Logan Garth Goodwin

Author, songwriter & independent commentator covering books, music, humor, technology and current events. Be smart. Not stupid.

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

Need ID to buy cigarettes, board a plane, cash a check, or purchase a firearm—but voter ID causes outrage?

Ask your doctor about Reconsiderol™. 😂

Because showing who you are shouldn’t cause an identity crisis.

Watch it on Rumble:
https://t.co/8bzqR4Xyk3
Political satire. Not medical advice.

#VoterID #Reconsiderol #PoliticalSatire #Comedy

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

These officers were selected through the Navy’s established merit-based promotion process, but that does not create an automatic entitlement to promotion. Civilian leaders are allowed to scrutinize senior military appointments.
However, when a defense secretary repeatedly overrides professional selection boards without publicly explaining why—and the result is that no active-duty female Navy officer is likely to be promoted to admiral this year—Congress is justified in demanding answers.
If the officers were removed for legitimate performance, conduct or readiness concerns, explain those reasons to the appropriate congressional committees. “Making America less safe” is currently an opinion, not a demonstrated fact, but unexplained ideological-looking interventions are not a convincing example of meritocracy either.

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

Methhew Jong-Nut
Senior Newscaster for KNN — Korean Nutwork News
He suffers from TES: Terminal Exaggeration Syndrome—a tragic condition that causes uncontrollable propaganda, imaginary breaking news, and severe allergic reactions to facts.

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

@thobias711_toby @HalfwayPost Clearly, you didn’t actually watch the speech. You got your version of events from my meth-head North Korean squirrel, and even he usually checks the transcript before making things up.

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

https://t.co/q4Br4N7EdI

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

Your central complaint is legitimate: Lilly did cut off 340B pricing for hospitals that refused to provide claims-level data, leaving them to comply or purchase the drugs at higher prices. That deserves scrutiny.
But “hand over patient health data” makes it sound as though Lilly demanded complete medical records. The dispute concerns claims-level pharmacy information. Lilly says it is trying to detect duplicate discounts and abuse; hospitals argue that a private manufacturer cannot invent new conditions for receiving a statutory discount.
I think the proper solution is standardized, privacy-protected federal auditing—not allowing drug companies or hospitals to police themselves. Protect 340B for legitimate safety-net care, while also requiring transparent proof that its savings actually benefit patients and underserved communities.

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

@MAGALieTracker BREAKING: An account supposedly dedicated to exposing lies is now using fake-news formatting to celebrate its own follower count and beg for retweets. That isn’t accountability—it’s engagement farming. Apparently, “BREAKING” now means “please help us hit our next vanity metric.”

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

The meeting happened, and Dani Bensky is entirely entitled to criticize how Blanche handled it. But no “Senate vote forced him.” Senator Thom Tillis threatened to withhold his own pivotal committee vote unless Blanche met with the survivors, so Blanche complied under political pressure.
Bensky’s “check-the-box” description is her firsthand judgment—not an established finding about Blanche’s motive. The accurate story is already serious enough: he resisted committing to a meeting, faced pressure from a Republican senator, finally met with survivors and apparently failed to convince them that he had a meaningful plan. There is no need to rewrite that as something the Senate formally ordered.

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

“BREAKING” based on what source? No documents have been produced, no Chinese agency has claimed possession of the Epstein files, and China has not publicly threatened to release them. The rumor being circulated openly admits that it has no proof.
China also cannot “get Trump impeached.” The House would have to examine authenticated evidence and vote to impeach, followed by a Senate trial requiring a two-thirds vote for conviction. A foreign government dumping files—assuming they even exist—would not automatically prove anything. This is rumor stacked on speculation and packaged as news for clicks.

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

That’s an exaggerated description of what is happening. The BBC argues that because Trump says its documentary falsely portrayed him as inciting January 6, his intent and conduct are relevant to whether that portrayal was substantially false. That opens the door to broad discovery—but it does not turn this civil defamation lawsuit into a criminal January 6 trial, and no judge has ruled that Trump incited the riot.
The BBC has also already apologized for splicing together statements made nearly an hour apart and acknowledged that the edit created a misleading impression. Trump may have invited an uncomfortable examination of January 6 by filing the lawsuit, but the BBC does not get to erase its admitted editing misconduct merely by changing the subject.

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

You’re collapsing two different issues. State and local officials administer elections, but the federal government still has constitutional and statutory roles involving federal election rules, voting-rights enforcement, cybersecurity, funding and legislation. A president can advocate changes without personally counting ballots.
That does not make every claim Trump makes automatically true. Each allegation should stand or fall on actual evidence. But calling him a “pathological liar” and demanding that everyone accept your conclusion is not evidence either.
I think the honest position is simple: unsupported claims from Trump should be challenged, and unsupported claims about Trump should be challenged too. You don’t get to replace proof with name-calling and call that an argument.

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

There are serious facts here worth criticizing without embellishment. Wright predicted this conflict would end within weeks, and nearly five months later it is still escalating. Shipping through Hormuz has also fallen sharply.
But “his cabinet is lying” is not established by comparing two different measurements. Wright cited a seven-day average of oil volume; Karl cited the number of ships on one day. Fewer, larger tankers can move significant oil even while vessel traffic collapses. That does not prove conditions are normal, but it also does not automatically prove Wright lied.
The Aqaba story was disputed as well: the U.S. Embassy reported an evacuation, Jordan denied ordering one, and missiles were later detected heading toward the city. I think the facts are troubling enough without pretending every disputed statement has already been proven fraudulent. Calling your partisan recap “the truth” does not make every accusation in it established fact.

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

I think you’re on track to lose by an even larger margin than you did in 2024—even though the polls showed you winning then, too. Running solely on hatred of one person, embracing increasingly toxic socialist policies, and failing to make a convincing case for yourselves is not a winning strategy.

Your own graphic contradicts your victory lap. Yes, it currently gives Democrats a combined 85% chance of winning the House. However, it also gives Republicans roughly a 57% chance of retaining the Senate. A 44% chance of a Democratic sweep means the market still considers no Democratic sweep more likely.

These are Polymarket betting prices—not votes, polls, or election results—and they can change with the next round of trades. Saying “Democrats are currently favored to win the House” is accurate. Claiming they are “clearly in the driver’s seat” to control all of Congress is partisan spin that is not supported by your own numbers.

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

“New predictions” is doing a lot of work here. This is one Kalshi betting market—not an election result, polling average or independent forecasting model—and your own post is labeled “Paid partnership.” Traders currently price Democratic control at roughly 82–83%, but market odds fluctuate and are not guarantees.
And winning the House would not automatically install Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker. The new House must vote to elect him. I think Democrats are free to celebrate favorable betting odds, but disguising a sponsored gambling-market promotion as “BREAKING” political analysis is pretty misleading.

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

The excerpt is real, but read the whole assessment. It says Russian proxies tried to influence voters by amplifying Biden, Ukraine and Burisma stories and politically helping Trump. It does not say Russia changed votes, altered ballots or manipulated the count, and it does not prove Trump directed the operation.
In fact, the intelligence assessment specifically found no indication that any foreign actor altered voter registration, ballot casting, tabulation or election results. The accurate conclusion is that Russia ran a propaganda campaign—not that it rigged the election for Trump. Red circles are not a substitute for reading the entire document.

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

The excerpt is real, but read the whole assessment. It says Russian proxies tried to influence voters by amplifying Biden, Ukraine and Burisma stories and politically helping Trump. It does not say Russia changed votes, altered ballots or manipulated the count, and it does not prove Trump directed the operation.
In fact, the intelligence assessment specifically found no indication that any foreign actor altered voter registration, ballot casting, tabulation or election results. The accurate conclusion is that Russia ran a propaganda campaign—not that it rigged the election for Trump. Red circles are not a substitute for reading the entire document.

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

The excerpt is real, but read the whole assessment. It says Russian proxies tried to influence voters by amplifying Biden, Ukraine and Burisma stories and politically helping Trump. It does not say Russia changed votes, altered ballots or manipulated the count, and it does not prove Trump directed the operation.
In fact, the intelligence assessment specifically found no indication that any foreign actor altered voter registration, ballot casting, tabulation or election results. The accurate conclusion is that Russia ran a propaganda campaign—not that it rigged the election for Trump. Red circles are not a substitute for reading the entire document.

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

You took several legitimate transparency questions and rewrote them to sound like proven crimes. The “$13 million hidden bet” was a collection of purchases reported in broad ranges—not a finding of insider trading—and the $200 penalty was for late disclosure, not for making the trades.
The $2 million foreign payment deserves scrutiny, but no evidence has emerged that Trump intervened in that company’s trade case. And “up to $21 million not publicly accounted for” does not establish that money was stolen or even literally missing. Also, it isn’t “all in Trump’s own filings”; your library accusation relies on separate corporate settlements and nonprofit records. Ask the hard questions, but stop presenting suspicions as convictions.

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

Your quotation from the Wall Street Journal is real. Your sensationalized introduction is not. The editorial criticized Trump’s rhetoric and warned that undermining confidence in elections could backfire on Republicans—but it also explicitly acknowledged that some of the vulnerabilities described in the released documents are real.
The Journal did not accuse Trump of fabricating every document or describe a “desperate attempt to lie.” Its narrower argument was that his speech failed to connect those vulnerabilities to the SAVE America Act and that the bill would not solve many of them. I think you could have reported what the editorial actually said without rewriting it into partisan clickbait.

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

Your own accusation cannot even decide whether $14 million or $21 million is supposedly “missing.” Up to $63 million was pledged or earmarked for the library, but that is not proof every dollar entered one account. The newer foundation reported roughly $50 million, and the public filings do not yet provide a complete transfer history.
The $400,000 for officers and $6.2 million under “other” came from a proposed budget—not evidence that the money was actually paid, stolen or diverted. The dissolved fund, vague expense category and contradictory compensation filings absolutely deserve a full accounting. But “not publicly explained” does not automatically mean “missing,” and “missing” does not automatically mean stolen. Show the bank records, audit or investigative findings before declaring guilt.

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

@marceelias You can disagree with her reasoning, but claiming that opposing this bill means supporting illegal voting is dishonest. Debate what she actually said instead of inventing a position for her.

[Logan Garth Goodwin @Logan_G_Goodwin]

@Dookie64 @HalfwayPost “TACO” and “pedophile” are insults, not evidence. If you have credible proof of a crime, post the documentation or provide it to law enforcement. Otherwise, address the actual issue instead of trying to replace an argument with name-calling and an unsupported accusation.