Ask A Genius 1312: Trump’s Return, Musk’s Influence, and America’s Alarming Political Surrender

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Rick Rosner: So, as with the first time Trump became president, it took a lot of unusual circumstances. The first time around, he had about 40% approval. He lost the popular vote by nearly three million but won the Electoral College. There was confirmed Russian interference in the election, though the extent to which it influenced the outcome remains debated.

This time around, he barely lost the popular vote, but a dramatic event—the attempted assassination that grazed his ear—helped solidify his image. He popped up after being tackled to the ground, raising his fist in the air and yelling, “Fight, fight, fight!”—even though he’s the same person who avoided the Vietnam draft with medical deferments, specifically for bone spurs.

And they barely secured the trifecta: the presidency, the House, and the Senate. Plus, they still have a conservative Supreme Court majority, even though most Americans voted against them across those branches in total votes.  The exact numbers, but I haven’t checked whether more Americans voted for Democrats in the House overall than for Republicans, and the same goes for the Senate.

So, anyway, there’s some unlikelihood there. They are governing as if—I don’t have anything particularly original to say—this is what everybody wants, even though they know it’s not what most Americans want. So, they are pushing as much policy as possible, as quickly as possible, before the opposition, which is still disorganized, can mount an effective response.

Trump has been a bullshitter his entire life. He doesn’t have strategies so much as he has behaviours that have been reinforced over decades of getting away with things—saying whatever he wants at the moment, making things up, acting as if they are true, and not even seeming to care whether they are or not.

I don’t have anything super insightful to add. I’ve worked with pathological liars before, and they operate by skating from moment to moment, thinking, “What do I say right now to keep this going?” And since most people don’t regularly encounter such individuals, they don’t have built-in defences against them. That’s why these people get away with it.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Are you saying we don’t have an immune system against bullshit?

Rosner: Yes. Because most people—including, probably, many who have psychopathic tendencies but don’t act on them—tend to tell the truth because it’s simply easier. Normal people mostly say to the truth because it simplifies life, and they have some moral framework that guides them. It all works together.

It all pushes in the same direction: don’t constantly calculate some manipulative angle; figuring out what lie will give you a short-term advantage. Live your life, do your work, and be straightforward with people—except for small white lies:  “Does this dress make me look fat?” “No, you look great in everything.”

Except for those small, harmless white lies, people are primarily truthful. They might lie about their weight or estimate numbers on their tax return where they don’t know the exact amount, but the IRS is stretched thin and can’t scrutinize every discrepancy. Still, people are generally honest because it’s easier to keep track of and feels like the right thing to do.

And even people who don’t have a moral underpinning are usually truthful because, even for someone who’s a psychopath, it’s often easier to tell the truth at the moment than to figure out what bullshit might be beneficial. It’s a hassle to lie, even if you have no qualms about lying.

For example, I was at the gym and walked up to a machine at the same time as another guy. He said, “Yes, I’m gonna use this.” Then he asked, “Were you on this?”

For a second, I thought, “Fuck him. He’s going to take a long time.” It’s bullshit because I could be on it and done quickly. But I wasn’t going to ask, “Can you work in?” Then I thought, “Should I lie and say I was on it?”

No, because that would make things more awkward. He might say, “No, you weren’t.” Or he might believe me but think I’m an asshole. Then I’d have to do my sets while he stood there, giving me a dirty look. I didn’t want to deal with that.

I didn’t have moral qualms about lying at that moment—because the guy was a whiny bitch—but it didn’t seem worth it. Lying wouldn’t have a clear benefit. It would be a hassle. It would be awkward.

So, I didn’t fucking lie.

Also, maybe there was a little moral push that I shouldn’t lie. Especially since I have three other gyms, I could go to and do the same workout somewhere else. But anyway, most people—even most psychopaths—don’t lie all the time.

So, yes, most people don’t run into someone who’s now allied with another psychopath, Musk. Musk is a different kind of bullshitter.

He presents himself differently, but together, they create a powerful combination that nobody resists. Musk is walking into federal agencies, trailed by three teenage hacker fanboys—one is 19, and some are in their twenties. They tell people what to do, and nobody pushes back.

Nobody locks the door on them. They tell security they’re entitled to be there, and security stands back and lets them walk in. Nobody resists. These people figure they will lose their jobs anyway. I wouldn’t recommend this, but imagine if someone punched one of those kids in the stomach. That would be if everybody pushed them back out the door and locked it.

They’re not more authorized to do what they’re doing than the people they’re displacing. Sure, they’re authorized by the president—but not by any formal directive. Meanwhile, the people getting their access revoked are authorized to be there federally.

But they fucking back down. That in itself will be seen by history as a weirdly easy surrender.

It’s fucked.

Finally, people are starting to mount some opposition, but none of the pushback you’d expect. If this were a sitcom—like The Office—you’d see these assholes walk in within the first ten minutes, messing with everything, saying, “I need to see these files. I’m from headquarters.”

And in the sitcom, they’d be exposed as frauds by the end of the episode. But here? They’re walking in and getting away with it.

And in the second half of the sitcom, the office staff would start huddling together, saying, “How do we know these guys are from headquarters?” Then they’d start asking for ID and mounting some resistance that would probably be effective.

Dwight Schrute has been training for this his whole life.

It’s weird—the way everyone is lying down and taking it. Late-night shows have been mocking Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, for trying to rally the Democrats with pep talks and cheers.

He sounds lame and old.

The wimpiness of the Democrats is ridiculous.

What would happen if—like today or yesterday—we mentioned how they’re trying to eliminate NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which tracks our weather?

With all the extreme weather we’ve been having, I saw a report that said 92% of U.S. counties have been declared disaster areas at some point.

Yes, we need weather warnings. They’re going to mess those up.

But what would happen if the staff of NOAA barricaded the doors?

Rosner: So… comments?

Jacobsen: No, man.

Rosner: A lot of this shit comes down to privilege and entitlement.

The sheer scale of these policies’ effects—it’s beyond comprehension. Agencies are regularly reviewed to cut waste, but when it comes to international aid, pulling the rug out from under people kills them.

And they’re talking about doing that. That is called mass murder. USAID is helping to pay for the treatment of 300,000 AIDS patients worldwide. Thousands of people are enrolled in drug trials across the globe.

And now? They’re going to stop those trials halfway through.

They’re taking drugs away—both proven and experimental—from hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people.

Even if 1% of those people die, that’s 20,000 deaths.

And they did it through sheer bluster.

There’s no formal policy rationale. It resembles Hitler’s first 53 days in power, from 1932 to 1933.

Jacobsen: Do you think Elon Musk is a Nazi?

Rosner: No.  He’s an asshole who is maybe… 20% of a Nazi.

I don’t think he would support genocide. But he probably supports a lot of the underlying concepts behind Nazism—things like national determination, maybe even white nationalism.

So, he’s part of the way there, but he’s not a full-on “Hitler was right” guy.

He’s more of a “Hitler was right about some stuff” guy.

And also, someone who enjoys freaking people out by doing borderline Nazi salutes? He probably thinks, “If it freaks people out, then they’re snowflakes.”

Jacobsen: : Do you think his gesture—the Sieg Heil salute—was heartfelt? Or was it something else?

Rosner: It may have started as heartfelt. But he did it twice. It may be good to make that gesture. —I’m not a mind reader.  What his thoughts were in the moment. But it became something else when he did it a third time—more carefully, at a rally in Germany. That’s when he had time to think about it. That’s when he calibrated it.

So, his arm angle was low enough—not quite at the full 45-degree Sieg Heil—to maintain some ambiguity. The first two times? Maybe heartfelt. Any time after that? Trolling.

Jacobsen: What do you think about his trans daughter, Vivian, transitioning, changing her last name from Musk to Wilson, and then—yes—disowning him? And then his reaction to that?

In a Jordan Peterson interview, he says, ‘They call it deadnaming. Yes. So, by breaking into assigning these forms, they killed my daughter. Or my son.’

Rosner: Imagine how shitty a dad must be, how shitty a former husband must be… Do the math. You’ve got a dad who was worth $200 billion and is now worth over $400 billion—the richest guy on Earth. You could have a chunk of those billions by acting civilly toward him. You don’t even have to love him—just pretend to get along. Yet, she chose to cut him off completely.

And it’s not her. Several of his kids are saying, “Fuck you” to him. When you say “Fuck you” to Elon Musk, you’re also saying “Fuck you” to potentially $10 billion in inheritance. That, to me, is strong evidence that Musk is probably not the best dad. Because if your kids are willing to walk away from that kind of money, what does that say about you? Is that a reasonable argument?

Look, I would kiss much ass for $10 billion. Hell, I’d do it for $10 million. A counterargument is that they’re kids. They don’t understand how nice it would be to have $10 billion. But come on. Musk is a smart guy. I assume his kids are smart, too. Some of them are young adults. They have the imagination to know what it would be to have access to billions.

. If I were a Musk kid, I’d go to him and say, “Hey, you’re worth $400 billion. Can I have $3 million? Make it a zero-interest loan—I’ll make a movie.” I’d pitch him the damn movie. I’d assume that, as my dad, he’d at least listen and consider putting a fraction of his fortune into a low-budget film.

At the least, I’d ask: “Can you let me have $150,000 so I can go on a round-the-world tour?” Something tiny, something that, relative to his fortune, is asking your dad for a sandwich.

But instead, his kids are preemptively saying, “Fuck you.”That tells me… maybe he is a dick.

Last updated May  3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.