By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite the Commission of Fine Arts, filled with Trump appointees including Roger Kimball and Chamberlain Harris, spearheading the effort to approve a potential Trump coin, the design faced significant hurdles. Commission member James McCrery II reportedly advocated for an unusually large coin, up to three inches in diameter. However, the bipartisan Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee ultimately rejected the coin’s design, and any further attempts to produce it would likely face legal challenges.
Read the original article here
The narrative surrounding a particular report, initially intended as an independent audit, suggests it underwent significant alterations orchestrated by the Trump team. The core issue appears to be a deliberate manipulation of findings related to “DOGE,” an acronym or project that, according to these accounts, had devastating consequences. This alteration wasn’t a minor tweak; it’s described as an attempt to conceal the true severity of the situation, effectively turning an objective assessment into something resembling propaganda. This practice, the commentary implies, was not an isolated incident but part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to undermine and attack inspectors general, individuals tasked with providing bipartisan oversight of government agencies.
The sentiment conveyed is one of profound disappointment and anger, with many feeling that the administration’s actions were characterized by a profound lack of transparency and a consistent effort to obscure the truth. The phrase “Most transparently full of shit administration ever” captures this feeling, suggesting that deception and cover-ups were not merely byproducts but inherent features of how the administration operated. The idea of “fucking the people over” being a “feature, not a bug” highlights a perception that their actions were intentional and designed to harm, rather than simply the result of incompetence.
Digging deeper into the specifics, the commentary suggests that the manipulation of the DOGE report was tied to an effort to protect certain individuals or entities. The mention of “Elon’s various companies” and the notion of “getting rid of all those pesky investigations” hints at a potential connection between the report’s alteration and favorable treatment for business interests. This is further elaborated by the idea that even small financial gains from Trump’s alleged “ill-gotten funds” were enough to corrupt his subordinates, implying a pervasive culture of corruption that extended beyond the top leadership.
The overarching theme is that the Trump administration’s approach was fundamentally built on falsehoods. “Everything about Trump and his administration is Fake” is a stark declaration that encapsulates this viewpoint. The desire to understand “how Fu€king Bad are they?” points to a public frustration with the administration’s perceived ability to invent its own reality, which many felt was readily accepted by a significant portion of the populace, or at least not adequately challenged. This tendency is likened to a child’s blatant lies, where even when confronted, they offer ludicrous justifications, leading to the conclusion that the nation was being governed by individuals exhibiting such immaturity.
A particularly disturbing element introduced into the discussion is the reference to “600,000 dead children.” While initially appearing out of context within the immediate discussion of the DOGE report, subsequent comments provide a chilling explanation. This number is linked to the termination of USAID programs, which provided essential food aid to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable populations, disproportionately affecting children. The accusation is that the administration actively cut off this aid, leading to mass starvation and death. This is framed as an act of unimaginable evil, with some going as far as to equate it with mass murder and suggesting that every MAGA voter was complicit.
The scale of this alleged humanitarian catastrophe is presented as far more significant than many might want to admit, with estimates of future deaths reaching millions. This contrasts sharply with the relatively small portion of the federal budget allocated to USAID compared to military spending. The commentary implies a profound moral failing, suggesting that the administration and its supporters were indifferent to the suffering and death of non-white, non-American, non-Christian children, deeming them “deplorable.”
The concept of “Chesterton’s Fence” is implicitly invoked, suggesting a tendency to dismantle established systems and programs without fully understanding their purpose or the consequences of their removal. The frustration is palpable, as many feel that this intentional damage and the subsequent cover-up are indicative of a deeply flawed system and a populace that has either been misled or has chosen to ignore the severity of the situation. The pervasive feeling is that lying and hiding information were standard operating procedures, and that many who supported Trump were either unaware of the true cost of his policies or actively embraced them, even when detrimental to themselves.
The commentary also touches upon the political implications, with some regretting not forcefully opposing Trump’s candidacy earlier, and expressing disappointment in the election outcomes. The sentiment that “We’re governed by 6 year olds” underscores a deep disillusionment with the state of leadership and governance. The feeling that these actions are driven by a desire to serve external powers like “Putin and Xi” adds another layer of concern about national sovereignty and foreign influence.
Ultimately, the discussion around the altered DOGE report and the tragic consequences of USAID terminations converges on a powerful indictment of the Trump administration. It paints a picture of a leadership that prioritized deception, undermined essential oversight, and, in the eyes of many commenters, demonstrated a chilling disregard for human life, particularly for the most vulnerable populations globally. The ease with which the administration allegedly manipulated information and the profound societal divisions it exploited are seen as deeply damaging to the fabric of democracy and global well-being.