Why Social Security Isn't a Ponzi Scheme: Understanding Real Issues Behind the Program's Challenges

Elon’s comment about Social. Security being the “biggest Ponzi scheme of all time” is, at best, delusional, at worst, disinformation.

First up, The Oligarchs Who Came to Regret Supporting

Soc. Sec. is a great concept & program, but has been abused by Congress, not by the American people who are owed what they earned & were promised.

Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme because it operates on a fundamentally different model. In a Ponzi scheme, early investors are paid with the money from new investors, and there’s no actual investment or sustainable source of funds. Over time, Ponzi schemes collapse because the returns promised to investors exceed the money coming in from new participants.

Social Security, on the other hand, is a pay-as-you-go system where current workers pay into the system through payroll taxes (FICA) to fund benefits for current retirees. While it faces long-term funding challenges, the program is not designed to deceive people or collapse when the money runs out, like a Ponzi scheme. Social Security benefits are based on earnings history, and the system is backed by law, not fraudulent promises.

The issues arise from mismanagement, such as Congress diverting funds from the Social Security trust fund for other purposes, and demographic shifts (like an aging population) putting pressure on the program’s finances. But these are solvable through adjustments, rather than being a sign of a fraudulent scheme.

Why do Trump, Musk, MaGA & their corrupted GOP hate Social Security (Social Programs and seemingly the American citizen)?

​President Donald Trump and Elon Musk have recently taken actions that have raised concerns about the future of Social Security. Their administration has initiated measures aimed at reducing government spending, which some critics argue could negatively impact Social Security services and benefits. For instance, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Musk, has proposed closing Social Security offices to streamline operations, potentially making it harder for beneficiaries to access essential services. ​

Additionally, a leaked memo suggests that Trump and Musk are considering cuts to Social Security to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. This proposal has sparked criticism, with opponents arguing that such cuts would harm millions of beneficiaries. ​

However, the Trump administration maintains that it does not intend to reduce Social Security benefits. A recent White House fact check asserts that President Trump will always protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, refuting claims about potential cuts. ​

These contrasting actions and statements have led to confusion and concern among the public regarding the administration's true intentions for Social Security. While some measures aim to reduce government spending and address alleged fraud, others fear these actions may inadvertently undermine the program's integrity and accessibility.​

Compiled with aid from ChatGPT

Legal Experts Debate Trump's Use of Alien Enemies Act for Deportations

Legal Experts Debate Trump's Use of Alien Enemies Act for Deportations

Trump administration likely overstepped authority in immigration crackdown, experts say
When a tattoo means deportation, every American should be alarmed | Editorial

Judge incredulous in Trump deportation case as administration lawyers argue verbal court order isn’t binding – as it happened

Convicted Felon ​President Trump's recent invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expedite the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members has sparked significant legal debate. The Alien Enemies Act grants the president authority to detain or deport non-citizens from enemy nations during times of declared war or armed conflict. However, experts argue that its application in this context is unprecedented, as the United States is neither at war with Venezuela nor facing an armed attack from it. 

Legal challenges have arisen, with U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issuing a temporary restraining order to halt the deportations. Despite this, the administration proceeded with the deportations, leading to heightened tensions between the executive and judiciary branches. 

The Supreme Court has previously addressed the Alien Enemies Act, notably in the 1948 case of Ludecke v. Watkins, where it upheld the detention of a German national during World War II until a formal peace treaty was signed. However, the current situation differs, as there is no declared war with Venezuela.​

Given these circumstances, if the Supreme Court reviews President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, it may scrutinize the administration's broad interpretation of "invasion" and assess whether the act's application is appropriate without a formal declaration of war. Legal analysts suggest that the Court could rule against the administration's actions, considering them an overreach of executive authority. ​

In summary, while the outcome is uncertain, the Supreme Court may be inclined to limit the application of the Alien Enemies Act in this context, emphasizing adherence to constitutional boundaries and the importance of checks and balances.

However...

If the Supreme Court were to "smile and nod" or simply allow the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act without substantial scrutiny, it could signal a concerning trend of the Court being passive in the face of executive overreach. 

This might suggest a willingness to prioritize executive power over individual rights and constitutional limits. It could also indicate that the Court is reluctant to challenge or check the authority of the president, potentially undermining the role of the judiciary as a protector of constitutional principles and democratic checks and balances. Such a decision might lead to criticism of the Court as being overly deferential or politically influenced, weakening public trust in its independence and impartiality.

An overarching increase in executive power, especially when deemed unacceptable, raises significant concerns about the balance of power outlined in the U.S. Constitution. The framers of the Constitution deliberately designed a system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too dominant. When the executive branch gains unchecked authority, it can undermine the separation of powers, leading to potential abuses.

If the executive is allowed to expand its powers without proper judicial review or congressional oversight, it could lead to authoritarian tendencies, where the president can act unilaterally without the necessary scrutiny or restraint. This centralization of power risks eroding the democratic principles that ensure accountability and transparency.

In such cases, the role of the Supreme Court becomes crucial. If the Court doesn't assert its responsibility to protect constitutional limits, the unchecked growth of executive power can transform the executive into an entity that is not only above the law but potentially able to dictate national policy without regard for the other branches' input. This could severely compromise individual freedoms, rights, and the democratic system of governance.

Thus, if SCOTUS were to "smile and nod" at Donald Trump's expansion of his executive powers without significant challenge, it sets a dangerous precedent, leading to an erosion of the checks and balances that are essential for preserving democracy and safeguarding civil liberties.

Trump really is not good for America. Never has been. Regardless the disinformation, the Russian influencing, or the MaGA political personality cult's beliefs.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Has Brexit (Or MaGA) Been All It Was Cracked Up To Be?

Now that it's been a while has Brexit been all it was cracked up to be?  Or more like Donald Trump and his MaGA "scam & grift" nonsense?

Not really. While Brexit was sold as a way for the UK to "take back control" of its laws, borders, and economy, the reality has been far more complicated and, in many ways, disappointing for its supporters.

Economic Impact

• The UK economy has grown more slowly than it would have if it had remained in the EU, according to multiple studies, including from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

• Trade with the EU has become more difficult due to customs checks and bureaucracy, hurting businesses, especially small ones.

• Investment in the UK has lagged behind comparable economies.

• The pound has remained weaker compared to pre-Brexit levels, affecting inflation and living costs.

Political Impact

• Brexit has intensified divisions within the UK, particularly in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where support for independence/reunification has grown.

• The Northern Ireland Protocol caused political instability, and even after adjustments, trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK remains a contentious issue.

• The UK is struggling to sign major trade deals that compensate for the loss of frictionless EU trade.

Social and Workforce Impact

• Worker shortages have hit sectors like agriculture, healthcare, and hospitality due to reduced EU migration.

• Travel between the UK and the EU has become more complicated, with visa requirements for longer stays and increased costs for businesses and travelers.

Was It Worth It?

Even many Brexit supporters now acknowledge that it hasn't delivered the economic or political boost they hoped for. Some say it was mismanaged, while others argue the fundamental premise was flawed. Polling consistently shows that more Britons now view Brexit as a mistake than a success.

See Author ~ Eilene Workman
bottom of this article

A comparison of Brexit and the "Make america Great Again" (MaGA) movement as potentially unfulfilled promises driven by political opportunism is insightful. Both initiatives have had complex outcomes that deviate from their original aspirations.

Brexit:

• Economic Consequences: The UK's Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that both exports and imports will be approximately 15% lower in the long term compared to a scenario where the UK had remained in the EU. Additionally, economic productivity is expected to be 4% less than it otherwise would have been. ​AP News+1U.S. News+1

• Public Sentiment: As of January 2025, 55% of people in Great Britain believe that leaving the EU was the wrong decision, while 30% still support it. ​Statista

MaGA Political Trump-Grift Movement:

• Political Shifts: A recent poll indicates that, for the first time, a majority (52%) of Republicans identify more with the MaGA movement than with the traditional GOP. ​Vanderbilt University

• Economic Repercussions: Investments associated with Trump, such as stocks of Trump’s Media & Technology Group and certain cryptocurrencies, have experienced significant declines. Tesla's stock, influenced by CEO Elon Musk's association with Trump, has also nearly halved, resulting in substantial financial losses. ​MarketWatch

• Authoritarian Concerns: The current administration faces accusations of undermining democratic institutions, including the justice system and free speech, raising alarms about a shift toward authoritarianism. ​The Guardian

In summary, both Brexit and the MaGA movement have led to outcomes that diverge from their original promises, with significant economic and political implications. While some supporters remain steadfast, growing public dissatisfaction and unforeseen consequences suggest that these initiatives have not fully delivered on their ambitious goals.

Bottom line? UK or America? Do your research and do not follow those trying to scam the public with political grifts in being utterly uncaring as long as it benefits them.

What about foreign intervention behind the scenes? It's been known Putin and Russia were involved in "throwing the occassional spanner in the works", or "muddying the waters", for both countries on these issues.

Commonly referred to as foreign interference or foreign influence operations, when a foreign actor like Putin engages in these tactics, it can be labeled under several related terms:

1. Election Interference – Direct or indirect involvement in a foreign country's elections, often aimed at influencing the outcome to favor a particular party, candidate, or cause. This includes hacking, disinformation campaigns, or even financial support.

2. Cyber Warfare – Using digital means, such as hacking or social media manipulation, to influence political outcomes, disrupt systems, or spread propaganda.

3. Information Warfare – The use of media and social platforms to spread disinformation, create divisions, or distort public perception, often aimed at weakening political opponents or influencing national policy.

4. Hybrid Warfare – A more comprehensive approach combining conventional military tactics, cyber attacks, economic pressure, and disinformation to influence a nation’s politics or stability, all while maintaining a degree of deniability.

5. Active Measures – A term from Russian intelligence practices, used to describe covert efforts to influence political processes in foreign countries, often through propaganda, disinformation, and supporting favored groups or candidates.

These terms reflect the broad strategies employed by foreign powers to manipulate or influence another country's political landscape for their own benefit, without resorting to outright military force.

​Vladimir Putin's involvement in both Brexit and Donald Trump's political ascent has been a subject of extensive analysis and debate. While definitive evidence of direct orchestration is lacking, multiple indicators suggest that Russia sought to influence these political events to align with its strategic interests.​

Russian Influence in Brexit:

• Social Media Manipulation: Russian-affiliated accounts were identified as disseminating pro-Leave content during the Brexit referendum. Studies estimate that automated accounts may have contributed approximately 1.76 percentage points to the Leave vote. ​Wikipedia

• State Media Coverage: Russian state media outlets, notably RT, provided extensive coverage of the referendum, often presenting biased perspectives favoring Brexit. This coverage's estimated value ranged between £1.4 and £4.14 million. ​Wikipedia

• Parliamentary Findings: A UK parliamentary report highlighted concerns over Russia's potential attempts to influence the Brexit vote. It noted the government's insufficient response to protect the referendum's integrity and called for a comprehensive investigation akin to the U.S. Mueller inquiry. ​CSIS

Russian Influence in Trump's Political Rise:

• Public Admiration: Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump frequently praised Putin, referring to him as "highly respected." He notably remarked that the U.S. had its own share of "killers," equating American actions with those of Russia. ​Representative Swalwell

• Kremlin's Narrative Control: Analysts observed that during the 2018 Helsinki summit, Putin adeptly shaped the narrative, with Trump appearing accommodating to Russian interests. This dynamic was viewed as a strategic victory for the Kremlin. ​Brookings

• Strategic Engagements: Putin has been perceived as leveraging Trump's desires for swift and decisive actions, offering opportunities that align with Russian interests. For instance, facilitating the release of American citizens detained in Russia served to bolster Trump's image. ​Carnegie Endowment

In summary, while direct evidence of Putin orchestrating Brexit and Trump's political emergence is not definitive, there is substantial evidence of Russian efforts to sway these events in favor of Kremlin interests. These actions align with Russia's broader strategy of exerting influence over Western political processes

In summary, both Brexit and Trump’s rise to power have been influenced by foreign interference, with Russia playing a key role in shaping outcomes through disinformation, media manipulation, and support for political movements aligned with Kremlin interests. 

These actions, often referred to as foreign influence operations or election interference, have muddied political waters, complicating national discourse and undermining the clarity of democratic processes. While the full extent of Russia's involvement remains debated, the impact of these interventions has left lasting consequences on both UK and US politics.

In the end, it will take years, if not decades, to untangle the aftermath of of these foolish Brexit and Trump fiascos.​

Author ~ Eilene Workman:
I know a little something that so many do not appreciate about Donald, but that those of us who worked with him in the financial services game have known for many decades—LONG before he ever made a run at politics.
His stated motives rarely reveal his true agenda. His showmanship and charisma bedazzles the uninformed, which is exactly how he likes it.
He never signed a contract or met an agreement he wouldn’t violate or wriggle out of if it suited his hidden agenda. He never met an investor whose purse he didn’t consider his own in some strategic way. And he never met a human being he wouldn’t screw in order to advance or satisfy himself.
If you want to understand his beef with Panama, don’t look at the canal to which he now points. Look at Trump enterprises and their fraught financial and criminal relationship with Panama, and look to the Russian oligarchs who bought condos in his Panama Tower.
If you want to understand his fixation with Gaza, don’t look at the Palestinian or Israeli people; look at the real estate value he now perceives that Gaza holds, and he’d like to unlock.
If you want to understand his insane, obsessive beef with energy renewable windmills, don’t look at the wind energy aspect; look at his beef with Scotland over his golf course and the nearby windmills that damaged his idea of its aesthetics.
If you want to understand his irrational hatred of Obama, don’t look at the policies of the Obama administration; look to the annual press corp dinner where Obama poked fun at him and bruised his ego. If you want to understand his demonization of Democrats, look not to Democratic social policy, but to the fact they didn’t want him to run under color of their party.
If you want to understand his hatred of “immigrants” don’t look to the actual contributions and challenges related to immigration, but to his own germophobia and personal disgust for all things “dirty and brown.”
What he does SO masterfully, as many sociopaths do, is figure out how to align, however temporarily, his own personal agenda with the drives of those he can then USE to help him execute it. And the GOP fell right in line with that abusive strategy.
The GOP now looks much like a battered wife who would LOVE to quit Trump, but who also knows their financial security, personal comfort, and social status would collapse if they ran away. And they fear they won’t get much sympathy or support from the people who tried to warn them not to marry the dude—a serial, liar, cheater, thief, sadist, and a generally Bad Person.
Many of the GOP politicians today are busily masking their own abuse from the general public; at some point, however, as they watch their power continue to erode, their reputations get smashed, and themselves get blamed for the extensive abuse they now suffer, something’s gonna give.
I don’t know what it is, but every bone in my body FEELS an energetic convergence heading toward a massive, MASSIVE explosion—coming soon.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Trump suggests US join British Commonwealth... if offered by King Charles?

OMG!

What nonsense is this? 

How does this make any sense? 

Why so damn many weird distractions with this guy?

Why does Trump & his "administration" break or corrupt all they touch? Seriously...WTF?

Someone make this convicted felon and chaotic child, and his personality cult go away!

Why? 

Trump suggests US could join the British Commonwealth if offered by King Charles

​President Trump's recent suggestion that the United States could join the Commonwealth of Nations has raised eyebrows, given the nation's historical context and the Commonwealth's typical composition. The Commonwealth is a political association of 56 member states, most of which are former territories of the British Empire. Membership is voluntary and symbolizes shared values such as democracy and human rights. ​

The United States, having gained independence from Britain in 1776, has never been a member of the Commonwealth. However, there is precedent for countries without historical ties to the British Empire joining the organization. For example, Mozambique and Rwanda, both former non-British colonies, became members in 1995 and 2009, respectively. ​

Reports suggest that King Charles III might extend an offer for the U.S. to become an associate member of the Commonwealth during President Trump's upcoming state visit to the UK. This proposal is viewed as a symbolic gesture to strengthen the "special relationship" between the two nations. President Trump responded positively to this idea, stating on Truth Social, "I love King Charles. Sounds good to me!" 

"...strengthen the "special relationship" between the two nations"? WHY? Why would we need to strengthen our relationship with the UK...UNLESS Trump has done something to tarnish that relationship, damage it, or needlessly abuse it!

America is being led by an immature brat who needs to fix the things he continuously breaks, one thing after another!

And he has an unelected child in the richest clown in the world running around our government doing Trump and his own bidding.

WTHF America?

While the notion may seem unconventional, it aligns with efforts to reinforce diplomatic ties and shared values among member nations. The decision to admit a new member rests with the Commonwealth Secretariat and requires consensus among existing members. Therefore, any potential U.S. membership would undergo careful consideration and deliberation.​

There are several potential downsides to the idea of the U.S. joining the Commonwealth, even as an associate member:

1. Political and Historical Contradictions

• The U.S. fought the American Revolution to break away from British rule. Joining the Commonwealth—even symbolically—would be seen by many as a contradiction of that history.

• It could be perceived as an insult to American sovereignty, implying some level of subordination to a British-led institution.

2. Lack of Practical Benefits

• The Commonwealth is primarily a symbolic and diplomatic organization. It does not provide significant economic or political advantages to its members.

• Unlike the European Union or NATO, it does not involve military or trade agreements that would justify membership.

3. Diplomatic Tensions

• The move could create friction with other global allies who might see it as a shift in U.S. foreign policy priorities.

• Commonwealth members might resist U.S. involvement, fearing that its influence would overshadow smaller nations.

4. Domestic Backlash

• Many Americans, especially conservatives and nationalists, could see this as unnecessary foreign entanglement or an erosion of U.S. independence.

• Critics could frame it as Trump attempting to align the U.S. with a monarchy, which conflicts with core American republican values.

5. No Clear Path for Admission

• Commonwealth membership is typically reserved for former British colonies or nations with historical ties to the British Empire.

• The U.S. does not fit these criteria, and existing members might oppose its admission.

Ultimately, the proposal seems more symbolic than substantive, but even as a gesture, it could be politically divisive.

​President Trump's recent suggestion that the United States could join the British Commonwealth has raised questions about its seriousness and intent. Historically, Trump has employed sensational statements to dominate media coverage, often diverting attention from other pressing issues. This tactic, sometimes referred to as "flooding the zone," involves overwhelming the public with provocative remarks, making it challenging to focus on substantive policy discussions. ​

Given the symbolic nature of such a proposal and the logistical improbability of the U.S. joining the Commonwealth, it's plausible that this suggestion serves more as a media distraction than a genuine policy initiative. By introducing such unexpected ideas, the administration can shift public discourse, potentially sidelining more critical topics from the spotlight.​

In summary, while the notion of the U.S. joining the Commonwealth is unconventional and unlikely to materialize, it aligns with President Trump's pattern of using bold statements to capture media attention and influence public conversation.​

A mental and emotional two year old. Our POTUS is a toddler... 

 Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

The Narcissism of Power: How Trump’s ‘Drain the Swamp’ Rhetoric Fuels Authoritarianism

The dynamic between Donald Trump’s supporters and his opponents can be understood through psychological and sociopolitical lenses, particularly in relation to narcissism and authoritarianism.

First off, let's talk about the mechanics of this nonsense.

The mesolimbic system, often called the brain's "reward pathway," plays a crucial role in motivation, pleasure, reinforcement learning, and addiction. It involves the release of dopamine, reinforcing behaviors that are perceived as rewarding, whether beneficial or harmful.

In the case of MaGA Trump supporters who seem impervious to reality, their engagement can be understood through this neurobiological framework:

1. Reinforcement and Reward

   • Trump’s rhetoric and MaGA culture provide a strong sense of belonging, identity, and emotional highs akin to addiction.

   • The dopamine-driven reinforcement from rallies, social media echo chambers, and community validation makes it hard for individuals to accept contradictory information, as doing so would disrupt their reward cycle.

2. Cognitive Dissonance Avoidance

   • If reality contradicts their worldview, processing it would cause psychological discomfort. Instead of adapting, they double down, seeking reinforcement from the same sources that reward their beliefs.

   • The mesolimbic system encourages behaviors that avoid pain—admitting they were deceived or wrong would be painful, so the brain resists.

3. Fear and Threat Processing

   • The amygdala (linked to the mesolimbic system) is highly active when individuals feel threatened. Trump's messaging often uses fear (immigrants, deep state, etc.), which hijacks rational processing in favor of emotional responses.

   • Once the brain perceives a group or idea as a "threat," logic takes a backseat to emotion-driven responses.

4. Loss Aversion and Sunk Cost Fallacy

   • Many Trump supporters have invested years of identity into MaGA ideology. The mesolimbic system reinforces continued investment rather than accepting loss and moving on.

   • If they absorbed exactly where they were headed (authoritarianism, personal harm, national instability), it would require them to admit a massive personal and ideological loss—something their brain chemistry fights against.

In essence, the MaGA movement operates like a dopamine-reinforced loop, where the fear of loss, social validation, and emotional highs keep individuals trapped in an alternate reality. If they could break that reinforcement cycle, many might recognize the path they’re on and abandon it—but their neurobiology makes that extremely difficult.

Now how about this nonsense?

As of today, March 22, 2025, only a few Republican members of Congress have publicly opposed the idea of President Donald Trump seeking a third term. Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma stated he would not support Trump running for a third term unless the U.S. Constitution is amended to allow it, emphasizing that such a change should reflect the will of the American people.​

Additionally, Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee introduced a proposal to amend the Twenty-second Amendment, aiming to permit presidents who have served non-consecutive terms to run for a third term. This proposal is widely viewed as a means to enable Trump to seek another term.

However, these instances appear to be exceptions rather than the norm. The majority of congressional Republicans have not publicly expressed opposition to Trump's potential pursuit of a third term. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has criticized her colleagues for their reluctance to challenge Trump, attributing it to fears of primary challenges and media backlash. She emphasized the importance of maintaining integrity, even in the face of potential threats from influential figures like Elon Musk. ​Politico

In summary, while a small number of Republican lawmakers have taken stands against Trump's third-term ambitions, there is no widespread opposition within the party. Many Republicans continue to support Trump, reflecting his significant influence over the party.

Getting back to the direct issue at hand...​

1. Trump's Narcissism and Authoritarian Appeal

Donald Trump exhibits traits consistent with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), including:

• Grandiosity: An exaggerated sense of self-importance.

• Lack of Empathy: An inability or unwillingness to understand others' perspectives.

• Need for Admiration: Constant validation and loyalty from followers.

• Manipulative Behavior: Gaslighting, deflecting blame, and creating an "us vs. them" mentality.

These traits align closely with authoritarian leadership, which emphasizes:

• Strongman politics: A leader who projects power and infallibility.

• Control over norms and institutions: Undermining checks and balances, rejecting legal constraints.

• Demonization of outsiders: Defining clear enemies (immigrants, media, political opponents) to unify followers.

2. Why Trump Supporters Are Drawn to Him

Many of Trump's supporters resonate with his narcissistic tendencies because of psychological, social, and political factors:

• Authoritarian Personality Theory: Some individuals are naturally inclined toward hierarchical, strongman leadership. They seek order, clear rules, and an authoritative figure who claims to protect them from chaos.

• Mirroring and Identification: Many of his supporters either admire or unconsciously mimic his behavior. They see his refusal to apologize, his aggression, and his self-assurance as qualities of strength.

• Fear and Resentment: Trump validates their grievances, whether about economic hardship, racial demographic changes, or perceived cultural decline.

• Desire for Belonging: His movement offers a sense of identity and unity, with shared values and a common enemy.

3. Why Opponents Cannot Connect With Their Mindset

Those who oppose Trump generally do not share authoritarian or narcissistic tendencies, making it difficult for them to empathize with his supporters:

• Higher Empathy and Tolerance: Many Trump opponents value inclusivity, diversity, and democracy, which contradict authoritarianism.

• Analytical vs. Emotional Thinking: Trump's base often responds to emotional narratives, while his opponents focus more on rational arguments and fact-checking.

• Disgust at Narcissism: Narcissistic behavior—such as lying, bragging, or lacking empathy—is seen as repulsive rather than admirable.

• Skepticism Toward Absolute Authority: Many of Trump's critics prefer decentralized power, institutional accountability, and collective decision-making over following a singular leader.

4. The Incompatibility Between the Two Groups

The fundamental reason why Trump's supporters and opponents cannot see eye to eye is that they operate from fundamentally different worldviews:

• One side admires strength, dominance, and unwavering confidence (even at the cost of truth).

• The other values humility, cooperation, and adherence to facts and norms.

This psychological and moral divide makes it nearly impossible for each side to understand or respect the other’s orientation. Trump's supporters view his critics as weak, naive, or unpatriotic, while his opponents see his followers as manipulated, authoritarian-leaning, or complicit in narcissistic behavior.

Trump and his allies often claim that their movement is about fixing the government, shrinking the federal bureaucracy, and restoring power to "the people." This rhetoric taps into long-standing conservative and libertarian ideals about small government and deregulation. However, when we compare what they say with what they actually do, contradictions emerge.

---

1. CLAIM: “Shrinking the Federal Government”

• RHETORIC: Trump and his supporters argue that they want to reduce the size of government, eliminate waste, and return power to states and individuals.

• REALITY:

  • Expansion of Executive Power: Rather than decentralizing power, Trump concentrated more control in the executive branch, undermining checks and balances.

  • Selective Cuts: While Trump talked about cutting government, he primarily targeted agencies that regulate corporations (EPA, FDA, etc.) while expanding spending on defense, border security, and tax cuts for the wealthy.

  • Project 2025: A Heritage Foundation-backed plan supported by Trump allies seeks to purge the federal workforce of career civil servants and replace them with ideological loyalists—a move that increases executive power, not shrinks it.

---

2. CLAIM: “Draining the Swamp”

• RHETORIC: Trump campaigned on eliminating corruption, removing “deep state” bureaucrats, and putting the government back in the hands of the people.

• REALITY:

  • Increased Cronyism: Instead of eliminating corruption, Trump filled his administration with lobbyists, industry insiders, and personal loyalists. Many of them, such as Steve Mnuchin (Treasury), Betsy DeVos (Education), and Wilbur Ross (Commerce), had deep financial ties that benefitted from their government roles.

  • Weaponizing the Government for Personal Use: Trump repeatedly used the DOJ to protect himself and his allies while pressuring it to investigate political opponents.

  • Profiting from the Presidency: Trump and his family directly profited from his presidency through foreign business dealings, government contracts at Trump properties, and funneling campaign money into his businesses.

---

3. CLAIM: “Fighting for Freedom and Small Government”

• RHETORIC: Trump and his allies present themselves as champions of individual liberty, opposing government overreach.

• REALITY:

  • Authoritarian Policies: Despite talking about freedom, Trump has endorsed policies that centralize power:

    • Proposing to deploy the military against domestic protesters (2020).

    • Supporting state-level abortion bans that override individual rights.

    • Promoting censorship of political opponents and media outlets that criticize him.

  • Using the Government Against Enemies: Trump frequently suggests he will use federal agencies to punish critics, imprison political opponents, and retaliate against perceived disloyalty.

  • Expanding Federal Surveillance: Despite libertarian rhetoric, Trump continued mass surveillance programs and even tried to use the NSA and FBI to benefit himself.

---

4. CLAIM: “Law and Order”

• RHETORIC: Trump’s movement claims to stand for law, order, and public safety.

• REALITY:

  • Selective Enforcement: Trump and his allies want a justice system that punishes their enemies while protecting their own.

    • He pardoned convicted criminals who were his political allies, including Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, and Paul Manafort.

    • He demonizes federal law enforcement when it investigates him (FBI, DOJ) but uses it aggressively against others (BLM, immigration raids).

  • Encouraging Lawlessness: Trump’s rhetoric has emboldened:

    • January 6 insurrectionists, whom he has called “patriots.”

    • Vigilante groups and extremist militias that operate outside legal frameworks.

    • Erosion of accountability, as he suggests that if re-elected, he will go after prosecutors, judges, and opponents who challenge him.

---

5. CLAIM: “The People Are in Charge”

• RHETORIC: Trump supporters argue that their movement is about giving power back to regular Americans rather than elites.

• REALITY:

  • Elitist Power Grab: Trump’s policies overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy, with tax cuts that favored corporations and billionaires while increasing the deficit.

  • Undermining Democracy: Instead of empowering "the people," Trump and his allies:

    • Attempted to overturn the 2020 election.

    • Spread false election fraud claims to justify suppressing votes.

    • Encourage rule by force, not by democratic institutions.

---

CONCLUSION

Trump and his movement promote a myth of small government, anti-corruption, and populism while enacting policies that expand executive power, protect elites, and erode democratic institutions. His supporters believe they are fighting against an overreaching government, but in reality, they are enabling a more centralized, authoritarian system that prioritizes loyalty over competence.

Brief aside:

Does Trump Have ADHD? My Professional Opinion | HuffPost Latest News

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Commander in Cheat: When Golf (or Sports) and Despotism Go Hand in Hand

Trump's rhetoric draws alarming comparisons to autocratic leaders and dictators.

We've seen odd behaviors from such types. And remember, how much Trump cozies up to these types (Putin, Kim Jong Il, Xi, etc.), and not out of any political cleverness, but merely for a desire to be one of them. 

We’ve seen odd behaviors from autocratic despots and dictators throughout history—leaders who manipulate, exaggerate, and bend the truth to maintain control. What’s striking is that Trump doesn’t simply align with these figures for political gain or out of strategic acumen; he cozies up to them because he admires their style of leadership. 

Trump's relationship with figures like Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, and other strongmen isn’t based on common ideological ground but on a shared desire for unchecked power. Trump's attraction to these leaders goes beyond diplomatic interests—it’s rooted in his own yearning to emulate their ability to dominate, control, and defy established norms. Instead of challenging their methods, he seeks to be one of them, reflecting an authoritarian impulse more than a pursuit of democratic principles.

Kim Jong-Il was a dictator who went to great links

Then the day Kim Jong IL became the world's best golfer. Kind of laughable, right? WE don't do that kind of thing...right?

I mean, who DOES that? OK sure, North Korea? But who else? Sure, it's just NK lies & Nonsense...but ON our American Despotic front?

"Donald Trump admits it was 'probably' his last golf tournament." OK, he's old, so hanging up his (faux) Pro-clubs in "playing" in golf "championships". One's he sponsors, so one HE "Wins".

Although this championship "win" wasn't THAT surprising. After all, Trump has claimed "Victories" at this event for the past several years.

Donald Trump likened to Kim Jong Un by tennis legend over outlandish golf claim" Irish Star - and this from a country known for tall tales.

"The U.S. President appears to have developed a knack for over-exaggerating his success on the greens and has recently come under fire for something he claimed to have achieved in 2022." Overexaggerating? These are outright lies anyone who has ever played with him knows about. Though his supporters and Republicans do lie about it: "Another user backed the cheating claims, tweeted: 'Trump has been known to pick up the ball and put it in the cup so…��‍♀️' "

In fact, Trump's fantastically claimed "Wins" are notorious throughout the golf world. This type of lying behavior by a despot is often referred to as "megalomaniacal propaganda" or "cult of personality fabrication.

Jimmy Kimmel Remixes North Korean State Media to Mock Trump’s Golf Tournament Claims | Video

Martina Navratilova criticizes Donald Trump with Kim Jong Un comparison over US President's old golf claim.

Multiple individuals who have played golf with former President Donald Trump have publicly claimed that he engages in cheating during rounds. Notable accounts include:

• Rick Reilly, a sportswriter who has played with Trump, authored the book Commander in Cheat: How Golf Explains Trump, detailing various alleged cheating tactics. Reilly claims Trump uses a "turbo-charged golf cart" to get ahead of his competition, allowing him to move balls before others catch up.

  People.com

• Suzann Pettersen, a professional golfer with 15 LPGA Tour wins, stated in a 2018 interview that Trump "cheats like hell" on the golf course.

  The Guardian

• Mike Tirico, a sportscaster, recounted an incident where he hit a near-perfect shot, only to find his ball mysteriously in a sand trap later. He was later informed that Trump had thrown his ball into the bunker.

  GolfDigest.com

These accounts provide firsthand perspectives on Trump's alleged behavior on the golf course.

This type of lying behavior by a despot is often referred to as "megalomaniacal propaganda" or "cult of personality fabrication." More specifically, it can fall under several psychological and political concepts, such as:

1. Pathological Lying (Pseudologia Fantastica) – Habitual or grandiose falsehoods intended to create an exaggerated image of greatness.
2. Mythmaking Propaganda – Creating absurd or superhuman myths to reinforce the ruler's divine or infallible status.
3. Authoritarian Gaslighting – Manipulating public perception to make people question reality and accept the leader’s version of events.
4. Omnipotence Illusion – Presenting the leader as all-powerful and superhuman to discourage dissent and solidify loyalty.

Kim Jong-il (not Kim Jong-un) was famously reported to have shot 38 under par, including 11 hole-in-ones, during his first-ever golf game, a claim that fits within these categories of despotic deception.

Accusations of despotism against former U.S. President Donald Trump stem from several actions and statements perceived as authoritarian:

1. Expansion of Executive Power: In February 2025, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport 261 alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador, despite a federal judge's order to halt such deportations. This unprecedented use of a wartime law during peacetime was viewed by legal experts as an illegal misuse of power and a direct threat to the rule of law.

   The Australian

2. Defiance of Judicial Authority: Trump's administration proceeded with deportations even after court orders blocked such actions, challenging the judiciary's role as a check on executive power. Critics argue this defiance undermines constitutional checks and balances, posing risks to American democracy.

   Times Union

3. Rhetoric Suggesting Authoritarian Intentions: During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump remarked he would act as a dictator only on "day one" to implement specific policies, such as closing the border. While some dismissed this as rhetoric, others viewed it as an indication of authoritarian ambitions.

   Wikipedia

4. Dehumanizing Language and Threats of Violence: Trump's campaign employed increasingly dehumanizing and violent rhetoric against political adversaries and immigrants. Historians and scholars have described this language as populist, authoritarian, and fascist, raising concerns about its implications for democratic norms.

   Wikipedia

5. Challenges to Constitutional Checks and Balances: Trump's actions, such as defying court orders and expanding executive authority, have been characterized as a "bald power grab," leading to fears that the U.S. could be on a path toward dictatorship. Legal experts warn that unchecked executive authority undermines the foundational principles of American democracy.

   The Guardian

These actions and statements have contributed to perceptions of Trump as exhibiting despotic tendencies, prompting debates about the resilience of democratic institutions in the United States.

Trump’s alleged golf cheating fits a broader pattern seen in authoritarian leaders who fabricate personal greatness to reinforce their image. Just as despots throughout history have exaggerated their achievements—like Kim Jong Il claiming to shoot 38 under par—Trump has been accused by sportswriters, professional golfers, and playing partners of bending the rules to maintain a myth of dominance. 

Rick Reilly’s Commander in Cheat details how Trump manipulates the game, while LPGA pro Suzann Pettersen and sportscaster Mike Tirico recount firsthand instances of him moving balls and falsifying scores. These behaviors reflect a deeper authoritarian tendency: the need to control narratives, even in trivial matters, to project infallibility and superiority.

One last thing...

We have an entire cohort of co called "conservatives" who for decades have believed themselves to be that, while the party which serves that group have moved consistently into the extreme and the Fascist.

A statement that is largely accurate when looking at the political trajectory of the Republican Party in the U.S. over the past few decades. Many self-identified conservatives still see themselves as supporting traditional conservative values—such as limited government, free markets, and individual freedoms—while the party itself has increasingly embraced far-right populism, authoritarian tendencies, and nationalist rhetoric.

This shift has been noted by historians and political analysts, who highlight that the Republican Party has moved away from traditional conservatism (e.g., as represented by figures like Dwight Eisenhower or even Ronald Reagan) and toward more extreme positions. The embrace of Trumpism, conspiracy theories, election denialism, and policies that undermine democratic norms has led some former conservatives to break away, while others remain within the party, either unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge its transformation.

This kind of deception isn’t just about golf—it’s a hallmark of despots who manufacture their own greatness to maintain power and admiration. From claiming impossible athletic feats to rewriting history, authoritarian leaders rely on lies to craft an image of superiority. Whether on the fairway or the political stage, the need to cheat to win reveals not strength, but insecurity—the defining flaw of every despot.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT