I always wonder how and why people get on crack, heroin, or meth, except when they are just desperate to the point of suicidal.
At least they get high sometimes, ‘feeling like Jesus son’ (Velvet Underground, for the kids here).
But, why join what you know to be a cult.
Trump is an obvious severe narcissist, and an obvious fraud. He was famous in the 80s for being terrible to his workers, and poor tenants. This made him into a fictional villain model in multiple 80s films and shows. (Darkman my favorite of those, where a Trump was the main villain behind his goons.)
His catchphrase was ruthless, as of late, a “you’re fired”.
He’s a really mean son of a bitch, very obviously in Putin’s pocket. Expect disaster and shame for his followers.
I was okay with putting him there to punish the false Christians backing him, but believe me, he is Satan’s boy.
Not one of God’s.
You get what you deserve.
His daily antics and troubles are great fun for us.
© 2026 – SoulSequel
26 responses to “Yawn, Trump is an Obvious Fraud”
Is (are) earthly politics among the things god (should it exist) care about? Didn’t god want a theocracy with himself at the heas and told the people who wanted leadership other than him that it was a bad idea?
@Jear77
You say things sometimes that leave significant wonder why your impression of the Bible bears little resemblance to what is written.
It’s like promulgating a negative impression of someone on things one clearly knows are lies.
Jesus clearly said “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar, and God that which is God’s”.
@griz yet how does
– wandering around the desert at the behest of a god,
– relying mysterious substance to fall from heaven (mana) and birds to fly into your nets,
– instead of trying to settle down somewhere else, the entire people wandered for 40 years
– following the rules and strictures of a god who barred them from entry into the promised land (yes, initially they were reluctant, but all they REALLY needed was a bit of persuasion)
if this type of a thing doesn’t constitute a theocracy… what does?
@Jear77
Two obvious processes are at work in these defenestrations.
1. Book worship. We’ve covered this innumerable times. You don’t want to correct this cognitive flaw because it feeds the next process.
2. Injury-by-proxy. Dude! You’re using a 3,400 y.o. narrative about things you never suffered to try to construct a very negative limiting cognitive moral structure today.
@griz i am going by dictionary definitions here. And you really need to look at Wikipedia for a definition of the word worship, and all that is associated with the practice thereof. I’ve been doing an article series on the topic, the 1st articles of which just went live… and your definition doesn’t even come close.
@Jear77
Books hold great wisdom.
The wise use them as starting points. The less wise use them as ending points.
If neither Wikipedia nor the dictionary begin to capture the full essence of the concept of God, it would not be wise to presume the articles of speech relating to God would be as full and complete as they could be.
Also consider this conundrum: worshipping a text is worshipping a text, whether it is in the Bible or on Wikipedia.
There is a lot to be gained in escaping from this trap of thinking. Even the Bible is not greater than that which you can become.
@griz you don’t do chai chain research. I do. Get one definition, define each term in the definition until it cycles back.
@Jear77
You’ll have to give a starting definition of that one.
A Google search came back with nothing.
@griz i already did… you just didn’t know it.
@Jear77
If you say so.
Just remember the number of times I’ve gone back over ideas definitions and concepts that you were not clear on.
@griz it’s my own concept.
@Jear77
If it can’t be referenced and you will not explain it then it is not worth consideration.
@griz you must have missed it. Go back, reread the thread again and ignore the typo of chai
@Jear77
Why would you pass up an opportunity and an invite to expound on a personal Theory; one that you evidently hold in high regard?
@griz “chain research” minus the typo – is something I developed while I was in school. In fact, one time I did an entire research project based marketing. The entire paper was nothing but a series of definitions. I started with a broad definition, and using various sources, I was able to further define each term, until there was nothing left to define (that wasn’t self-evident that is). In my tabletop RPG articles, I often use this concept – albeit simplified (as I don’t need to go THAT deep for them), but with the addition of giving example of how it would work in games.
@Jear77
So what is the drive and the focus and the net outcome of chain research?
For instance is it to expand definitions to a point where they lose effectiveness? Or to contract them to the point where everything is essentially means the same thing?
Are definitions a means or an end? (I maintain that they are the former. It sounds like you think they are the latter)
Is the focus drive and end to discover what is truth? Or to render the conclusion that there is no truth?
Or perhaps that it is whatever we wish it to be in that moment?
@griz Expand definitions for the purpose of clarification. As far as a means or an end… why can’t they be both simultaneously? And the drive is to exercise creativity &/ or fulfill an assignment. The truths exist for the purpose of doing whatever I want to do.
@Jear77
Unless it ends in folly. Then it was something other than truth.
I expand the definition of religion to include all things done religiously, two more or less the same effect as religion introducing similar artifacts to religion.
What end is there in just defining something? One needs to act on existing definitions, test them, expand and amend where needed. Because 1) the environment is always changing and 2) we are not omniscient in this moment.
The key problem scientists have with a Grand Unification Theory, is that our standard definitions break down and have less and less meaning as we approach the conceptual moment of the Big Bang.
@griz the problem is that even a JOB needs to be done “religiously” and this is a good thing. Where’s the line between “good” religiosity and “bad”?
@Jear77
Industriousness is just one small part of how religious process manifests.
Look to your own experiences for examples of where religion goes beyond this. Your response points out the positive aspect of industriousness, and fair enough.
So was it their industriousness that you praise, which pissed you off?
Or was it other aspects of the religious rubric?
Put those creative aspects of your personality to work! And if they bumped up against a block, ask yourself what that block is doing there and work to circumvent or remove it.
@griz there are plenty who are industrious at doing nothing, i.e. masters of “busy work” or assigning others to do such. Useless work is an evil. There are also those busybodies who think it’s their job to poke their nose into other’s business such as the low level management who watch others for the sole purpose of getting them in trouble, police officers who lopk to get “brownie points,” for giving out tickets for essentially nothing while neglecting actual crimes, and teachers who give homework to keep their students busy (and yes i know i have presented a theft, murder, jaywalking scenario here)
@Jear77
I count a difference between true industriousness, an act of simply trying to justify oneself or position, and moral exhibitionism.
All three can happen within religious process both theistic and secular; with the latter two being another part of what makes it bad.
He is what he is: and even if a clear majority didn’t want him as leader the mechanisms put in place so one large State couldn’t run away with unfair representation.
My thought is that rather than carp about a leader who is the leader, accept it as what it is: whether a lesson in the disastrous potentials of both tribal politics and/or identity politics . . . or in the ability to turn the “old wrecking ball” on something that one truly feels needs to change for the society’s betterment.
It is already known that “his position” is simply that of his “core support”. Organize, and make some changes that if they don’t work out, can be hung around his neck.
Wringing one’s hands, or pointing out that he is clearly a flawed human being . . . is really a zero-sum game.
And the purely technical Christian stance . . . is to respect whatever earthly authority one finds themselves under, but ceding highest authority unto God.
Put down the bong (or the bottle of booze), and step away from the keyboard.
@immortal_pirate
A good observation there about the bong. With marijuana becoming legalized in an increasing number of places for recreation, there will be an increasing number of people walking around with impaired perceptions of the rational.
It is very obvious when someone is under the influence of alcohol and should not be taken as a serious participant in the society.
Nicotine products don’t impair judgement or perceptions, but do impair the ability to not puke up one’s own lungs.
Marijuana is different.
What are you talking about, specifically?