Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Paranoid Android]

Since the actual thread for it got closed, I guess I can just put it here? God knows at this point.


All I'm personally reading here is "we white-washed it all for a reason, its staying that way, fuck any minorities that don't like it." That and it, of course, circling back to LGBTQ+ stuff lol This man could be a transparent blob for how subtle he is.

Thanks for post since a couple trolls shut down the other one.

People stop feeding these trolls!

Queer history? So is the course teaching that if every African American turned LBGTQ that would be great! <sarcasm>. I'm betting this is acknowledging people such as James Baldwin or whoever's sexuality adding to empowerment or the added struggle. You know, being black than gay. The double whammy.

His standards for black history. Laughable. What standards do you have DeSantis? Seems they are not great since you are trying to crush AA Studies. Also the views, or interpretation of saw "white history" may not be the best. Basically, more voices, opinions and changing the history as needed to update is fine.

I thought DeSantis was doing identity politics but I really, really think he is a big time racist.

[Paranoid Android]

I give the overinflated, white-as-rice piece of shit points for his absolute arrogance over thinking he can dictate what black history even is, at least.

I guess I should be a little clear in that just having one focused point or let's say a interpretation that we have had since day one of a white view. So I'm going more for a big picture of yes him just thinking that he or even past history is right and the only history we should have.

But of course DeSantis himself is as you stated, wants to dictate that he doesn't want any more thought on African American studies than what the DeSantis government wants to give.

[Edge-]

https://www.inquirer.com/politics/pe...outputType=amp

Know what's a wonderful way to campaign?

Do photo-ops with former mob bosses.

I'm not kidding.

Merlino was convicted in 2001 in a racketeering case and served a decade in federal prison. He had claimed more recently to have left that life behind, moving to Boca Raton in Florida to work as maître d’ at an Italian restaurant named after him.

The restaurant closed after Merlino’s most recent run-in with the feds, which led to a two-year sentence in October 2018 when he pleaded guilty to a gambling-related charge. Merlino, after being sentenced, echoed comments from Trump at the time that were critical of witnesses who cooperate with federal investigators.

“President Trump is right — they’ve got to outlaw the flippers,” said Merlino, who was released from prison in July 2020.

Well no wonder the two are hanging out and apparently get along, they hate when their own people rat them out.

[Breccia]

Know what's a wonderful way to campaign?

Whoa whoa whoa, all joking aside, is Trump okay? That's not a smile, he can't hold his arm up, and he looks ready to fall over.

- - - Updated - - -

This Rolling Stone article brings up some interesting points.

So Trump insiders are saying that Trump is going to bail on the non-competition clause between his own social media site and Twitter. Apparently, that contract -- yes, I know how little a contract means to Trump, but it means something to the courts -- was to last 18 months and therefore expire in June. Of this year. Trump can apply to opt out, but there'd be a penalty for doing so. Also, I think DWAC could just say "no", I don't think there's a 100% escape clause, but then again I can't exactly read the contract.

Nunes has publicly denied these reports, but as the CEO of Trump's social media site, saying "yes I admit it, my company has no future and is worthless" doesn't seem like something he'd say.

Naturally, DWAC immediately plunged in price. Well I say "plunged" it's $15 now, it lost $3 over the last 5 days but that's 16.64% or so, so "plunged" is relative.

I looked around for what happens if Trump applies to opt out of this contract, but I don't see any real downside. Simply put, DWAC is unlikely to last until June anyhow. I think the few remaining people involved will vote to bail before then. This report won't help.

So let's assume all this happens. How much will Trump lose on his Chinese knockoff Twitter? I looked around and found nothing both new and relevant. But, extrapolating from older articles and assuming he doesn't get sued, this won't cost him all that much -- low double-digit millions, and I'm sure Trump will shunt that mostly to his investors who aren't him. Simply put, CyberTrump 2077 never got hte update CyberPunk 2077 did. They never got the advertisers, and they never got the members, and the two go hand in hand. They're under 100th in the Apple store now, just above Cougar -- which is exactly what you think it is.

DWAC is also out money, the money they needed to pay to keep the deal running, and of course the $10 they have to pay back for anyone still holding stock. They...might declare bankruptcy, I don't know if they can, SPACs are strange and that might even be illegal?

But the real losers are, of course, the members of Trump's rabid fanbase who decided to buy the stock at literally any price other than the original $10. Since the price instantly jumped to $100ish, literally anyone who didn't have the original shares has now lost money, except @Edge- who I heard once shorted it. \

Will Trump walk out of this business failure okay? He always seems to. Will it be yet another massive public failure on his record? Yes. The question remains, is his loss of standing -- political, fiscal, hell physical look at that picture above he's barely vertical -- be enough to kick him out of the Republican Party? Or are his followers, so sunk cost phalluses into proven liar proven loser proven criminal Trump, going to accept that he's an even bigger liar and loser and back him anyway for, at this point, not even God knows what reason?

I'll tell you when we know, but I won't tell you on Truth Social, because I'd want people to actually see it.

[Levelfive]

Apologies if this posted elsewhere but it seems like a pretty big deal: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...m-foreign-govt

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr...rged-violating

"The same FBI official accused of illegally working for a Russian oligarch also faces charges of concealing a $225,000 payment while he was working for the bureau, court papers say.

Per a Jan. 18 indictment, a D.C. federal grand jury charged Charles McGonigal, a former special agent in charge of the counterintelligence division at the FBI’s New York City field office, with nine counts relating to a scheme in which he allegedly took hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash from a former foreign intelligence official.

The indictment does not specify whether McGonigal did anything specifically in exchange for the money — he faces charges of concealment, false statements, and falsifying official records.

But the charging documents lay out a story in which McGonigal appears to have used the powers that came with his position — including to open criminal investigations — in a way that may have benefitted those paying him."

[gondrin]

Apologies if this posted elsewhere but it seems like a pretty big deal: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...m-foreign-govt

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr...rged-violating

"The same FBI official accused of illegally working for a Russian oligarch also faces charges of concealing a $225,000 payment while he was working for the bureau, court papers say.

Per a Jan. 18 indictment, a D.C. federal grand jury charged Charles McGonigal, a former special agent in charge of the counterintelligence division at the FBI’s New York City field office, with nine counts relating to a scheme in which he allegedly took hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash from a former foreign intelligence official.

The indictment does not specify whether McGonigal did anything specifically in exchange for the money — he faces charges of concealment, false statements, and falsifying official records.

But the charging documents lay out a story in which McGonigal appears to have used the powers that came with his position — including to open criminal investigations — in a way that may have benefitted those paying him."

Well, one person is sure happy about this news. The namesake of this thread.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...0e2ae21d07faca

Trump Blasts Charles McGonigal After Arrest: 'Rot In Hell'

Donald Trump reacted with glee after a former FBI official who was involved in the investigation into the alleged ties between the former president's 2016 campaign team and Russia was arrested.

Charles McGonigal, 54, the former head of counterintelligence for the FBI's New York office, is accused of secretly working for a U.S.-sanctioned Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, as well as conspiring to commit money laundering.

Prosecutors said that McGonigal is alleged to have tried to help Deripaska get off the sanctions list after leaving the FBI in 2018. He is also alleged to have taken money off the Russian billionaire in 2019 in order to investigate a rival oligarch.

While not connected to the investigation, McGonigal was one of the leading figures behind the investigation into alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election.

McGonigal was one of the first FBI figures to be made aware of allegations that George Papadopoulos, a campaign adviser for Trump, boasted that he knew Russians had dirt on Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton.

In a post on Truth Social after the Department of Justice announced the charges, Trump said: "The FBI guy after me for the Russia, Russia, Russia HOAX, long before my Election as President, was just arrested for taking money from Russia, Russia, Russia. May he Rot In Hell!"

In 2019, special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation determined that there was no evidence that Trump and his campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, although the former president and several of his officials may have attempted to obstruct the probe.

Papadopoulos was jailed for 12 days in 2018 after admitting lying to the FBI about his contact with London-based professor Joseph Mifsud, who allegedly claimed to have damaging information on Clinton during the 2016 election campaign.

Deripaska was also a client of Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager who was jailed in 2019 for tax and bank fraud charges in a case that stemmed from Mueller's Russia investigation.

The Department of Justice said McGonigal and Shestakov were aware that conspiring to work with Deripaska violated U.S. sanctions, especially as McGonigal would have received classified information that Deripaska would be added to a list of sanctioned oligarchs.

Deripaska was sanctioned by the U.S. in 2018 for his apparent ties to the Russian government and Russia's energy sector amid Moscow's ongoing threats to Ukraine.

McGonigal is charged with concealing material facts, six counts of making false statements and two counts of falsification of records and documents.

In a separate indictment, McGonigal is also charged with accepting $225,000 while working at the FBI from a person who had business interests in Europe who had been an employee of Albania's foreign intelligence service.

He pleaded not guilty to the charges during a court appearance in New York on Monday.

Does Trump have some form of undiagnosed OCD or something as he keeps saying Russia three times like he was trying to summon Putin to help him out or something.

[Edge-]

Does Trump have some form of undiagnosed OCD or something as he keeps saying Russia three times like he was trying to summon Putin to help him out or something.

No, he just understands branding. That means repetition, repetition, repetition.

[Breccia]

The NY Daily News dunks on Trump.

See, in 2016, Trump took a tax credit -- $300 isn't huge but it's more than zero -- from a NYC law. Thing is, that NYC law is only for people with income $500,000 or lower, two years earlier. Therefore, in 2014, Trump earned half a million or lower.

"Surely that was just a clerical error."

Was there an audit?

"Uh...doesn't look like it."

Did Trump file for that benefit?

"Uh...yeah, looks like you have to intentionally ask for it."

So you're suggesting Trump committed tax fr--

"I withdraw my objectiion."

Other analyses of Trump's now-public taxes show that earning under $500,000 is, if anything, putting it mildly. Trump's 1040 forms show negative millions for years.

Naturally, Trump had the following to say:

Does Coco Chow have anything to do with Joe Biden’s Classified Documents being sent and stored in Chinatown? Her husband, the Old Broken Crow, is VERY close to Biden, the Democrats, and, of course, China. He gives them all whatever they want!

Whoops! That's not about Trump's provably negative income. That's Trump being super fucking racist in public on purpose! How did that get here?

[gondrin]

If McConnell is Old Broken Crow, wouldn't Trump's Native American name be Old Broken Record then? Since he only repeats the exact same things over and over and over and over and over.....and over and over.....

[Levelfive]

Well, one person is sure happy about this news. The namesake of this thread.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...0e2ae21d07faca

Sure, everyone on the right will say that because they'll say anything to pretend Russia didn't help Trump, but there are some genuinely concerning facts in play here: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog...n/Oxz6byG4ZM14

"But last night Michael Beschloss noted a few connections which may be coincidences but are hard to ignore. He noted that in 2018 the Times reported that “the C.I.A. noticed in late 2010 that its spies were disappearing.”

“As fears of a mole grew, the government set up a secret task force,” the article continues. “A veteran F.B.I. counterintelligence agent, Charles McGonigal, was assigned to run it.” The FBI director at the time was Robert Mueller.

On Oct. 28, 2016, James Comey wrote a letter informing Congress that he was reopening the Clinton emails probe because of emails found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop in the separate investigation of Weiner. On Oct. 31, the New York Times published its notorious headline: “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia.”

These events, as Beschloss and I noted yesterday, came three weeks after James Comey announced he was putting McGonigal in charge of counterintelligence at the FBI New York field office. As I noted yesterday, however, the press release about McGonigal’s appointment stated he would “assume this new role at the end of October.” In other words, if we think Comey appointed McGonigal and a few weeks later these big bombs started going off, the timeline doesn’t really line up with that. It more suggests that McGonigal got started in New York right as these things were happening, and thus probably arrived too late to have been involved with them.

Of course, that’s not the only possible interpretation. A new appointee can and often does hold sway prior to their formal takeover. And we can’t rule out the possibility that he showed up earlier than late October.

The FBI’s New York field office has long been a source of controversy and concern. Both James Comey and then-Deputy AG Sally Yates testified that they assumed agents in New York would leak the news about the new emails whether Comey brought the news to Congress or not. Rudy Giuliani was out publicly bragging that big news was about to drop out of the investigation and out of New York before that in fact happened. Giuliani’s role in all this and his illicit access to this information has never been properly investigated or really investigated at all, despite promises going back more than six years.

As Beschloss notes, if we assume that McGonigal was at least dirty — ready to trade with foreigners for cash — he shows up at a disquieting number of key junctures. In 2010, in 2016, possibly in 2019 when Deripaska seemed to be getting lenient sanctions relief. If we assume he was compromised in some deeper sense and for a longer period, the whole thing gets much darker.

For now, let’s zoom back out to ask a couple questions. McGonigal was arrested after flying back from Sri Lanka. As I noted last night, McGonigal and his confederate Shastakov knew they were under active investigation at least as far back as November 2021. There was a major press report on the investigation — albeit little noticed — back in September of 2022. So far the DOJ has mostly approached this as a public corruption rather than an espionage case. But given the gravity of what McGonigal is accused of it seems extraordinary he was allowed to travel abroad freely. Yes, he hadn’t been charged with let alone convicted of a crime. But there are various lawful ways of dealing with someone who would seem be a huge, huge flight risk and someone who could do immense damage if he sought asylum abroad.

On its face, maybe the DOJ just doesn’t think he’s a flight risk? Hard to imagine. But who knows? Perhaps they’re confident this is simply a very bad public corruption case, and not really an espionage case? Or perhaps he was wired on that last trip? There’s pretty strong circumstantial evidence in the indictments that there were plea negotiations with McGonigal in the months leading up to his arrest. Presumably those broke down and that’s what led to his arrest and indictment.

We simply have too little information to know what we’re dealing with in this case. An egregious but largely isolated instance of public corruption? Or something deeper that reshapes our understanding of some of the most consequential events of the last decade?

Not clear."

[Edge-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...orms-rcna67524

Facebook and Instagram end Trump's suspension from platforms

Cowardly shits, but whatever. I'm looking forward to him nuking his deal with DWA and abandoning Truth Social.

Nick Clegg, president of global affairs at Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, said Trump’s accounts will be reinstated “in the coming weeks” and come with “new guardrails in place to deter repeat offenses.”

Sure Jan, sure. Did you ever maybe think that it would be better to simply not spend the time building those guardrails for people who can't follow basic rules?

Given his ramped up rhetoric recently, and his hanging out with Nazi's and mob bosses, I'm inclined to think this won't last too long when he returns.

[Gorsameth]

If they don't want repeat offenses he would be back to being banned within a month, if not a week.

[gondrin]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...orms-rcna67524



Cowardly shits, but whatever. I'm looking forward to him nuking his deal with DWA and abandoning Truth Social.



Sure Jan, sure. Did you ever maybe think that it would be better to simply not spend the time building those guardrails for people who can't follow basic rules?

Given his ramped up rhetoric recently, and his hanging out with Nazi's and mob bosses, I'm inclined to think this won't last too long when he returns.

As the GOP found out, you cannot control Trump and his MAGA brand of insane. You just cannot. They literally will be outright banning him again shortly because he will not listen to anyone.

[Edge-]

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...tacks-00079478

Rofl, poor Elaine Chao. Who could have ever imagined working for a racist shitlord could result in you being the target of attacks by said racist shitlord.

Zero sympathy for her and her stupid fuckin husband, they knew exactly who Trump was and this is the price they pay for being complicit in their pursuit of power.

[Breccia]

Sure Jan, sure.

There is basically zero chance Trump will continue to push CyberTrump 2077. It has no followers, no sales, no advertisers and no funding. Trump has already officially announced he's running for the WH again and will not voluntarily cripple himself.

Which means, yes, the psychotic screaming about election fraud will splash over into Facebook and Twitter. Who will sit there and let it happen.

Which, in turn, is stupid. If Trump is kicked again, he'll tell his followers to come with him...but he did that last time, and neither platform so much as blinked.

[Edge-]

The fact Meta have to specify that QAnon stuff doesn't belong on Facebook/elsewhere in light of this unbanning should make obvious that this is a poor decision. But nope...

I wonder if they're hoping this will boost ad revenue significantly or something.

I mean I know Zucks ideas are all a gigantic dumpster fire as it spends something to the tune of $36B on metaverse shit and it still doesn't have legs for your avatars yet and they just laid a ton of folks off, but do they really think this is gonna put them back in the black or something?

Because it seems libs keep moving on from FB so that hate-engagement isn't going to be anywhere near what it was in 2016.

[jonnysensible]

lol clegg is a typical lib dem, never vote for the rent boys

[Elegiac]

Lol what, it's actually Nick Clegg? When the fuck did that happen.

Back in 2018 iirc when I guess he decided to be mask off about being Tory-lite or smth.

[Paranoid Android]

This is the right call. Like it or not, President Trump is one of the country’s leading political figures and the public has a strong interest in hearing his speech.

https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1618...42FatTAlw&s=19

This is the ACLU replying to the story of Trump being reinstated on Facebook and Instagram.

What the bleep are you talking about ACLU.

One more time this was not about saying some racist or offensive statement that you want to take a stance that everyone has rights.

His speech was about violence and election denial that could have possibly toppled our government.

[Breccia]

This is the ACLU replying to the story of Trump being reinstated on Facebook and Instagram.

I think it's along the lines of "I'll defend your right to say it."

Except...Twitter, FB etc aren't the government. Trump has his own social media soapbox. People are interested in Wednesday but you still have to pay Netflix to see it.

So I'm mostly with you.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump freaks out about losing free advertising and, yes, this one's going to take some unpacking.

This morning, I'd found my Trump cultists Alabamer relatives had shrilled all over FB that DirecTV was woke cancel culturing Newsmax, censorship censorship REEEEEEEEEEEE. Of course, I decided not to take their word for it and looked into it myself.

Big surprise: they were taking Trump's word for it without question.

In the contract Newsmax tried to change -- yes, what a fucking surprise, a Trump follower breaking a contract -- DirecTV did not pay Newsmax a carriage fee, and Newsmax did not pay DirecTV a license fee. DirecTV also waived the usual contracted rights to two minutes per hour of advertising. Newsmax demanded that DirecTV change the deal, in other words, they wanted to be paid by DirecTV, while also not paying a license fee, and also not hosting advertising for DirecTV. And not just to DirecTV, but other pay TV carriers that carry it -- while continuing to stream for free on YouTube.

DirecTV had two choices: pass these costs along to their customers, or tell Newsmax to fuck off.

Okay this is where it gets complicated: just kidding. This is where it gets really easy.

Nobody watches Newsmax.

Newsmax's viewership was between 120k and 250k between the time Trump fairly and legally lost the election, until Nov 2022 when so did all the other Republicans. Since then, their viewership dropped under 120k and stayed there.

To make the comparison,

Fox News Channel finished the year with an average prime time audience of 2.33 million viewers, well ahead of MSNBC (1.208 million viewers) and CNN (730,000 viewers)

All of these Dec 2022 numbers are down, but Newsmax was down more than any of them.

DirecTV has 13.5 million subs. Therefore, Newsmax is viewed by under one-tenth of one percent of its customers.

Naturally, Trump took this with his usual lack of chill.

WOW. AT&T DIRECTV REMOVES NEWSMAX FROM ITS CHANNEL LINEUP. This disgusting move comes after 'deplatforming' OAN last year.

The Radical Left seems to have taken over the mind and soul of AT&T. This is a big blow to the Republican Party, and to America itself. For DIRECTV to drop very popular NEWSMAX, without explanation, will not be accepted.

I, for one, will be dropping all association with AT&T and DIRECTV, and I have plenty. This is just one of many reasons why we must WIN IN 2024!!!

Now, normally I would challenge Trump supporters to back up these statements, but it's a waste of time. See, I don't think they watch Newsmax either, so the earlier issue about viewership still wins.

But of course, Trump's claims this was a political move lack any founding in any way. Nobody watches them, ("very popular" is objectively false) but they were asking for money anyhow. Trump dumps his own companies when they stop making him money. For him to decry DirecTV for the same is the usual height, and in his case width, of hypocrisy. Also, DirecTV still hosts FOX News, so...there's that. Trump also did not specify what his many associations with DirecTV and/or AT&T are, so I'm just going to assume he's lying about that, too.

Newsmax, as one would suspect from a Trump cultist, also made a bunch of stupid statements on the issue. For one, they made a big deal about being the fourth-most watched cable news network, without of course mentioning how far back they were from the others. They also made a big deal about DirecTV hosting 22 liberal networks, which basically means they're saying all other networks are liberal, so ABC, CBS, etc.

So, as always, Trump and his supporters are lying. It's the same lie they tell when they say the Jan 6th murderous insurrectionists were arrested for political reasons. It's the same lie they tell when they say Trump is being investigated for cheating on millions upon millions of unpaid taxes for political reasons. Facts and evidence destroy their narrative, so they just skip the part where their own words and actions have consequences and just scream "CENSORSHIP!"

Oh, by the way, DirecTV isn't an arm of the government and this isn't a First Amendment issue.

"Who said it was?"

Newsmax did, in this tear-stained article titled "They're coming for Newsmax, are you next?" Also a small group of GOP members are claiming the same:

Freshman Rep. Wesley Hunt

SHUT UP WESLEY

said the TV provider's inability to come to an agreement with Newsmax over cable fees signals "a political decision to censor conservative media, which is a red flag for the First Amendment." Hunt sent a letter exclusively obtained by the Washington Examiner to DirecTV and its owners, AT&T and TPG Capital, co-signed by 41 other Republican lawmakers ahead of the company's "deplatforming" of Newsmax this week.

Oh, and in case you don't know what kid of person Hunt is:

Deplatforming Newsmax is the latest development in the Left’s ongoing campaign to purge voices they disagree with from the public sphere. This decision by DirecTV and TPG Capital will cut off tens of millions of viewers who rely on Newsmax for their news and information.

Yeah. That's a blatant lie, as Nielsen ratings cited above show.

But it hardly matters if it's 41 GOP members or more. Not only are they blocked by the Senate, they could not make a law that forced DirecTV to host Newsmax if they wanted to. That would be a First Amendment violation.

If any/all of this sounds familiar, it should. DirecTV also dropped OANN. They sued for a billion dollars, claiming they were dropped for politlcal reasons.

"Wait, what? Why haven't we heard about this?"

Because the lawsuit is a clown show. As of last week, it hasn't exactly gone well.

On Friday the 13th, in a 5-minute hearing before Judge John S. Meyer in downtown Superior Court, three Herring lawyers and five representing the defendants went along with a tentative ruling issued Thursday night.

That ruling dealt with anti-SLAPP motions and a demurrer aimed at getting the lawsuit dismissed. Meyer granted all but one of the defendants’ motions.

In his tentative ruling, Judge Meyer said: “DIRECTV argues that Herring has not alleged resulting damages. However, having adequately alleged a breach of the confidentiality provision, Herring would at a minimum be entitled to nominal damages.”

So I take back what I said earlier and now challenge any conservatives, Republicans or even Trump supporters to actually prove this is a political deplatforming censorship move. Considering you can't see the contract negotiations any more than I can, and considering that both sides of the negotations have said fees are at the core of the issue, I don't think that's possible. But I'll give you every shot, just like DirecTV gave Newsmax a shot, nobody watched and they demanded more money, and then got dropped.