President Trump

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
irvinehomeowner said:
Is the response always going to be “they did it too”?
Click to expand...
No, the comedy is that they expect us to be all up in arms and offended for something they didn’t care about either….I love that the left feels so shocked and indignant when we don’t care about thinks they “think” we should care about…endless comedy!!😂😂😂😂👍🏽🇺🇸
 
Last edited:
Jesus does... for everyone.

He is the OG DEI.

Since the Trump as Jesus is the current hotness, when I was younger I did a project on the book of Revelations and this is just some morekaos-style hyperbole:

Revelation 13:5: "The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months."

Revelation 13:11: "Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon."

Revelation 13:3: "One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder..."

Revelation 13:13: "And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people."

Revelation 13:6: "It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place..."

Do I think Trump is the Beast? No... but can't help but be reminded of these verses that scared me as a kid. And I did not get these verses from Facebook or some anti-Trump social media post. Just something funny that popped into my brain when Trump posted himself as Jesus... oh sorry... "Red Cross doctor":

1776301280997.png
 
zubs said:
The orange turd posted himself as Jesus. Obama did not.
Click to expand...

That's because the media did it for him - and no one substantially boo-hoo'd from either side of the aisle. Thank God there's the internet.....

www.businessinsider.com

Newsweek Likens Obama To Jesus—Calls Second Term 'The Second Coming'

Newsweek examines Obama's "second coming," analyzing his impact and legacy in American politics.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

www.nbcnews.com

Sculpture of Obama as Jesus causes stir

He wears Jesus' robes and a neon blue halo, looks like Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and is causing a stir at a Chicago art school.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

www.brookings.edu

The Second Coming of Barack Obama | Brookings

As Barack Obama embarks on his second term as U.S. president, Kemal Derviş answers the question of what the president’s top priorities should be in dealing with the global economy at a crossroads.
www.brookings.edu www.brookings.edu


www.huffpost.com

LOOK: Painting Depicting Obama As Jesus Draws Criticism

LOOK: Painting Depicting Obama As Jesus Draws Criticism
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com

patch.com

AP photographer catches Obama as image of Christ

One of your neighbors posted in Health & Fitness. Click through to read what they have to say. (The views expressed in this post are the author’s own.)
patch.com patch.com

and so, so many others. Not clear if anyone on the site had their panties in a wad back in 2011-2013 about this but I highly doubt it. Today, because it's that guy in the red hat, WE ARE A NATION IN PERIL!!!!!!

We all know it's unwise to play with religious imagery just because you're bored when there are so many, many issues of importance today. The White House is better suited to focus on those more pressing things rather than putting out silly AI dreck.

As said earlier, the Tang Menace could cure cancer and the TDS left would try and impeach him because he's ignoring heart disease.
 
Sorry SGIP... that's not a valid argument.

So because other media posted Obama as Jesus... Obama didn't do it himself?

That's like "I'm made of rubber..."

C'mon... it was a stupid thing to do for any world leader... but like Forrest Gump says.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
Jesus does... for everyone.
Click to expand...
This wasn't what I was asking, but you are correct. Jesus cares for Donald Trump and forgives him, so why should we as fellow sinners waste energy being upset about it? These are worldly concerns and Jesus wants us to be focused on the Kingdom of Heaven. Anybody who is upset about the President's social media posts isn't really a mature Christian.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
Sorry SGIP... that's not a valid argument.

So because other media posted Obama as Jesus... Obama didn't do it himself?

That's like "I'm made of rubber..."

C'mon... it was a stupid thing to do for any world leader... but like Forrest Gump says.
Click to expand...

Sure, we agreed earlier. It was stupid. It was pulled, just like Obama did in asking the MSM to pull their tasteless photos... Err...wait... Sorry, I don't see that anywhere.

Now, compare the level of hand wringing, pearl clutching, swooning, and fainting from the soy poisoned, mouth frothing rabid Left today about 1 AI slop post VS the The Great Yawn of 2011-2013 over many similar images.

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh and talk radio said something at the time. Any MSM folks saying it was poor messaging? Any Republican national leaders in either the House or Senate rising to complain? Any report of Obama asking for the comparisons to stop? All I hear are crickets.

Perhaps this helps make the point clearer.
 
Last edited:
I avoid both left and right hyperbole... I thought it was hilarious that he approved that (or thought of it himself).

I think what you are seeing is how bigly his hyprocisy is. Pandering to the religious right when we all know he's probably only touched a Bible when he was inspecting his Trump Bible for market readiness.

But since you all keep using "Obama did it" to make Trump's actions acceptable:

The comparison of presidents to Jesus is a recurring theme in American politics, but the way Obama and Trump handled it reflects their very different personal styles.

While Barack Obama was frequently called "The One" or described in messianic terms by the media and some supporters during his 2008 campaign, his approach was generally to downplay or distance himself from the imagery to avoid appearing egomaniacal or sacrilegious.

1. Shrouding Religious Symbols (The Georgetown Incident)​

In 2009, a major controversy arose when Obama spoke at Georgetown University. The White House requested that a monogram of "IHS" (a symbol for the name of Jesus) located behind the podium be covered with black plywood.
  • The Intent: The White House stated this was to provide a "consistent background" of American flags for TV and to avoid using religious symbols as a backdrop for a secular policy speech.
  • The Perception: Critics argued he was "hiding Jesus," but from a strategic standpoint, it was an attempt to keep his image strictly presidential and distinct from religious iconography.


2. Mocking the "Messiah" Label​

Obama often used humor to deflect the "Messiah" comparisons. During the 2008 Al Smith Dinner (a traditional roguish charity event), he famously joked:

"I was not born in a manger. I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father, Jor-El, to save the Planet Earth."
Click to expand...
By leaning into a superhero trope, he was signaling that he found the "savior" comparisons absurd and was poking fun at the media's obsession with him.

3. Denouncing the Pastor’s Comparisons​

In 2008, clips emerged of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, likening Obama’s political struggles to Jesus’ struggles under the Romans. Obama eventually gave his famous "A More Perfect Union" speech to distance himself from Wright’s rhetoric, explicitly rejecting statements that were divisive or self-exalting in that manner.




4. Comparison to Trump's Recent "Jesus" Posts​

The contrast with the current situation (April 2026) is what many commentators are highlighting:

  • Obama's Era: The "Jesus" comparisons mostly came from outside sources (artists, journalists, or over-eager supporters). Obama usually ignored them or joked about them to appear humble.



  • Trump's Era: Trump has frequently self-published imagery—including the recent AI-generated "Healer" photo—that places him in a divine or Christ-like context. Instead of distancing himself, he often leans into the "anointed" narrative.


The big difference: Obama’s team often worked to remove religious symbols from his immediate vicinity to stay "neutral," whereas Trump's current strategy involves integrating those symbols into his personal brand.


You can accept it or not... you bias will tell you otherwise but as much as you want to think it's the same... it's not.

If I post "I am Jesus" and someone else posts "SGIP is Jesus"... that is not the same.
 
Ooo... this is even better... I put your post into ChatGPT and this is what it said:

There is a coherent argument buried in what they’re saying—but it’s wrapped in exaggeration and a few shaky assumptions.


Here’s how to unpack it fairly.



What they’re trying to argue (the reasonable core)​


  1. Asymmetric outrage
    They’re claiming that when imagery elevated Barack Obama in a quasi-religious way, it didn’t generate the same level of mainstream backlash that Donald Trump gets today.

That’s essentially a media double standard argument:


“Similar kinds of symbolic content existed before, but reactions depend on who the figure is.”
Click to expand...

  1. Different amplification environments
    There’s a more defensible version of this point:

  • Early 2010s media (2011–2013) was less driven by viral outrage cycles.
  • Today’s social media ecosystem amplifies and monetizes outrage much faster.

So part of the difference in reaction may be structural, not purely partisan.



Where the argument breaks down​


This is the part they’re glossing over or getting wrong:


1. “Obama did it” → not really accurate​


There’s no real evidence that Obama:


  • encouraged those images
  • shared them himself
  • or needed to “ask media to pull them”

Most of the “Obama as Jesus” imagery came from:


  • artists
  • magazine covers
  • critics (sometimes mocking the “messiah” narrative)

That’s fundamentally different from a politician personally posting something.



2. False equivalence on who created the content​


This is the biggest flaw.


  • Obama: mostly third-party depictions
  • Trump: self-posted / directly shared

That’s why people react differently. It’s not just bias—it’s about agency.


A better analogy would be:


“How would people react if Obama himself posted that?”
Click to expand...

That situation largely didn’t happen.



3. Selective memory about criticism​


The idea that nobody criticized Obama-era “messiah” imagery isn’t accurate.


Conservative media—especially figures like Rush Limbaugh—regularly mocked and criticized those portrayals.


It just didn’t dominate mainstream coverage in the same way viral posts do now.



4. The tone weakens the argument​


Phrases like:


  • “soy poisoned”
  • “rabid Left”

don’t strengthen the case—they signal that it’s more about venting than making a balanced comparison.


If they dropped that tone, the argument would actually land better.



The strongest clean version of their argument​


If you stripped it down to something defensible, it would be:


“Political figures have been portrayed with exaggerated, even religious imagery before—especially Obama. While there are differences (like who created the content), the intensity and speed of backlash today also reflects a more polarized, outrage-driven media environment.”
Click to expand...


Bottom line​


They’re not entirely wrong that:


  • reactions today are louder and faster
  • and political bias affects outrage levels

But they’re overreaching by:


  • implying Obama was comparable in intent or behavior
  • ignoring the difference between being depicted vs depicting yourself

That distinction is doing most of the heavy lifting here.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
Ooo... this is even better... I put your post into ChatGPT and this is what it said:

There is a coherent argument buried in what they’re saying—but it’s wrapped in exaggeration and a few shaky assumptions.


Here’s how to unpack it fairly.



What they’re trying to argue (the reasonable core)​


  1. Asymmetric outrage
    They’re claiming that when imagery elevated Barack Obama in a quasi-religious way, it didn’t generate the same level of mainstream backlash that Donald Trump gets today.

That’s essentially a media double standard argument:




  1. Different amplification environments
    There’s a more defensible version of this point:

  • Early 2010s media (2011–2013) was less driven by viral outrage cycles.
  • Today’s social media ecosystem amplifies and monetizes outrage much faster.

So part of the difference in reaction may be structural, not purely partisan.



Where the argument breaks down​


This is the part they’re glossing over or getting wrong:


1. “Obama did it” → not really accurate​


There’s no real evidence that Obama:


  • encouraged those images
  • shared them himself
  • or needed to “ask media to pull them”

Most of the “Obama as Jesus” imagery came from:


  • artists
  • magazine covers
  • critics (sometimes mocking the “messiah” narrative)

That’s fundamentally different from a politician personally posting something.



2. False equivalence on who created the content​


This is the biggest flaw.


  • Obama: mostly third-party depictions
  • Trump: self-posted / directly shared

That’s why people react differently. It’s not just bias—it’s about agency.


A better analogy would be:




That situation largely didn’t happen.



3. Selective memory about criticism​


The idea that nobody criticized Obama-era “messiah” imagery isn’t accurate.


Conservative media—especially figures like Rush Limbaugh—regularly mocked and criticized those portrayals.


It just didn’t dominate mainstream coverage in the same way viral posts do now.



4. The tone weakens the argument​


Phrases like:


  • “soy poisoned”
  • “rabid Left”

don’t strengthen the case—they signal that it’s more about venting than making a balanced comparison.


If they dropped that tone, the argument would actually land better.



The strongest clean version of their argument​


If you stripped it down to something defensible, it would be:





Bottom line​


They’re not entirely wrong that:


  • reactions today are louder and faster
  • and political bias affects outrage levels

But they’re overreaching by:


  • implying Obama was comparable in intent or behavior
  • ignoring the difference between being depicted vs depicting yourself

That distinction is doing most of the heavy lifting here.
Click to expand...
constantly feeding the same question through an AI Singularity doom loop is gonna create funnier and funnier answers😆😆😆😆
 
Now that Tulsi Gabbard has released the receipts, we can see that the same players behind the Mueller investigation were behind Trump's first impeachment. While Atkinson and Ciaramella have been referred to the DOJ for criminal review, I don't hold out hope that there will be accountability. Even if the DOJ decides to prosecute, Boasberg heads up the DC district court and he has shown he is highly partisan and will protect those in his favor.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/04/15/the-cia-tried-to-remove-a-sitting-president/

At the time of the 2019 impeachment construct Eric Ciaramella was working for the CIA as an analyst within the National Intelligence Council (NIC). Two years prior to the 2019 impeachment construct, in January 2017, the same CIA analyst, Eric Ciaramella, had worked on the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) at the behest of CIA Director John Brennan.

Former DOJ-NSD lawyer Michael Atkinson and former DOJ-NSD head Mary McCord were at the heart of the operations against Trump in 2017, and then both surface again against Trump in the 2019 impeachment effort. Mary McCord was working for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler at the time of the impeachment in 2019. Both Schiff and Nadler were impeachment managers for Trump's first impeachment.

Before this operation in 2019, CIA analysts weren’t allowed to anonymously make claims against political officials. The reasons are obvious. Because of the sensitive information they handled, any allegation of wrongdoing based on intelligence had to be made with their name attached. Without anonymity, inside the Intelligence Community oversight system, the Ciaramella connection to both IC operations could have been made. His anonymity as a whistleblower served a purpose.

One of the key questions to ICIG Atkinson surrounded the authority of his office changing the CIA whistleblower rules that permitted Eric Ciaramella to remain anonymous. Atkinson had no reasonable explanation. The Intelligence Community Office of Inspector General (Atkinson) also altered the whistleblower form within months of the July 2019 Trump/Zelenskyy phone call to no longer require firsthand knowledge as a prerequisite for reporting complaints. This indicates forethought and specific intent. Michael Atkinson knew a ‘second-hand’ complaint was coming. There was no firsthand knowledge.

From all appearances, IC IG Atkinson was organizing the operation in advance. CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella provided the story. With Adam Schiff prepared to receive the complaint, and Mary McCord prepared to weaponize the complaint, collectively they ran the operation to impeach a sitting President on an entirely fraudulent basis.

https://justthenews.com/accountabil...effort-was-continuation-failed-mueller-effort

The newly-released memos flagged the Ukraine whistle-blower for having a "potential for bias," elicited an apology from him for misleading the probe about his prior contact with staffers on the Democrat-led House Intelligence Committee, showed he criticized GOP congressmen, recounted that he asked to hide his complaint from Republicans on the intelligence committee, pointed to his close links to Joe Biden’s efforts in Ukraine, and more. Atkinson kept much of this from the House investigators.

An alleged witness whose name was redacted and who told investigators he had been assisting the alleged whistle-blower with making his disclosures admitted to having a connection to Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who was fired in 2019 for his misbehavior while helping lead the discredited Russia collusion probe.

This witness — identified only as “Witness 2” — disclosed that he had also worked on a controversial December 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that claimed Vladimir Putin tried to help Trump beat Hillary Clinton in that year’s presidential race, a conclusion that the CIA now admits was based on faulty intelligence and a failure of spy tradecraft.
 
irvine buyer said:
Now that Tulsi Gabbard has released the receipts, we can see that the same players behind the Mueller investigation were behind Trump's first impeachment. While Atkinson and Ciaramella have been referred to the DOJ for criminal review, I don't hold out hope that there will be accountability. Even if the DOJ decides to prosecute, Boasberg heads up the DC district court and he has shown he is highly partisan and will protect those in his favor.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/04/15/the-cia-tried-to-remove-a-sitting-president/

At the time of the 2019 impeachment construct Eric Ciaramella was working for the CIA as an analyst within the National Intelligence Council (NIC). Two years prior to the 2019 impeachment construct, in January 2017, the same CIA analyst, Eric Ciaramella, had worked on the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) at the behest of CIA Director John Brennan.

Former DOJ-NSD lawyer Michael Atkinson and former DOJ-NSD head Mary McCord were at the heart of the operations against Trump in 2017, and then both surface again against Trump in the 2019 impeachment effort. Mary McCord was working for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler at the time of the impeachment in 2019. Both Schiff and Nadler were impeachment managers for Trump's first impeachment.

Before this operation in 2019, CIA analysts weren’t allowed to anonymously make claims against political officials. The reasons are obvious. Because of the sensitive information they handled, any allegation of wrongdoing based on intelligence had to be made with their name attached. Without anonymity, inside the Intelligence Community oversight system, the Ciaramella connection to both IC operations could have been made. His anonymity as a whistleblower served a purpose.

One of the key questions to ICIG Atkinson surrounded the authority of his office changing the CIA whistleblower rules that permitted Eric Ciaramella to remain anonymous. Atkinson had no reasonable explanation. The Intelligence Community Office of Inspector General (Atkinson) also altered the whistleblower form within months of the July 2019 Trump/Zelenskyy phone call to no longer require firsthand knowledge as a prerequisite for reporting complaints. This indicates forethought and specific intent. Michael Atkinson knew a ‘second-hand’ complaint was coming. There was no firsthand knowledge.

From all appearances, IC IG Atkinson was organizing the operation in advance. CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella provided the story. With Adam Schiff prepared to receive the complaint, and Mary McCord prepared to weaponize the complaint, collectively they ran the operation to impeach a sitting President on an entirely fraudulent basis.

https://justthenews.com/accountabil...effort-was-continuation-failed-mueller-effort

The newly-released memos flagged the Ukraine whistle-blower for having a "potential for bias," elicited an apology from him for misleading the probe about his prior contact with staffers on the Democrat-led House Intelligence Committee, showed he criticized GOP congressmen, recounted that he asked to hide his complaint from Republicans on the intelligence committee, pointed to his close links to Joe Biden’s efforts in Ukraine, and more. Atkinson kept much of this from the House investigators.

An alleged witness whose name was redacted and who told investigators he had been assisting the alleged whistle-blower with making his disclosures admitted to having a connection to Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who was fired in 2019 for his misbehavior while helping lead the discredited Russia collusion probe.

This witness — identified only as “Witness 2” — disclosed that he had also worked on a controversial December 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that claimed Vladimir Putin tried to help Trump beat Hillary Clinton in that year’s presidential race, a conclusion that the CIA now admits was based on faulty intelligence and a failure of spy tradecraft.
Click to expand...
Hopefully he will be checked…

Appeals court rules Judge James Boasberg abused his power, ordered to end criminal contempt probe against Trump officials​

nypost.com

Appeals court rules Judge James Boasberg abused his power, ordered to end criminal contempt probe against Trump officials

“We have long known that Judge Boasberg is a far-left judicial activist trying to undermine the President’s lawful authority, this is just further proof,” a White House spokeswoman said.
nypost.com nypost.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top