Child....

 

Using AI just makes YOU dumb.....

Apple finally lays out its AI plans with a brand new version of Siri

By Lisa Eadicicco

Apple on Monday announced an all-new version of Siri during its Worldwide Developers Conference, a move that could bring its roughly 15-year-old digital helper up to speed with rivals like ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini.

The tech giant also announced performance improvements for its iPhone, Mac and iPad software and new child safety features. But the new Siri is the biggest indication yet of how Apple is revamping its products as more people use chatbots and AI agents for everyday tasks.

Many will be looking to see whether Apple’s history of turning nascent technologies into popular products will apply to AI, especially after the company’s AI ambitions have faced delays.

“If Apple delivers this well, Siri stops being a feature and becomes a new interaction layer for the iPhone, iPad, Mac and eventually future categories of hardware,” Francisco Jeronimo, a tech analyst for market research firm the International Data Corporation, told CNN over email.

Siri AI

The new Siri, which Apple is calling Siri AI, will be available on Apple devices both in a standalone app and throughout the company’s software. It will be able to analyze what’s on a user’s screen and incorporate information from a person’s Apple devices to better answer questions.

Apple plans to launch Siri AI in beta later this year. The company typically releases new software updates in the fall after giving developers and the public the chance to test them.

The company also says Siri will be able to factor personal information on a user’s iPhone into answers, such as referring to photos on a user’s phone when answering queries.

The new Siri will also have a more conversational chatbot-like interface and will work across Apple devices and apps.

Apple wants users to chat back-and-forth with Siri the way they do with ChatGPT for tasks like brainstorming and event planning, such as asking Siri for the schedule of upcoming World Cup games and then having the assistant plan a watch party. The new Siri app will let users revisit previous conversations.

The camera app will also have a new Siri mode that can answer questions and take actions based on what a user is pointing their camera at. At a restaurant, that could including a customer pointing the camera at the bill, selecting what they ordered and having Siri calculate what they owe. On Mac computers, it will soon be possible to select content on screen and then type to Siri to ask a question about the selected media.

The updates come after Google and OpenAI have launched tools that allow users to incorporate photos and other media into AI queries.

The company also noted that some features, like image generation, may have daily usage limits because they rely on powerful models, which are likely expensive to run.

Siri will also support more accurate dictation and more realistic voice options on certain devices, like the iPhone Air, iPhone 17 Pro and iPad and Mac models that run on Apple’s latest chips.

Apple also showed how it’s infusing more AI across apps like Messages, its Safari browser and its Home app for managing smart home devices. Apple Intelligence will be able to organize Safari tabs by topic, and users will be able to create new browser extensions with a prompt. The Messages app will suggest actions, like creating a reminder or a note, based on the content of a conversation. And the Home app will be able to analyze clips from connected cameras generate descriptions.

Apple’s AI setbacks

Apple has fallen behind in the AI race; its Siri overhaul has faced delays, and some features shown Monday were initially slated for last year. Its current AI tools for iPhones, iPads and Macs, called Apple Intelligence, aren’t distinctive enough to stand out from the competition.

Apple previously rolled out features for translating speech, helping users search for content displayed on their iPhone’s screen and generating custom emojis. But companies like Google and OpenAI are launching AI agents they say can handle entire tasks on a user’s behalf.

“(Apple hasn’t) done anything that really blows people away,” Gene Munster, cofounder and managing partner of tech investment firm Deepwater Asset Management, told CNN ahead of WWDC.

The upgraded Siri could help Apple catch up.

Apple is partnering with Google on the models that will power its new Siri and other features, the companies announced in January, which could significantly improve the digital assistant’s performance, according to Anurag Rana, senior equity analyst for software and IT services at Bloomberg Intelligence.

“Gemini models have been just on a tear,” Rana said to CNN before WWDC. “They have been doing really well right now.”

Investors and analysts have grilled Apple about its AI strategy on earnings calls over the past year. Although iPhone sales have been thriving, Wall Street wants to know how AI plays into the company’s long-term vision.

It will soon be up to incoming Apple CEO John Ternus, who currently oversees Apple’s hardware engineering and will take over as chief executive in September. Cook will transition into a new role as executive chairman of the board of directors.

Monday’s keynote was likely Cook’s last major event as CEO.

“On a personal note, some of the greatest highlights of my time as CEO have been events like this,” Cook said at the end of Apple’s presentation.

Dan Ives, global head of technology research for Wedbush Securities, called the Siri upgrades a “step in the right direction” for Apple’s AI strategy and said it sets up Cook to pass the baton to Ternus.

Apple’s large market share – more than 2.5 billion Apple devices are in use globally – could give it an edge in AI.

That could be Apple’s big opportunity. More than half of iPhones in use globally, or about 1 billion iPhones, don’t support Apple Intelligence since the technology is only available on the iPhone 15 Pro and later, according to Rana.

“They’re not going to mess it up,” Munster said. “They’ve got too much at stake to drop the ball.”

Just around the corner... A circle is one big never-ending corner.....

How many times has Trump claimed an Iran deal is around the corner?

Analysis by Aaron Blake

It’s been more than two months since President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire with Iran, saying at the time that the two sides were close to a deal.

Trump said on social media on April 7 that they were “very far along” but needed two weeks for “the Agreement to be finalized and consummated.” He concluded by saying that “it is an Honor to have this Longterm problem close to resolution.”

There was no resolution, of course. But Trump has nonetheless spent the two months since then continuing to suggest a deal was right around the corner. A lot.

Including the period before the ceasefire, he’s done it at least 38 times. That’s the number of times he’s said directly — in social media posts, public appearances and phone calls with the media — that a deal was nigh or claimed Iran was desperate to cut one.

There’s no indication that’s any more true today than it was back on April 7. But Trump keeps saying it, either because he’s delusional, trying to calm the financial markets or thinking he can will it into existence.

But it’s clearly not a claim people should take seriously anymore.

It began March 23, less than a month into the war. Trump was telling reporters outside Air Force One about supposed peace talks and cited “major points of agreement, I would ​say — almost all points of agreement.” (In fact, Iran denied negotiations.)

By the next day, he started trotting out what has become a common refrain: that Iran was desperate to cut a deal.

“I think we’re going to end it,” Trump added. “I can’t tell you for sure.”

By March 25, it became that Iran wanted to “make a deal so badly.” On March 26, at a Cabinet meeting, Iran was “begging to make a deal.”

(Despite being so anxious to cut that deal, Iran has somehow resisted for two and a half more months.)

By March 29, during a gaggle with reporters on Air Force One, Trump was asked if he foresaw clinching a deal in the next week, and he responded: “I do see a deal in Iran, yeah.”

Trump’s predictions started to grow more insistent at this point. On April 6, he said they had been “very close to a deal” before a setback.

The next day, he announced the ceasefire, which was originally supposed to last two weeks while the two sides hammered out an agreement.

A week later, on April 15, he told Fox Business, “I think it’s close to over, I view it as very close to over.”

“We’ll see what happens,” he added. “I think they want to make a deal very badly.”

The next few days, Trump practically assured it was over:

• “It’s looking very good that we’re going to make a deal with Iran, and it’s going to be a good deal,” he told reporters on April 16.
• By April 17, he claimed in three separate appearances that Iran had “agreed to everything,” that “I think we will get a deal in the next day or two,” and that, “I don’t think there’s too many significant differences.”
• And on April 20, in a post on Truth Social, he predicted “it will all happen, relatively quickly!”

Despite that not panning out, Iran was still “dying to make a deal” on April 30.

“When the war ends, which shouldn’t be too long …” he wagered to reporters on May 1.

Trump held back on his predictions for a spell, before announcing on May 18 that he was delaying military strikes for “two or three days” at the request of Middle Eastern countries, “because they think that they are getting very close to making a deal.”

At this point, even Trump seemed to acknowledge how often such predictions had gone awry.

“We’ve had periods of time where we had — we thought pretty much getting close to making a deal and it didn’t work out,” Trump said, before adding: “But this is a little bit different.”

It was not different. But he remained undeterred.

“We’re gonna end that war very quickly,” Trump said May 19 at a congressional picnic.

By May 23, he made the rounds much like he had on April 17. He said the administration was “getting a lot closer” to a deal. He said the deal was “largely negotiated, subject to finalization.” And he said the deal would be announced “shortly” and that the “final aspects” were being discussed.

On May 28, in an interview with his daughter-in-law Lara Trump, things were “close to a very good deal.”

And on Sunday, he assured that they were “very close to having a deal,” but that Iran and Israel were jeopardizing it by engaging in a side scuffle.

“We are very close to a final deal with Iran,” he told Axios. “It is going to be a good deal. I don’t want it to blow up because of what is happening now.”

It was at least the third time Trump told Axios that a deal was imminent.

And despite the tensions between Israel and Iran, Trump is still leaning in.

During a tele-rally for Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina on Monday, Trump predicted “total victory” in the next two weeks and said Iran was “willing to give us everything.”

Then, speaking to reporters early Tuesday after attending the NBA Finals in New York City, Trump said the sides were “in final throes of what will be a very, very good deal.”

“The strait will open up right away,” Trump added. “It’ll open up immediately upon signing, which could be in two or three days.”

White Refugees... Helps the whitey only...

US Accepts Only White Refugees For Sixth Consecutive Month

The Trump administration is spending more than $100 million to fight the “emergency” of “white genocide” in South Africa.

Alex Nguyen

Every single one of the 599 refugees the US admitted last month was a white South African, according to data the State Department’s Bureau of Population released Friday.

In fact, so was every other refugee admitted this year. Since October 1, 2025, the US has accepted 6,668 refugees. Of those, 6,665 were white South Africans. Three—admitted last November—were from Afghanistan. No other refugees were admitted.

That data is backed up by the US Refugee Admissions Program, a federal public-private interagency collaboration program that works on refugee resettlement.

In October, the Trump administration announced that it would cut the number of refugees admitted per year to the US to 7,500—practically all of whom will be white.

A country that made its name as a haven for immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers, the United States has long accepted refugees in numbers an order of magnitude greater—and from all over the world. The Trump figures mark a precipitous drop from from fiscal years 2022-2024; under Biden, in keeping with tradition, the annual limit was 125,000.

A presidential memo from September announced Trump’s intentions: that the refugees accepted “shall primarily be among Afrikaners from South Africa” and “other victims of illegal or unjust discrimination in their respective homelands.”

The Trump administration sees Afrikaners, an South African ethnic group descended primarily from European settlers, as victims of white “genocide”—a racist conspiracy theory promoted by many on the far right, notably Elon Musk. 

In May, the US increased the number of white South Africans it planned to admit by 10,000, to 17,500, claiming that “unforeseen developments in South Africa created an emergency refugee situation”—including South African immigration officials raiding a US refugee processing center in the country, arresting seven Kenyan nationals whom they alleged were working at the facility illegally. 

A spokesperson for South Africa’s foreign ministry said to the New York Times that same month that “the resettlement of South Africans to the United States under the guise of being ‘refugees’ is entirely politically motivated and designed to question South Africa’s constitutional democracy.” And as my colleague Noah Lanard wrote at the time, the White House “has cut off aid to South Africa based on its specious claim about discrimination against white South Africans.”

The State Department said the estimated cost of resettling those additional 10,000 Afrikaner refugees would be $100 million. 

It’s yet another way the US under Trump continues to ostentatiously demonstrate who it deems worthy of aid, and who it does not. 

Blows the whistle on Bari Weiss’ CBS News

“Can We Make the Protesters Look More Violent?”

60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley blows the whistle on Bari Weiss’ CBS News.

Sophie Hurwitz

Scott Pelley spent 37 years at CBS News, only to be fired last week after coming into conflict with Free Press founder Bari Weiss, who took control of the network last October. In a New York Times sit-down interview with Lulu Garcia-Navarro published Sunday, Pelley said Weiss personally interfered with the network’s coverage of the ICE officer who killed Renée Good in Minneapolis.

Pelley told Garcia-Navarro that, hours before an episode of 60 Minutes on the killings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti was set to air, Weiss sent an email to his boss asking for changes to the episode. “Two of the things in the email include, can we make the protesters look more violent? Now, I’m paraphrasing. I don’t have the quote, but that’s what was communicated to me. And the other thing, Renee Good’s car. You need to describe her as driving toward the officer.”

On June 3, Pelley posted on Instagram that “New management has instructed me to inject falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story.” Now, it’s clear that story was about the ICE agent who killed Renée Good: video of Good’s final moments posted by CBS Evening News does not in fact show her driving toward an officer.

A CBS spokesperson told the New York Times that Weiss’ comments “had no political motivation and were proposed solely to make the piece as strong, fair, and accurate as possible.”

“My impression at the time was that she was putting a thumb on the scale on behalf of the administration,” Pelley said. “Constantly looking out for the views of the president.” But that, to him, wasn’t the worst part. “The bigger problem, Lulu, frankly, is not any kind of political influence,” he told Garcia-Navarro. “The problem was the incompetence. You don’t break a deadline. That episode came within 19 minutes of not making it to air.”

CBS has previously pulled 60 Minutes segments, including one in December reporting on the Trump administration deporting people to a maximum security prison in El Salvador.

Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison—a key ally of President Donald Trump—installed Weiss as editor-in-chief of CBS shortly after buying her website, The Free Press, for a reported $150 million.

Threat to Us All

ICE at the World Cup Is a Threat to Us All

Civil society groups have warned anyone attending: expect human rights violations.

Alex Nguyen

We’re less than a week away from the first match of the FIFA Men’s World Cup, with tensions mounting over the United States’ role as one of the host countries, and it remains to be seen just how the Department of Homeland Security will respond to what it deems threats—or how active ICE will be at the tournament.

On Monday, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Fox News that “every single” agency would be on site. “We’re going to have facial recognition, right. If we have people coming in that’s on the terrorist watchlist, we’re going to collapse on them. That’s not going to [just] be ICE, that could be state police that collapse on them. We’re all working together.”

ICE’s facial recognition systems can misidentify people and generate false matches—and the agency reportedly places smartphone-based facial recognition matches ahead of physical evidence including birth certificates.

Perhaps to counter potential criticisms, Mullin stated that ICE will be there “not for immigration, but for terrorist threats” and that “for years, ICE has been around and no one knew who they were.”

Several cities hosting World Cup matches have announced that they would not cooperate with ICE enforcement, including Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Seattle. On Monday, LA County Sheriff Robert Luna claimed that Mullin personally told him that federal agents would not conduct civil immigration enforcement “at any of the games.” But the federal government has increasingly deployed the criminal legal system against people they allege to have violated immigration law, with little regard for their alleged offenses and despite the fact that unauthorized presence in the US is a civil offense, not a criminal one.

Even giving Mullin the benefit of the doubt—which may not be the best move—his statement leaves ample room for loopholes: will it apply between games? To areas outside the stadiums? That uncertainty impacts fans, visitors, families of players, journalists—all of whom face a heightened risk of human rights violations, according to a joint travel advisory issued by more than 120 civil society groups in April. Among the risks listed in their press release:

• Arbitrary denial of entry and risk of arrest, detention and/or deportation
• Expanded restrictions and limitation on travel and entry to the U.S.
• Invasive social media screening and searches of electronic devices
• Violent and unconstitutional immigration enforcement, including racial profiling
• Suppression of speech and protest and increased surveillance
• Cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment – and even death – while in ICE detention or custody

Given that ominous warning—and the Trump administration’s tendency to label political opponents and immigrants of all stripes as “criminal aliens,” “domestic terrorists,” or otherwise dangerous—a secondhand verbal promise that there will be no civil immigration enforcement is not reassuring.

Farming in Iowa

The “Lobe Rangers” Are Fighting to Make Farming in Iowa More Sustainable

“From my perspective, it’s not radical. It’s common sense.”

Anika Jane Beamer

James Hepp is sick of excuses.

The 36-year-old farmer manages about 1,600 acres of corn, soy, and small grains in northern Iowa. He keeps a close eye on his bottom line and says he wants to build a business that his three young children would be foolish not to join. For Hepp, a first-generation farmer, that means doing things differently from his neighbors.

In an effort to preserve soil health, he tills only narrow strips of land, leaving much of his field undisturbed. Hepp also avoids applying nitrogen fertilizer when he’s not growing crops.

At first, Hepp’s approach to farming focused on cutting costs. It let him make fewer passes with the tractor, saving money by using less diesel, herbicides, and fertilizer. The benefits for soil and water quality were a bonus.

But after more than a decade of hearing government agencies and ag commodity groups in Iowa urge farmers to fall in line with the state’s voluntary Nutrient Reduction Strategy and adopt conservation practices that could limit the nitrogen and phosphorus runoff fouling waterways, Hepp is fed up with inaction.

“You know, the Nutrient Reduction Strategy has been around for what, 13 years now?” said Hepp, often held up as a role model for his runoff-reducing efforts. “If you’re not doing it now, I don’t know what’s going to make you do it besides regulation.” 

Hepp represents one-third of the “Lobe Rangers,” a trio of corn and soy growers in Iowa’s flat and fertile Des Moines Lobe who have taken to social media to highlight the enormous gap between the conservation goals outlined in Iowa’s strategy for nutrient loss and the actual adoption of conservation practices on cropland. Fifth-generation farmers Matthew Bormann and Zack Smith round out the squad.

Bormann, Hepp and Smith are hardly the first Iowans to call for policies that target the environmental footprint of a relatively unregulated industry. Regulation has been a rallying cry in the last year for environmental groups, politicians and citizens who fear the state’s poor water quality could be linked to its rising cancer rates.

But as award-winning farmers and former county Farm Bureau board members who’ve made a living growing thousands of acres of Iowa’s two biggest commodity crops, Bormann, Hepp, and Smith represent a different demographic in the reform camp: industry insiders.

In March, the men began posting short videos to Facebook demonstrating regenerative practices at work on their farms and calling for policy interventions to improve water quality. Their posts quickly gained traction on social media feeds across the state.

As Iowa grapples with a worsening clean-water crisis fueled by agricultural pollution, the Lobe Rangers see themselves as proof that regulation won’t herald the downfall of Iowa farmers. 

“We’re doing this and it works,” Hepp said. “Like, what do you mean that you can’t afford to do it?”

Last year, farmers in Iowa grew nearly 3 billion bushels of corn and 600 million bushels of soybeans. That’s enough grain to fill over 7,000 miles of railcars, a train that could stretch from the US East to West coast twice over. 

But the large amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer that farmers are applying in the state have unwanted consequences, often leaching off fields to fuel algal blooms or unsafe nitrate levels in the state’s waterways before traveling south and harming the Gulf of Mexico.

In 2013, Iowa unveiled its Nutrient Reduction Strategy as a set of guidelines to stem the flow of chemicals from farmland into waterways and public drinking water sources. Since its inception, as in most agricultural states, the strategy has relied strictly on voluntary farm conservation efforts. 

State programs and federal grants through the US Department of Agriculture offer financial incentives and technical support for farmers who adopt conservation practices, like planting cover crops or adding buffer strips along waterways on their farms. 

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds and state Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig doubled down on those incentives in a legislative package revealed in early May, which includes an additional $52 million to expand on-farm conservation in central Iowa and $100 million for public water treatment infrastructure.

A large white man in a blue shirt kneels in a green farm field, touching the earth atop one of the rows.

On his northern Iowa farm, James Hepp plants cover crops after each harvest. Anika Jane Beamer/ICN

Critics, including the Lobe Rangers, say the favored voluntary approach has done little to improve Iowa’s water quality.  “People want clean water. If that’s the case, we need to have policy that gives us a mathematical chance of that happening,” said Smith, sheltering in his farm shop before a spring storm. “We don’t have anything close to that right now.”

Scenarios outlined in the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy in 2013 estimated that at least 60 percent of the state’s cropland would need to be planted with cover crops in the off-season to meet the state’s goal of 45 percent less nitrogen and phosphorus in major waterways by 2035. Yet last year, only about 17 percent of the state’s corn and soy fields were planted with cover crops.

“This sort of thing doesn’t get said by Republicans,” Smith said.

That discrepancy isn’t talked about enough, said Bormann, a former president of his county Farm Bureau and winner of a “Young Farmer Achievement Award” from the Iowa Farm Bureau in 2013. 

“Right now, it’s easy to stick your head in the sand, because there’s no consequences, you know,” Bormann said. But Iowans must “start talking about it,” he added. “It’s just going to make agriculture better.”

While the Lobe Rangers’ posts often spark conversations among farmers in the comments, they aren’t trying to win over their peers, Hepp said. 

Instead, the men are running their social media campaign to target politicians, political candidates and the voting public.

The three farmers think they are a valuable resource for lawmakers who fear hurting, or being accused of hurting, Iowa agriculture.

“We’re not tree huggers. We’re…farmers and, you know, we’re actually doing it. We’re actually doing it to scale,” Bormann said. “We can tell you what works, what doesn’t, what it’s actually going to take.”

Meanwhile, many of the organizations that have historically drawn attention to Iowa’s clean water crisis are “left-leaning groups” that get discounted because of their political bent or advocacy history, Smith said. “And that’s really unfortunate, because it doesn’t mean their ideas aren’t good,” he said. 

So when the Lobe Rangers penned an op-ed in the Des Moines Register in April, calling on state legislators to restore funding to a water quality sensor network that’s relied on philanthropic grants since 2023, Smith thought the men needed to note their political affiliations: two Republicans and one independent. 

“We want [politicians] to know that there is a group of farmers that know we have a problem, and that there are solutions,” he said.

In their mission to connect with political candidates, they’ve found common ground with Chris Jones, a career water scientist and Democrat running an underdog campaign for state secretary of agriculture. For years, Jones has been an unflinching advocate of regulatory fixes for nutrient pollution.

His 28-point policy solution for cleaner water includes a ban on fall tillage of cropland, taxation or restrictions on the use of fertilizer and manure, and a requirement that rented farmland be planted with cover crops at the owner’s expense.

“It is very important that we see that mainstream farmers can do it right,” Jones told Inside Climate News. “These guys, they show that you can survive by doing different things.” 

Jones regularly reposts the Lobe Rangers’ videos to his campaign Facebook page. “What they’re doing could be perceived as somewhat radical,” he said. “From my perspective, it’s not radical. It’s common sense.”

Though they now have nearly 3,000 Facebook followers, none of the Lobe Rangers are particularly keen influencers. They’ve sought video-editing help from Smith’s college-aged daughters and developed their logo (a sort of Zorro and Lone Ranger hybrid, standing among stalks of corn with his sword drawn) using AI.

But the men aren’t entirely new to being spokesmen for the agricultural industry.

Each has been the subject of glowing profiles about their use of regenerative practices, written and shared by trade groups such as the Iowa Corn Growers Association and the Iowa Farm Bureau.

When industry leaders highlight the conservation efforts of just one or two farmers, it sends the wrong message about the reality of Iowa agriculture, Bormann said. 

“It’s a PR thing where it makes it sound like Iowa farmers are doing such practices,” Bormann said. “And the truth is, they’re not.”

Just last year, Hepp received the Iowa Farm Bureau’s Young Farmer Leadership award. Now, his relationship with the group, which favors the current voluntary nutrient-pollution efforts, has cooled off. “We’ve kind of got our heads on the chopping block,” he said. 

In an email to Inside Climate News, the Iowa Farm Bureau affirmed its ongoing support for Hepp.

The group invited him to upcoming farm bureau meetings and a July economic summit, a spokesperson wrote. And last summer, farm bureau staff attended a conservation field day on Hepp’s farm “in support of his efforts.” 

“We value the opportunity to share a range of perspectives and practices that help farmers learn from one another,” the organization wrote.

Many farmers in Iowa’s aging agricultural economy are fearful of change, Hepp said. Adopting conservation practices is tantamount to admitting you were wrong.

NGC 2359

Thor not only has his own day (Thursday), but a helmet in the heavens. Popularly called Thor's Helmet, NGC 2359 is a hat-shaped cosmic cloud with wing-like appendages. Heroically sized even for a Norse god, Thor's Helmet is about 30 light-years across. In fact, the cosmic head-covering is more like an interstellar bubble, blown by a fast wind from the bright, massive star near the bubble's center. Known as a Wolf-Rayet star, the central star is an extremely hot giant thought to be in a brief, pre-supernova stage of evolution. NGC 2359 is located about 15,000 light-years away toward the constellation of the Great Overdog. This sharp image is a combination of deep images taken in light emitted by hydrogen (red) and oxygen (blue). The star in the center of Thor's Helmet is expected to explode in a spectacular supernova sometime within the next few thousand years.

OK... Does this NOW prove he is fucking insane????????

Trump says he never promised ‘no new wars’

“I didn't promise anything,” President Donald Trump said in an interview with NBC's Kristen Welker.

By Cheyanne M. Daniels

Amid ongoing scrutiny over the U.S. war with Iran, President Donald Trump on Sunday defended his foreign policy stance — and denied that he ever campaigned on the promise of “no new wars.”

In a wide-ranging interview with NBC’s Kristen Welker that aired on Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” Trump said he built a “tremendous military.”

“First of all, I didn’t guarantee no war. Why would I have built the strongest military in the world?” Trump said. “I built our military. I inherited a terrible military. We had no equipment. We had nothing. I built a tremendous military. When you say I promised, I didn’t promise anything.”

Trump said he doesn’t like “endless wars” but added that the current conflict with Iran “is not an endless war,” asserting that the Vietnam War lasted for 19 years “because of stupid people.”

“We’re there for a few months and the threat is largely over,” Trump said. “Soon, it will be over. But you cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon, or they will blow you up. There will be no Kristen. There will be no NBC. There will be no ‘Meet the Press.’”

Throughout his campaigns for president, Trump has repeatedly criticized the U.S.’s involvement in lengthy military action in Middle Eastern countries, including lambasting former President George W. Bush for the war in Iraq during a 2016 GOP debate.

While campaigning in Pennsylvania in 2024, Trump told rallygoers: “I will not send you to fight and die in stupid foreign wars that never end.” He reiterated the promise in his 2024 victory speech, stating at the time: “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.”

And Trump’s official White House biography also states that one of the president’s top priorities is “putting a stop to endless wars.”

Trump on Sunday denied that the U.S. is at war with Iran, telling Welker he does not “consider” the current situation a war.

“I don’t define it at all. I don’t think about it. I just do what I have to do,” he said.

Little puss-boy runs away....

Trump ends NBC interview over discussion of ‘crooked’ elections

He scolded host Kristen Welker: “You're a one-sided crooked network."

By Cheyanne M. Daniels

President Donald Trump stormed out of an interview with NBC’s Kristen Welker after a heated exchange over “crooked” elections.

Orange fucking turd... Stupid orange turd...

During the pre-recorded interview, which aired Sunday on “Meet the Press,” Trump also attacked the integrity of the press, including the show he was appearing on.

He claimed the Biden administration had “sent people to jail who did nothing wrong.” Welker pushed back, stating that there has been no evidence to substantiate the president’s allegations, before attempting to steer the conversation toward acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. Trump, however, doubled down.

“There’s a lot of evidence,” he said. “There’s tremendous evidence. There’s nothing but evidence.”

“Well, it’s not been presented in a court of law,” Welker replied. Trump then argued the 2020 election was rigged — a common refrain of the president’s — as he alleged rigged elections are currently taking place in California.

Republicans, he said, are “dropping fast because it’s a rigged election.” Welker questioned what evidence the president had to back up his claims of “cheating” in California’s elections.

“They’re crooked just like you’re crooked, your press is crooked. And ‘Meet the Press’ is crooked,” Trump replied.

“To be fair, I’m not crooked,” Welker said. “But let’s continue.”

Trump then accused Welker of playing “right into their hands then.”

“You play right into their hands with this stuff. You know that these elections are rigged. Your network knows that they’re rigged,” he said before attacking her credibility. “You’re a one-sided crooked network. Sorry. Let’s call it quits because I’ve had enough.”

Welker pleaded for Trump to continue the interview, pointing out she and her team had traveled all the way to Wisconsin for the interview, but Trump declined.

“You ought to straighten out your press, because you know what? A country can never be great with a dishonest press,” he said.

After the interview aired, Welker said she spoke with Trump on Saturday and he has agreed to return for a follow-up interview. She did not specify where or when that interview would take place.