Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

If you get to make up a standard

What standard?

"This administration is the most dishonest administration in US history" is not a standard, that's just an objective statement of fact at this point.

I will always ask if you’re going to allow everybody else that same privilege.

You're the master of your own destiny, the pilot of your own fingertips. You can post whatever you'd like, within forum rules and all. You don't need to ask my permission.

I have just decided that on the weight of Biden’s lies and misconduct, throughout his term, I can second guess every administration action and demand that defenders prove that they aren’t unlawful. You see why this is an impossible standard?

Not at all. I see you acting dishonestly and in bad faith, but I don't think that undermines the objective statement of fact even if you disagree with that and find it very inconvenient to your constant arguments that defend the actions of this administration while complaining whenever someone points that out.

The same applies to “weaponization” arguments. You’re interpreting his statements that way.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/nx-s1...ivil-liberties

There's over 100 explicit threats to investigate, prosecute, or imprison political opponents.

And we can see the policy in action and have been for the past two months.

The same goes for Trump’s claims that the weaponization was done against him. He can’t simply use that claim or interpretation to ignore the laws and court cases and appeals. If you’re going to be consistent, then Trump has an easy out that you just gifted him. Good job.

Yet that's actually what he's literally doing right now.

You want to treat Donald as a honest actor participating in good faith? That's a choice on your part to ignore his entire public life to-date, I can't stop you from that. It's an incredibly bad-faith and seemingly incredibly dishonest position to take, but it's one you've appeared to take multiple times before.

I’m not buying what you’re selling as “most likely outcome.” You asked me to argue that “this wasn’t part of a campaign of terror.” I don’t indulge this goalpost-shifting.

What goalposts have I shifted? I've been pretty consistent on this - this administration is engaged in a domestic campaign of terror on the topic of immigration, targeting undocumented immigrants, groups and lawyers that work with them, and others. It continues the broader Republican attacks we've seen in states like Texas were the AG Ken Paxton pointlessly and capriciously investigated Catholic groups that worked with migrants for the crime of lawfully working with undocumented migrants to support them.

You’ve got nothing

I have years of history of lies and dishonesty. A long track record of dropped charges that were usually politically motivated in nature, or just general incompetence.

What do you have to inform your opinion? Ignoring that?

If you showed me that the FBI had charged three judges with similar crimes, and they were all dismissed quickly, then I’d be on your side. As it stands, you’re presenting premonitions as evidence. Not good enough, and I think you know it.

F to doubt

You have repeated a claim that still wrong for the same reasons I already stated. You believe someone has lied in the past, so you flip the story to mean he is guilty of lying on the future unless proven not to have lied. This has never been the case, and will never be the case.

I think if you have someone who's spent decades of their public life lying constantly about shit, you can reasonably assume that they'll continue to lie about shit in the future. That's actually how more predictive models work, using past data to inform future decisions.

And as a last side note: the presumption is declaring that “this is an example of unlawful arrest” and it doesn’t take presumption of good faith to assert “we don’t know whether or not this was an unlawful/pretextual arrest.” The false logic you’re employing is “we know this was not an unlawful/pretextual arrest,” and I have never made that assertion. If you had found a person that did argue that they knew this arrest was justified, then you’d have a couple paragraphs of solid argument against such a person.

i'm sorry if i'm not taking Kash Patel's FBI very seriously given that the dude is an unserious cultist. If you want to take Kash Patel very seriously despite his gross unprofessionalism and cultish history in regards to Donald that's a decision I can't stop you from.

[NineSpine]

What standard?

"This administration is the most dishonest administration in US history" is not a standard, that's just an objective statement of fact at this point.



You're the master of your own destiny, the pilot of your own fingertips. You can post whatever you'd like, within forum rules and all. You don't need to ask my permission.



Not at all. I see you acting dishonestly and in bad faith, but I don't think that undermines the objective statement of fact even if you disagree with that and find it very inconvenient to your constant arguments that defend the actions of this administration while complaining whenever someone points that out.



https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/nx-s1...ivil-liberties

There's over 100 explicit threats to investigate, prosecute, or imprison political opponents.

And we can see the policy in action and have been for the past two months.



Yet that's actually what he's literally doing right now.

You want to treat Donald as a honest actor participating in good faith? That's a choice on your part to ignore his entire public life to-date, I can't stop you from that. It's an incredibly bad-faith and seemingly incredibly dishonest position to take, but it's one you've appeared to take multiple times before.



What goalposts have I shifted? I've been pretty consistent on this - this administration is engaged in a domestic campaign of terror on the topic of immigration, targeting undocumented immigrants, groups and lawyers that work with them, and others. It continues the broader Republican attacks we've seen in states like Texas were the AG Ken Paxton pointlessly and capriciously investigated Catholic groups that worked with migrants for the crime of lawfully working with undocumented migrants to support them.



I have years of history of lies and dishonesty. A long track record of dropped charges that were usually politically motivated in nature, or just general incompetence.

What do you have to inform your opinion? Ignoring that?



F to doubt



I think if you have someone who's spent decades of their public life lying constantly about shit, you can reasonably assume that they'll continue to lie about shit in the future. That's actually how more predictive models work, using past data to inform future decisions.



i'm sorry if i'm not taking Kash Patel's FBI very seriously given that the dude is an unserious cultist. If you want to take Kash Patel very seriously despite his gross unprofessionalism and cultish history in regards to Donald that's a decision I can't stop you from.

You shouldn't even engage with @tehdang any further until he explains why Trump pardoned this guy:

"The minor, who was under the age of 12, accused Daniel of taking pictures of her while naked between 2015 and 2019, forcing her to shower with him and performing sexual acts. "
https://www.the-independent.com/news...-b2687670.html

[Edge-]

https://www.axios.com/2025/04/25/jud...i-what-to-know

When Dugan learned ICE agents had come with an administrative warrant, rather than a judicial warrant, she told them to go speak to the chief judge, per the complaint.

Ok so that's the source of the ICE "she obstructed the law" bullshit. Administrative warrant horse shit, again. Not a lawful judicial warrant.

Feds can go pound sand and cry about it more. Get a lawful judicial warrant.

[gondrin]

So, even being seeing in the same room as someone Trump doesn't like automatically means that you are to be fired.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...285620d7&ei=22

A major supporter of Donald Trump's tariffs, who was appointed this year as executive director of the Office of Trade Relations at Customs and Border Protection, has been banished after a picture of him attending the wedding of one the president's critics was circulated this week.

According to a report from the Washington Post, George E. Bogden was reportedly pink-slipped because he attended the wedding of former Trump administration official Miles Taylor who wrote the notorious 2018 New York Times opinion piece critical of Trump under the name "Anonymous."

According to the Post, Bogden's firing stunned fellow administration officials and that it reportedly related to "to a Facebook photo recently circulated among Trump officials. Taylor was married in Jamaica in 2019 — a year before he publicly revealed himself as the author of the anonymous op-ed."

The report added that Bogden also attended a second Taylor wedding in 2023, long after it was known he was "Anonymous," with an administration official admitting to the Post that the photo was the cause of the dismissal.

Earlier in the week, Politico reported that Bogden “'was integrally involved in implementing' Trump’s 15 executive orders related to trade, and 'was known internally as a proponent of the power of customs to collect external revenue.'"

Taylor is currently facing an investigation from the Department of Justice at Trump's insistence after the president complained,"I think it's like a traitor. It's like spying. He walks into the office. He's supposed to be sitting here. And he wrote a book, Anonymous, and I always thought it was terrible. And now we have a chance to find out whether or not it was terrible."

[Draco-Onis]

Where does Mr. Hartnett want us to put all that money? Actually, where has all the money from the US stock market gone to?

The US stock market lost around $10T.

All the other stock markets have basically followed the US market. So, the money did not go into other markets. Imagine $10T infusion into any market.

Crypto? Crypto is still down from Trump's inauguration.

Gold? The global value of gold has only gone up $1T. Not remotely close.

Cash? That's a lot of pillows.

Bank accounts? Not really seeing it.

My thought is the Secondary (pre-IPO) Market for private companies like SpaceX, OpenAI, etc. At least some of the money. Not sure the Secondary Market has the capacity to absorb $10T.

I hate to break it to you but hiding the money is the easy part.

1) Place several bets on the markets using dark pools.
2) The profits go back into overseas accounts each account is associated to a paper company in an exotic location without much in terms of rules.
3) As the president or "employee" of said paper companies you are only enjoy their Yacht and hookers as a "business expense".

When it comes to laundering money even billions of dollars rich people have no issues and that's assuming you need to jump through all these hoops anymore since Trump has fired all the cops and put robbers in charge of the FTC, FEC, SEC and any 3 letter agency with any power.

[Edge-]

So, even being seeing in the same room as someone Trump doesn't like automatically means that you are to be fired.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...285620d7&ei=22

Bogden's firing stunned fellow administration officials and that it reportedly related to "to a Facebook photo recently circulated among Trump officials.

i'm going to continue to ask if everyone is just in some weird coma where they're still like, awake and going about their day because like we're talking about the dude who still holds a grudge over a single comment made 40 years ago about his tiny, childlike hands.

like are these all truly the dumbest people on earth?

[Draco-Onis]

I mean as a general thing, I do think this stuff is pretext. Like they are dying to arrest judges that they dont liike and if this was a judge that ruled in Trump's favour they would be getting a pardon (after a sizable donation to their crypto coin). If this was a normal process they would not even be arresting her and throwing so many resources to this stuff.

If you have been in third world countries these sort of stuff is commonplace. The ruling party enforces the law against its opponents with the full force and is indifferent or outright pardons its own people. But like it follows the law. Its a norms type of thing.

People like tehdang cheering on this are cheering for the third worldification of the country. This is hte republican party now

Yup, I have lived under dictators this entire thing is about sowing fear amongst judges and anyone that would dare stand in his way.

- - - Updated - - -

i'm going to continue to ask if everyone is just in some weird coma where they're still like, awake and going about their day because like we're talking about the dude who still holds a grudge over a single comment made 40 years ago about his tiny, childlike hands.

like are these all truly the dumbest people on earth?

Dumb and drunk on his own power, he thinks with good reason that no one can stop him.

[NineSpine]

i'm going to continue to ask if everyone is just in some weird coma where they're still like, awake and going about their day because like we're talking about the dude who still holds a grudge over a single comment made 40 years ago about his tiny, childlike hands.

like are these all truly the dumbest people on earth?

Authoritarians are rarely clever. They are usually very dumb, and very weird.

[Xyonai]

Authoritarians are rarely clever. They are usually very dumb, and very weird.

Probably speaks to some broader personality defect of deeply unlikable yet very self-centered people feeling scorned by the people who understandably think they're shitheads and just doing whatever they can to -force- people to like/respect/validate them.

[Rasulis]

This is not a good year to cut FEMA's funding.

Is that California? No. It is New Jersey. Which is currently fighting raging wildfires.

In case people haven't been keeping up, this year we have had record-breaking wildfires in New Jersey, Texas, Florida, Delaware, North & South Carolinas, Pennsylvania, etc. Here is the list so far of 1,000 acres plus fires.

As of mid-March, an estimated 9,520 wildfires have burned approximately 269,986 acres across the US. Well above the 10-year average.

[Draco-Onis]

Authoritarians are rarely clever. They are usually very dumb, and very weird.

They are smart enough to understand the concept of the carrot and the stick, they give to their people in exchange for power. Trump is the first one in modern history to try the all sticks approach, they were people like Trump in the past their reigns were short and violent. Most authoritarians of today have learned those lessons so they do their best to stay somewhat popular by giving carrots but Trump he is even attacking his cult followers.

[NineSpine]

Probably speaks to some broader personality defect of deeply unlikable yet very self-centered people feeling scorned by the people who understandably think they're shitheads and just doing whatever they can to -force- people to like/respect/validate them.

Authoritarians are deeply damaged people. Elon and Trump are not that different. Both are children who on paper outperformed their parents, yet still have a deep sense of insecurity from their bad relationships. They have an endless need for adulation and praise, and social media addiction has driven them both to brink of literal mental breakdown.

- - - Updated - - -

They are smart enough to understand the concept of the carrot and the stick, they give to their people in exchange for power. Trump is the first one in modern history to try the all sticks approach, they were people like Trump in the past their reigns were short and violent. Most authoritarians of today have learned those lessons so they do their best to stay somewhat popular by giving carrots but Trump he is even attacking his cult followers.

There's a saying along the lines of "2+2=5 is fine until you have to build a bridge". Authoritarianism relies on unreality and a disdain for truth. That's fine for the purposes of politics, but when the rubber meets the road you get "Let's invade the USSR in the winter" or "Tariff everything and everyone will do what we say".

[Captain N]

You shouldn't even engage with @tehdang any further until he explains why Trump pardoned this guy:

"The minor, who was under the age of 12, accused Daniel of taking pictures of her while naked between 2015 and 2019, forcing her to shower with him and performing sexual acts. "
https://www.the-independent.com/news...-b2687670.html

You're asking why a guy who has a profile picture of a sex offender why they would be OK with a pedophile while cheering on Andrew Tate?

[NineSpine]

You're asking why a guy who has a profile picture of a sex offender why they would be OK with a pedophile while cheering on Andrew Tate?

It's not the type of thing you ask someone because you don't know the answer. You ask it because you know the answer, and you know they won't want to say it.

[Xath]

It only applies to judicial decisions. A judge can’t claim he has judicial immunity for a traffic ticket.

The piece of shit racists tried to take someone from a court room without a warrant. Please explain how telling them they have the wrong warrant is somehow worse than embezzlement of 70k in funds by the scumfuck he just pardoned.

[NineSpine]

The piece of shit racists tried to take someone from a court room without a warrant. Please explain how telling the plaintiff how to leave is somehow worse than embezzlement of 70k in funds by the scumfuck he just pardoned.

You don't even have to go there. Trump pardoned child rapists who assaulted police officers, and @tehdang will never address it.

[Edge-]

The piece of shit racists tried to take someone from a court room without a warrant. Please explain how telling the plaintiff how to leave is somehow worse than embezzlement of 70k in funds by the scumfuck he just pardoned.

they had an administrative warrant

which is decidedly different than a judicial warrant

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/administrative_warrant

An administrative warrant is a warrant obtained from a judge by an administrative body to search for violations of administrative rules and regulations . While similar to a criminal warrant, an administrative warrant requires a lower standard of probable cause to be granted.

The lower standard is precisely why this administration is making extensive use of them for allegedly criminal matters they are not designed for.

Administrative agencies granted enforcement powers rely on the use of administrative warrants to ensure compliance with their standards. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency may obtain an administrative warrant to investigate whether a factory is complying with waste dumping requirements . The warrant also gives the administration the authority to confiscate any contraband discovered through one of these investigations.

[Captain N]

So it now appears the DOJ is ordering ICE to invade people's homes without a warrant if the agent really really believes there's an undocumented individual in the home.

https://newrepublic.com/post/194442/...5SExwpzIrPSDLw

The Justice Department quietly invoked the Alien Enemies act last month to give Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents the power to conduct warrantless searches of people’s homes as long as they suspect them to be an “alien enemy.” USA Today obtained the memo that contained this order on Friday.

“As much as practicable, officers should follow the proactive procedures above—and have an executed Warrant of Apprehension and Removal—before contacting an Alien Enemy,” the memo reads. “However, that will not always be realistic or effective in swiftly identifying and removing Alien Enemies.… An officer may encounter a suspected Alien Enemy in the natural course of the officer’s enforcement activity, such as when apprehending other validated members of Tren de Aragua. Given the dynamic nature of enforcement operations, officers in the field are authorized to apprehend aliens upon a reasonable belief that the alien meets all four requirements to be validated as an Alien Enemy. This authority includes entering an Alien Enemy’s residence to make an AEA apprehension where circumstances render it impracticable to first obtain a signed Notice and Warrant of Apprehension and Removal” (emphasis added).

In the memo, the Justice Department defined an “alien enemy” as anyone who is 14 years of age or older, not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, a citizen of Venezuela, and “a member of the hostile enemy Tren de Aragua,” per the Alien Enemy Validation Guide, a document that has already been slammed by immigration experts.

The broad definition has already resulted in the apprehension and deportation of more than 200 men to El Salvador who just happened to have tattoos, like gay makeup artist Andry José Hernández Romero.

This type of order will likely lead to more indiscriminate arrests and wanton racial profiling. The memo, which is from March 14, is another massive departure from the U.S. immigration norms.

[Edge-]

So it now appears the DOJ is ordering ICE to invade people's homes without a warrant if the agent really really believes there's an undocumented individual in the home.

https://newrepublic.com/post/194442/...5SExwpzIrPSDLw

The Justice Department quietly invoked the Alien Enemies act last month to give Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents the power to conduct warrantless searches of people’s homes as long as they suspect them to be an “alien enemy.” USA Today obtained the memo that contained this order on Friday.

“As much as practicable, officers should follow the proactive procedures above—and have an executed Warrant of Apprehension and Removal—before contacting an Alien Enemy,” the memo reads. “However, that will not always be realistic or effective in swiftly identifying and removing Alien Enemies.… An officer may encounter a suspected Alien Enemy in the natural course of the officer’s enforcement activity, such as when apprehending other validated members of Tren de Aragua. Given the dynamic nature of enforcement operations, officers in the field are authorized to apprehend aliens upon a reasonable belief that the alien meets all four requirements to be validated as an Alien Enemy. This authority includes entering an Alien Enemy’s residence to make an AEA apprehension where circumstances render it impracticable to first obtain a signed Notice and Warrant of Apprehension and Removal” (emphasis added).

In the memo, the Justice Department defined an “alien enemy” as anyone who is 14 years of age or older, not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, a citizen of Venezuela, and “a member of the hostile enemy Tren de Aragua,” per the Alien Enemy Validation Guide, a document that has already been slammed by immigration experts.

The broad definition has already resulted in the apprehension and deportation of more than 200 men to El Salvador who just happened to have tattoos, like gay makeup artist Andry José Hernández Romero.

This type of order will likely lead to more indiscriminate arrests and wanton racial profiling. The memo, which is from March 14, is another massive departure from the U.S. immigration norms.

we have a literal constitutional amendment for this

https://constitution.congress.gov/co...n/amendment-4/

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

this continues to be why i call the republican party a criminal cult that hates the constitution. almost every action and policy push lately has been explicitly unconstitutional

just more and more Nazi shit every day

[tehdang]

What standard?

"This administration is the most dishonest administration in US history" is not a standard, that's just an objective statement of fact at this point.



You're the master of your own destiny, the pilot of your own fingertips. You can post whatever you'd like, within forum rules and all. You don't need to ask my permission.



Not at all. I see you acting dishonestly and in bad faith, but I don't think that undermines the objective statement of fact even if you disagree with that and find it very inconvenient to your constant arguments that defend the actions of this administration while complaining whenever someone points that out.



https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/nx-s1...ivil-liberties

There's over 100 explicit threats to investigate, prosecute, or imprison political opponents.

And we can see the policy in action and have been for the past two months.



Yet that's actually what he's literally doing right now.

You want to treat Donald as a honest actor participating in good faith? That's a choice on your part to ignore his entire public life to-date, I can't stop you from that. It's an incredibly bad-faith and seemingly incredibly dishonest position to take, but it's one you've appeared to take multiple times before.



What goalposts have I shifted? I've been pretty consistent on this - this administration is engaged in a domestic campaign of terror on the topic of immigration, targeting undocumented immigrants, groups and lawyers that work with them, and others. It continues the broader Republican attacks we've seen in states like Texas were the AG Ken Paxton pointlessly and capriciously investigated Catholic groups that worked with migrants for the crime of lawfully working with undocumented migrants to support them.



I have years of history of lies and dishonesty. A long track record of dropped charges that were usually politically motivated in nature, or just general incompetence.

What do you have to inform your opinion? Ignoring that?



F to doubt



I think if you have someone who's spent decades of their public life lying constantly about shit, you can reasonably assume that they'll continue to lie about shit in the future. That's actually how more predictive models work, using past data to inform future decisions.



i'm sorry if i'm not taking Kash Patel's FBI very seriously given that the dude is an unserious cultist. If you want to take Kash Patel very seriously despite his gross unprofessionalism and cultish history in regards to Donald that's a decision I can't stop you from.

You proposed that some level of invective against the Trump administration (lying, errors, whatnot) would allow you to assert that this judge’s arrest was de-facto unjustified. Secondly, it would absolve you of the logical fallacy of proving a negative: force your opponent to prove it isn’t one. Both are wrong, and I just finished pointing out why your standard is wrong.

We’ve been through the weaponization stuff several times, so I’ll try to be brief. Trump was charged by several political opponents, prosecutors that ran for office promising to fight him legally, and all the rest. You’re proposing to me that such prosecutions can be said to be wrong simply because of the claim of weaponization. Impossible. You can claim certain crimes wouldn’t be prosecuted etc etc, but not that the arrest and trial are unjustified. It’s nonsense.

I guess I’ll have to say it once again to you. Your bluster and political invective doesn’t free you from obeying simple logic and avoiding fallacies. If the judge is innocent or guilty of this charge does not rely on the surrounding character of the chief executive of the agency bringing it! She could be guilty as sin and the boss of the boss of the boss of agency bringing this action is a corrupt mis-manager. Spouting off, as you do, confirms only one thing: you really dislike the administration, and you don’t mind telling everybody why.

Now, I have never set out to convince you, EdgE, that all your exaggerations and the kernel of truth behind some portion of them should be dropped. You can believe the US will fall tomorrow into a police state and all the elections will be canceled forever if you like. Your hysteria does not absolve you from treating an arrest as a case that can be examined for its merits. You may think it does, but it does not. The law doesn’t give you an “out” like “this crime doesn’t count, can’t you see the prosecutor’s boss just did this terrible thing!!!”

I’m really sad that your model of the justice system is inferential. You may infer justice. Your law doesn’t rely on lawbreaking: people exist above the law (this judge) simply because you infer that no proper charges may be brought by the people constitutionally and statutorily appointed to bring such charges. I simply won’t yield your behavioral, predictive system.

I’m not in it to debate your prejudice or the foundations for it. You’re always free to believe that you know *right now* that the arrest is abuse. However, you will never be free to tell others that they can infer an abusive arrest just given everything else the administration has done on a variety of fronts. That puts the cart before the horse. To the contrary, we will both discover if this arrest was like the deportation of Garcia to El Salvador, or an entirely different kind.

Nobody is above the law, even if you’re really, really unhappy about who’s in charge of enforcing the law.