Is MAGA a CULT (think Jim Jones)

Jump to Last Post 1-16 of 16 discussions (296 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 5 weeks ago

    I will start off with a comment I made on another forum which really wasn't on topic.

    According to psychologists and cult researchers (e.g., Steven Hassan, Robert Lifton), cults typically involve:

    * Unquestioning devotion to a central figure - CHECK - Trump

    * Isolation from alternative viewpoints - CHECK - Fake Fox News

    * Use of fear, loyalty, or conspiracy to control members - CHECK

    * Dismissal of facts conflicting with group beliefs - DOUBLE CHECK

    * A sense of moral or spiritual superiority - CHECK

    MAGA checks all those boxes. Conclusion, MAGA is a cult. You know another characteristic of all cults? The members always deny they are in one.

    1. Kyler J Falk profile image79
      Kyler J Falkposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      All sociopolitics is a form of, "cult of personality."

      I wouldn't say the majority treat it as a cult, and framing it that way is disingenuous at best, and lacking in earnest desire to understand and work with your opponents for the sake of society at worst.

      If you take the hard stance it's a cult as a majority practice, the other side will simply spit on the idea just as you've spit on them. Gotta have a bit more fluidity, otherwise everyone remains so rigid that they become brittle, then finally they snap under the pressure they created themselves.

      1. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        +100000000000000000000

    2. abwilliams profile image77
      abwilliamsposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      As you've suggested, I am thinking Jim Jones, and I am surprised that all of that Kool-Aid drinking you've been doing... hasn't done you in yet!

      1. Ken Burgess profile image70
        Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        ^5
        ^^^^^^to the 10√

  2. Sharlee01 profile image82
    Sharlee01posted 5 weeks ago

    I think labeling tens of millions of Americans as “cult members” based on political beliefs is overly simplistic and, frankly, counterproductive if the goal is real dialogue.

    It's easy to make a checklist fit any group when it's framed with bias, and the criteria you've listed could just as easily be applied to strong followers of political figures like Obama or Bernie Sanders, or even to movements on the left. For example, dismissing conservative media as “Fake Fox News” while consuming only progressive sources can itself resemble a form of ideological isolation.

    As for devotion to a central figure, passion for a leader doesn't make a movement a cult. People admire Trump for specific policies, a sense of disruption in politics, and a feeling that he speaks to their concerns. That doesn’t mean they’ve surrendered their capacity for critical thought. Many Trump supporters disagree with him at times, criticize his tone, or wish he’d say things differently, but still support his broader agenda.

    Calling a political movement a cult shuts down conversation and dehumanizes people who might see the world differently. If anything, it reinforces the very divisions we should be trying to bridge.

    So rather than fall into name-calling, I’d rather discuss ideas, policies, and the reasons people are drawn to them, on both sides.

    Regarding Fox News,  I think it's important to recognize that Fox News consistently leads in viewership across cable news networks. In March 2025, for example, Fox News averaged 3.13 million primetime viewers, surpassing MSNBC's 1.18 million and CNN's 591,000. In the key 25-54 demographic, Fox News attracted 394,000 viewers, compared to CNN's 121,000 and MSNBC's 109,000 .

    In April 2025, for example, Fox News averaged 2.6 million primetime viewers, surpassing MSNBC's 1.21 million and CNN's 519,000. In the key 25-54 demographic, Fox News attracted 296,000 viewers, compared to CNN's 122,000 and MSNBC's 88,000 . adweek

    1. My Esoteric profile image85
      My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      They aren't being labeled because of their political beliefs. They are being labeled that because they have demonstrably turned their lives over to a single demagogue. They cannot see past that one particular man, just like the followers of Jim Jones were devoted to him or the millions of followers of Hitler were to him. In the latter case this cult rationalized WW II and the extermination of the Jews.

      I didn't make a checklist. [b\Experts[/b] made a checklist to help them identify when a group of people have succumbed to cultism.

      Obama and Sanders were popular yes, but beyond a handful of devotees,  they didn't command blind obedience like Trump does with MAGA.

      Fake Fox News did it to themselves by lying and using their network as a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party.

      People who are brainwashed as most of MAGA is have definitively lost their ability to think critically when it comes to all things Trump. That is what all the data and research show.

      Science has proven that in the brainwashed brain, the neural networks have physically changed such that the analytical parts of the brain are by-passed when it processes inputs into thoughts and actions.

      That is what all those (and more) references will prove.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image82
        Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        I've been following your comments on the subject. You've certainly expressed your perspective and shared a few links that present alternative psychological viewpoints. However, the tone of your posts comes across as accusatory and, in my view, needlessly harsh. At this point, I can only hope others will refrain from engaging with these kinds of rants and choose not to encourage them further.

        1. DrMark1961 profile image99
          DrMark1961posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          Kind of hilarious that a person could condemn MAGA followers of blind obedience yet excuse a dementia addled idiot because he happens to follow the same party line. All sorts of MAGA people complained about the tarriffs and the present of the airplane yet when Biden pardoned his son (remember him saying no one is above the law?) no one in the Demagogue party made a peep. That is the definition of blind followers.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image82
            Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            Hi Doc,   It’s become pretty clear that whenever Biden’s name comes up, the response is either silence or deflection. The forum has grown increasingly caustic, making meaningful participation difficult. It’s turned into little more than a place for relentless Trump-bashing, which, considering how well he’s doing on key issues, adds nothing of value to a sensible conversation. In my lifetime, I’ve never seen a president take on long-standing problems and push for global peace the way Trump has. Yet he’s being compared to Hitler. That kind of mindset is deeply disturbing and, frankly, anti-social.

            1. DrMark1961 profile image99
              DrMark1961posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              I stop by most days but do not even see the need to comment for those reasons you mentioned. I think it is nice that those never-Trumpers have a place to spew their illogical hatred and continue to protect an ex-president that even the Lame Stream Media is now admitting was a terrible president that was unfit to hold office. (At the same time denying that they are the ones that covered for his dementia)
              Oh well, if nothing else they are entertaining in their hatred-filled Trump-bashing.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image82
                Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                I completely agree. It's become so predictable that there's hardly any point in engaging. The same people who spent years defending every gaffe and failure of that administration are now acting like they were never part of the cover-up. It’s amazing how quickly the narrative shifts once the media decides it’s safe to admit what many of us saw all along, that he was unfit for the job from the start.

                What’s interesting is that this performative outrage has almost become a coping mechanism for them. It’s like they have to keep bashing Trump just to avoid facing their own complicity or the consequences of the leader they actually propped up. And ironically, the more they rant, the more they highlight exactly why Trump still resonates with millions, because at least he doesn't pretend to be something he’s not. Their hypocrisy is on full display, and honestly, that spectacle has become more telling than any policy debate.

                1. My Esoteric profile image85
                  My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  If I and all those mental health experts are wrong, prove it. If I am right, say you accept it.

            2. My Esoteric profile image85
              My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              "How well he is doing"? You mean driving the stock market way down, the beginning of major inflation, and the precursor to recession? Or how about his out-of-control, inhumane immigrant policies that send innocent people to foreign prisons? I don't count those as "really well"

          2. My Esoteric profile image85
            My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            That so-called "dementia addled idiot" produced one of the most productive four years on any modern president, especially one like Trump.

            I would rather have a president who forgets things once in a while as opposed to one like Trump is observably dangerously mentally ill.

            1. DrMark1961 profile image99
              DrMark1961posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              Not according to those who observed it with open eyes.

              1. My Esoteric profile image85
                My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                Observed what? Observed Biden being more productive that any first-term president in modern history ending his term with what economists said was a strong economy?

                Or observe Trump mumbling and confusing people and places and even countries? While delivering hundreds of thousands of needless Covid deaths in his first term or in the process of driving inflation up and America into a recession.

              2. Ken Burgess profile image70
                Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                I think the comment you responded to with this reply is proof...

                There is no place to begin a discussion with someone who believes Biden's Administration was "one of the most productive four years of any modern president"...

                A person who can state that is either working with a completely fabricated reality (lets call it the false reality that CNN and MSNBC propagates) or they are part of the Globalist/NWO/UN-WEF effort to remake America...

                The championing of Nationhood above International/UN Agendas, American Citizenship over Open Border Society and unimpeded Migration,  and putting American interests above those of all other nations especially when it comes to industry, development and investment... that is the jist of what MAGA stands for... there is something seriously off with any American that wants to fight against that.

                1. My Esoteric profile image85
                  My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Thanks, Ken, that provides a nice segue to this summary of some analysis I got ChatGPT to do.

                  The question I asked is:

                  Let's take the example of two people reading the same thing "Most economists say the economy under Biden was strong". One person was a brainwashed MAGA-type and the other just a normal conservative. Lead me through the two different paths that information takes?

                  Keep in mind, there is a lot of science to support what is to follow:

                  STEP 1: Perception and Language Decoding (Same in Both)

                  Visual Input: Occipital lobe (Visual Cortex) decodes the letters into words.

                  Then the Visual Word Form Area identifies familiar written language.

                  Wernicke’s Area comprehends the sentence structure and meaning: “The economy” → subject; “under Biden” → time frame; “was strong” → judgment.

                  Result: Both people understand what the sentence literally says.

                  Step 2: Evaluating Truth vs. Belief

                  Now the brain must determine:

                  “Is this statement true?” or
                  “Should I accept this as valid?”

                  Here's where the detail—economic consensus—matters enormously.

                  Normal Conservative: Belief & Truth in Tension

                  Prefrontal Cortex (PFC) engages to evaluate: “Okay, I’ve heard inflation was high… but job growth was strong, GDP recovered, markets held up.”

                  “If most economists say it was strong, maybe I’ve over-weighted inflation in my thinking.”


                  The Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC) flags some 'cognitive dissonance', but it’s manageable.

                  He or she may consult memory: “Things did seem better than 2020... even if prices were up.”

                  Emotionally, there's mild friction, but critical thinking overrides identity triggers.

                  Conclusion: He or she may still dislike Biden, but capable of accepting the statement as mostly true. Might say: Yeah, the economy did okay—even if I don’t like how he got there.”

                  Brainwashed MAGA-Type: Truth Routed Through Loyalty
                  The emotional salience of "Biden" triggers amygdala activation: threat response.

                  The brain doesn't ask “Is this true?”—it asks: “Does this help or hurt the cause?”

                  Dissonance is severe: the statement contradicts core identity and narrative.

                  Prefrontal cortex is disengaged or overridden by confirmation bias circuitry:

                  Memory selects for inflation, gas prices, and anti-Biden memes.

                  Evidence from economists is dismissed as deep state, liberal academia, or mainstream media lies.

                  DMN (Default Mode Network) aligns “Biden success” with identity betrayal. “I know in my bones he destroyed the economy.”

                  Conclusion: The statement is not processed as a challenge to evaluate, but as a hostile claim to be rejected—regardless of consensus.

                  One of the most frustrating things about this condition is that the victim (and that is what they are) has no idea their brain has been physically altered by the coercive words of Trump and the right-wing media. Even though science can show, through things like fMRI and other techniques this is true, that this physical alteration of the neural network is real, they will ignore the evidence and persist that their worldview is correct.

                  Now, if somebody has an alternative, science-based, explanation for the drastically different reaction to the same set of words, I am all eyes.

                2. My Esoteric profile image85
                  My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  The thing is, I have FACTS on my side. What have you got?

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image70
                    Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Facts ...

                    25% Inflation

                    12 million more migrants

                    13 Trillion more debt and 8% mortgage interest

                    Yep ...you got all the facts on your side.

                3. DrMark1961 profile image99
                  DrMark1961posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  It gives them some comfort to continue to believe fabricated reality,  só at least it keeps them off the streets!

          3. gmwilliams profile image84
            gmwilliamsposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Thank you.   There are Democratic shills FAR WORSE than MAGA followers.

        2. My Esoteric profile image85
          My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          How do you say "MAGA is a Cult" and not be accusatory?

          Do you have any links that show that MAGA does not fit the definition of a Cult?

          1. gmwilliams profile image84
            gmwilliamsposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            The Democrats are more cultish than MAGA has ever been.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image82
              Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              He baits, never fostering actual serious debate, instead of just flinging labels. Saying “MAGA is a cult” is inherently accusatory because it assigns a highly negative psychological and social judgment to a political movement. A movement that includes tens of millions of Americans.  People who support this president for a wide variety of reasons, which are rooted in legitimate political grievances, policy preferences, or distrust of the political establishment.

              It’s become clear that many of us are fed up with the status quo. And frankly, it has to be hard for some Democrats to admit they’re party is done, left looking inept, defeated, and yes, even a little silly.  They have nothing to share but obnoxious bait.  This must be rather mind-blowing. Their party has no relevance at all.

            2. My Esoteric profile image85
              My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              Prove it like I did for MAGA.

        3. gmwilliams profile image84
          gmwilliamsposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          +10000000000000.

    2. My Esoteric profile image85
      My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Fox News Viewership Debunked.

      Mathematically it works like this. Let A, B, and C equal the viewership of Fox, Newsmax, and OAN.  Let D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K equal the viewership of CNN, PBS, BBC, NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC.

      What you rightly claim is that A > D and A > E and A > F and A > ... K. But that is not the point and is misleading.

      The correct formulation is A + B + C is much less than D + E + F + G + H + I + K.

  3. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 5 weeks ago

    Here are some sources you can use to research this:

    These are by forensic psychologist Dr. Bandy Lee along with over 40 other mental health professionals.

    https://www.amazon.com/Profile-Nation-T … 1735553743

    https://www.amazon.com/s?k=trump+contag … ltr-ranker

    https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Case-D … amp;sr=8-2

    https://www.amazon.com/More-Dangerous-C … amp;sr=8-1

    Based on the above, I wrote several articles to summaries them:

    A series that begins What Makes MAGA and CULTS Tik ...

    http://hub.me/aqzJ1
    http://hub.me/aqBtN
    http://hub.me/aq9vu
    http://hub.me/aqBu0
    http://hub.me/am1ai
    http://hub.me/akAnD

  4. abwilliams profile image77
    abwilliamsposted 5 weeks ago

    While I will not join you in partaking of the Kool-Aid, I can join you in the tooting of my own horn! I, too, have several articles, including a series on HubPages, as well. I call it the "I Say, I Say Series". In these, I cover the lies, the deception, the hate and the cruelty... all unjustly directed at one man, to the point where two attempts have been made, to take this man's life!!! It all started the first time we heard that he, Donald J. Trump, would be running for President of the United States, and it has never subsided....
    That's the real sickness; that's  the cold, hard, truth!
    Godspeed President Donald J. Trump.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image82
      Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      100%

      Hi Angie,   Unfortunately, it's become increasingly difficult to participate here. The rhetoric has gone completely over the top, bizarre, even. It's clear that engaging with much of what's being posted is a waste of time and energy. And I recognize that I've contributed to the problem by giving oxygen to the rhetoric. I've made myself a promise, I'm done participating or wasting any more time on these kinds of comments. The level of discourse has become unhinged. At this point, the forum feels like little more than a diversion for those fixated on hating Trump.

      1. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Trump derangement syndrome yet continues ad infinitum.

    2. My Esoteric profile image85
      My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      I looked and couldn't find the series you mention. Do you have a link?

      News of the Day: Trump's BBBP and Tariffs are making investors Sell America again.

  5. IslandBites profile image68
    IslandBitesposted 5 weeks ago

    Is MAGA a CULT

    Yes.

  6. wilderness profile image78
    wildernessposted 5 weeks ago

    If we change "* Unquestioning devotion to a central figure" to " Unquestioning devotion to a small group of people" you have a great fit for the Democrat party as a whole.  Far better than for MAGA, for many of those points are a real stretch (such as isolation from other viewpoints).

  7. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 4 weeks ago

    Here is why I make the general claim that MAGA, by and large, are part of a cult.

    There are two polls that estimate that 71% and 53% of Republican voters identify as MAGA. CBS News estimates that 15% of voters identify as "True Believers", i,e, cult members. Using 30% as the commonly accepted number of voters being Republican and doing the math you wind up with between 75% and 91% of MAGA being "true believers" or cult members.

    That is why is is fair to characterized MAGA as a cult.

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Eso, I am not fond of MAGA.  I am also not fond of Democratic shills who are like MAGA.  Both are extreme fanatics.    I believe in being truthful regarding the situation at hand.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image70
        Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Counterrevolutionaries - a person who advocates or engages in a revolution that opposes a previous one or reverses its results.

        I would call the Progressives a Cult... the cabal in control of DC... the criminally corrupt in Congress (those who like the Clintons and Bidens have spent their entire lives gaming the political process) and in Federal Politics at large... are what MAGA stand against.

        It is in fact very hard to label the collection that makes up what has been in Control of our government (foreign and domestic) for so long... but one should recognize them as very Powerful and Ideologically driven.

        MAGA... Trump Supporters... are made up of many former Democrats (Tulsi Gabbard, RFK, Elon Musk) liberals and conservatives all of whom believe in trying to keep the American Dream alive

        They are not a Cult... if anything they are Counter Revolutionaries...

        They are the ones that have stood up and said enough insanity...

        Enough with pretending little 5'2 Suzie can make a good Army Ranger....

        Enough with pretending 6'4 Sam is a woman and it is OK for him to compete with women in sports...

        Enough with pretending we can keep spending trillions of dollars more every year than we take in and not collapse our economy...

        Enough with pretending Open Borders allowing in millions of non-Americans a year to access our social services and benefits is a OK...

        MAGA is a rejection of all things the Biden Administration/Progressives decided to plant their flag on the hill for during the Biden Administration... from war with Russia to letting the Cartels run free throughout the country...

        1. gmwilliams profile image84
          gmwilliamsposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          You have made an excellent point.

        2. My Esoteric profile image85
          My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Who is the Progressive's leader who they blindly follow? Answer that, then we will move on to the next cult identifier.

          Trump was once a progressive Democrat - what is your point?

          There is so much wrong with the rest of your comment, it is pointless to comment.

          1. wilderness profile image78
            wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Eso, Ken's comments are exactly right.  The one about the rangers, the one about Sam in women's sports.  The one about pretending debt will not collapse our economy, the one about open borders: these ARE the far left objectives and attitudes that are being blindly followed bye the left.  They are not wrong - they are right, and they are exactly what you said does not exist (lefties equivalent to MAGA).

            The you may think these things are alright, are good for the country, does not make them so.  It just shows that you, too, are blindly following those lefties with power.

            1. My Esoteric profile image85
              My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              And you thinking they are not right doesn't make them so either.  I come down on the side of personal liberty like other "leftists" do and not right-wing Christian dogma.

              1. wilderness profile image78
                wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                Personal liberty?!?!  You mean like forcing women to share locker rooms with men and compete against men?  That kind of "personal liberty"?

                Or do you mean the "liberty" of being forced to give up massive chunks of our earnings and what we own in order to give it away to someone else?

                The "liberty" of stealing from our children to buy what we want but do not want to pay for?  Is that "personal liberty"?

                Those things I listed are not about "liberty", personal or not; they are about control and power.  Control and power primarily by the far left.

                (But I will agree that the control and power of the far right Christians is just as obnoxious, just as "wrong" as the idiocies of the far left.)

                1. gmwilliams profile image84
                  gmwilliamsposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Regarding #2, that is the reason why the BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL was instituted-to cut the waste of governmental programs.   It was the Democrats who flooded America with inane social programs such as welfare to glut the middle class into paying exorbitant taxes & made the poor lazy & entitled, wanting to live off others, & refusing to better themselves.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image85
                    My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I thought it was to stop taxes on the rich from going up and paying for it by kicking people of Medicaid and SNAP.

                2. My Esoteric profile image85
                  My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  No, "personal liberties" such as telling women how to run their lives.

                  No, "personal liberties" such as fixing it so Black votes don't count.

                  No, "personal liberties" such as what religion you must follow.

                  You know, those that impact millions of people, not just a few.

                  1. wilderness profile image78
                    wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    That's what I said; telling women they must accept men in their locker room, and compete against them in sports.

                    "Removing" black votes - that would be just a dream as no conservative wants that to happen. 

                    But demanding a specific religion - that would follow under the power of the far right Christians...just as I said.

                    (You think giving up our wealth so liberals can give it away to others happens to only a few?  Better re-think that tidbit - even though it only happens to about half the people, that's still "not just a few"!)

      2. My Esoteric profile image85
        My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        I don't like extremists on the Left either. That said, there is no sizable comparable group on the left that are similar to MAGA. Are their individuals who are "true believers" on the left, certainly, but they are small in number.

        If you evidence that is not true, I would be interested in seeing it.

        One of the factors that make MAGA true believers unique and cult material is their blind loyalty to Trump; there is no equivalent on the left, which should be obvious given their state of disarray.

        Another attribute of MAGA is an extreme sense of nationalism combined with populism.  I am not sure what the equivalent is on the far-left, but what there is of it, it is pretty disorganized and not monolithic like with MAGA.

        1. wilderness profile image78
          wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          I don't know about pointing a finger at a specific individual leading the left's radicals, but what about the people that struggle to bring in, and keep here, as many illegals from anywhere at all?  We know they are training illegals what to say to weasel around the intent of our laws, we know they are providing help in transportation, food, etc. - what about those people and their viewpoint (opposite of nationalism?)?

          What about those people that do their best to force us into some kind of world wide government?  WHO, the UN and other organizations.  Again, the opposite of nationalism and NOT in our best interests.

          What about those that have descended into the depths and are using our justice system to persecute our President (both past and present)?  You may feel they are behaving reasonably, but they are not - are they the left's version of populism?

          Bottom line; the left is no better than the right.  They just attack and support in accordance to YOUR wishes and are thus rather hidden to those of the left.

          1. gmwilliams profile image84
            gmwilliamsposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Ouchie, +100000000000.

          2. My Esoteric profile image85
            My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            The topic was cults. The issue was does the Left have an equivalent leader to follow blindly that MAGA does. The question I asked was if the left, as a group, is a cult as claimed, who is that leader?

          3. My Esoteric profile image85
            My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            BTW, exactly who is the "left" you are referring to? Is it Bill Clinton pr John Tester or Mark Warner? Or are you JUST talking about people like AOC who doesn't represent most on the "left".

  8. Willowarbor profile image61
    Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

    Maga has not touched the impact this bill will have in terms of cutting Medicaid and the ACA for millions.

    If millions lose Medicaid, hospitals would face a significant financial strain, including potential revenue losses, increased uncompensated care costs, and potentially even closures, especially in rural areas. This is because Medicaid is a major payer for many hospital services, and its absence would leave a significant portion of the population uninsured, leading to unpaid bills and reduced hospital revenue....

    Not a big deal?

    1. Sharlee01 profile image82
      Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      I don’t think what you shared is entirely accurate. The idea that the "Big Beautiful Bill" just cuts off millions from Medicaid and the ACA without any thought is misleading. Yes, some of the proposals supported by MAGA Republicans do suggest reforming Medicaid, like turning it into a block grant or giving more control to the states, but that doesn’t automatically mean millions will lose coverage. The goal behind those changes is to make the program more efficient and flexible, not to gut it. Plus, when it comes to the ACA, a lot of people forget that premiums and plan choices under Obamacare have been major problems for many, especially middle-class families who don’t qualify for subsidies. Reforming that system doesn’t mean ignoring healthcare needs, it means trying something different. As for hospitals, especially rural ones, it’s true they rely on Medicaid funding, and any change would have to be handled carefully. But just assuming that reform equals catastrophe skips over a lot of important context. Let’s be real: the current system isn’t working well for everyone either.

      1. Willowarbor profile image61
        Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        In the most conservative estimate that you can find, how many do they estimate in the millions who will lose health coverage due to the bill?

        1. Sharlee01 profile image82
          Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          It's important to keep in mind that analysts and forecasters, including those at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), are just that, analysts working with models based on assumptions, not guarantees. While their work can offer useful insights, it is far from infallible. In fact, throughout history, these projections have often missed the mark. A good example is the CBO’s estimate on the Affordable Care Act; they significantly overestimated the number of people who would enroll in the exchanges and underestimated how employer-based coverage would hold steady.

          These kinds of forecasting errors show just how complex human behavior is when it comes to healthcare choices, especially under new policy conditions. As for the current bill, the estimates of 8 to 13 million losing Medicaid don’t necessarily mean those individuals will go without any coverage or care, some may shift to employer-based insurance, others may qualify under different programs, and some may simply choose not to re-enroll due to administrative changes rather than actual ineligibility. Analysts also tend to assume worst-case scenarios in order to highlight risks, which can skew public perception. Of course, the potential impact on hospitals deserves thoughtful discussion, but it should be grounded in real-world outcomes, not just predictive models with mixed track records.

          1. Willowarbor profile image61
            Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            "As for the current bill, the estimates of 8 to 13 million losing Medicaid don’t necessarily mean those individuals will go without any coverage or care, some may shift to employer-based insurance, others may qualify under different programs, and some may simply choose not to re-enroll due to administrative changes rather than actual ineligibility.

            So let's just say conservatively that 10 million people will be thrown off Medicaid and then I'm not sure how many will be unable to afford ACA coverage without the tax credits... That's a lot of people.  What will the consequences be? 

            How will some shift to employer based coverage? Many of these folks are on Medicaid because their employer doesn't offer insurance?

            Qualify under a different program? Such as what?

            And choose not to enroll... Just because they give up on the new requirements even though they may be eligible? That's probably the biggest shame of all...

            How is it a benefit to increase the number of uninsured individuals in this country?

            1. Sharlee01 profile image82
              Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              It helps move people who are able to work off government assistance. It’s time to build a stronger nation where individuals are empowered to support themselves rather than depend on the government. Why oppose efforts to lift people up instead of keeping them reliant on others to pay their way?

              You mention people being thrown off Medicare. If they meet the eligibility requirements, they won’t be removed. If someone is found not eligible, it likely means they should not have been on Medicare in the first place. The new regulations are designed to be fair and protect those who truly need assistance. For everyone else, it seems they never belonged on Medicare, and it’s necessary to remove them to preserve the program. 

              The problem of Medicare fraud has plagued our nation yearly for decades --- time to fix it. 

              Medicaid fraud is a significant issue that affects billions of dollars each year. According to reports from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, improper payments in Medicaid, which include fraud, errors, and waste, were estimated to total around $36 billion in fiscal year 2021. While not all of this amount is fraud, a substantial portion results from fraudulent activities. Estimates of actual Medicaid fraud alone often range between $10 billion and $20 billion annually, depending on enforcement efforts and investigations. Given the size of the Medicaid program, fraud can take many forms, such as billing for services that were never provided, upcoding, phantom providers, and eligibility fraud. If you want, I can help find the most recent official numbers or provide more detailed information for a specific year or state.

              1. Willowarbor profile image61
                Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                "It helps move people who are able to work off government assistance.

                But a large number of people are receiving Medicaid while they're working?   I think it has been mentioned before that there are multitude of reasons that individuals cannot work a full 40 hours. 

                We also have many folks who work 40 hours and more per week at a job that does not offer healthcare and these folks are taking advantage of coverage under the ACA... Which will become unaffordable under this bill.

                That's dependence?

      2. Willowarbor profile image61
        Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        "Plus, when it comes to the ACA, a lot of people forget that premiums and plan choices under Obamacare have been major problems for many, especially middle-class families who don’t qualify for subsidies.

        But the bill gets rid of the premium tax credits... Making plans on the ACA marketplace even MORE unaffordable.   How is this helping?  Again, what will be the consequences of this?

        https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/23/big-bea … edits.html

        Not a great thing...

        1. My Esoteric profile image85
          My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          While it is true ACA had some growing pains early on, those have disappeared or reversed by 2017.

          Since 2018, ACA has been working great for almost all people. (Now, apparently, Trump is going to screw it).

          * Since 2021, the American Rescue Plan and Inflation Reduction Act significantly expanded subsidies, including for middle-class families who previously didn’t qualify. Many now pay less than 8.5% of income, regardless of income level.

          Example: A family of four making $100,000 now qualifies for substantial premium assistance, which wasn’t true pre-2021.

          * As of 2024, 95% of enrollees have access to at least 3 insurers on their exchange.

          It was the Middle Class that received the most benefits from ACA, even if they didn't enroll in it.

          Before the ACA:

          [u]Insurers could AND DID deny coverage for preexisting conditions.[/i]

          Many middle-class people faced sky-high deductibles, annual/lifetime caps, or got dropped when sick.

          Women were routinely charged more than men.

          The ACA fixed these problems

          1. wilderness profile image78
            wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            "Since 2018, ACA has been working great for almost all people. (Now, apparently, Trump is going to screw it)."

            Is it working great for the people that have to foot the bill?  Is it working great for those youngsters (born or not) that will pay the cost for the ACA today when they are grown?

            Or do those people not count?

            1. My Esoteric profile image85
              My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              Yep, it is working great. It provides them a better society to live in.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image70
                Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                If the ACA worked great...

                Millions would not travel to Mexico or other countries to get their procedures done, teeth fixed, prescriptions, etc.

                If our social services really worked for Americans we wouldn't have millions of mental cases living on the streets... ...while we provide migrants housing if five star hotels and preferential hiring and healthcare....

                Hey... You know they say the magnetic field protecting life on earth is collapsing... The Gulf Stream is faltering... The Earth's core is slowing...

                So even if the economy is somehow stabilized and the national debt eradicated... Healthcare is made free for all ...and AI makes life utopia for all...

                I don't think we escape this decade unscathed.

                1. My Esoteric profile image85
                  My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  To put that into context:

                  * Prior to ACA the uninsured rate was 16.3%, today it is 8%

                  * You "millions" represents just 0.3% of Americans and is relatively unchanged pre and post-ACA.

                  If education really worked in America, we wouldn't have a felon and sexual predator as president.

              2. wilderness profile image78
                wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                The ability, and propensity, for the human animal to rationalize whatever they want is truly amazing, isn't it?

                1. My Esoteric profile image85
                  My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  And MAGA is the posterchild of that.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image82
          Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          I understand the concern about getting rid of premium tax credits making ACA marketplace plans less affordable in the short term. However, the Big Beautiful Bill aims to tackle the root problems causing high healthcare costs by promoting more competition and reducing government interference in the insurance market. The premium tax credits, while helpful, have also led to rising premiums because insurers raise prices knowing subsidies will cover the gap.

          By removing these credits, the bill encourages insurers to compete more fairly and innovate, which could lower premiums naturally over time, instead of relying on taxpayer-funded subsidies that distort the market. Plus, reducing federal spending on these subsidies can help bring down the national debt, which benefits everyone in the long run.

          Yes, there may be short-term challenges, but this bill focuses on sustainable, market-driven solutions to bring down healthcare costs rather than temporary fixes that keep prices high. Ultimately, real affordability comes from a healthier, more competitive market,  and this bill pushes us in that direction.

          1. Willowarbor profile image61
            Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            "the Big Beautiful Bill aims to tackle the root problems causing high healthcare costs by promoting more competition and reducing government interference in the insurance market.

            I do not see this idea in the bill though?  Through what sort of mechanism would this occur? What are the solutions being offered?

            A healthy competitive market? But before the ACA we didn't see that?  The ACA did bring health coverage to significantly more folks in this country... And if this bill gets through the Senate and its current form? We will be going backward. 

            What will be the real world consequences of millions having no insurance?

          2. wilderness profile image78
            wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Very sadly, I believe that we have a much bigger problem with our health care, one being found throughout Europe and the rest of the free world as well.

            We have advanced health care to heights that make it impossible to make it available to everyone.  The rich have always gotten better health care; we now want everyone to get it...but we cannot afford that.  As long as we insist that everyone in the country can have unlimited health care at zero or near zero cost to them we will not be able to pay for it.

            1. Willowarbor profile image61
              Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              Why can we afford tax breaks for the wealthy but not healthcare for everyone?  Priorities are messed up.

              1. wilderness profile image78
                wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                Why do we require wealthy to support others?  What gives us the ethical right to take what they earned, simply to give it away (I get that we have the legal right - might makes right, after all)?  I agree; your priority is messed up.  You are not interested in teaching/requiring others to provide for themselves - your care is that they get the money, period.  If that means taking what others have earned and built, so be it.

                I disagree.  I believe that what you earn/build is yours not belonging to some liberal tear jerker wanting to give it to someone else.

                1. Willowarbor profile image61
                  Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  So you're saying that it's okay if they get to keep more of their earned money than I do?

                  The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan federal scorekeeper, estimates income for the bottom 10% of households would fall by 2% in 2027 and by 4% in 2033 as a result of the bill’s changes.

                  By contrast, those in the top 10% would get an income boost from the legislation: 4% in 2027 and 2% in 2033, CBO found...

                  Sorry, this is not fair.  I'm not interested in increasing the wealth of the already wealthy.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image85
                    My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Yes, that seems to be what he is saying.

              2. My Esoteric profile image85
                My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" in the DOI is a reformulation of Locke's "life, health, liberty, and property". Locke's full statement was:

                ""The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by his order and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure."

                It was common in then to roll "health" in with "life". "Property" also appears to have been rolled up with Life.

                Locke's philosophy, along with Aristotle, Cato, and others formed the core of our founder's political and philosophical thought.

                In fact, the "Pursuit of Happiness" came from a blend of Aristotle and Epicurious. It basically translates to "living virtuously in accordance with reason over a complete life.  You will find this "living virtuously" in the writings of quite a few of our founders. I recommend to you "The Pursuit of Happiness" by  Jeffrey Rosen for a more complete understanding.

                Consequently, I and many others argue that a right to health is no less a fundamental right as life, of which you can't have without health, and liberty are.

                1. wilderness profile image78
                  wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  With this kind of reasoning we all have a guarantee on infinite life spans.  After all, we are guaranteed "Life".

                  1. My Esoteric profile image85
                    My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Why do you continue to veer to the hyperbolic?

            2. My Esoteric profile image85
              My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              Are you able to provide a source for this hyperbolic statement [i\"As long as we insist that everyone in the country can have unlimited health care at zero or near zero cost to them "[/i]?

              Exactly who is the "we" you are referring to? Certainly it isn't me. I doubt it is Willowarbor or Credence.

      3. Willowarbor profile image61
        Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        "it means trying something different. As for hospitals, especially rural ones, it’s true they rely on Medicaid funding, and any change would have to be handled carefully. "

        Handled carefully? How? What is the plan?    Trying what? All I see are cuts with absolutely nothing in their place. 

        "Rural hospitals particularly heavily rely on Medicaid funding, with the average hospital depending on Medicaid payments for about 20% of its revenue"

        So when the sick who were previously covered under Medicaid come in with no coverage.. what happens?    Who is left to pick up the tab? The hospital, they eat it?  I think that's why many are saying they will be forced to close.  These cuts will be devastating to red, rural America.

        https://www.aft.org/news/how-medicaid-c … healthcare

        1. Sharlee01 profile image82
          Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          I get that rural hospitals depend on Medicaid funding now, and any policy change needs to consider that. But the problem is the current system is broken, simply throwing more money at Medicaid without reform hasn’t solved rural hospital struggles. What the Big Beautiful Bill proposes is a different approach, encouraging market competition and reducing government overreach that inflates costs across the board.

          Rural hospitals need sustainable solutions, not just funding patches. Instead of relying on Medicaid subsidies that create dependency and distort incentives, the bill pushes for reforms that would increase efficiency, lower overall costs, and improve access to care through market-driven innovation. For example, expanding telehealth, incentivizing efficient care models, and removing excessive regulatory burdens.

          Yes, some changes are tough, but just maintaining the status quo isn’t working, many rural hospitals have closed even with Medicaid support. The bill challenges us to try something different that encourages long-term sustainability instead of endless subsidies that may delay but don’t prevent decline.

          If uninsured patients come in, hospitals don’t have to just “eat it.” The bill also promotes policies that increase coverage options outside of Medicaid, like health savings accounts or state-level flexibility, so fewer people are left without any coverage at all.

          In short, the bill isn’t just “cuts”,  it’s a plan to fix the underlying market problems that keep rural healthcare fragile. It demands innovation and responsible reform, not simply more spending with no accountability. It's time for change, it's way overdue.

          1. Willowarbor profile image61
            Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            I don't see any of this addressed in the bill though? I don't know where these statements originate? 

            So let's say that I am uninsured under Trump's new plan. I work full time but my employer does not offer any benefits whatsoever.  I've lost my tax credits for the ACA, so those plans are now astronomical.  Where do I go for healthcare? How would I pay the cost?   What am I missing here?

            What is the specific, detailed plan to deal with the up to 13 million people who will have no health coverage?

            1. Sharlee01 profile image82
              Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              The One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes provisions that grant states increased autonomy and reduce certain federal regulations in healthcare, which could potentially encourage market competition within individual states.

              Reduction of Regulatory Burdens

              The bill includes measures aimed at reducing federal regulations in various sectors, including healthcare. By rolling back certain federal oversight, states may have more flexibility to implement policies that encourage private sector participation and competition in the healthcare market. This could lead to more choices and price competition, particularly in rural markets where monopolies often exist.

              State-Level Medicaid Innovation
              1. State-Level Medicaid Innovation
              When the federal government gives states more control over Medicaid through block grants or waivers (like those in the bill), states can design programs that:

              Reward cost-effective providers.

              Use managed care models to create competition between private insurers.

              Shift funds toward preventative care or direct primary care agreements.

              Example: A state might allow Medicaid funds to be used for subscription-style primary care or contract with multiple private insurers, creating a competitive environment.

              2. Flexibility Could Attract New Providers
              By loosening federal constraints (like paperwork requirements or strict payment formulas), states might:

              Make it easier for private clinics, urgent care centers, or telehealth providers to enter the market.

              Approve more license reciprocity or reduced barriers to practice for out-of-state doctors, especially in underserved areas.

              This could lead to more choices and price competition, especially in rural markets where monopolies often exist.

              3. Tailoring Regulations to Encourage Investment
              States with more flexibility might:

              Lower compliance costs for small healthcare businesses or allow different reimbursement models.

              Streamline approval processes for new facilities or equipment (like rural imaging centers or mobile clinics).

              This can reduce overhead for providers and encourage investment by smaller, innovative players, not just large hospital systems.

              4. Encouraging Insurer Participation
              Federal rules often restrict what benefits must be included in insurance plans (Essential Health Benefits under the ACA). If states gain the ability to define benefits, they might:

              Offer a range of plan options, from basic catastrophic coverage to comprehensive packages.

              Encourage new insurers to enter the market by easing pricing or solvency restrictions.

              This could lower premiums and increase competition among insurers within the state.

              1. Willowarbor profile image61
                Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                Does this language come directly from the bill? I do not find this

                1. Sharlee01 profile image82
                  Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Sec. 44101. Part 1--Medicaid
                  https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-con … hatgpt.com

                  You can copy and paste any given section into AI, and it pulls up the information.

              2. Willowarbor profile image61
                Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                None of this is in the language of the bill. I'm not sure who interpreted the bill to mean the things listed in this post?  I have read the language from section 44101 on down and I don't find any of these things, by any stretch of the imagination to be included there within.   The bill elaborates on cuts and requirements with absolutely nothing to address the 10 million or more people who will be without any health coverage.

      4. My Esoteric profile image85
        My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yes, people are complaining about Medicaid. They complain about Administrative Challenges, limited access to care, and policy changes, like this one.

        As to "handling things carefully", when has Trump ever done that?

  9. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 4 weeks ago

    It always amazes me how self-deluded some people are who falsely claim that people are poor, just because they want to be.  That kind of statement is beyond credible and belief.

    I suspect what has happened is that they found the one or two exceptions and then broadcast that is how all poor people feel. Well, that is a lie.

    Saying poor people want to be poor is a misleading oversimplification that ignores decades of research in economics, sociology, psychology, and public health. If that is honestly felt, then that is a clear sign of belonging to a cult.

    For those actually interested in THE TRUTH here it is:

    1. It Ignores Structural and Systemic Barriers - Poverty is not just about individual choices — it’s about systems:

    Wages have stagnated while the cost of housing, healthcare, and education has skyrocketed.

    Zip code, race, gender, and class all correlate strongly with economic outcomes — not because of "bad choices," but because of limited access to resources.

    Studies show that starting in poverty drastically reduces upward mobility, regardless of effort or intelligence.

    Example: Two children of equal intelligence, one born in an affluent suburb and the other in a poor rural county, will not face remotely similar opportunities.

    2. It Misunderstands Psychology and Decision-Making Under Scarcity

    Being poor affects the brain — literally.

    Research from Princeton (Mullainathan & Shafir) shows that scarcity taxes cognitive capacity, making it harder to plan long term.

    People facing constant financial stress are more likely to make short-term decisions not because they’re unintelligent, but because they are surviving.

    ✅ Immediate gratification in this context isn’t laziness — it’s a response to unstable environments where the future is uncertain.

    3. It Is Refuted by Empirical Data

    A large percentage of Americans will experience poverty at some point in their lives. According to the Urban Institute, 59% of Americans between ages 20 and 75 will spend at least one year below the poverty line.

    The U.S. has higher poverty persistence and lower economic mobility than many other developed nations — and it’s not because Americans are less intelligent or less driven.

    Most poor people work. According to BLS data, the majority of non-elderly poor adults who can work are working, often full-time, in low-wage jobs.

    4. It Demonizes Rather Than Understands

    The claim that “they want to be poor” reflects hostile attribution bias — the tendency to interpret others’ hardship as intentional or deserved.

    In reality, most poor people report experiencing shame, stress, and hopelessness — not contentment.

    No reputable survey finds that people “want” to be poor. The overwhelming majority aspire to better conditions.

    5. It Has Been Used to Justify Harmful Policies

    This narrative has historically been used to oppose safety net programs, housing assistance, and education funding — on the grounds that “they brought it on themselves.”

    But programs like Social Security, food stamps, and Medicaid lift millions out of poverty annually — and research shows they have long-term positive effects on children’s health, education, and income.

    Conclusion:

    The idea that people are poor mainly because of unintelligent choices or a desire to be poor is:

    Factually incorrect according to economic, sociological, and psychological research

    Morally lazy, as it dismisses the complexity of human struggle

    Socially harmful as it breeds division and undermines the case for policy solutions that actually work

    And a sign of cult membership.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image70
      Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Is it that difficult?

      Is it being over-simplified?

      Or is it being over-blown?

      How do you create a society that benefits ALL...

      When there is NO benefit to the FEW who can excel and achieve?

      Why have standards?

      Why even bother with educating people?

      Math is racist... tests are sexist... standards... codes... regulations, they are meant to keep the poor people down.

      Rich people can afford to pay for permits and inspections and for licensed and educated contractors to build and wire things... poor people can't.

      But its OK... its all OK...

      The last 150 years has been a flurry... look at all that has happened...

      There were no cars... no highways... no airports... no computers... no internet...

      We have passed from the Industrial Age... into the Information Age... in less than ONE lifetime... and now before we have even adjusted completely to EITHER of those Ages... we are entering into a New Age...

      The AI Age... maybe later to be revised to the AGI Age (Artificial General Intelligence) as opposed to what will follow soon... perhaps a few short years from now... the ASI Age... in which humanity is interconnected with the Super Intelligence, or wiped out by it... remains to be seen...

      Anyways... yeah... Capitalism bad... yup... but everything else so far is even worse... those who are motivated or talented or inspired... they usually do OK... those that want to sit around all day smoking weed and watching the Price Is Right... well... they are kind of a drag on the rest of us working to keep society afloat...

      Wait... why did you rant about Poor people... wasn't this about MAGA... Cults...???

  10. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 4 weeks ago

    It is speech like this that reinforces the rewired brains of Trump Cult Members that allows them to say things that aren't true like Inflation was 25% or inflation was skyrocketing when it was coming down or Biden is incompetent when he had one of the most successful presidencies in modern history.

    The all-caps message, posted just before 7:00 a.m. ET, sees the president wishing a “Happy Memorial Day to all, including the scum that spent the last four years trying to destroy our country through warped radical left minds,” which he writes were responsible for illegal immigration into the country under Biden.

    Trump went on to suggest that 21 million people entered the US illegally under the previous administration — a figure not borne out by US Customs and Border Protection data, as previously reported by CNN.

    He blamed “an incompetent president” for the influx of migrants and “judges who are on a mission to keep murderers, drug dealers, rapists, gang members, and released prisoners from all over the world, in our country so they can rob, murder, and rape again,” for stymying his deportation agenda, claiming criminal migrants are “protected by these USA hating judges who suffer from an ideology that is sick, and very dangerous for our country.”

    Clear evidence of a dangerous mental illness that left unchecked will bring America down and let the Russians and Chinese win.

    "Trump’s Memorial Day message came two days after a politically inflected commencement address at the US Military Academy at West Point, where the president combined traditional advice to graduates with more overtly partisan themes." - I read "inflected" as "infected".

    https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/26/politics … -opponents

  11. albertsj profile image80
    albertsjposted 4 weeks ago

    Applause also.Cult members always deny they're in a cult.

  12. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 4 weeks ago

    Trump continues to show the world he is quickly sinking into dementia.

    Any cognitively adroit human in America knows Harvard University is located in Greater Boston Metropolitan Area which is overseen by the federal court in - BOSTON. This is where Harvard is supposed to filing its lawsuits.

    Here is the problem, Trump, in his diminished mental state, actually thinks that Harvard is "Judge Shopping" according to a post from him this morning.

    Talk about a cover-up of presidential ineptitude - it is clearly going on with those around Trump.

  13. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 weeks ago

    Uber-MAGA Curtis Yarvin is out in the open saying Trump is trying to replace American democracy with a form of Monarchy which is led by a CEO.

    FINALLY - they are speaking the truth about their intentions.

    https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/30/politics … d-by-a-ceo

  14. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 weeks ago

    It is very, very hard to escape a Cult once you are in it. I suspect hard-core Trump voters will call her a traitor, but this ex-MAGA lady showed a lot of smarts when she said "'I'm not going to be a part of Trump's lying': Jan. 6 rioter refuses pardon"

    She can see it, why can't other Trump defenders see it?

    https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/03/politics … oom-digvid

  15. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 weeks ago

    Another example of an unhinged, nutso Trump.

    On May 31, 2025, Trump reposted a message from another user stating:

    “There is no #JoeBiden – executed in 2020. #Biden clones doubles & robotic engineered soulless mindless entities are what you see. Democrats don't know the difference.” Apparently, Trump seriously believes this conspiracy theory since he reposted it without comment.

  16. IslandBites profile image68
    IslandBitesposted 3 days ago

    A $250 bill and ‘WMAGA’: GOP lawmakers push legislation honoring Trump

    Political experts say the bills, which include renaming Dulles Airport and Washington’s Metro after Trump, are unprecedented because they honor a sitting president.

    Late last month, Florida Republican Rep. Greg Steube introduced a bill that would halt any funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority unless its name was changed. Steube, whose southwest Florida district is about 950 miles from Washington, proposed WMATA be rechristened the Washington Metropolitan Authority for Greater Access or … WMAGA.

    The legislation also called for Metrorail, the system’s flagship rail line, to be renamed the “Trump Train.”

    Steube’s proposal is just the latest in legislative offerings this year paying tribute to President Donald Trump. House Republicans have proposed at least eight bills since January to honor the president or burnish his image. They would, among other things, put Trump’s portrait on U.S. currency, carve his face onto Mount Rushmore, rename Washington Dulles International Airport for him and make his birthday a national holiday.

    “It is unprecedented and to be honest with you, it’s completely wild,” John White, professor emeritus of politics at Catholic University, said in an interview. “History shows that most things are named after presidents after they have either long left office or been deceased.”

    Three days after Trump’s inauguration in January, Rep. Addison McDowell (R-North Carolina) proposed renaming Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia to the “Donald J. Trump International Airport.”

    Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-New York) chose Valentine’s Day to submit a bill that would make Trump’s birthday, June 14, a national holiday along with Flag Day.

    Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Florida) introduced legislation directing the secretary of the interior “to arrange for the carving of the figure of President Donald J. Trump on Mount Rushmore National Memorial.”

    Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) proposed H.R. 1790, the Golden Age Act of 2025, which directs the Treasury Department to print $100 bills with Trump’s portrait on them. That was just after Rep. Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) introduced the Donald J. Trump $250 Bill Act, which would require the Treasury to print “Federal reserve notes in the denomination of $250 and such notes shall feature a portrait of Donald J. Trump.”

    1. tsmog profile image76
      tsmogposted 3 days agoin reply to this

      hmmm . . . golden calf?

      1. My Esoteric profile image85
        My Esotericposted 3 days agoin reply to this

        Yep! And think, he is only 5 months in and he has nearly brought America to its knees.

        1. tsmog profile image76
          tsmogposted 2 days agoin reply to this

          I stated back about 7 months ago my position on Trump. It was after I posted an OP to the forums

          Day zero (0)! A new chapter in the annals of history began Jan 6th [2025].
          https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/362 … an-jan-6th

          My position then and remains today: "I am kicking back watching chaos theory unfold while entropy seeks to predict the future."

          I'm sipping on my morning coffee while reading here and there what is happening in the world.

    2. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 3 days agoin reply to this

      That is insane, IB. Are these people nuts to bestow such honors on a living politician, especially a man like Trump?

      I have been hearing rumors that Puerto Rico might declare its independence from the US and affiliate with Spain. It may make a lot of sense?

      1. wilderness profile image78
        wildernessposted 3 days agoin reply to this

        Thinking back to Rodney King and George Floyd, I'd have to say it make perfect sense to honor a President for the good he is doing. 

        As far as being a sitting President, I think back to Obama being given the Nobel Prize (although not by Americans) for purely political reasons.

        1. My Esoteric profile image85
          My Esotericposted 3 days agoin reply to this

          That is, of course, just your opinion not substantiated by ... anythiing.

        2. My Esoteric profile image85
          My Esotericposted 2 days agoin reply to this

          How about think back to something much more current - Trump's insurrection on Jan 6th.

        3. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 2 days agoin reply to this

          Well, Wilderness, that is the “good he is doing” from your perspective not mine.

          BTW, If I recall, a living president, Theodore Roosevelt received a Nobel Peace prize for helping mediate peace from the Russo-Japanese war at the turn of the last century. (1904)?

          Was it for political reasons, who is to say? But, I can say that Trump is no Teddy Roosevelt, not by a long shot. Obviously, the point view of the rightwinger anywhere is always contradictory to the views of otherwise civilized people from more enlightened parts of the world.

      2. My Esoteric profile image85
        My Esotericposted 3 days agoin reply to this

        I wouldn't blame them. Trump's America is an embarrassment to be associated with.

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 2 days agoin reply to this

          Yes, sir…..

      3. IslandBites profile image68
        IslandBitesposted 3 days agoin reply to this

          I have been hearing rumors that Puerto Rico might declare its independence from the US and affiliate with Spain. It may make a lot of sense? 

        Nah. A little group is trying to make noise with that. Nobody here take them seriously.

        Im sure MAGA world would love that. lol Maybe that' why its been in the news there (and now).

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 2 days agoin reply to this

          Thanks for the clarification, the GOP would like to see Puerto Rico go away for the risk of the statehood would more than likely see Democrats get a few more seats.

          I would have thought that being associated with America now is more of liability than an asset.

          1. IslandBites profile image68
            IslandBitesposted 2 days agoin reply to this

            Not only the Democrats seats, but the 3M+ brown spanish speaking people.

            And yes, I agree about the liability.

    3. My Esoteric profile image85
      My Esotericposted 3 days agoin reply to this

      Talk about a personality CULT!

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)