A social-media tantrum from the editor of Scientific American

November 7, 2024 • 9:30 am

I’ve often criticized Laura Helmuth’s editorship of Scientific American, as she seems to have transformed what was once America’s best popular-science magazine into a propaganda bulletin for progressive Leftism. Yes, the magazine still has ideology-free science articles, but more and more often the “science” articles are polluted by ideology (see here for my many posts criticizing the content of the magazine).

Michael Shermer, who wrote a monthly column for the magazine that began in 2001, was fired 18 years later after a run of 214 consecutive essays, apparently for espousing uncomfortable truths. He documented his deteriorating relationship with the magazine in a Skeptic column called “Scientific American goes woke: A case study in how identity politics poisons science.” If you don’t want to review all my posts at the first link, Shermer’s essay summarizes the problem.  I will point out a related incident invoving me and a bunch of other evolutionary biologists who wrote a letter to the magazine criticizing an article charging biologist E. O. Wilson with racism. (Mendel was also accused of racism, though there’s not the slightest evidence that the monk wrote anything about race.) Despite the egregious and tendentious nature of the article, written by Monica R. McLemore, our letter was rejected.  That was expected, since it flouted the magazine’s politics.

I pin much of the decline of Scientific American, and its increasing embrace of progressive ideology, to editor Laura Helmuth.  And nothing documents her fervent embrace of politics better than her petulant reaction to the election of Donald Trump 0n Tuesday. I didn’t like the election results, either, but Helmuth had a public meltdown that was noticed by a lot of people, including the Free Press.

One good thing about free speech, first pointed out by Mill in On Liberty, is that it identifies views of people who may have kept them hidden, and even if you don’t like those views you now know who holds them.  In this case I share Helmuth’s distress at the election results, but there are ways and ways of reacting, particularly if you’re the editor of a magazine which, breaking with 175 years of journalistic neutrality, first endorsed Joe Biden for President in 2020 and then Kamala Harris this year. Well, Sci. Am. won one but lost this one, and Helmuth threw a public tantrum on BlueSky, as you see below.

The tweet below is from  Benjamin Ryan, a health and science writer who’s published in the Atlantic, the NYT, the Washington Post, the Guardian, and other places (a similar tweet was issued by Michael Shermer, who called Scientific American “a shill for far-left progressives.” He retweeted something put up by data scientist Kevin Bass.

She first apologizes for her generation X as being “full of fucking fascists”  As the Free Press pointed out in its morning newsletter, “Fifty-four percent of Gen X voted Trump.”

The second tweet speaks for itself, “Solidarity to everybody whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high school classmates are celebrating early results [presumably Trump moving ahead of Harris] because fuck them to the moon and back.”  Unfortunately, the antecedent of the people who are supposed to be “fucked to the moon” is unclear, but she presumably means those backing Trump.

The third tweet continues the meltdown: “Every four years I remember why I left Indiana (where I grew up) and remember why I respect the people who stayed and are trying to make it less racist and sexist. The moral arc of the universe isn’t going to bend itself.”  The “moral arc” trope is from Martin Luther King, Jr. The whole quote imputes Harris’s loss to racism and sexism, and implies that Indiana is full of people with those vices.

The entire tweet is just an ill-tempered and unwise outburst—a tantrum—taking aim at all Trump supporters as mean, dumb, racist, and sexist, as well as fascists. This is not good optics for the magazine, but it does explain its increasing progressive slant. Realizing the bad optics, Helmuth removed the tweets, but it was too late. The Internet is forever.  I didn’t see these directly, but heard about them from several readers as well as The Free Press. Currently, Helmuth’s tweets are protected, even though she follows me. I have no interest in requesting access.

Helmuth later added one request to the tweet-set before deleting them all, requesting solutions to what is presumably the Scientific American staff suffering from a lack of consoling hot chocolate, puppies, and Lego sets (that’s what I’d advise her).

Yes, of course many of us are distressed by the election results. Does any centrist or liberal really want to live through the next four years? We know what is in store: lies, lawsuits, braggadocio, and assurance that “America has entered its golden age,” not to mention the partition of Ukraine. But we gain nothing by demonizing all our opponents as fascists and telling them to self-copulate to the Moon. We’ll see how much bipartisanship is in store in the next term—perhaps not much—but right now I don’t feel like throwing tantrums or calling names. I suggest living with the election results, perhaps criticizing and analyzing them for a bit, but then move on, doing whatever political acts you think would improve the country. My prediction about Scientific American, though, is that iut will not move on. Its strong leanings toward progressive liberalism that border on the unhinged is surely something that alienates centrist readers from not only the magazine, but also from science itself. I don’t think Helmuth realizes that her and her magazine’s politics has helped forge the problem she wails about.

Here’s a screenshot of Ryan’s following tweet (hard to embed from Twitter)

And here are a few readers’ comments, one from Shermer, that I found apposite. I’ve used some screenshots of tweets since it’s impossible to embed them without repeating the tweet that spawned them. Click tweets to see them.

A video showing Harris as a Libra arguing about what to watch on television:

From Shermer (the link is to a Qullette podcast):

To quote Lenin, “What is to be done?” Well, I wouldn’t subscribe to the magazine, but everyone has to make their own choice. But I remain amazed that the owners of Scientific American continue to let it circle the drain (actually, half of it is already in the drain).

57 thoughts on “A social-media tantrum from the editor of Scientific American”

  1. I suppose “sigh” is all there is as reply from me.

    I hope quoting most of Shermer’s eXcommunication is ok :

    MS:
    “I wrote a monthly column for Scientific American for 18 years and could not have been prouder to have been part of that 150-year old standard bearer of science and the search for truth. Those days are gone. @sciam is now a shill for far left woke progressives. ”

    I happened to see this, so I add : Cliff Pickover says :

    “Let’s reminisce on our favorite columnists from Scientific American’s past. Among others, I loved:

    1. Martin Gardner
    2. Douglas Hofstadter
    3. A. K. Dewdney
    4. Ian Stewart
    5. Michael Shermer
    ”

    … I think there’s lots of great writers etc. out there to carry that torch … wink wink (it’s WEIT! E.g. How ’bout today’s Readers’ Wildlife Photos by Athayde Tonhasca Júnior!)

    1. Yes: both the columnists AND the authors of the articles during the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. They were actual bench scientists and engineers who wrote well. Cannot remember exactly when that started to change in favor of science writers, some whom knew their stuff, but others provided a weak and empty and sometimes factually incorrect article.

    2. I highly recommend Martin Gardner’s “Musings of a Philosophical Scrivener.” I’ve read it through at least three times. It’s about time to read it again.

  2. As a leftist anti-woke I see a couple other problems in addition to the obvious fact that a scientific magazine should not take political sides (let alone childish ones).
    1) this attitude shows there is no humility nor self-reflection
    2) this suggests that this kind of people won’t question if they could do something better (which implies democrats will continue to lose and scientific magazines will continue to drift away from science)
    3) they will probably double down on the very same problematic attitudes as a “reaction” to Trump term, instead of trying to listen to his supporters, which is the very first step needed in order to speak with them, which is a pre-requisite to change their minds
    4) this will inevitably further alienate people both from science and leftism. How will you argue that climate change is real and vaccines work if you have done all you could to appear partisan and ensure people won’t listen to you?

    1. Re your point 4: if you publish stories that claim sex is a continuum and that half the country is fascist (especially those damn Hoosiers), it’s going to be hard to convince people that your claims about other politically-charged issues such climate change or COVID are not also false and politically biased.

    1. Agreed. I don’t understand the criticism of “Trump is going to betray Ukraine” by forcing them to accept a ceasefire and partition. As opposed to …?

      Ever since the vaunted Spring Offensive of 2023 got nowhere at all, bogging down in fortified Russian lines, it’s been clear that that is the realistic outcome. Russia has the larger economy and population; Putin has made it clear that he’ll keep this going whatever; and meanwhile the Ukrainian army is utterly exhausted; they are gradually losing territory; they are losing a 1000 men a month, and young Ukrainian men are leaving the country rather than be conscripted. So the alternatives are:

      (1) A ceasefire and partition along something like current lines. (Noting that at least 30% of the Donbas population would likely prefer to be Russian anyway.)

      (2) NATO declaring war on Russia (really? are you serious?)

      (3) Ongoing war, Ukraine losing many more soldiers, and likely losing more territory, and then option (1) sometime in the future.

      I’m not going to fault Trump for thinking that option 1 is realistically the best option at this point. Anything else is putting hopeful ideology above reality.

      1. (4) The Russian people and/or Russian generals rise up and force a stoppage and withdrawal from Ukraine. This may also lead to the overthrow of Putin.

        I figure this hopeful outcome is unlikely, but hey, its as plausible as #2.

        1. A lot of Russians have fled abroad. Not enough to stop Putin but perhaps enough dissenters to make opposition difficult.

          Plus Putin wouldn’t hesitate to take a firm line, including prison or outright murder.

          1. Have any Ukrainians fled abroad? Have any Ukrainians been forcefully conscripted into the military? Is Washington/the West OK with that?

        2. That will never happen. Russia has a deep-seated need for a layer of insulation around itself following their experiences in the Great Patriotic War. Giving up in Ukraine means NATO at the front door. This is not acceptable, esp. to the Russian military.

          1. We should stop thinking only about what is acceptable for Russia. Other countries also have rights.

      2. Decided to respond for the benefit of a broader situational awareness for other readers.

        1) the russian (sic) aggression against Ukraine is not merely “russian sphere of influence issue” (as Obama perceived it), it is russian aggression against the US and NATO; Ukraine is a mere stop on their way to the shores of Lisbon, or so they thought. [For references, eg, look up 2022-ish Julia Davis’s translations of russian TV explaining their goals to the russian public, youtube or her Daily Beast posts];

        2) assuming that partitioning will stop with Ukrainian territory is naive and/or childish [no offense; the visible lack of urgency or understanding from the State Department in this regard is ghastly]. This is akin to thinking the leopard will only eat somebody else’s face. Once the partition is done, the next stop is Poland and Baltics, if only on their way to Germany (which appears to be ready to preemptively surrender, but for the lack of borders);

        3) the lack of people [ok, State Department and DOD officials, really] who realistically comprehend the situation and that Putin will not stop at Ukraine is incomprehensible to me. My neighbor does not need to understand long-term foreign policy and various implications, but those officials do, it’s their job, literally. The fact is that the US did sign the Budapest memorandum; the slow-walking of bare-minimum support that the current admin was doing was very bad; however, reneging on its promises completely will be even worse, for US, and the world 🙁

      3. Maybe we should let Ukraine decider what it wants and give our fullest support. Russia getting anything out of this constitutes a catastrophic defeat for the West because Putin will wait a few yours and do it again with another vulnerable country.

        If you are staying the partition of Ukraine is inevitable, you are saying we already lost. And note that, if 30% of the Donbas population would prefer Russia (unlikely, I think – however could we possibly know) it means 70% do not want Russia and 100% would be condemned to living in a kleptocracy.

        This talk of defeat is utterly depressing, but given America’s collective stupidity in voting for a convicted felon rapist Putin puppet, I guess it’s all there is.

        1. Yes. Given we can totally afford it, I say we give our Ukrainian friends at the sharp edge of civilization every single bit of help and money we can.
          Let them – they are a democracy – decide what trade-offs they want to make with the “Ruski Mir”(Russian World) currently killing them.

          We’ve seen what Russian World looks like up close now. We’ve seen Ukraine, Sth Ossetia, Abkhazia, Trans Dneister. Previously, most E. bloc countries can attests to the magic and sexiness of being vassal states of Russia. Before that, nearly any country ending in “stan”. This is an old story.
          I wrote about it 2 years ago. https://themoderatevoice.com/putins-rolodex-of-fake-states/

          You know, after the USSR we convinced ourselves “Russia is OK, they just got sick with communism for 70 years.” This delusion – which I fell for – worked for awhile.
          Turns out … nup. They’re just ….. Russians.

          If you’re curious and .. hehhee… your assiduous reading of my column isn’t enough… hehehe… seriously do consider the following on Ukraine:

          I can recommend the works of Stephen Kotkin and an excellent podcast called “Perun” by a fellow Aussie, to keep an eye on the situation. Perun is well versed in military logistics and is widely respected in both the military and diplomatic spheres. He is on every Sunday on youtube. He does other conflicts but there’s no better use of your research time. For war nerds and those interested in military financing, alliances, logistics and tactics there is no better use of your Sunday morning.
          I’m going to devote a column to this bc so many Americans still watch TV. My readers will know better.

          D.A.
          NYC
          column:https://themoderatevoice.com/author/david-anderson/

    2. I’d say it was never not going to happen once Bill Clinton disarmed Ukraine with the false promise to defend it (the Budapest Memorandum), and then his successors decided to keep Russia happy by letting it prey on Ukraine as it wishes.

      Biden’s administration really took the side of Russia, giving only token aid with horrible delays, forbidding Ukraine to use even this aid effectively, forbidding NATO allies to give Ukraine more aid, and leaking sensitive information to Russia. In late 2022, according to Woodward’s book, Gerasimov threatened nuclear war if Russia lost, and Milley reassured him that this the USA would not let this happen. According to Ukrainian general Romanenko, the plans for the 2023 Ukrainian offensive were leaked by the USA and so Russia could thwart them by destroying the Kakhovka dam. The only successful Ukrainian military operation after late 2022 was the incursion into Kursk, of which Americans were not told.

      I have a hope, however, that once Putin invades other European countries, the resulting WWIII will lead to Russia’s disintegration, and Ukraine will be restored.

  5. Some person or persons hired her and keep her on. The magazine has owners who are ultimately to blame. I’m guessing they are satisfied with the circulation numbers and that’s all they care about.

    1. Jerry said “I am amazed that the owners…”. Yep therein lies the rub, denise, just north of laura Helmuth with whomever hired her and keeps her. It appears that SciAm these days is owned by SpringerNature which in turn is owned by some other conglomerate. So there is no line of responsibility that might in any way support scientific integrity of the magazine. It is a capitalist money making entity…part of a complex system such that the allusion to science in its name carries no more meaning than the “express checkout” at grocery store does to speediness.

  6. I don’t think Helmuth realizes that her and her magazine’s politics has helped forge the problem she wails about.

    Self-awareness isn’t something the fascist-left does.

    1. If we’re going to condemn or mock the progressive left recklessly throwing around insults like “fascists” I think we have an obligation to avoid doing the same

      1. Agreed. Words have meanings, and tossing them about aa generalized epithets is unhelpful.

        That said, if fascism is:

        a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

        [‘kipedia], I have to say that it sounds to me a lot more like one ‘side’ than the other in this context.

      3. I don’t really see what’s wrong with calling fascists “fascists.”

        Read any definition of fascism. Trump has a lot of fascist traits. Why pussy-foot around it?

        1. So does the Democratic establishment, for that matter. Compelled speech is a fascist policy, and identity politics is reminiscent not even of the milder Italian fascism but rather of German Nazism. And the best and brightest “progressive” Ivy League students with their support for Jew-murderers looked to me like a reincarnation of Hitlerjugend.

          But hurling epithets does not bring us anywhere.

        2. I think we need better, less lazy words that mean different things to different people and become just epithets.
          I never ever use the word in my writing for that reason.

          I take it (often, not always) as a red flag the speaker doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

          THis is what happens when we get our historical ideas from the History Channel and our only conception of evil are aggressive Germans 90 years ago.

          D.A.
          NYC
          column: https://themoderatevoice.com/author/david-anderson/ (no F word.)

  7. “I remain amazed that the owners of Scientific American continue to let it circle the drain.”

    Owned by Spring-Nature where implicit bias and structural racism are the covariates that explain ~everything.

  8. I voted for Harris and am deeply disappointed in the results of the election. However I am also disappointed in this type of immature public reaction by anyone, much less a person with the responsibility and influence she has. Many of us have emotions and thoughts that we have enough sense to keep private and that inspire us do some self-reflection.

    I believe these types of positions her publication espouses and such petulant public tantrums are a part of the reason Democrats were trounced. On the other hand, Trump and his followers make so many viscious emotional statements including petulant temper tantrums, my theory may be incorrect.

    1. Not a US citizen.
      I’ve had an little look on X at what the Maga Rep. faithful are saying and it’s not pretty.
      Obama is getting both barrels for being the puppet master, conspiracies are facts, this sort of thing…no mention of Biden.
      The “old man” might have done better than Harris in the end even if he lost.
      Democracy has had it’s say but I’m sad for Ukraine.

  9. I can’t help but give some sympathy to Helmuth’s “meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high school classmates” back in Indiana who voted Republican. She knows who they are; they know who they are; probably everyone in town knows who they are. I don’t think they’re going to like being used as a negative metaphor for their generation. Probably seems kinda personal.

  10. It looks like Laura Helmuth has thought better of her tantrum, claiming (unconvincingly) that the posts didn’t reflect her beliefs, but were just an expression of “shock and confusion”. See here.

    (Though she wouldn’t have been shocked and confused had she been participating in the mainstream discussion on X, rather than inhabiting a bubble on Bluesky 🙂 )

    1. “I am committed to civil communication and editorial objectivity.” Twitter wags are ascribing this to the Springer-Nature legal team. Has a sort of hostage video feel. Someone should do a wellness check.

    2. I would like to be forgiving, but given the history of the magazine over the last five years, it is hard not to think that she WAS expressing her opinion. Further it is nearly impossible to believe that she “respects and values people across the political spectrum” or is committed to editorial objectivity. The editorial slant is definitely progressive Left, i.e., woke. If Helmuth were committed to objectivity, she would have published the letter a bunch of evolutionary biologists wrote criticizing publication of an article calling E. O. Wilson a racist.

      Short take: she is trying to save her reputation and job.

  11. I have my own set of ‘trigger words’ and at the top of that list is ‘solidarity’. I approach any use of that word with extra caution. It might be used properly as a union of interests among members of a group, it might be used ironically, or it might be a one sided claim to allyship.

  12. Laura Helmuth and her politicized “science” are part of what drove voters to Trump. The Democrats can’t seem to correct their excesses.

    It’s the same in Canada. Trudeau is a Biden-style leftist who’s become increasingly unpopular.

  13. “She first apologizes for her generation X as being “full of fucking fascists””

    Interestingly, Gen X is far **less** likely to support, cheer, and defend actual murderous fascists like Hamas and Hezbollah, compared to say, younger cohorts…

    2. +1
      I find it insulting that terms like fascist, racist, and nazi are thrown about so easily. I’m politically independent, and very libertarian, but would probably be called each of those names by the left based on how my views line up with others who they call those names, and it offends me greatly.

      Try substituting the phrase “people who don’t agree with me” for those words when they’re used and it is maybe more accurate. You don’t agree with me, thus you are as evil as people who physically maimed, mutilated, tortured, and murdered Jews in Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s. The other implication is that as a result you should face the same punishment as those people. This is vile hateful garbage, and demeaning to a large part of our populace. Not exactly inclusive either.

  14. Dear Jerry, or anyone else who might know, is there any good place to email a letter of concern that she remains editor? The owners say.

    I believe the ideological capture of science is a huge problem and that Helmuth needs to go.

    Thanks!

  15. With the “blame game” fully underway, the progressive left need only look in the mirror. Their excesses have done so much to damage their own cause, but sadly they’ll never own it. They can rail about “fucking fascists” all they want, but until they get a grip and let go of their fantasies they’ll continue to lose. And drag us all down in another direction.

    Unfortunately the demise of SciAm is hardly singular. With very intentional timing I suspect, the FFRF, an organization I have enthusiastically supported for many years, today published a blog piece by an author named Kat Grant entitled “What Is a Woman?”. After a long and highly misleading argument, they (their desired pronoun) arrive at their conclusion: “All of this is to say that there is an answer to the question “what is a woman” […]. A woman is whoever she says she is.”

    FFRF has been going this way for a while, and it’s getting worse. I thought their mission was to free us from religion. Instead they are now promoting it, in this form. They don’t seem to recognize the irony.

    Anyone looking for reasons why Trump won need look no further. Sure, you can point to other things like immigration, but the woke madness feels like the killer blow.

  16. She is what she accuses others of being….meanest, dumbest, and most bigoted.. She should lose her job for the comments she made on social media.

  17. +1
    I find it insulting that terms like fascist, racist, and nazi are thrown about so easily. I’m politically independent, and very libertarian, but would probably be called each of those names by the left based on how my views line up with others who they call those names, and it offends me greatly.

    Try substituting the phrase “people who don’t agree with me” for those words when they’re used and then add the emotion that those words signify. You don’t agree with me, thus you are as evil as people who physically maimed, mutilated, tortured, and murdered Jews in Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s. This is vile hateful garbage, and dehumanizing to a large part of our populace.
    When you are trained to hate people for their political views, you ignore or demean what they have to say, and are in fact under the control of those who tell you the other side is evil. I think that’s the whole point.

  18. None of this is news to me. I subscribed to Sci Am in the late 70s, and was a reader long before I subscribed. The magazine took a decided leftward turn during the Reagan administration. Someone obviously thought using a science magazine as a platform for anti-conservatism and (ironically) a pro-Soviet stance was a good idea. Sometime in the late 80s I stopped subscribing. The only thing they publish of any value today are the special issues, at least when the subjects aren’t amenable to lectures about climate change, race, and social justice. Mind you, I was much younger back then, but the soft-headedness that developed in the mag’s editorial slant and infiltrated it’s “science” articles (which I also noticed were being “dumbed down”) was obvious even to this young, but relatively intelligent, reader.

  19. As a German I am really annoyed with the inflationary use of “fascist’. It’s a cheap tactic that abuses real suffering and the remembrance to score quick political points. I have tried to register a cultural appropriation claim, but I am both white and a non-believer (in cultural appropriation) and therefore my claim was rejected.
    Check your US privilege!

  20. There is only one issue that is totally screwing up the world, & that is Global Heating, & that this issue seems so low down in people’s priorities, gets so little mention here, & is such a point of attack on the environment from idiotic Republicans, is very depressing.

    ‘Drill, drill, drill’…

    By the way, as has been said, by comedy writer Paul B Davies, “The prospect of RFK being in charge of America’s health is a reminder that there’s no vaccine against stupidity, & even if there were it wouldn’t work because the stupid people would refuse to take it.”

    Trump is a disaster for science, & the use of evidence for decision making… I only occasionally get SciAm, & I am always aware that in reading any periodical or paper, one has to be aware that editors may have an agenda – ie Murdoch papers as one example, so I think I can ignore ideological bits. I suggest allowing a cooling down before going on any social media!

    1. Once upon a time there were riots over the new vaccine for smallpox. We don’t see that concern now as the rioters all tended to die of smallpox. Perhaps the same kind of evolution in action will occur with those who decline modern vaccines, but the shame of it is that many will be babies at the mercy of their ill-informed parents.

  21. Appeal to the moral arc of history, or declaring yourself to be on the right side of history, is no different than claiming God to be on your side. It’s just a way of declaring your stance to be the correct one.

  22. RFK and Ukraine are the big worries I have for the next 4 years. I’m not worried about getting bored as Trump is, to be fair, the genius comedian of our times.

    I doubt he can get a lot of things “done”, including deporting millions. The mechanisms of the law don’t work like he thinks they do. Like “ENDING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ON DAY ONE” – quote. Requires a constitutional amendment.
    I slept through some of first year law but I remember THAT. hehe

    Don’t forget he is a salesman, a real estate salesman, a NYC real estate salesman – a triple layer of dishonesty. His yappings aren’t policy proposals, just sales lines.
    Remember last time? That’s why I’m pretty sanguine about the future. Unlike 2016.
    And he surrounds himself with idiots and crackpots.
    Some can do harm: Lightheiser in commerce, RFK anywhere near anything etc. And that crazy pillow maniac. Oh. Damn. There’s a *lot* of freaks in that circus.

    I voted, nose pinched and unhappily for Kamala even though I honestly can’t stand her and think the Dems have gone MAGA-like in a separate direction with woke.
    Honestly, if they’d have offered me Romney or even Nicky Hailey, I probably would have cast my (useless New York City) vote for them.

    D.A.
    NYC
    column for more of my mordant genius: https://themoderatevoice.com/author/david-anderson/ 😉

    1. I don’t buy this Isolationist stuff, makes no sense.
      America’s success means it too big and engaged everywhere to ignore the world..
      So [logically] he’ll be doing NO favors for.. Putin, Iran, PRC etc
      Giving Ukraine to P, day one, would look shocking to the world.
      Make US look weak not great. Russia a vile 10 lb weakling.
      Musk important here?

  23. Interesting. Risky but both ways? Will not be the same Trump?
    Off an historic blinder I sense the whole vengeance thing might go.
    Maybe now about a legacy.
    He has a chance to write real history here, for democracy oddly enough, everywhere.
    He’s grounded, wants results. Not an ideologue, like most of the Left.
    Musk may be v important. He will not want to crash anything. And Susan Wiles!
    I don’t buy this Isolationist stuff, makes no sense.
    America’s success means it too big and engaged everywhere to ignore the world..
    So [logically!] he’ll be doing NO favors for.. Putin, Iran, PRC etc
    If he wants to MAGA!

Comments are closed.