Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

Well, it's been a quiet weekend. Has Trump been on social media? Let's check.

Happy Easter!

Aww, that's nice. A lovely flower picture too.

"That's Melania."

You again!

"You have to be more specific than that. The Trump you typically quote posted from Truth Social. That's an Instagram URL. Here, I found a few from over the weekend."

Can you believe that the totally corrupt Biden Disinformation Administration is now trying to blame ‘TRUMP’ for their incompetent exit from Afghanistan

Well, that's to be expected. Anything else?

HAPPY EASTER TO ALL, INCLUDING THOSE THAT DREAM ENDLESSLY OF DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY BECAUSE THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF DREAMING ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE, THOSE THAT ARE SO INCOMPETENT THEY DON’T REALIZE THAT HAVING A BORDER AND POWERFUL WALL IS A GOOD THING, & HAVING VOTER I.D., ALL PAPER BALLOTS, & SAME DAY VOTING WILL QUICKLY END MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD, & TO ALL OF THOSE WEAK & PATHETIC RINOS, RADICAL LEFT DEMOCRATS, SOCIALISTS, MARXISTS, & COMMUNISTS WHO ARE KILLING OUR NATION, REMEMBER, WE WILL BE BACK!

Charming. Well if that's the l--

The best and only way to solve the problem with China, and every other problem we have, is to get rid of Biden!!! The way the U.S. is going, we will soon be in World War lll, with NO AMMUNITION!

Hmm. Well, I suppose there's more than one way to interpret "get rid of Biden". He didn't say "violence" but then again (a) he doesn't believe in elections so why would he, and (b) he didn't say "election" anyhow. Yeah, I'm going to interpret that as a threat until his people What He Meant Was, then I'm still going to interpret it as a threat because Trump lies all the time about everything.

Bit over the top on the fearmongering side. But it's not like he ju--

WORLD WAR lll

...was...was that the entire post?

"Yes."



Yes. That's the entire post. Just World War III, in all caps, with no context. That's 23,000 likes. I feel I have no choice but to conclude at least 23,000 Trump supporters like the idea of World War III. It's not like there's any discussion or clarification.

"Those last two posts are backwards, just to be clear. Trump posted the WW3 post alone, then later, What He Meant Was'd the second post saying Biden would cause it."

Did the 23,000 p--

"No. Trump supporter either actually do support the idea of World War III as an abstract concept, there was another discussion which made the context clear on a media source that's not clear at the time, or...the other option."

That Trump supporters are inherently violent people and would rather see the world burn than exist without Trump in charge?

"Let's assume that third group's the minority. After all, only a few thousand Trump supporters got arrested for their terroristic acts, and the indictment went without incident. The Trump supporters in these forums have not outright condoned large-scale violence, either. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them violent suicidal savages."

Fair enough.

Well...it's a day late, but Happy Chocolate Goes On Sale Day! I'll be taking my chocolate like Trump takes his view of the world: dark, and quickly melting.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again, it's time to play Guess the Speaker!

Donald Trump had a pretty good Q1, if you count being indicted as 'good,'.

Still, it’s increasingly clear that Trump’s candidacy is more consumed by the grievances of the past and the promise of more drama in the future, rather than a forward-looking vision for the American people.

That is none other than GOP 2024 candidate Nikki Haley, in a fundraising letter to donors/prospective donors.

I guess we can rule out that VP candidacy?

So far, few Republicans have spoken this brazenly about Trump while trying to win an election. This letter wasn't exactly top-secret intel, and even if it was, Trump still would have stolen it. He has to have seen it by now.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump recently went shopping. Accountant shopping, that is! Have you heard of Whitley Penn?

"No."

Go ahead and find him.

"Looks like a fairly simple, fairly direct website for CPAs in...Dallas?"

Well, around Texas, yes.

"The fifth largest firm in north Texas? Why would Trump want a Texas accountant? Does he own much in Texas?"

I mean, maybe he owns something in Texas, but Trump got this guy specifically because this guy was willing to tell a New York AG that Texas law prevents him from handing over required documents. See, Trump wasn't just shopping for an accountant, he was shopping for an accountant in the rabid fanbase.

"How good is this Penn guy?"

Well his business seems to get 3.9 ratings, so, adequate I'd say. At the minimum, Penn Accounting is mightier than their closest competitor, Sword Accounting. Not sure I'd have gone with "adequate" when facing a large and, according to the whiny crybaby client, vindictive state government. But then, my options aren't limited. Also, I'm not a criminal.

The fact that Trump had to pick someone lower in the ranks isn't a huge surprise. As...um...everyone keeps pointing out, Trump is having a harder and harder time finding people willing to defend him, because they keep losing, getting fired, getting sanctioned, or getting disbarred. It's not just possible but likely better, more reputable firms were either skipped by Trump as not being loyal enough (i.e. would follow the law) or skipped Trump on the grounds of "we'd like to get paid and not sued and not lose damage by association with Trump".

Anyhow, in this March 23rd letter Whitney Penn politely refuses to hand over anything NY asks for, until Trump Org willingly consents.

"That doesn't sound legal."

A judge agreed. In this April 7 response the judge said "No, it's a subpoena, you'll turn over what's required and you'll do it now." In addition to handing over everything Trump gave them, Whitney Penn must also hand over any communications they had/deals they made with Trump Org as well.

As a reminder, Trump had to go shopping somewhat recently when Mazars dumped them Valentines' Day last year. So, Penn's had a year and change -- that's enough to make legal filings. It will be interesting to compare those filings to previous ones, as Trump Org is facing "you lied to us" level of fraud from NY.

Oh, and since apparently a judge giving $35 is a level of scandal of FOX Newsian proportions, Penn has personally given $53,000 to the GOP since 2020 and donated to Trump's campaigns, yes both of them, so don't expect to see the Trump supporters try that angle now that they're losing by three orders of magnitude.

[Taifuu]

At this point I think Trump would have more success with an AI than a real person. When was the last time he was able to hire a competent person? I would also like to think that this counts as obstruction of Justice since Trump went out of his way to try to find a means of preventing the transfer of records.

[Linkedblade]

I just want to point out, even though he's banned and can't respond, that LinkedBlade is also playing silly buggers here because he won't consider Republican calls for greater policing and enforcement to be "calls for violence", even though that's explicitly and definitively what that is.

You want more ICE enforcement on the borders? Calling for violence.
Heavier police action against drug cartels? Calling for violence.

We can extend that further into 2nd Amendment protection and self-defense policies like Stand your Ground or Castle Doctrine, both of which explicitly call for increased violence.

And so on.

It's an inherently dishonest framing to present some violence as "totally normal and fine" and other violence as "bad and unacceptable" and then accuse your opponents of "calling for violence" when your own rhetoric is at least as violent, itself.

Defense is not violence. Securing the border, is not violence. Police action against a cartel is a defensive action.

Stand your ground is defense. Castle doctrine is defense.

Giving people the right to defend themselves with equally deadly or violent force is not "calling for violence."

[Edge-]

Giving people the right to defend themselves with equally deadly or violent force is not "calling for violence."

Yet curiously, not to derail too much, that's the result. That's what all the data shows. That doing that very thing results in higher rates of violence compared to other similar nations.

And yes, that's calling to meet violence with violence which is...calling for violence. Physically defending yourself is violence. It's arguably justified violence, but it's violence.

Welcome to how words work. Yes, ICE taking more enforcement actions results in violence. Their violence may be legally justified, but it's still violence.

Hence why the, "calls for violence" nonsense is pointless in isolation.

[Linkedblade]

Banks can't "make up money". What are you even talking about?

The person you're responding to is equivocating how a fractional reserve currency works with printing money, i guess. The federal reserve is a bank, and they do print money.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet curiously, not to derail too much, that's the result. That's what all the data shows. That doing that very thing results in higher rates of violence compared to other similar nations.

And yes, that's calling to meet violence with violence which is...calling for violence. Physically defending yourself is violence. It's arguably justified violence, but it's violence.

Welcome to how words work. Yes, ICE taking more enforcement actions results in violence. Their violence may be legally justified, but it's still violence.

Hence why the, "calls for violence" nonsense is pointless in isolation.

Defending yourself isn't violence. It's also a right.

Defending the border isn't violence. That's the government's job.

It's not justified violence. Violence is harm with the intent to harm. Defending yourself is the opposite, you do harm to prevent harm to yourself.

[Edge-]

The person you're responding to is equivocating how a fractional reserve currency works with printing money, i guess. The federal reserve is a bank, and they do print money.

I concede this. Truthfully, I was quoting a video that having retroactively bothered to look back up to see what else was on the channel, sounded reasonable but might actually be one of those right wing misinformation places. Apologies. I get a lot of random stuff when YouTube plays itself forward at work.

No, they just got fed misinformation from a stupid conservative YouTuber who thinks banks print money, rofl.

- - - Updated - - -

Defending yourself isn't violence. It's also a right.

Defending yourself requires the use of violence. It is still violence.

Defending the border isn't violence. That's the government's job.

And said defense often includes violence. Again, it may be legally justified and protected violence, but it is still violence.

It's not justified violence. Violence is harm with the intent to harm. Defending yourself is the opposite, you do harm to prevent harm to yourself.

Yes, and officers who are shooting a suspect intend to do harm, for example. That's why they're shooting them. Just as you intend to do harm to defend yourself.

[Endus]

The person you're responding to is equivocating how a fractional reserve currency works with printing money, i guess. The federal reserve is a bank, and they do print money.

Like Edge- pointed out, they literally admitted that wasn't what they were talking about, and they were wrong and got misled by a bad source. So maybe read the rest of the thread before posting?

Defense is not violence. Securing the border, is not violence. Police action against a cartel is a defensive action.

Stand your ground is defense. Castle doctrine is defense.

Giving people the right to defend themselves with equally deadly or violent force is not "calling for violence."

Violence is violence. Defensive violence is still violence. Calling for an escalation of defensive violence is absolutely "calling for violence".

All you're really saying here is you support some violence, but not other violence, but don't want to admit the violence you support is violence to try and push an arbitrary and subjective framing of violent acts that you don't support as being "bad" just for "being violence".

Which is an inherently dishonest attack, because you've already stated (as you reiterated here) that you yourself support violence done for reasons you support.

Just as you say these things are "defensive violence", so can a Cartel boss say killing police officers trying to stop his operations is "defensive". So can an oppressed minority say violence against oppressive police forces is "defensive". So can a subjugated economic underclass say that killing the rich and powerful to create a more equitable society is "defensive". The only difference is your choice of framing, rather than theirs.

Which isn't even to say these things are all the same. I'm not saying a Cartel boss is justified in murderous action. I'm saying your framing is arbitary and does not make any objective sense at all; you're really just saying "I support the violence I support, and all other violence is bad because I think it's bad". Which is so meaningless you may as well not have wasted yours and everyone else's time with it.

[Linkedblade]

With all due respect, the current "inflation" is perfectly exemplified by the phrase "record profits".
99% of the issue is corporate greed.

Well, if the amount of value generated by the company is the same year to year, then the following year's value in currency will appear larger. Not saying that inflation is the only thing contributing to higher profits, though.

We also had the pandemic and more people spent their money at stores than at their regular vacation/entertainment businesses. And yeah, greed.

- - - Updated - - -

Like Edge- pointed out, they literally admitted that wasn't what they were talking about, and they were wrong and got misled by a bad source. So maybe read the rest of the thread before posting?



Violence is violence. Defensive violence is still violence. Calling for an escalation of defensive violence is absolutely "calling for violence".

All you're really saying here is you support some violence, but not other violence, but don't want to admit the violence you support is violence to try and push an arbitrary and subjective framing of violent acts that you don't support as being "bad" just for "being violence".

Which is an inherently dishonest attack, because you've already stated (as you reiterated here) that you yourself support violence done for reasons you support.

Just as you say these things are "defensive violence", so can a Cartel boss say killing police officers trying to stop his operations is "defensive". So can an oppressed minority say violence against oppressive police forces is "defensive". So can a subjugated economic underclass say that killing the rich and powerful to create a more equitable society is "defensive". The only difference is your choice of framing, rather than theirs.

Which isn't even to say these things are all the same. I'm not saying a Cartel boss is justified in murderous action. I'm saying your framing is arbitary and does not make any objective sense at all; you're really just saying "I support the violence I support, and all other violence is bad because I think it's bad". Which is so meaningless you may as well not have wasted yours and everyone else's time with it.

Again, violence implies intent. Defense doesn't have the intent to cause harm for harm's sake.

[Endus]

Again, violence implies intent. Defense doesn't have the intent to cause harm for harm's sake.

Shooting someone in self defense is 100% intentional. The only way you're getting around that is if the gun went off by accident but somehow managed to hit a guy who was attacking you anyway somehow. Any time you aim a firearm at a target and pull the trigger, that's explicitly intentional.

You're just objectively wrong on this particular point. No basis for this malarkey whatsoever. Just a flagrant attempt to redefine what "intent" even means. You're mixing in elements of "premeditation" and "motive" which don't even cleanly make any separation between aggressive and defensive violence in and of themselves in the first place.

[Gabriel]

Again, violence implies intent. Defense doesn't have the intent to cause harm for harm's sake.

Just stop.

[Linkedblade]

Shooting someone in self defense is 100% intentional. The only way you're getting around that is if the gun went off by accident but somehow managed to hit a guy who was attacking you anyway somehow. Any time you aim a firearm at a target and pull the trigger, that's explicitly intentional.

You're just objectively wrong on this particular point. No basis for this malarkey whatsoever. Just a flagrant attempt to redefine what "intent" even means.

When you shoot someone in defense, it's not your intent to harm then, it's your intent to stop them from harming you.

- - - Updated - - -

Just stop.

Stop what? That's the definition of violence.

[Endus]

When you shoot someone in defense, it's not your intent to harm then, it's your intent to stop them from harming you.

Repeating objectively false statements isn't gonna suddenly make them true.

Yes; your intent is to stop someone hurting you. By hurting them. Your intent is, explicitly, to harm your attacker.

Intentional violence. You're even admitting this in your own phrasing, and trying to pretend that's somehow not what you said.

Stop what? That's the definition of violence.

Not even a little bit, no, which is why you're not gonna be able to cite any such definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence

[Edge-]

When you shoot someone in defense, it's not your intent to harm then, it's your intent to stop them from harming you.

Stopping them by...doing what exactly?

Giving them a hug?
Having a sitdown and a chat over a cuppa?

Or...

Harming them before they can harm you?

[Mekh]

Stop what? That's the definition of violence.

violence
noun
vi·​o·​lence ˈvī-lən(t)s
ˈvī-ə-
Synonyms of violence
1
a
: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy
b
: an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2
: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
3
a
: intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force
the violence of the storm
b
: vehement feeling or expression : fervor
also : an instance of such action or feeling
c
: a clashing or jarring quality : discordance
4
: undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

[Linkedblade]

Repeating objectively false statements isn't gonna suddenly make them true.

Yes; your intent is to stop someone hurting you. By hurting them. Your intent is, explicitly, to harm your attacker.

Intentional violence. You're even admitting this in your own phrasing, and trying to pretend that's somehow not what you said.

Violence by definition is intentional.

Your intent is to stop your attacker.

- - - Updated - - -

Stopping them by...doing what exactly?

Giving them a hug?
Having a sitdown and a chat over a cuppa?

Or...

Harming them before they can harm you?

Doing whatever you need to.

[Endus]

Violence by definition is intentional.

This is both itself literally untrue, and trivially irrelevant given the next sentence you gave;

Your intent is to stop your attacker.

With the use of intentional violence.

You keep explaining why your own premise is false, dude. You just stop your explanation before you make the awkward admission you've been wrong the whole time.

[Edge-]

Doing whatever you need to.

Like using violence to disable to person? Becuase that's what you keep saying but then saying you're not saying.

Note: The violence in that instance is absolutely justified! Which seems to be where your hangup probably is.

Doesn't change the fact that it's still violence.

[Gabriel]

Stop what? That's the definition of violence.

No it isn't, and everyone here, including you, knows this.

[Linkedblade]

This is both itself literally untrue, and trivially irrelevant given the next sentence you gave;



With the use of intentional violence.

You keep explaining why your own premise is false, dude. You just stop your explanation before you make the awkward admission you've been wrong the whole time.

Intentional violence is needlessly redundant. And it's not intentional, you don't have mens rea if you're being attacked.

[Breccia]

Barr calls Trump "the weakest" of GOP 2024 candidates

UPDATE: Trump saw the conclusion reached by the legal expert he hired himself, and has responded.

Reeeeeee.

34 Misdemeanors

Reeeeeee.

Fuck, wrong quote. Well, this is a fast-moving thread, I'm sure the genuine, constructive poster I accidentally quoted would still regard Trump's opinion on legal issues positively, based on that completely genuine, well-thought-out post.

Slovenly and pathetic Bill Barr, our COWARD former A.G., was on ABC FAKE NEWS this weekend making statements that he knows nothing about (he was long since gone from the White House, I wanted him out!) concerning the BOXES HOAX, a continuation of RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA, UKRAINE, UKRAINE, UKRAINE, the Mueller Witch Hunt, & more. While he correctly puts down the N.Y.D.A. case, he plays up the equally ridiculous BOXES HOAX, where Biden should have the problem, not me. Barr is a weak & angry RINO!

Oh, and also:

WHY DOES FOX KEEP PUTTING ON BILL BARR. AS ATTORNEY GENERAL HE WAS A COMPLETE COWARD WHO WAS ABSOLUTELY PETRIFIED OF BEING IMPEACHED, WHICH THE DEMOCRATS THREATENED TO DO UNTIL HE BECAME THEIR VIRTUAL “SLAVE” AND REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE MASSIVE ELECTION FRAUD THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, BY FAR THE RADICAL LEFT’S GREATEST CONCERN. HE SAID HE DID INVESTIGATE, BUT HE DIDN’T HAVE THE “GUTS” TO PROPERLY DO SO, AND NOW WE HAVE A NATION IN MASSIVE DECLINE!

Yeah, I'm having trouble finding where Democrats threatened to impeach Barr over election fraud...in the month and a half between the election Trump fairly and legally lost, and Barr leaving the WH because Trump fired him. There were some calls when Barr shut down the Mueller investigation, none of them came to much.

And yes, Trump is still claiming fraud, IN ALL CAPS yet.