Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

McCarthy tells FOX News Cheney can't do the job.

UPDATE:

I think she's got real problems. I've had it with ... I've had it with her. You know, I've lost confidence. ... Well, someone just has to bring a motion, but I assume that will probably take place.

-- McCarthy, also on FOX News

"Whoa! He said that during the interview?"

Nope. Said the quiet part out loud on a hot mic. Did not say "grab them by the pussy" tho.

So, yeah, McCarthy is trying to get Cheney evicted for not being a Trumper. I would love to see the "legal: reason for throwing her out of Congress. Especially with recent revelations about Barr lying under oath about Trump being guilty of obstructing justice.

[Breccia]

They don't need a legal reason, but I don't think they're going to expel her. Just remove her from her leadership positions.

So they can remove her from leadership for no reason at all.

...I despise that, but sadly, it sounds accurate.

[Edge-]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...r-facebook-ban

TRUMP LAUNCHES NEW SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM AFTER HIS BAN FROM SOCIAL MEDIA!!!

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/desk

It's a blog. Literally, that's it. He reinvented links.net from the mid-90's y'all.

[Breccia]

It's a blog.

So...that big tease I linked earlier was "I'm going to start Live Journal?"

I love this letdown so much I want to have sex with Graham's wife.

[Edge-]

So...that big tease I linked earlier was "I'm going to start Live Journal?"

I love this letdown so much I want to have sex with Graham's wife.

Jebaited (where does that even come from originally?)

I bet his supporters are pretty bummed they can't even interact. It doesn't even look like the "like" button (I assume that's what the heart is) works, kek.

[some guy]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...r-facebook-ban

TRUMP LAUNCHES NEW SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM AFTER HIS BAN FROM SOCIAL MEDIA!!!

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/desk

It's a blog. Literally, that's it. He reinvented links.net from the mid-90's y'all.

Wonder how much this revolutionary site cost?

[masterhorus8]

Wonder how much this revolutionary site cost?

And how long it'll last. XD

[Breccia]

I bet his supporters are pretty bummed they can't even interact.

Wait, they can't? Even the comments under FOX News articles talk to each other.

[Edge-]

Wonder how much this revolutionary site cost?

Hey, at least it's live.

My Pillow guy has spent at least $1M on "Frank" and that shit still ain't live - https://www.newsweek.com/mypillows-m...itches-1588270

[Belize]

Hey, at least it's live.

My Pillow guy has spent at least $1M on "Frank" and that shit still ain't live - https://www.newsweek.com/mypillows-m...itches-1588270

MyPillow guy spending 1M$ on Frank and not being satisfied could be taken in a couple different ways...

[Edge-]

MyPillow guy spending 1M$ on Frank and not being satisfied could be taken in a couple different ways...

I hear he's a pillow biter.

[Breccia]

the whole reason for the site is so he can feel loved again.

That's what it is. He wants attention. I don't think this will do it. "Everyone" is on Twitter. How many will intentionally bookmark that blog? Also, how many of them know how to bookmark?

[Edge-]

That's what it is. He wants attention. I don't think this will do it. "Everyone" is on Twitter. How many will intentionally bookmark that blog? Also, how many of them know how to bookmark?

He needed to address the "time-delayed" endorphins that his "proclamations" had. Those take time to release and get news pickup on so that he can start getting those sweet little endorphin hits with each like/rt etc.

Now he can get instant gratification once more, all is right in the world.

[Smitzelplix]

Jebaited (where does that even come from originally?)

I bet his supporters are pretty bummed they can't even interact. It doesn't even look like the "like" button (I assume that's what the heart is) works, kek.

I think the reason there's no comments allowed is because the admin knows it would be filled with his supporters screaming about killing all Democrats which would get the site deplatformed eventually. Also if they allowed comments then it would allow Democrats to come in and make fun of Trump and his supporters.

[Edge-]

I think the reason there's no comments allowed is because the admin knows it would be filled with his supporters screaming about killing all Democrats which would get the site deplatformed eventually. Also if they allowed comments then it would allow Democrats to come in and make fun of Trump and his supporters.

Alternatively: That's unnecessary, pointless extra work with little value-ad when all Trump wants is to see those sweet likes flowing in, and he can get his end of day social media reports from his staff showing all the people that shared his posts on FB/Twitter. Because he doesn't care about the comments themselves, just that people are engaging and they like him.

[Smitzelplix]

Alternatively: That's unnecessary, pointless extra work with little value-ad when all Trump wants is to see those sweet likes flowing in, and he can get his end of day social media reports from his staff showing all the people that shared his posts on FB/Twitter. Because he doesn't care about the comments themselves, just that people are engaging and they like him.

True but having his supporters run wild and potentially getting the site shut down or having the place fill up with people who hate Trump and his supporters would put a damper on his self love fest he's created for himself with this site.

[Breccia]

it’s still weird to me he’s not on Parlor.

Parler with an e. Autocorrect doesn't recognize alt-reicht havens for racism and violence as a word, and I'm okay with that.

Trump was likely told not to go there. Just like he was told not to go to a David Duke pep rally or carry a literal torch while standing next to Lee's statue. He's got to be addicted-style-shaking for his follow/comment numbers going up. A blog? That's...decaf.

- - - Updated - - -

We have more about Barr's disingenuous "privilege" decision.

1) The current DoJ can appeal. HAHAHAHHAHAHA

2) The judge noted Trump's DoJ fought like hell to keep these communications concealed. Most transparent bla bla hypocrisy.

3)

The agency’s redactions and incomplete explanations obfuscate the true purpose of the memorandum, and the excised portions belie the notion that it fell to the Attorney General to make a prosecution decision or that any such decision was on the table at any time.

"I don't speak legalese."

Barr, as AG, was supposed to review the findings and then make a decision about whether or not Trump needed to be charged. Barr had already made that decision, and looked for a way to justify it. That's obstruction.

4) This is the same judge who ruled over Stone's conviction. Which Trump commuted. Then pardoned. Maybe she's unbiased, but I fucking wouldn't be. I would be livid. I would use terms like "burn them down".

Now, maybe this is somehow different, but when a normal DA chooses not to proceed, that doesn't mean the criminal is free forever. Biden's DoJ can choose to read Mueller's report, and anything else they want to hint hint IRS, and then decide. "Double jeopardy" has nothing to do with "the crooked cops decided not to arrest them in the first place".

[DarkTZeratul]

So they can remove her from leadership for no reason at all.

...I despise that, but sadly, it sounds accurate.

I mean, it's a leadership position with their party rather than an official Congressional post, so... Yes. They can.

[Edge-]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/04/u...ompromise.html

The Three-Fifths Compromise, an agreement reached during the negotiations in 1787 to create the United States Constitution, found that, for the purposes of representation and taxation, only three-fifths of a state’s enslaved people would be counted toward its total population. It is regarded as one of the most racist deals among the states during the country’s founding.

Yet in a speech in the Tennessee General Assembly on Tuesday, one representative defended the compromise, arguing that it was “a bitter, bitter pill” that was necessary to curtail the power of slaveholding states and that helped clear the way to ending slavery — remarks that were rebuked by critics, including Black colleagues, as insulting and demeaning.

“By limiting the number of population in the count,” the state representative, Justin Lafferty, a Republican from Knoxville, said on the House floor, participants in the Constitutional Convention “specifically limited the number of representatives that would be available in the slaveholding states, and they did it for the purpose of ending slavery — well before Abraham Lincoln, well before the Civil War.”

The comments came as lawmakers in Tennessee were debating legislation on Tuesday aimed at limiting what public and charter schools can teach students about the influence of institutional racism and privilege.

In which a Republican state Rep. from Tennessee goes on the House Floor to defend the 3/5th's compromise, arguing that it was actually designed to limit the power of the slaveholding states and pave the way for slavery.

Historically illiterate white supremacists are fucking dumb. Why is the Republican party the party of historically illiterate white supremacists? Why do Republicans keep falling over themselves to try to defend the "good" of slavery?

[postman1782]

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/05/...loved-masters/

Yo, what the fuck is up with Republicans continually wanting to talk about the "good" of slavery and how slavery was all sunshine and roses and babies were born (ignore that it was often through brutal rape) and that's just lovely?

The historical illiteracy and low-key overt racism within the party continues to be mildly concerning.

It isn't just that, I was reading an article from a state representative in Tennessee that said the 3/5ths compromise was a good thing. Claiming it's purpose to bring about the end of slavery "eventually". https://www.rawstory.com/tennessee-r...efends-racism/