A Line in the Sand, that would be nice, too bad Taco Man is at the other end of the stick.
Skip to content
Posts in Category: purple
Betting Against The Economy, why would Trump do that?
/
RSS Feed
It’s one thing for ordinary investors to bet against the economy—it’s another when those in power do it. Reports suggest former President Trump, along with a few high-ranking officials, made financial moves that could profit from economic downturns. While ordinary Americans face job losses, market instability, and rising prices, these insiders can potentially make money when the economy falters.
This isn’t new. During the early days of COVID-19, several U.S. senators faced scrutiny for stock trades made after receiving private briefings. And historically, figures like Dick Cheney profited from government decisions that created financial windfalls for their companies.
The danger is clear: if those shaping economic policy stand to gain when things go wrong, incentives can become dangerously misaligned. Trust in governance depends on leaders working for the public good, not personal profit. Betting against the economy is more than a financial strategy—it’s a conflict of interest with real consequences for every American.
When leaders or high-ranking officials make financial moves that profit from economic decline, it undermines the very foundation of public trust. Reports suggest former President Trump and some government officials may have engaged in activities that allow them to benefit if the economy falters. These actions are troubling because while ordinary Americans face layoffs, inflation, and market volatility, insiders with privileged information can stand to gain.
This isn’t a new phenomenon. In 2020, during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, several U.S. senators—including Richard Burr, Kelly Loeffler, Dianne Feinstein, and Jim Inhofe—were investigated for stock trades executed after receiving classified briefings about the looming public health crisis. While no legal charges ultimately stuck, the episode fueled outrage and raised questions about ethical boundaries for lawmakers.
Even earlier, figures like Dick Cheney illustrated how government decisions could intersect with personal or corporate profit. Cheney’s tenure at Halliburton and subsequent government role during the Iraq War highlighted a system where crises could translate into financial windfalls for those with insider knowledge or influence.
The broader problem is structural: if policymakers benefit when the economy or public welfare suffers, their incentives can conflict with the public good. Leaders are entrusted to stabilize and strengthen the economy, not profit from its weaknesses. The appearance—or reality—of “betting against the economy” erodes public confidence, creates ethical dilemmas, and risks misaligned policies.
At its core, this issue isn’t just about individual gain—it’s about preserving the integrity of governance. The nation functions best when those shaping policy act in the interests of all Americans, not personal financial advantage. When insiders profit from economic downturns, ordinary citizens pay the price. Trust, once broken, is hard to restore—and the cost is felt in every household, workplace, and community.
Share this:
QR Codes to Share
Please share the codes, help us build traffic and spead our message. Remember, we fact check our messages and commentaries.
SANITY Save America Now, Integrity, Truth and You – No Hate and not radical, just a good common approach to solving our problems.
Share this:
The Most Important Political Move You Can Make
/
RSS Feed
Check the Values and the Agenda of the Political Party You Think You Are
A long time ago, in a land far, far away, I found out my father was a Republican. And if he was a Republican, well, that’s what I was too.
For decades I voted the party line. There was only one box I shaded in, and it was the one that said “Republican.” After a while, I started to actually think about who I was voting for, not just what. I began making independent decisions — something most of us never do. But I’ll admit, on the issues I wasn’t up on, I still voted the party.
This little note about Charlton Heston — one of the actors I admired — makes sense to me. Not because he changed from being a Democrat to a Republican, but because of why he changed:
“By the 1980s, Heston supported gun rights and changed his political affiliation from Democratic to Republican. When asked why, he replied, ‘I didn’t change. The Democratic Party changed.’ In 1987, he first registered as a Republican.”
Now, let’s take a step back — because this isn’t about Democrats or Republicans. It’s about us.
When I look at MAGA and what they’ve done to the GOP, I feel despair. They’re so extreme I can’t feel ownership of that party anymore. Over the years I’ve probably become more liberal, or maybe I’ve just admitted it to myself. Either way, I don’t consider myself a Republican — not if being Republican means I have to be MAGA.
I have friends on the other side of the fence — long-time Democrats who are not “woke.” We’ve let the extremes take over on both sides.
So, back to the most important political move you can make: discover who you are, not who you thought you were.
There are plenty of political-leaning questionnaires online — some good, some just trying to get your money. Take a couple of them. Don’t be afraid of the labels. They don’t really matter. What matters is that they can give you some insight and help you find a direction based on your beliefs — not Bubba’s, and not Karen from the HOA.
Once you’ve found your center, celebrate. And if you feel generous for the push, I drink Jim Beam.
Share this:
Trumps Line in The Sand
/
RSS Feed
So there you have it, short, sour and simple. You do know we have enabled comments. If you want to spew hate, stay away. And that doesn’t matter which side you hate. If you want to discuss solutions, then welcome.
Share this:
Fires Everywhere
Daily Ramble: Fires Everywhere
I keep coming back to analogies when I think about Trump. The simplest? A kid playing with matches. The question is, is he just a foolish kid with a new toy, or an experienced arsonist starting little fires on purpose to keep us distracted?
Whether accidental or deliberate, there are too many fires to do anything but run around putting them out. Take the DOJ. We hear of resignations — principled people saying, “Enough. We won’t be part of your crimes. We took an oath.” Sounds noble. But in reality, it’s functioning more like a stay of execution for Trump.
As more lawsuits pile up against him and his executive orders, everything in the courts gets delayed. The DOJ says it lacks the lawyers to handle the cases, so courts grant more time. And that extra time is a gift to Trump: he keeps ignoring injunctions, moving his agenda forward. By the time he’s forced to stop, either no one cares anymore or he’s already achieved what he wanted.
Today’s ramble is sparked by Trump’s federalizing of Washington, D.C. Is this just a crime-fighting measure? Or is it the first step toward martial law, holding onto power by claiming the country “needs” him — or by removing the barriers altogether? Make no mistake: he does not want to leave office. Who spends $200 million on a ballroom nobody wants unless they plan on sticking around to use it?
And this isn’t a one-track operation. Trump can multitask chaos. He’s in a panic as the Epstein mess keeps unraveling — a mess he helped create. Maxwell is suddenly being moved to a minimum-security prison after allegedly threatening Trump. Gossip says she’ll get work-release privileges. Why? Because Trump wants her silent. She must have documentation he hasn’t found yet; otherwise, she’d have “committed suicide” by now.
The danger here is losing focus. This isn’t just about Trump and Epstein. Or Trump and the DOJ. Or Trump and martial law. It’s about the endgame — and what we can do to prevent it. In our earlier editorial “Okay, He’s Been Impeached, Now What?” we explored the idea of power passing to a bunch of nobodies. Not comforting.
Would removing Trump solve the problem? Or is it better to strip him of power but leave him in place? Honestly, I don’t know. What’s clear is that he’s surrounded himself with spineless loyalists — spineless because otherwise they’d be a threat to him.
That leaves us with a bigger question: if we ever clean this mess up, who fills the vacuum? Replacing all the Trump loyalists means nothing if we don’t have sane, competent leadership ready to step in. I call myself “purple” — a moderate — and even in my own family, we don’t have an answer that satisfies us. The Woke movement is as dangerous as the MAGA movement.
So, who do we start grooming to bring sanity back? Maybe it’s time for you — the Magnificent Seven who actually follow these posts — to start weighing in. Leave comments. Start discussions. And let’s try to do it without hate. The country’s going to need that.
Share this:
WOKE – Got Lost
/
RSS Feed
When Woke Became a Weapon
A prime example is what just happened to Sydney Sweeney and American Eagle Jeans.
And naturally, the internet lit up — because what’s more American than a blonde woman in tight jeans under a waving flag?
To some, it was patriotic.
To others, it was white nationalism in high-waisted denim.
Because apparently, if you’re blonde, busty, and not apologizing for it, you’re now one step away from a book burning.
Like MAGA, the Woke just became angry, if it wasn’t their way, it was wrong, so wrong it was as affront. They had to have demonstrations, they needed to shout, when all they really had to do was calm down. Not everything is a personal attack.
Good movements can lose their way when they become obsessed with control. The ideals that began as a call to conscience slowly hardened into a set of dogmas, and then into a kind of cultural authoritarianism.
In the name of inclusion, speech was policed. In the name of justice, individuals were shamed, fired, or silenced for using the wrong word, asking the wrong question, or simply disagreeing. Forgiveness was replaced with punishment. Grace became weakness. The only safe position was total, uncritical agreement.
Soon, people began to notice that the movement had stopped persuading — and started enforcing.
Woke culture turned into something that often felt more like a religion than a political cause: complete with rituals, heresies, and moral purges. Even longtime progressives — writers, professors, comedians, feminists, even civil rights leaders — found themselves under fire for stepping slightly outside the ever-shifting lines of acceptable thought.
Worse, the obsession with language and symbolism began to overshadow real progress. Elite institutions performed grand gestures of virtue signaling while doing little to address deeper problems like poverty, housing, education, and opportunity. Identity became the central lens for everything, while class — the great unifier of struggle — was pushed aside.
As the movement turned inward, it lost public support. Ordinary people, even sympathetic ones, began to walk away — not because they didn’t believe in justice, but because they didn’t recognize the movement anymore.
Share this:
WOKE – In the Begining
/
RSS Feed
The Heart of the Movement
There was a time not long ago when the progressive Left captured the moral imagination of an entire generation. The promises were simple, powerful, and overdue: treat people with dignity, include those left out, right the wrongs of history, and build a more compassionate society.
The movement that would later be labeled “Woke” began as something far more grounded: a call to awareness. Awareness of how racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of exclusion had quietly embedded themselves in the systems we live under. Schools, police departments, housing, healthcare, hiring — none of it was ever neutral, and people began to wake up to that.
Young people especially were drawn to the energy. They saw injustice and wanted to fix it, now — not later. They marched, they organized, they read and listened and learned. They believed that progress wasn’t just possible — it was urgent. Many institutions, from universities to corporations, responded with new policies and pledges. In those early days, the moral center of the Left was strong: driven by empathy, energized by truth, and guided by a desire to include, not exclude.
This was the Left at its best — idealistic, honest, impatient in the right ways, and serious about improving the lives of others. No reasonable person could deny the importance of what they were trying to do.
But over time, something changed.
Share this:
WOKE – What It Can Be
/
RSS Feed
Growing Beyond Woke
There’s a better way forward.
The solution isn’t to abandon the values of justice, inclusion, and equity — it’s to grow up with them. Maturity doesn’t mean compromise with cruelty; it means knowing the difference between real harm and honest disagreement. It means building bridges, not burning them. It means remembering that people are flawed, not evil — and that progress is measured by outcomes, not slogans.
The future of the Left — the sane, principled Left — will be made by those who:
-
Refuse to dehumanize people they disagree with
-
Embrace open dialogue instead of purity tests
-
Fight for fairness without becoming fanatics
-
Focus on policy over posturing
-
Reclaim empathy as a strength, not a weakness
If the original Woke moment was a kind of moral adolescence — angry, idealistic, sensitive to hypocrisy — then this next phase must be adulthood. Clear-eyed. Humble. Strategic. Compassionate.
Warranty Not Included
Warranty Not Included
Imagine if politicians had to back their campaign promises the way companies back a product. If the car doesn’t run, you get a refund. If the fridge dies, you get a replacement. But in politics? Once the votes are counted, the warranty disappears.
The reality is that campaign promises aren’t legally binding — they’re more like advertising slogans. Courts protect them as free speech, not contracts. That’s why we hear sweeping pledges about fixing healthcare, cutting taxes, or “draining the swamp,” but see little accountability when those promises vanish.
We’ll never pass a law requiring politicians to deliver on every word. But we can demand accountability in other ways: watchdog groups tracking promises, media holding leaders to their own words, and voters refusing to reward empty hype.
Because in the end, democracy shouldn’t come with fine print. If you make a promise to the people, the least you can do is try to keep it.
Share this:
Like this: