Raw Story

A Washington Post opinion editor cited Elon Musk's "skeevy approach to parenthood" to argue that the tech entrepreneur and father of 14 is not all that good with numbers.

David Von Drehle recounted a "copiously documented report in the Wall Street Journal" about Musk's desire to populate the planet that led to his lightbulb moment.

Musk's "growing concern that only an army of paid surrogates can produce enough of his babies to populate the 'legion' required to stave off the 'apocalypse" was one big red flag, according to Von Drehle.

"To think that one dumpy 53-year-old nerd is called by fate to stem the demographic tide of humankind is … bad math, to say the least," Von Drehle wrote. "Suppose Musk and his fantasy army of surrogates begin producing 10 children per day, every day, until he’s 80, 26 years from now."

ALSO READ: 'Alarming': Small colleges bullied into silence as Trump poses 'existential threat'

Von Drehle added, "Yuck — sorry to paint that picture. But also: Those efforts would produce fewer babies, total (almost 95,000), than will be born between midnight tonight and tomorrow at 7 a.m. (about 105,000)."

In addition, "Others who have followed Musk’s obsession with travel to Mars are already aware of his trouble with concepts such as distance and time," Von Drehle wrote.

"The innumeracy of Elon Musk would be a matter between him, his investors, his breeding partners and their offspring — but for his involvement in the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which has sown chaos across the federal government in pursuit of savings he seems unable to count," Von Drehle wrote. "His initial promise of $2 trillion in cuts has already deflated to $150 billion, meaning he was off by a factor of 13-plus in the space of a few months."

Von Drehle concluded that Musk is no math genius, and doesn't understand "that what he is saying just doesn’t add up."

Read The Washington Post opinion column here.

President Donald Trump's official store has started selling "Trump 2028" hats years before the next presidential election.

The new hats showed up on the official "Trump Store" website on Thursday for $50 each. Eric Trump was seen wearing the hat in an image circulating on social media. "Gulf of America" hats were also available.

According to the store, the hats were made in America.

"Due to high demand, please allow 5-10 business days to process prior to shipping," a notice on the website stated.

ALSO READ: Violent J6er who broke into Capitol announces run for Congress in East Texas

Trump recently told NBC that he was "not joking" about seeking a third term.

"A lot of people want me to do it," the president said. "There are methods which you could do it."

The U.S. Constitution limits presidents to two terms in office.

A surprise decision by Gov. Kim Reynolds (R-IA) to not seek re-election in 2026 has given Democrats in the state hope that they can snag the seat in what is expected to be a midterm referendum on Donald Trump's return to the Oval Office.

According to a report from the Washington Post, Donald Trump's decision to enact tariffs that have severely impacted American farmers will likely not be forgotten when election time comes around in a state where agricultural policy is always at the top of the ticket no matter who the nominee is.

As Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Rita Hart put it, "There are a lot of people who are seeing this as an opportunity," before adding that Trump's tariffs will be front and center in the campaign.

ALSO READ:'We’ve made a mistake': Trump’s trade war sends GOP into frenzy

According to the Post's Patrick Svitek, "In Iowa — the second biggest agricultural exporting state in the country — not all Republicans have been fully onboard with Trump’s sweeping — and ever-changing — tariffs, which, at a minimum, have created deep uncertainty for farmers who make a living selling their crops to other countries."

Sam Newton, a spokesperson for the Democratic Governors Association, claimed, “It’s definitely a race we’re keeping our eye on. We believe that there’s a real opportunity for a competitive race with a strong candidate who fits the state well.”

There hasn't been a Democrat governor in Iowa since 2010.

The report also notes the election could be a harbinger on how strong Trump's pull will extend when he is not on the ballot.

You can read more here.

In an MSNBC appearance, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey slammed several of President Donald Trump’s policies because of the negative impact they are having on scientific research.

“First, let's talk about Harvard. You actually have this post that you put up, Donald Trump's cuts to universities and hospitals mean scientists are being laid off, and shutting down life-saving research. It's bad for patients, bad for science, and bad for our economy. Give me a sense of your reaction to what is happening at not just Harvard, but beyond,” Host Mika Brzezinski asked.

“Well, this is bigger than Harvard, and I stand with Harvard,” Governor Healey said. “I support what they are doing it is very, very important that Harvard filed that suit and stand up to the bully that Trump is.”

ALSO READ: 'Dictatorship, not a town hall': Families 'distraught' as MTG disruptors tased and jailed

The Governor claimed the consequences of removing funding from certain colleges, NIH, and other outlets is large. “[UMass Medical] had to lay off 200 faculty members. They've had to rescind offers to 80 graduate students. Mika these are scientists, okay? These are people who are discovering and working on life-saving cures for cancer, Alzheimer's, ALS, you name it, and all of that is being shut down.”

“Here's what also is happening, which Americans need to know. The ones benefiting from Donald Trump's misguided attacks on our universities and on research are benefiting China,” Healey said. “China is recruiting right now on our campuses all those scientists and faculty members, and students who've been laid off or had their offers rescinded and say, Come to China, we'll build you that lab. We'll give you staff. So, for a President who is about America first, he's making America last. He's making us weaker. He's making us less competitive, and it breaks my heart. It breaks my heart to know that patients will suffer [and] they're already suffering.”

She also believes, “[Trump] is driving everyone, including American students and faculty members, out of this country because they want to be able to do their research somewhere. So this is a very dangerous situation. Totally destabilizing and it's really pointing America in the wrong direction.”

The pair went on to speak about what the Bay State is doing to help small businesses dealing with tariff issues.

Watch below or click here.

- YouTube youtu.be

MSNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin mocked President Donald Trump for "blinking" under pressure and perpetuating the economic whiplash that continues to rile the markets.

Morning Joe host Mika Brzezinski introduced Sorkin Wednesday, asking, "We have Trump blinking? Or, how would you describe it?"

"Oh! I think it's full blinking, lots of blinking!" Sorkin quipped while fluttering his eyelids.

He continued, "Actually, the market's up this morning. I think a lot of folks actually think that he's blinking. Whether he really will blink, we don't know. But it is a 180-degree turn, both in terms of what he's suggesting about how he's going to negotiate with China. For the last several weeks, he's been playing the role of strongman. Now, he says he wants to be nice and wants to find a compromise, which is going to be interesting to see how the Chinese react to that and will have either leverage over him or he'll have leverage over them. "

ALSO READ: 'Retribution or bust’: 'Secretary of Retribution' joins J6 leaders to demand mass arrests

Sorkin also mentioned Trump's "180" on Fed Chairman Jerome Powell.

"[Trump] had been both, you know, on Truth Social and other places, saying that he thought that the federal reserve chair should effectively get fired, was too late, should have lowered interest rates. And now he's saying, 'I'm not firing him.' And I think he suggested basically that he was never planning to fire him, which is not what he said originally."

Sorkin said investors may be regaining some confidence because they see Trump course-correcting after "realizing he can't do all the things that he wanted to."

Sorkin concluded by pointing out the unpredictability of how the Trump administration has been reacting on any given day.

"What looks like a blink today could be very different tomorrow," Sorkin said.

Watch the clip below via MSNBC or click here.

President Donald Trump lashed out at U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee hearing a lawsuit over an executive order against law firm Perkins Coie.

In a Wednesday message posted on his Truth Social platform, Trump called Howell an "unmitigated train wreck" after she declined to remove herself from the case.

"I’m suing the law firm of Perkins Coie for their egregious and unlawful acts, in particular the conduct of a specific member of this firm, only to find out that the Judge assigned to this case is Beryl Howell, an Obama appointment, and a highly biased and unfair disaster," Trump wrote. "She ruled against me in the past, in a shocking display of sick judicial temperament, on a case that ended up working out very well for me, on appeal."

Trump is thought to be upset with Perkins Coie after it hired Fusion GPS, which funded an investigation into him in 2016 and paid for the so-called Steele dossier on behalf of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

"I could have a 100% perfect case and she would angrily rule against me," the president whined. "It’s called Trump Derangement Syndrome, and she’s got a bad case of it. To put it nicely, Beryl Howell is an unmitigated train wreck. NO JUSTICE!!!"

ALSO READ: 'Retribution or bust’: 'Secretary of Retribution' joins J6 leaders to demand mass arrests

For her part, Howell has accused Trump and the Department of Justice of trying to undermine the court.

“This strategy is designed to impugn the integrity of the federal judicial system and blame any loss on the decision-maker rather than fallacies in the substantive legal arguments presented," she wrote in one ruling against Trump's executive order.

“Adjudicating whether an Executive Branch exercise of power is legal, or not, is actually the job of the federal courts, and not of the President or the Department of Justice, though vigorous and rigorous defense of executive actions is both expected and helpful to the courts in resolving legal issues."