Cheeto Bankrupting The Country While Personally Making Billions
"Fascism is corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power". Benito Mussolini
The dollar as a fiat currency is on its last leg, the stock market is way overbought and held up by a number of AI company stocks, tariffs continue to tax companies and Americans, food insecurity is becoming a reality for Americans, health premiums will soar without federal subsidies, major companies are laying off workers, farmers/ranchers are getting screwed by the international tariff wars, and Cheeto fiddles while America burns ie building a ballroom
Cheeto is a spendthrift without a conscience and explains how he went bankrupt 5 times His tax Republican style on steroids Our national debt is $38T and climbing, probably topping $40T unless the market crash 21st century style takes us out of our profound misery
Billionaires like Musk, Theil, Karp, and Gracias want to take over the federal government but what they are going to inherit is a pile of garbage gifted to them by Cheeto This greed and power mongering will not end well for America and leave us a second rate country actions It’s more about the destruction of the country and hurting Americans, financially and physically, because he basically likes to hurt people As a sociopathic malignant narcissist he literally gets tremendous pleasure on hurting people
'On Bullshit' was an essay written by philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt in 1986. Prof Ealy appears to be channeling that spirit here. Stephen A. Smith is an opportunistic little tool looking to carve out a little 'relevance' and 'access' for himself in these evil times. He brings nothing of value and should return to focus on bloviating about something that doesn't really matter, like sports.
Jasmine Crockett. Now she's a whole 'nother breed of cat. I will forever be her devoted fanboy if only for her epic take-downs of Marjorie Taylor Greene. "Sit your skanky ass DOWN!..." She didn't say 'bitch', but I heard it in the thought waves nonetheless.
And if I get some absolute facts wrong, fuck it. I stopped caring a while ago. I may have some Mandela-effect illusions gathering in my brain, and I'm very happy with them.
Thank you, George — I really appreciate the reference to Harry Frankfurt’s On Bullshit. That’s actually one of my favorite essays, and you’re right that it feels increasingly relevant to how figures like Stephen A. Smith operate in today’s media environment. Frankfurt’s idea that the bullshitter isn’t necessarily lying but rather indifferent to truth captures Smith perfectly — his goal isn’t accuracy, it’s attention. The more outrage he provokes, the more “relevance” and “access” he secures, as you aptly noted.
And I agree — Rep. Crockett represents a completely different energy. She’s assertive, informed, and unbothered by the theatrics that people like Marjorie Taylor Greene or Smith rely on. That authenticity is why so many people respond to her so strongly.
Also, your humor about the “Mandela-effect illusions” made me laugh — we all have those moments where memory and conviction blur a little, but your larger point holds steady. It’s refreshing to see readers engage with both the philosophical roots and the real-world implications. Thanks for such a thoughtful comment — it really added depth to the discussion.
That’s a very insightful observation, Patrick — and you’re right, part of my hesitation early in the piece came from that exact concern. Figures like Stephen A. Smith thrive on amplification; the more attention they get, the more their performative authority grows, even when what they’re saying adds little to public discourse. I wanted to acknowledge that tension while still unpacking what makes his approach so corrosive — not because he’s voicing opinions, but because his delivery centers ego over substance.
I also agree with you that celebrity commentary on politics isn’t inherently bad. When it’s informed and rooted in principle, it can actually elevate conversations that might otherwise stay surface-level. The problem, as you pointed out, is when the motivation shifts from civic engagement to self-promotion. That’s when the message collapses under its own hollowness.
From the opening paragraph, the hesitancy about writing "the damn article" is clear. Maybe because drawing more attention to him feels slightly uncomfortable?
There are people, it seems to me, who have figured out how to attract attention, and that their own status can be amplified by that attention. I saw him on TV once talking politics, and it just felt shallow, hollow, and like it was about him and his ego. It doesn't feel genuine. I don't think it is.
That said, I don't have any problem with celebrities voicing their politics. I just don't feel compelled to pay any attention to them any more than to anyone else.
That’s a very insightful observation, Patrick — and you’re right, part of my hesitation early in the piece came from that exact concern. Figures like Stephen A. Smith thrive on amplification; the more attention they get, the more their performative authority grows, even when what they’re saying adds little to public discourse. I wanted to acknowledge that tension while still unpacking what makes his approach so corrosive — not because he’s voicing opinions, but because his delivery centers ego over substance.
I also agree with you that celebrity commentary on politics isn’t inherently bad. When it’s informed and rooted in principle, it can actually elevate conversations that might otherwise stay surface-level. The problem, as you pointed out, is when the motivation shifts from civic engagement to self-promotion. That’s when the message collapses under its own hollowness.
This is so spot on and articulates perfectly, what I have been saying to my friends. Sadly, SAS will probably never read it. Even if he does, he’ll find some way to hunker down in his own oblivion.
Thanks so much for this! Unlike many of your commentators, I am sort of a sports nerd, and I DO know Stephen A. Smith. I began reading him less and less as his content over sports increased. You perfectly state why I hate him so much. I wish more sports fans would get the message.
I don’t hate him but,🤣, I turn the channel when I hear his boisterous voice! It’s simple noise! Although he’s not that right in the sports realm, he would serve himself well to stay in his lane!
Thanks, Cheryl — I completely get that reaction. His voice alone can feel like an alarm clock that never shuts off. What’s wild is that he’s not wrong about everything in sports, but the delivery drowns out whatever insight might be there. It’s that “boisterous for brand recognition” style that turns analysis into theater. You’re right — he’d serve himself better by staying in his lane, or at least by learning that volume doesn’t equal value. Appreciate you taking the time to read and share your thoughts.
Thank you; thank you; thank you. I know little about Stephen A. Smith except that he is loud and he squawks. 🐓 Can't stand his sports analyses on any sport. Didn't realize he had turned his squawks toward politics. Ugh! As you said, "Loud doesn't mean Knowledgeable." I'll follow with this-- lots of money doesn't mean smart or likeable either. I think hell will freeze over-- "waiting for him to stick to the sports he actually understands."
Professor, your article actually made me smile this morning. I guess my "kind heart" showed a bit of its "dark side." Oh, I am cheering for the Blue Jays. The ghost of Reagan won me over. Have a good day and may your Halloween be filled with Snicker bars. 😇 Take care.
Thank you, Maxine — I really appreciate this thoughtful (and funny) comment. You’re absolutely right: Stephen A. Smith has built a brand around volume, not value, and it’s astonishing how often people confuse wealth or visibility with intelligence. That conflation — money as proof of credibility — says more about our culture than about him, and it’s honestly shameful how common it’s become. What you said about “loud doesn’t mean knowledgeable” gets to the core of the problem: performative confidence has replaced substance in too many arenas, not just sports or politics.
And I have to admit, your note about the “dark side” made me smile — we all have one when it comes to media figures who test our patience. I’m glad the piece gave you a laugh this morning. And yes, while you’re cheering for the Blue Jays, my Dodgers have an uphill climb ahead finishing the series in Toronto. Let’s just hope for some decent pitching and fewer bullpen meltdowns!
Great article Kristoffer! I have never seen Steven A Smith, but I have heard plenty of men bash strong women. Jasmine Crockett is working hard for her constituents, whether they are democrats, republicans or independents. I have the utmost respect for her.
Thank you so much, Lynn — I really appreciate that. You’re absolutely right about Rep. Crockett. She’s one of the few members of Congress who consistently stands firm for her constituents, regardless of party affiliation, and that kind of conviction is rare in the current political climate. Even for those who haven’t followed Stephen A. Smith closely, the larger takeaway is how women like Crockett are often dismissed or talked over by men who mistake loudness for leadership. I’m glad that came through in the piece, and I share your respect for the strength and clarity she brings to the role.
Your piece is so spot on. I have never been a Stephen A Smith fan. I have always felt he was over-the-top. It has always seemed to be his way of trying to hiding his insecurities yet wanting to seem knowledgeable and powerful. In that respect, he fits in with the likes of Hannity and O'Reilly. Like many men, he is obviously uncomfortable with powerful women and feels he needs to put her in her place in order to make himself seem better. Thank you for articulating what I was thinking when he, unfortunately, popped up on my social media feeds recently.
Thank you for this, and I completely agree — “over-the-top” is exactly the phrase that comes to mind with Stephen A. Smith. What often gets mistaken for confidence is really a kind of performative dominance meant to mask insecurity, especially when he’s engaging with strong, articulate women. You’re right to draw the comparison to figures like Hannity and O’Reilly; there’s a similar pattern of compensating for discomfort through volume and control. What makes it even more troubling is how that behavior gets rewarded under the guise of charisma or authority. I wanted to highlight that dynamic because it shapes how audiences internalize whose voices deserve to be heard and whose should be “put in their place.”
Last night Rep Crockett held a virtual Town hall on Tiktok and substack. She told the truth whats happening. Dems dont trust fat donnie and GQP at all . Thats why they aren’t at the table and aren’t folding . They know people are suffering but they want ironclad guarantees that subsides will stay in place and fat donnie will not touch them.
Yeah, I saw that too, and you’re absolutely right — Crockett was on fire. She’s one of the few Democrats who can deliver hard truth without flinching, and she did exactly that during that virtual town hall. You nailed it about why Dems don’t trust Trump or the GOP — they’ve seen this movie before. The second Democrats start negotiating in good faith, Republicans flip the script and start folding the table. Crockett’s approach is what strength looks like in this moment: firm boundaries, clear communication, and zero tolerance for gaslighting. You’re also right that they want ironclad guarantees — people are tired of seeing promises evaporate once the cameras turn off.
Yes Rep Crockett does her job effectively! Government is still shut down! Federal workers are in food lines! Congress is getting paid! As is the Senate! Why should they be? The federal workforce puts their Fannie’s on the line! All everyone is thinking of is how to hurt not help the federal workers! Why should Americans suffer nothing about healthcare either! Senator Shumer was yelling on television 📺 to make himself the hero! Senator Thune was being sarcastic!Well at least they came together and voted not to tariff Brazil! If people in our government especially democrats they are dothe wrong thing, messaging should help they are surely rich enough on both sides! I dislike people suffering this indignation of going hungry and GOP is slapping their backs for extra money! Perhaps some democrats also! Such garbage!
Thanks, Linda — you touched on a lot of what frustrates so many people right now. Crockett’s doing her job, and meanwhile the same folks who claim to care about “fiscal responsibility” are cashing checks while federal workers line up at food banks. It’s the same disconnect I was writing about with Smith — the obsession with optics and performance instead of substance. You’re right about the messaging too: Democrats can’t afford to play defense when people are literally struggling to eat. The GOP has mastered turning bad faith into branding, and too often, Democrats underestimate how powerful that kind of propaganda can be.
OMG! This is a perfect encapsulation/description of the character of sas! Please do not feel bad roasting him. Your article is excellent and doesn’t read as a roast, but rather an accurate, informed observation. Thanks
Thanks so much, Nannette — that means a lot. I really appreciate you catching that distinction. My goal wasn’t to roast Stephen A. so much as to dissect what his version of “neutrality” actually represents. There’s a pattern with certain media personalities who think measured analysis means centering their own egos instead of the truth. I tried to call that out without turning it into a hit piece, because the larger issue is how that performance of balance shapes public perception — especially when it’s directed at outspoken Black women like Rep. Crockett. I’m glad that nuance came through.
Thanks, Kathy — same here. Crockett’s sharpness is exactly what cuts through all the fake balance and performative civility we get from people like Stephen A. Smith. She doesn’t waste time sugarcoating the truth, and that’s what makes her effective — especially in an era where too many folks are rewarded for pretending not to have opinions.
Cheeto Bankrupting The Country While Personally Making Billions
"Fascism is corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power". Benito Mussolini
The dollar as a fiat currency is on its last leg, the stock market is way overbought and held up by a number of AI company stocks, tariffs continue to tax companies and Americans, food insecurity is becoming a reality for Americans, health premiums will soar without federal subsidies, major companies are laying off workers, farmers/ranchers are getting screwed by the international tariff wars, and Cheeto fiddles while America burns ie building a ballroom
Cheeto is a spendthrift without a conscience and explains how he went bankrupt 5 times His tax Republican style on steroids Our national debt is $38T and climbing, probably topping $40T unless the market crash 21st century style takes us out of our profound misery
Billionaires like Musk, Theil, Karp, and Gracias want to take over the federal government but what they are going to inherit is a pile of garbage gifted to them by Cheeto This greed and power mongering will not end well for America and leave us a second rate country actions It’s more about the destruction of the country and hurting Americans, financially and physically, because he basically likes to hurt people As a sociopathic malignant narcissist he literally gets tremendous pleasure on hurting people
'On Bullshit' was an essay written by philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt in 1986. Prof Ealy appears to be channeling that spirit here. Stephen A. Smith is an opportunistic little tool looking to carve out a little 'relevance' and 'access' for himself in these evil times. He brings nothing of value and should return to focus on bloviating about something that doesn't really matter, like sports.
Jasmine Crockett. Now she's a whole 'nother breed of cat. I will forever be her devoted fanboy if only for her epic take-downs of Marjorie Taylor Greene. "Sit your skanky ass DOWN!..." She didn't say 'bitch', but I heard it in the thought waves nonetheless.
And if I get some absolute facts wrong, fuck it. I stopped caring a while ago. I may have some Mandela-effect illusions gathering in my brain, and I'm very happy with them.
Thank you, George — I really appreciate the reference to Harry Frankfurt’s On Bullshit. That’s actually one of my favorite essays, and you’re right that it feels increasingly relevant to how figures like Stephen A. Smith operate in today’s media environment. Frankfurt’s idea that the bullshitter isn’t necessarily lying but rather indifferent to truth captures Smith perfectly — his goal isn’t accuracy, it’s attention. The more outrage he provokes, the more “relevance” and “access” he secures, as you aptly noted.
And I agree — Rep. Crockett represents a completely different energy. She’s assertive, informed, and unbothered by the theatrics that people like Marjorie Taylor Greene or Smith rely on. That authenticity is why so many people respond to her so strongly.
Also, your humor about the “Mandela-effect illusions” made me laugh — we all have those moments where memory and conviction blur a little, but your larger point holds steady. It’s refreshing to see readers engage with both the philosophical roots and the real-world implications. Thanks for such a thoughtful comment — it really added depth to the discussion.
That’s a very insightful observation, Patrick — and you’re right, part of my hesitation early in the piece came from that exact concern. Figures like Stephen A. Smith thrive on amplification; the more attention they get, the more their performative authority grows, even when what they’re saying adds little to public discourse. I wanted to acknowledge that tension while still unpacking what makes his approach so corrosive — not because he’s voicing opinions, but because his delivery centers ego over substance.
I also agree with you that celebrity commentary on politics isn’t inherently bad. When it’s informed and rooted in principle, it can actually elevate conversations that might otherwise stay surface-level. The problem, as you pointed out, is when the motivation shifts from civic engagement to self-promotion. That’s when the message collapses under its own hollowness.
From the opening paragraph, the hesitancy about writing "the damn article" is clear. Maybe because drawing more attention to him feels slightly uncomfortable?
There are people, it seems to me, who have figured out how to attract attention, and that their own status can be amplified by that attention. I saw him on TV once talking politics, and it just felt shallow, hollow, and like it was about him and his ego. It doesn't feel genuine. I don't think it is.
That said, I don't have any problem with celebrities voicing their politics. I just don't feel compelled to pay any attention to them any more than to anyone else.
Kristoffer Ealy
3m
That’s a very insightful observation, Patrick — and you’re right, part of my hesitation early in the piece came from that exact concern. Figures like Stephen A. Smith thrive on amplification; the more attention they get, the more their performative authority grows, even when what they’re saying adds little to public discourse. I wanted to acknowledge that tension while still unpacking what makes his approach so corrosive — not because he’s voicing opinions, but because his delivery centers ego over substance.
I also agree with you that celebrity commentary on politics isn’t inherently bad. When it’s informed and rooted in principle, it can actually elevate conversations that might otherwise stay surface-level. The problem, as you pointed out, is when the motivation shifts from civic engagement to self-promotion. That’s when the message collapses under its own hollowness.
LIKE
Bravo to the author ✍🏼!!!!
This is so spot on and articulates perfectly, what I have been saying to my friends. Sadly, SAS will probably never read it. Even if he does, he’ll find some way to hunker down in his own oblivion.
Thanks so much for this! Unlike many of your commentators, I am sort of a sports nerd, and I DO know Stephen A. Smith. I began reading him less and less as his content over sports increased. You perfectly state why I hate him so much. I wish more sports fans would get the message.
I don’t hate him but,🤣, I turn the channel when I hear his boisterous voice! It’s simple noise! Although he’s not that right in the sports realm, he would serve himself well to stay in his lane!
Thanks, Cheryl — I completely get that reaction. His voice alone can feel like an alarm clock that never shuts off. What’s wild is that he’s not wrong about everything in sports, but the delivery drowns out whatever insight might be there. It’s that “boisterous for brand recognition” style that turns analysis into theater. You’re right — he’d serve himself better by staying in his lane, or at least by learning that volume doesn’t equal value. Appreciate you taking the time to read and share your thoughts.
Thank you; thank you; thank you. I know little about Stephen A. Smith except that he is loud and he squawks. 🐓 Can't stand his sports analyses on any sport. Didn't realize he had turned his squawks toward politics. Ugh! As you said, "Loud doesn't mean Knowledgeable." I'll follow with this-- lots of money doesn't mean smart or likeable either. I think hell will freeze over-- "waiting for him to stick to the sports he actually understands."
Professor, your article actually made me smile this morning. I guess my "kind heart" showed a bit of its "dark side." Oh, I am cheering for the Blue Jays. The ghost of Reagan won me over. Have a good day and may your Halloween be filled with Snicker bars. 😇 Take care.
Thank you, Maxine — I really appreciate this thoughtful (and funny) comment. You’re absolutely right: Stephen A. Smith has built a brand around volume, not value, and it’s astonishing how often people confuse wealth or visibility with intelligence. That conflation — money as proof of credibility — says more about our culture than about him, and it’s honestly shameful how common it’s become. What you said about “loud doesn’t mean knowledgeable” gets to the core of the problem: performative confidence has replaced substance in too many arenas, not just sports or politics.
And I have to admit, your note about the “dark side” made me smile — we all have one when it comes to media figures who test our patience. I’m glad the piece gave you a laugh this morning. And yes, while you’re cheering for the Blue Jays, my Dodgers have an uphill climb ahead finishing the series in Toronto. Let’s just hope for some decent pitching and fewer bullpen meltdowns!
Great article Kristoffer! I have never seen Steven A Smith, but I have heard plenty of men bash strong women. Jasmine Crockett is working hard for her constituents, whether they are democrats, republicans or independents. I have the utmost respect for her.
Thank you so much, Lynn — I really appreciate that. You’re absolutely right about Rep. Crockett. She’s one of the few members of Congress who consistently stands firm for her constituents, regardless of party affiliation, and that kind of conviction is rare in the current political climate. Even for those who haven’t followed Stephen A. Smith closely, the larger takeaway is how women like Crockett are often dismissed or talked over by men who mistake loudness for leadership. I’m glad that came through in the piece, and I share your respect for the strength and clarity she brings to the role.
Well done!
Your piece is so spot on. I have never been a Stephen A Smith fan. I have always felt he was over-the-top. It has always seemed to be his way of trying to hiding his insecurities yet wanting to seem knowledgeable and powerful. In that respect, he fits in with the likes of Hannity and O'Reilly. Like many men, he is obviously uncomfortable with powerful women and feels he needs to put her in her place in order to make himself seem better. Thank you for articulating what I was thinking when he, unfortunately, popped up on my social media feeds recently.
Thank you for this, and I completely agree — “over-the-top” is exactly the phrase that comes to mind with Stephen A. Smith. What often gets mistaken for confidence is really a kind of performative dominance meant to mask insecurity, especially when he’s engaging with strong, articulate women. You’re right to draw the comparison to figures like Hannity and O’Reilly; there’s a similar pattern of compensating for discomfort through volume and control. What makes it even more troubling is how that behavior gets rewarded under the guise of charisma or authority. I wanted to highlight that dynamic because it shapes how audiences internalize whose voices deserve to be heard and whose should be “put in their place.”
Last night Rep Crockett held a virtual Town hall on Tiktok and substack. She told the truth whats happening. Dems dont trust fat donnie and GQP at all . Thats why they aren’t at the table and aren’t folding . They know people are suffering but they want ironclad guarantees that subsides will stay in place and fat donnie will not touch them.
I m point this out because she DOESNT OWE the PUBLIC this .
Yeah, I saw that too, and you’re absolutely right — Crockett was on fire. She’s one of the few Democrats who can deliver hard truth without flinching, and she did exactly that during that virtual town hall. You nailed it about why Dems don’t trust Trump or the GOP — they’ve seen this movie before. The second Democrats start negotiating in good faith, Republicans flip the script and start folding the table. Crockett’s approach is what strength looks like in this moment: firm boundaries, clear communication, and zero tolerance for gaslighting. You’re also right that they want ironclad guarantees — people are tired of seeing promises evaporate once the cameras turn off.
Momma said fool me once shame on me fool me twice …
Yes Rep Crockett does her job effectively! Government is still shut down! Federal workers are in food lines! Congress is getting paid! As is the Senate! Why should they be? The federal workforce puts their Fannie’s on the line! All everyone is thinking of is how to hurt not help the federal workers! Why should Americans suffer nothing about healthcare either! Senator Shumer was yelling on television 📺 to make himself the hero! Senator Thune was being sarcastic!Well at least they came together and voted not to tariff Brazil! If people in our government especially democrats they are dothe wrong thing, messaging should help they are surely rich enough on both sides! I dislike people suffering this indignation of going hungry and GOP is slapping their backs for extra money! Perhaps some democrats also! Such garbage!
Thanks, Linda — you touched on a lot of what frustrates so many people right now. Crockett’s doing her job, and meanwhile the same folks who claim to care about “fiscal responsibility” are cashing checks while federal workers line up at food banks. It’s the same disconnect I was writing about with Smith — the obsession with optics and performance instead of substance. You’re right about the messaging too: Democrats can’t afford to play defense when people are literally struggling to eat. The GOP has mastered turning bad faith into branding, and too often, Democrats underestimate how powerful that kind of propaganda can be.
OMG! This is a perfect encapsulation/description of the character of sas! Please do not feel bad roasting him. Your article is excellent and doesn’t read as a roast, but rather an accurate, informed observation. Thanks
Thanks so much, Nannette — that means a lot. I really appreciate you catching that distinction. My goal wasn’t to roast Stephen A. so much as to dissect what his version of “neutrality” actually represents. There’s a pattern with certain media personalities who think measured analysis means centering their own egos instead of the truth. I tried to call that out without turning it into a hit piece, because the larger issue is how that performance of balance shapes public perception — especially when it’s directed at outspoken Black women like Rep. Crockett. I’m glad that nuance came through.
I appreciate Jasmine Crockett as she tells it like it is and doesn’t suffer fools gladly.
Thanks, Kathy — same here. Crockett’s sharpness is exactly what cuts through all the fake balance and performative civility we get from people like Stephen A. Smith. She doesn’t waste time sugarcoating the truth, and that’s what makes her effective — especially in an era where too many folks are rewarded for pretending not to have opinions.