Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

Stephen Miller points at a $87 million contract Biden signed to house migrants and says "This is corrupt".

(points at Trump's hotel issues)

(handwaves Miller)

DeSantis asks if Fauci's COVID origin remarks will end in censorship.

(looks at Florida's handling of COVID)

(handwaves DeSantis)

Tucker Carlson invites Candice Owens to say "Democrats want BLM to destroy the nuclear family".

(counts Trump's divorces and adulteries)

(handwaves Carlson)

"What...are you doing?"

Linking the FOX News stories that, somehow, are more important than the grand jury.

"You expect FOX News to cover that story?"

Yes. This is one of a kind. Also, Trump personally spoke on the issue so FOX News should at least cover that. Also also, if this is bigly yuge partisan witch hunt hoax, why isn't FOX News exposing it? Why aren't they making their front page headline "Trump is being illegally railroaded, you should be afraid and angry, buy guns now!"?

[s_bushido]

Also also, if this is bigly yuge partisan witch hunt hoax, why isn't FOX News exposing it? Why aren't they making their front page headline "Trump is being illegally railroaded, you should be afraid and angry, buy guns now!"?

I'm no Fox News connoisseur, but as far as I know, they usually rely on the plausible deniability of letting Fucker Carlson say those things himself, rather than committing them to a headline. And until charges are actually brought, they have the luxury of just assuming it's another in the long line of investigations that resulted in zero repercussions for Trump's actions (his lackeys going to prison notwithstanding).

[beanman12345]

Yes. This is one of a kind. Also, Trump personally spoke on the issue so FOX News should at least cover that. Also also, if this is bigly yuge partisan witch hunt hoax, why isn't FOX News exposing it? Why aren't they making their front page headline "Trump is being illegally railroaded, you should be afraid and angry, buy guns now!"?

I think I can answer this. Because Trump and Fox had their falling out. And Trump is gonna use the next few months using this as a reason to scam... I mean "fundraise" his base out of their money. So if only left wing news is talking about this, many Trumpers won't even know about this, and therefore, FOX hurts Trump in the wallet. Or, they are waiting until the fundraising actually begins, in an attempt to court Trump back to start talking about it. Either way, keep the ignorant ignorant, and the stupid, well no fixing them.

[s_bushido]

I think I can answer this. Because Trump and Fox had their falling out. And Trump is gonna use the next few months using this as a reason to scam... I mean "fundraise" his base out of their money. So if only left wing news is talking about this, many Trumpers won't even know about this, and therefore, FOX hurts Trump in the wallet. Or, they are waiting until the fundraising actually begins, in an attempt to court Trump back to start talking about it. Either way, keep the ignorant ignorant, and the stupid, well no fixing them.

I think you give them too much credit. My money's on the bolded part being all that matters.

[Rasulis]

Social media companies can probably just ignore this nonsense. Or at least the large ones who can just say "Sue us, dipshits. You'll lose."

For the most part that is true. Federal law trumps State law, and Section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act exempts websites from being sued for removing content deemed to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable” as long as the companies are acting in “good faith.” Until that is changed, FL new law is useless.

[DarkTZeratul]

For the most part that is true. Federal law trumps State law, and Section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act exempts websites from being sued for removing content deemed to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable” as long as the companies are acting in “good faith.” Until that is changed, FL new law is useless.

I don't even think that's really their best defense so much as that being forced to host content they deem objectionable would violate their First Amendment rights to freedom of association.

[Gorsameth]

I don't even think that's really their best defense so much as that being forced to host content they deem objectionable would violate their First Amendment rights to freedom of association.

yep. Kind of ironic that in trying to "protect their first amendment rights" (which don't even apply. The First amendment stops the Government from censoring you, not private companies) they actually managed to violate the first amendment themselves.

Ah Republicans. A source of endless amusement, if not for the suffering the seek to inflict on everyone.

[cubby]

Bezos' Amazon just closed the deal to buy MGM and it's subsidiaries, including the James Bond franchise.

You might ask, Who the fuck cares? Well, guess which studio also owns The Apprentice, and all the racist tirades it's host ranted about in outtakes?

Only real billionaires play the long game of revenge.

[Belize]

Bezos' Amazon just closed the deal to buy MGM and it's subsidiaries, including the James Bond franchise.

You might ask, Who the fuck cares? Well, guess which studio also owns The Apprentice, and all the racist tirades it's host ranted about in outtakes?

Only real billionaires play the long game of revenge.

While hilarious, this is just another nail in the antitrust case against big companies like Amazon. Anyways, that's off topic...

WaPo will be getting a bunch of tapes soon though, so that's nice.

[Edge-]

WaPo will be getting a bunch of tapes soon though, so that's nice.

Don't be so sure, those could very well still be protected even in the event of a sale.

[cubby]

Don't be so sure, those could very well still be protected even in the event of a sale.

Bezos gets the whole package, I don't see how they would still be protected. But yeah, I guess it's always possible.

[Edge-]

Bezos gets the whole package, I don't see how they would still be protected. But yeah, I guess it's always possible.

They could very well still be under NDA for some reason, and changes in ownership wouldn't void the NDA's. We've been down this kind of road before, I'm just trying to remember all the times folks were certain THIS WAS THE BIG ONE only to have it not be the big one.

Though at the same time, jesus fuck can we start breaking up Amazon yet?

[Machismo]

Bezos gets the whole package, I don't see how they would still be protected. But yeah, I guess it's always possible.

Now, I personally don't believe this narrative, and think this is more about streaming rights and a larger avenue into creating original content.

But, it would make my heart smile if he spent $8 billion for petty revenge.

[Shadowferal]

They could very well still be under NDA for some reason, and changes in ownership wouldn't void the NDA's. We've been down this kind of road before, I'm just trying to remember all the times folks were certain THIS WAS THE BIG ONE only to have it not be the big one.
Though at the same time, jesus fuck can we start breaking up Amazon yet?

Yea... I was thinking "double edged blade" myself. A few research facilities and pharmaceuticals and...

[cubby]

They could very well still be under NDA for some reason, and changes in ownership wouldn't void the NDA's. We've been down this kind of road before, I'm just trying to remember all the times folks were certain THIS WAS THE BIG ONE only to have it not be the big one.

Though at the same time, jesus fuck can we start breaking up Amazon yet?

The NDA would be for the participants, not MGM. They would own the rights to those outtakes and could release them at will. Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean.

- - - Updated - - -

Now, I personally don't believe this narrative, and think this is more about streaming rights and a larger avenue into creating original content.

But, it would make my heart smile if he spent $8 billion for petty revenge.

Oh, I'm not saying he bought MGM for those rights. Bezos bought it for the bigger picture, Bond rights, studio, etc - the Apprentice is just a nice ancillary benefit.

[Breccia]

Party of Trump leaders Graham, Meadows and Gingrich huddle to discuss Trump's vision going forwards and probably wife-swapping.

Politico reports the topics seem to be focused on trade and immigration with the following bullet points:

• America First
• There is no second bullet point.

As a reminder, the Republican Party had no platform in 2020 except "Whatever Trump says, goes". Trump also put forth his 2016 Contract with the American Voter which, total shocker, he didn't make much of a dent in except the time he sat on it. Since Gingrich did the same in 1984 we should expect the same from the Party of Trump in 2022 or, more realistically, 2024.

Only real billionaires play the long game of revenge.

"Do you expect Trump to run?"

No, MMO-C, I expect him to lie.

Trump wants to run the show, but he's too old, fat, tired, fat, senile, fat, fatass, and obese to run again. He might literally die. But even if he doesn't, there's no shortage of issues he faces right now -- and no reason to believe he'll figuratively survive them all.

But Trump wants attention and he wants/needs money. If he tells people "No, I'm not going to run" he doesn't get that. So for now, he's going to hide in the shadows, grab a big fluffy cat (grab them by etc) and wait for the GOP to Blowfeld him.

[Kaleredar]

They could very well still be under NDA for some reason, and changes in ownership wouldn't void the NDA's. We've been down this kind of road before, I'm just trying to remember all the times folks were certain THIS WAS THE BIG ONE only to have it not be the big one.

Though at the same time, jesus fuck can we start breaking up Amazon yet?

I don’t really know how you’d place recorded footage of a show under NDA as beholden to a single person who was on the show. If anything, I’d think the NDA would be owned by the studio that produced it, seeing as I’d think the show and associated footage is their “property.”

[Breccia]

Or:

"OH NO! The tapes leaked, you guys! Aw man, so many recordings leaked, how did that happen? Argh, such a tragedy, what are the odds?"

[Ripster42]

I'm just trying to remember all the times folks were certain THIS WAS THE BIG ONE only to have it not be the big one.
\

There's not really much to learn from them as far as I can tell, aside from possible drug use and incontinence. We already know he's a racist pig. There's not really a possibility of a "big one" here. Yeah, they're embarrassing, but who cares? They're not 9+ civil lawsuits and 2 state level criminal investigations (and who knows what the FBI is doing with their investigation).

[cubby]

There's not really much to learn from them as far as I can tell, aside from possible drug use and incontinence. We already know he's a racist pig. There's not really a possibility of a "big one" here. Yeah, they're embarrassing, but who cares? They're not 9+ civil lawsuits and 2 state level criminal investigations (and who knows what the FBI is doing with their investigation).

There won't ever be a "BIG ONE" regarding Trump - we already had a dozen of them, and they were all hand waived away by the GOP. Now we're going for the "clear ones" where we see footage of Trump, a known racist pedophile, making clear racist statements on tape. The raging frothing followers won't care, their narratives are already locked in their stone echo chambers. But for the reality based world, this will provide more solid evidence.

The other category we're looking for are "indictable" actions. We're seeing more and more of those come to light, now that the DoJ is back in objective hands.