobs on US soil (at taxpayer expense), thereby corrupting members of Congress who represent the districts where those jobs are.

The US political system is already highly susceptible to the whims of the Israeli government. This proposed deal would secretly entangle the US with the Israeli war machine which has no qualms about drawing the US into military conflicts in the Middle East, whether it makes any sense or not for America and its interests. In essence, the MAGA House is proposing a full-blown secret sellout of American interests, its military independence, and the taxpayers to a brutal Israeli government. 

One has to wonder what payoff to Trump Netanyahu has promised, and how much of it has already been delivered. Also, what did MAGA House members get in return for their sellout, and how will Trump/Israel bribe the Senate? Enquiring minds want to know.

Not to worry, corporal Bone Spurs 

is on the job and in charge 

What could possibly go wrong?

Oh yeah, that could go wrong

Christianity's greatest enemy? Christian zealots

 This 1:20 video explains the threat to Christianity. I find the argument convincing.

Mindless zealots like that, along with corrupt oligarchy and corrupt autocracy, now also constitute the greatest threat to what is left of American democracy, our fading rule of law and our fading civil liberties. 

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?