ADVERTISEMENT

The Long Con

BurghGuy68

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Nov 28, 2002
19,056
26,150
113
Good write up here...

The confidence game doesn’t begin with a lie. It begins with a story—one so emotionally resonant it feels like truth. It offers meaning, identifies villains, flatters the audience, and—when fully deployed—quietly opens the vault.

Donald Trump’s political rise is not just a break from convention. It’s a textbook long con. Not in the casual sense of dishonesty, but in the classic structure: the Big Lie, the emotional hook, the moving target, the victim narrative, and finally, the identity trap—where the mark can no longer afford to walk away because belief has become inseparable from self.

The script is familiar. Whether in a Ponzi scheme, a shell company, or a populist campaign, the pattern is the same. The conman begins not with evidence but with a narrative. Trump’s version is always some variation on a central myth: America has been betrayed, the system is rigged, and only he can fix it. The villains rotate—immigrants, globalists, bureaucrats, journalists—but the goal is constant: create clarity through division, and turn grievance into identity.

The genius of this narrative lies not in its truth, but in its simplicity. It sells not just an outcome, but a self-image. You’re not just supporting a candidate. You’re seeing through the lies. You’re part of the resistance. To believe is to belong. To doubt is to defect.

This is the first move of the long con: the Big Lie. Not just a falsehood, but a worldview. “The election was stolen.” “The deep state is after me because I’m fighting for you.” These aren’t claims to debate. They’re loyalty tests. And the price of failing them is exile from the story you’ve been promised.

And the mark? The mark is not foolish. The mark is angry, disillusioned, and tired of being told to trust institutions that no longer deliver. Trump didn’t invent that despair—he capitalized on it. He gave it direction. He gave it enemies. And he offered himself as both weapon and refuge.

Once belief takes hold, facts become noise. The con fuses politics with identity, and identity with moral survival. Doubting Trump means doubting yourself. And so the mark invests more, not less.

But a con doesn’t pay off. So the grifter keeps moving the goalposts. The wall? Still coming. The swamp? Still draining. The deep state? Still lurking. Every failure becomes proof of sabotage. Every delay, evidence of how powerful the enemy must be. The promise is always just out of reach—and that’s the point.

And when reality intervenes—when courts reject his claims, when fraud is exposed, when indictments land—Trump doesn’t retreat. He adapts. Exposure becomes persecution. Accountability becomes martyrdom. The scam becomes sacred.

This is the fatal turn in the long con: when truth no longer matters. When reality is no longer shared. What remains is not democracy but spectacle—a theater of grievance, rage, and blind loyalty.

We’ve seen this before.

Mussolini cast himself as a savior while dismantling Italy’s institutions. Berlusconi blurred corruption with charisma, laundering scandal through media control. Ferdinand Marcos used crisis to seize power and enrich allies. Joseph McCarthy waved blank papers and claimed they named traitors. Each man sold lies as loyalty, and each hollowed out public trust from within.

And there may be another layer to this performance: a financial con wrapped inside the political one. The chaos isn’t incidental. It may be the plan.

In times of upheaval, those closest to power often find ways to turn disruption into wealth. Trump’s erratic tariff wars, billed as economic nationalism, upended markets, collapsed sectors, and triggered retaliatory shocks. But while farmers went bankrupt and consumers paid more, the market opened space for those with foresight—or insider access—to buy low and consolidate.

Geographer David Harvey calls this accumulation by dispossession: crisis used not to correct the system, but to extract from it. Devalue public assets. Destabilize protections. Create just enough chaos to buy cheap what others are forced to abandon. It’s not just policy failure—it’s extraction dressed as populism.

The con isn’t just psychological. It’s material. It’s not just about being lied to—it’s about being looted.

And that’s what makes this moment different—and more dangerous. The scam isn’t happening outside the system. It’s running through it. Congress, the courts, and the press are not just targets. They’re props. The goal isn’t to fix government. It’s to turn it into a shell—one that can still collect taxes, enforce laws, and declare wars, but no longer serve the people who fund it.

The stakes are no longer just political. They’re existential. Can we still agree on what happened? On what’s real?

Because here’s the brutal truth about every confidence game: it doesn’t end when the lie is exposed. It ends only when the mark walks away. And that is the hardest part—because it requires admitting not just that you were lied to, but that you believed it. That what felt like belonging was, in fact, betrayal.

But if that reckoning doesn’t come—if the spell isn’t broken—the damage won’t stop at the believer’s door. This isn’t just a private illusion. This is a public unraveling. A national hollowing-out of trust, truth, and democracy itself.

And so we must hope—urgently and without illusion—that those caught in the story come to see what it is. That they see the man behind the curtain, the sleight of hand, the fantasy sold as fate.

Because if they don’t, this story won’t end with the emperor having no clothes.

It will end with all of us—every institution, every safeguard, every principle—stripped bare. Not just humiliated, but exposed. Not just misled, but fleeced.

If the con holds, we don’t just lose our shirts.

We lose the republic.

 
"Geographer David Harvey calls this accumulation by dispossession: crisis used not to correct the system, but to extract from it. Devalue public assets. Destabilize protections. Create just enough chaos to buy cheap what others are forced to abandon. It’s not just policy failure—it’s extraction dressed as populism."

Bingo times 1000.

The oligarchs are lurking like vultures, ready to buy up more of America.....and let's cut those nice people's taxes.
 
"Geographer David Harvey calls this accumulation by dispossession: crisis used not to correct the system, but to extract from it. Devalue public assets. Destabilize protections. Create just enough chaos to buy cheap what others are forced to abandon. It’s not just policy failure—it’s extraction dressed as populism."

Bingo times 1000
imagine posting an article on substack that features a character that 99.9% of humans don't know how to type and using it like 20 times then declaring yourself the author. great work by the professor
 
imagine posting an article on substack that features a character that 99.9% of humans don't know how to type and using it like 20 times then declaring yourself the author. great work by the professor
So he pulled a Peter Navarro a.k.a. Ron Vara?

 
  • Like
Reactions: 303vND
The recent narrative depicting Donald Trump's political rise as a mere confidence game might resonate with critics, but it's fundamentally flawed—simplistic, cynical, and dismissive of the genuine grievances and motivations of millions of Americans.

To reduce Trump's support solely to a "long con" ignores the reality of deep and widespread frustration with an establishment perceived as distant, corrupt, and unresponsive. Trump's appeal isn't rooted in mere deception; it emerges from decades of institutional failure, economic disenfranchisement, and cultural alienation felt by a significant segment of the population.

Labeling Trump's rhetoric as simply "lies" that trap followers in a false identity is not only condescending but also dangerously blind to the actual dynamics driving populism worldwide. Whether or not one agrees with Trump's policies or style, it is undeniable that issues such as economic inequality, job outsourcing, and border security are real, pressing concerns for millions of voters. These concerns did not materialize out of thin air as part of an elaborate scheme—they've existed, unresolved, across multiple administrations.

The accusation of Trump moving goalposts ignores a fundamental political truth: all political leaders adjust promises and narratives according to realities on the ground. To present this as uniquely Trumpian is historically naive. Promises unmet or delayed are standard fare in politics across parties and ideologies.

Equating Trump's methods with figures like Mussolini and Marcos is hyperbolic and misleading, diminishing the distinct historical contexts that shaped these leaders and their impacts. Trump's administration operated within the robust checks and balances of U.S. democratic institutions, enduring relentless media scrutiny and numerous judicial checks—hardly the unchecked authoritarianism implied by such comparisons.

Finally, the claim that Trump’s economic actions were deliberately designed as "accumulation by dispossession" to enrich insiders is an overly simplistic interpretation. Economic nationalism, tariffs, and deregulation, whether one agrees with their outcomes or not, have long-standing economic and political rationale beyond mere enrichment schemes.

In short, the "confidence game" narrative misunderstands Trump’s appeal and trivializes the legitimate concerns and frustrations of millions of citizens. A healthier analysis would recognize the real socio-political issues that gave rise to Trump's presidency, rather than dismissing his supporters as mere victims of an elaborate fraud.
 
No this guy plagiarized gpt4.5, the ron vara thing is clearly something different.
He might have done what I often do. I type up a long email, and then run it through AI to make it more succinct.

What was the tell tale sign it was AI?
 
He might have done what I often do. I type up a long email, and then run it through AI to make it more succinct.

What was the tell tale sign it was AI?
He plagiarized the full thing.

imagine posting an article on substack that features a character that 99.9% of humans don't know how to type and using it like 20 times then declaring yourself the author. great work by the professor
 
He plagiarized the full thing.

imagine posting an article on substack that features a character that 99.9% of humans don't know how to type and using it like 20 times then declaring yourself the author. great work by the professor
What character? I'm missing something?
 
"Geographer David Harvey calls this accumulation by dispossession: crisis used not to correct the system, but to extract from it. Devalue public assets. Destabilize protections. Create just enough chaos to buy cheap what others are forced to abandon. It’s not just policy failure—it’s extraction dressed as populism."

Bingo times 1000.

The oligarchs are lurking like vultures, ready to buy up more of America.....and let's cut those nice people's taxes.
Did someone say “chaos”?

 
Good write up here...

The confidence game doesn’t begin with a lie. It begins with a story—one so emotionally resonant it feels like truth. It offers meaning, identifies villains, flatters the audience, and—when fully deployed—quietly opens the vault.

Donald Trump’s political rise is not just a break from convention. It’s a textbook long con. Not in the casual sense of dishonesty, but in the classic structure: the Big Lie, the emotional hook, the moving target, the victim narrative, and finally, the identity trap—where the mark can no longer afford to walk away because belief has become inseparable from self.

The script is familiar. Whether in a Ponzi scheme, a shell company, or a populist campaign, the pattern is the same. The conman begins not with evidence but with a narrative. Trump’s version is always some variation on a central myth: America has been betrayed, the system is rigged, and only he can fix it. The villains rotate—immigrants, globalists, bureaucrats, journalists—but the goal is constant: create clarity through division, and turn grievance into identity.

The genius of this narrative lies not in its truth, but in its simplicity. It sells not just an outcome, but a self-image. You’re not just supporting a candidate. You’re seeing through the lies. You’re part of the resistance. To believe is to belong. To doubt is to defect.

This is the first move of the long con: the Big Lie. Not just a falsehood, but a worldview. “The election was stolen.” “The deep state is after me because I’m fighting for you.” These aren’t claims to debate. They’re loyalty tests. And the price of failing them is exile from the story you’ve been promised.

And the mark? The mark is not foolish. The mark is angry, disillusioned, and tired of being told to trust institutions that no longer deliver. Trump didn’t invent that despair—he capitalized on it. He gave it direction. He gave it enemies. And he offered himself as both weapon and refuge.

Once belief takes hold, facts become noise. The con fuses politics with identity, and identity with moral survival. Doubting Trump means doubting yourself. And so the mark invests more, not less.

But a con doesn’t pay off. So the grifter keeps moving the goalposts. The wall? Still coming. The swamp? Still draining. The deep state? Still lurking. Every failure becomes proof of sabotage. Every delay, evidence of how powerful the enemy must be. The promise is always just out of reach—and that’s the point.

And when reality intervenes—when courts reject his claims, when fraud is exposed, when indictments land—Trump doesn’t retreat. He adapts. Exposure becomes persecution. Accountability becomes martyrdom. The scam becomes sacred.

This is the fatal turn in the long con: when truth no longer matters. When reality is no longer shared. What remains is not democracy but spectacle—a theater of grievance, rage, and blind loyalty.

We’ve seen this before.

Mussolini cast himself as a savior while dismantling Italy’s institutions. Berlusconi blurred corruption with charisma, laundering scandal through media control. Ferdinand Marcos used crisis to seize power and enrich allies. Joseph McCarthy waved blank papers and claimed they named traitors. Each man sold lies as loyalty, and each hollowed out public trust from within.

And there may be another layer to this performance: a financial con wrapped inside the political one. The chaos isn’t incidental. It may be the plan.

In times of upheaval, those closest to power often find ways to turn disruption into wealth. Trump’s erratic tariff wars, billed as economic nationalism, upended markets, collapsed sectors, and triggered retaliatory shocks. But while farmers went bankrupt and consumers paid more, the market opened space for those with foresight—or insider access—to buy low and consolidate.

Geographer David Harvey calls this accumulation by dispossession: crisis used not to correct the system, but to extract from it. Devalue public assets. Destabilize protections. Create just enough chaos to buy cheap what others are forced to abandon. It’s not just policy failure—it’s extraction dressed as populism.

The con isn’t just psychological. It’s material. It’s not just about being lied to—it’s about being looted.

And that’s what makes this moment different—and more dangerous. The scam isn’t happening outside the system. It’s running through it. Congress, the courts, and the press are not just targets. They’re props. The goal isn’t to fix government. It’s to turn it into a shell—one that can still collect taxes, enforce laws, and declare wars, but no longer serve the people who fund it.

The stakes are no longer just political. They’re existential. Can we still agree on what happened? On what’s real?

Because here’s the brutal truth about every confidence game: it doesn’t end when the lie is exposed. It ends only when the mark walks away. And that is the hardest part—because it requires admitting not just that you were lied to, but that you believed it. That what felt like belonging was, in fact, betrayal.

But if that reckoning doesn’t come—if the spell isn’t broken—the damage won’t stop at the believer’s door. This isn’t just a private illusion. This is a public unraveling. A national hollowing-out of trust, truth, and democracy itself.

And so we must hope—urgently and without illusion—that those caught in the story come to see what it is. That they see the man behind the curtain, the sleight of hand, the fantasy sold as fate.

Because if they don’t, this story won’t end with the emperor having no clothes.

It will end with all of us—every institution, every safeguard, every principle—stripped bare. Not just humiliated, but exposed. Not just misled, but fleeced.

If the con holds, we don’t just lose our shirts.

We lose the republic.

Lol, wow. Stop, cmon. Everything u said has EVIDENCE to support all the so called moving goalposts . Holy cognitive dissonance. Smh...... some people will just never be saved.
 
Lol, wow. Stop, cmon. Everything u said has EVIDENCE to support all the so called moving goalposts . Holy cognitive dissonance. Smh...... some people will just never be saved.
Remember the Cloward-Piven strategy? Dems wanted to burn it all down. I say why are they whining now? Is it just because Trump is lighting the match?

That's some hard core TDS.
 
The recent narrative depicting Donald Trump's political rise as a mere confidence game might resonate with critics, but it's fundamentally flawed—simplistic, cynical, and dismissive of the genuine grievances and motivations of millions of Americans.

To reduce Trump's support solely to a "long con" ignores the reality of deep and widespread frustration with an establishment perceived as distant, corrupt, and unresponsive. Trump's appeal isn't rooted in mere deception; it emerges from decades of institutional failure, economic disenfranchisement, and cultural alienation felt by a significant segment of the population.

Labeling Trump's rhetoric as simply "lies" that trap followers in a false identity is not only condescending but also dangerously blind to the actual dynamics driving populism worldwide. Whether or not one agrees with Trump's policies or style, it is undeniable that issues such as economic inequality, job outsourcing, and border security are real, pressing concerns for millions of voters. These concerns did not materialize out of thin air as part of an elaborate scheme—they've existed, unresolved, across multiple administrations.

The accusation of Trump moving goalposts ignores a fundamental political truth: all political leaders adjust promises and narratives according to realities on the ground. To present this as uniquely Trumpian is historically naive. Promises unmet or delayed are standard fare in politics across parties and ideologies.

Equating Trump's methods with figures like Mussolini and Marcos is hyperbolic and misleading, diminishing the distinct historical contexts that shaped these leaders and their impacts. Trump's administration operated within the robust checks and balances of U.S. democratic institutions, enduring relentless media scrutiny and numerous judicial checks—hardly the unchecked authoritarianism implied by such comparisons.

Finally, the claim that Trump’s economic actions were deliberately designed as "accumulation by dispossession" to enrich insiders is an overly simplistic interpretation. Economic nationalism, tariffs, and deregulation, whether one agrees with their outcomes or not, have long-standing economic and political rationale beyond mere enrichment schemes.

In short, the "confidence game" narrative misunderstands Trump’s appeal and trivializes the legitimate concerns and frustrations of millions of citizens. A healthier analysis would recognize the real socio-political issues that gave rise to Trump's presidency, rather than dismissing his supporters as mere victims of an elaborate fraud.

Extremely well-written and spot on in every regard. And I'll bet you didn't have to use the crutch of AI to make it sound better or more succinct. I love reading pieces written by real people who know how to communicate. Thank you for that.
 
Extremely well-written and spot on in every regard. And I'll bet you didn't have to use the crutch of AI to make it sound better or more succinct. I love reading pieces written by real people who know how to communicate. Thank you for that.
yeah i just slammed the professors gpt post into gpt and said to respond to demonstrate how it was full of the plagiarism tell-sign
 
yeah i just slammed the professors gpt post into gpt and said to respond to demonstrate how it was full of the plagiarism tell-sign

Funny, I just asked GPT to analyze this from a neutral perspective.

Many of the claims in this piece are not empirical assertions that can be directly proven or disproven, but rather interpretations of behavior and rhetoric—classic in political analysis and commentary. That said, some factual points it touches on include:
  • “The election was stolen” as a Big Lie: This is widely documented as a false claim. Dozens of court cases, audits, and election officials (both Republican and Democrat) have found no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.
  • Trump’s shifting promises: There is ample evidence that many of his flagship promises (e.g., Mexico paying for the wall, draining the swamp, etc.) were not fulfilled or morphed over time.
  • Tariff wars and market disruption: Economists across the political spectrum have analyzed the trade war’s impact on farmers, prices, and U.S. economic sectors—many of the disruptions described here are consistent with those findings.
  • “Accumulation by dispossession”: This is a real concept from Marxist geographer David Harvey, and it has been used to critique neoliberal economic strategies that profit from crises.
In short: the factual base is mostly sound, but much of the piece operates at the level of metaphor, analogy, and moral judgment.

2. Psychologically and Sociologically Plausible?

The core idea—that people get drawn into movements through emotionally resonant narratives, then find it hard to walk away because the belief becomes part of their identity—is supported by psychological research on:
  • Identity-protective cognition
  • Cognitive dissonance
  • Group polarization
  • The sunk cost fallacy
It’s also a common theme in literature on cults, populist movements, and political extremism.

3. Rhetorically and Narratively Effective?

Absolutely. This is high-level persuasive writing that:
  • Uses metaphor (“long con,” “vault,” “emperor’s clothes”) to make its case vivid.
  • Appeals to emotion and reason.
  • Establishes stakes (existential threat to democracy).
  • Draws historical parallels to add weight and urgency.
But it’s also very one-sided, which is typical of persuasive essays. It paints Trump as a master manipulator and his supporters as unwitting marks. This is a narrative, not a neutral report. Those who disagree politically may find it condescending or reductionist, which can limit its ability to persuade across ideological lines.

Summary
  • Accurate in its factual references and psychological framework.
  • Compelling as a narrative.
  • Powerful as political rhetoric, but not neutral or balanced.
If you’re reading this as an op-ed, it’s a strong one. If you’re treating it as journalism or academic analysis, it would need more citations, context, and engagement with counterarguments. Let me know if you’d like a rewrite or toned-down version for a different audience.
 
Funny, I just asked GPT to analyze this from a neutral perspective.

Many of the claims in this piece are not empirical assertions that can be directly proven or disproven, but rather interpretations of behavior and rhetoric—classic in political analysis and commentary. That said, some factual points it touches on include:
  • “The election was stolen” as a Big Lie: This is widely documented as a false claim. Dozens of court cases, audits, and election officials (both Republican and Democrat) have found no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.
  • Trump’s shifting promises: There is ample evidence that many of his flagship promises (e.g., Mexico paying for the wall, draining the swamp, etc.) were not fulfilled or morphed over time.
  • Tariff wars and market disruption: Economists across the political spectrum have analyzed the trade war’s impact on farmers, prices, and U.S. economic sectors—many of the disruptions described here are consistent with those findings.
  • “Accumulation by dispossession”: This is a real concept from Marxist geographer David Harvey, and it has been used to critique neoliberal economic strategies that profit from crises.
In short: the factual base is mostly sound, but much of the piece operates at the level of metaphor, analogy, and moral judgment.

2. Psychologically and Sociologically Plausible?

The core idea—that people get drawn into movements through emotionally resonant narratives, then find it hard to walk away because the belief becomes part of their identity—is supported by psychological research on:
  • Identity-protective cognition
  • Cognitive dissonance
  • Group polarization
  • The sunk cost fallacy
It’s also a common theme in literature on cults, populist movements, and political extremism.

3. Rhetorically and Narratively Effective?

Absolutely. This is high-level persuasive writing that:
  • Uses metaphor (“long con,” “vault,” “emperor’s clothes”) to make its case vivid.
  • Appeals to emotion and reason.
  • Establishes stakes (existential threat to democracy).
  • Draws historical parallels to add weight and urgency.
But it’s also very one-sided, which is typical of persuasive essays. It paints Trump as a master manipulator and his supporters as unwitting marks. This is a narrative, not a neutral report. Those who disagree politically may find it condescending or reductionist, which can limit its ability to persuade across ideological lines.

Summary
  • Accurate in its factual references and psychological framework.
  • Compelling as a narrative.
  • Powerful as political rhetoric, but not neutral or balanced.
If you’re reading this as an op-ed, it’s a strong one. If you’re treating it as journalism or academic analysis, it would need more citations, context, and engagement with counterarguments. Let me know if you’d like a rewrite or toned-down version for a different audience.
not sure what's funny i'm not reading any of the ai slop
 
What about A1 as the head of education called it last week? Can't take the dumb beyotch out of the morons surrounding WWE...



 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT