Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[We are covfefe]

Can replace not what we voted for with i was just following orders. Same bullshit different phrasing.

[LeGin v4]

This does presume the conclusion. If a very MAGA-obsessed person decided to call left-wingers pedos and groomers, do they have a defense in "I'm using the term accurately to describe people behaving as pedos and groomers?" No, of course not. Not if they want to have a conversation. They're showing their disinterest in having a discussion. It's declaring that no conversation is possible: these are your enemies and you want to force them to admit that they're bad people because you believe that is true about them.

A paedophile behaves like a paedophile: they're a paedophile and can be labelled as such.

A fascist behaves like a fascist: they're a fascist and can be labelled as such.

These terms aren't insults. They're simple nouns. It's you who's attributing the meaning "insult" and therefore need to justify its attribution.

As an example, Twdft was the last poster in this thread to use the term "Reich winger":

How anyone, even Reich wingers, can be ok with using military to police protests is beyond me. Protests are a first amendment protected activity and when they get violent it's the duty of police to police them.

What in their post do you believe *doesn't* allow the use of "Reich wingers" in this context? We've covered the facts, now describe *exactly* why you believe this to be an "insult".

You're objecting to the lack of distinction between Nazism and neo-Nazism?

Is your fundamental point, simply, that all Trump-supporters aren't fascists? Is that it? Did you not note Twdft's use of the word "even"?

Foisting labels you know are insults ("your god DonOld" and "Reich wingers") are only sometimes helpful to the discussion if you yourself identify as them (ie LeGin v4 is a fascist and he reveres a politician as a god and he loves the Reich.) The labels you apply to yourself can be relevant.

Run this past me again. Twdft identifies as a "Reich winger"? You identify as a "Reich winger"?

What you've written makes no sense.

[Paranoid Android]

An unfortunate case of “the people champing at the bit to get rid of people who look like me will realize I’m one of the good ones!”


Seems to be happening a lot with people who supported the Trump administration.

Alright I will say it.

Some Cubans have a disbelief who they are. They have benefitted from the most laxed asylum, immigration of any group.

In fact many Cubans consider themselves exiles. which again is refugee and asylum seekers. So in Donald's world they are not citizens and should be deported. Now most have US citizenship these days, but just sayin. If you really wanted to be strict to the bone, perhaps kicking out ALL asylum seekers might be the move.

Perhaps maybe these people who come here for asylum, be it for political reasons or other persecution should understand what other groups or going through and pray it never happens to them.

[Mayhem]

How anyone, even Reich wingers, can be ok with using military to police protests is beyond me. Protests are a first amendment protected activity and when they get violent it's the duty of police to police them.

uuuhm reich wingers are probably the only ones that are absolutely ok with it because everyone should obey dear leader and to a degree them, and how dare these leftist cucks protest and be a nuisance to upstanding good honest, and working white Americans.

[Iphie]

uuuhm reich wingers are probably the only ones that are absolutely ok with it because everyone should obey dear leader and to a degree them, and how dare these leftist cucks protest and be a nuisance to upstanding good honest, and working white Americans.

The problem is, and I know they ignore that part because who has time to look farther than tommorow, by setting this precedent they forever lose the right to bitch about democrats. But that's not their problem, because of aforementioned lack of foresight...

[Mayhem]

The problem is, and I know they ignore that part because who has time to look farther than tommorow, by setting this precedent they forever lose the right to bitch about democrats. But that's not their problem, because of aforementioned lack of foresight...

They lost that right more than once and just continue because not even the media cares enough to hold anyone accountable in this day and age.

[tehdang]

The issue of importance at hand is “Donald Trump is acting like an overreaching authoritarian dictator” of which we have copious examples enumerated over this thread’s history and in many others.

Your retort is constantly one of “I don’t like the way you said ‘dictator’…”

But you know what they say… If it looks like a goose, squawks like a goose, and most importantly, steps like a goose…

You'll note that the issue wasn't "Do you think he is an authoritarian" but more "You fascists really are eager for your god DonOld to destroy our country." One is sitting in the judge's chair, accusing the person you're discussing with of agreeing with the authoritarianism, revering him as a god, wanting the country to be destroyed. The other might be discussable as it applies to individual actions, or appointments, or context.

If it resembles a preacher pointing a finger and calling him a sinner, desiring the works of darkness, then maybe you're more into religion than politics.

However, when it comes to Miller, it is accurate reporting.

It is accurate to say that he knows the hate he holds inside just by looking at him? What an extraordinary thing to claim is reporting! It sounds more like he's unprofessional and the issue with mainstream media these days, having a bit too much alcohol or drugs late at night and mouthing off.

Which is a good thing to suspend someone over in such a position as senior correspondent for an ostensibly straight news program.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/06/07/100856/

The "federalization" of the California National Guard is a clear violation of the Constitution and clear misinterpretation of the Insurrection Act. The ONLY ONE who can issue orders, according to the Insurrection Act, is the Governor and here he is saying what Trump is doing is wrong. That is the fucking issue here. The Nazification of the National Guard to be put in place where "Dear Leader" demands!

Ok, so you weren't interested in federalization, but only when it happens over the governor's dissent. Your link says, "intent to deploy the California National Guard" and not "Newsom refuses to give the order federalizing the national guard." We'll see if he actually does that. He can whine all he likes and still permit the federalization.

It then moves to sections 252 and 253. Eisenhower did it to the Arkansas national guard, if you're looking for historical examples of its constitutionality. The attacks on federal buildings in LA, and all obstruction on arrests and federal vehicles and the rest, do obstruct the ability of the United States to execute its laws. And the people doing these attacks to violently protest should know that the national guard may be called on them if they do it again. That alone should deter repeat performances.

- - - Updated - - -

A paedophile behaves like a paedophile: they're a paedophile and can be labelled as such.

A fascist behaves like a fascist: they're a fascist and can be labelled as such.

These terms aren't insults. They're simple nouns. It's you who's attributing the meaning "insult" and therefore need to justify its attribution.

As an example, Twdft was the last poster in this thread to use the term "Reich winger":

Interesting take that calling somebody a pedo and a groomer based on their behavior isn't an insult. I ask anybody reading this if they agree with you.

What in their post do you believe *doesn't* allow the use of "Reich wingers" in this context? We've covered the facts, now describe *exactly* why you believe this to be an "insult".

You're objecting to the lack of distinction between Nazism and neo-Nazism?

Is your fundamental point, simply, that all Trump-supporters aren't fascists? Is that it? Did you not note Twdft's use of the word "even"?

You really must be trolling with this blindingly facile "I called them Reich wingers and they falsely took it as an insult." Sorry, I don't see this going constructive places. I don't think you are leveling this in good faith. I think the people using insulting, derogatory language exactly know how it's intended to be received and going to be received. This is probably the most clear example of pissing on somebody and telling them its raining.

I mean, that post was mostly in jest. That said- Stephen Miller is a public figure that occasionally opens his mouth parts and passes air through his larynx, thereby vibrating his vocal chords to create utterances of sound, which can then be interpreted and judged for their content. You don't actually need supernatural soul vision when you can listen to his angry unhinged ranting with perfectly ordinary human ears.

It sounded to me as an unhinged rant, not a jest. The reporter that took it down can certainly say he was only joking

Certainly nobody should become Fox. I only bring it up because right-wing ire directed at ABC over this one reporter's post is giving off big "Pig-Pen telling Charlie Brown that his shirt is untucked" energy.

I don't see this becoming anything more than a single-day's story. ABC doesn't want to become Fox News, or wants to maintain the veneer of credibility, so they suspend the reporter that calls their credibility into question. The partisan leanings of news outlets are already well known, and there's the hope that professionalism keeps internal bias from dominating the news coverage. If we're just embracing the Fox-News-is-everyone-now, that would be quite the alternate road.

I'm starting to see the progressive left demand to call him a fascisty little fascist Nazi at every opportunity, otherwise they aren't accurately reporting the news and the Third Reich is around the corner. It strikes me as the most counterproductive thing imaginable. Granted, this forum is not an accurate representation of the views of the entire left, just the most vocal views in the country's left.

[gondrin]

It is accurate to say that he knows the hate he holds inside just by looking at him? What an extraordinary thing to claim is reporting! It sounds more like he's unprofessional and the issue with mainstream media these days, having a bit too much alcohol or drugs late at night and mouthing off.

No. Not by looking at him. Any video of an interview shows him getting actively upset and starts to shout at people for asking him questions about immigration. So there is actual evidence of him actively hating even being questioned about it. His rhetoric also shows evidence of the same thing.

To say he is a "hater" is an observable truth.

- - - Updated - - -

It then moves to sections 252 and 253. Eisenhower did it to the Arkansas national guard, if you're looking for historical examples of its constitutionality. The attacks on federal buildings in LA, and all obstruction on arrests and federal vehicles and the rest, do obstruct the ability of the United States to execute its laws. And the people doing these attacks to violently protest should know that the national guard may be called on them if they do it again. That alone should deter repeat performances.

The problem here is if Trump actively does that over Newsoms wishes, they then fall under the Posse Comitatus Act since they would be active military. Which means they cannot be used for any actual official policing.

And no, it wouldn't deter that seeing as the Kent State shootings by the National Guard didn't prevent any violent protests and only caused more.

[Bodakane]

I fail to see what kind of reporting would be that you can tell he is hateful just by looking at him. You can report that his closest aid says he rails against George Clooney every night. I don't think you can report that your penetrating eyesight can see into his soul. I don't think that's reporting, unless you're writing for some religious church.

Its still a violation of free speech. The government is forcing a company to shut up an employee expressing their opinion legally.
But of course you're ok with that.

[Mayhem]

If it resembles a preacher pointing a finger and calling him a sinner, desiring the works of darkness, then maybe you're more into religion than politics.

This could be added to about every second post you blurt out in the Israel Palestine thread. It's always rules for thee not for me with you, fucking hypocrite.

[diller]

Welcome to the Fourth Reich.

[Endus]

You'll note that the issue wasn't "Do you think he is an authoritarian" but more "You fascists really are eager for your god DonOld to destroy our country." One is sitting in the judge's chair, accusing the person you're discussing with of agreeing with the authoritarianism, revering him as a god, wanting the country to be destroyed. The other might be discussable as it applies to individual actions, or appointments, or context.

Except the former raises it as a question, when it's an observable reality. It's like asking "Do you think the sun will rise in the morning?" If you're not asking that question sarcastically, you're asking it dishonestly, in pursuit of making others question reality.

It is accurate to say that he knows the hate he holds inside just by looking at him? What an extraordinary thing to claim is reporting!

Nobody needs to know "the hate he holds inside". We're talking about "the hate he openly and publicly expresses on a regular basis".

Again, your entire approach is dishonestly trying to make people question their observations of actual reality. You're not engaging in discussion. You're propagandizing and disinforming.

Interesting take that calling somebody a pedo and a groomer based on their behavior isn't an insult. I ask anybody reading this if they agree with you.

You're skipping right over the important question, obviously.

Are they a pedo and/or a groomer?

If they are, it's not an insult; it's just accurate description.

You can't possibly determine whether it's an insult until you know if it has a legitimate basis in fact. You're trying to claim otherwise, and that's again just trying to make people doubt reality.

Notice how everything comes back around to that?

You really must be trolling with this blindingly facile "I called them Reich wingers and they falsely took it as an insult." Sorry, I don't see this going constructive places. I don't think you are leveling this in good faith. I think the people using insulting, derogatory language exactly know how it's intended to be received and going to be received. This is probably the most clear example of pissing on somebody and telling them its raining.

I think it's more pissing on them and telling them it's piss. You're the one trying to get people to doubt they're being pissed on even when they can look up and see the streams emerging from the dicks above.

I'm starting to see the progressive left demand to call him a fascisty little fascist Nazi at every opportunity, otherwise they aren't accurately reporting the news and the Third Reich is around the corner. It strikes me as the most counterproductive thing imaginable. Granted, this forum is not an accurate representation of the views of the entire left, just the most vocal views in the country's left.

If you don't see the similarities in Trump's regime and its rise to power and the early days of the Nazi Reich, you're either delusional, grossly ignorant of history, or you're a Nazi yourself trying to provide cover.

Out of the spirit of kindness you protest does not exist, I won't speculate as to which is most likely. Just that those are the only three actual options to pick from.

- - - Updated - - -

Its still a violation of free speech. The government is forcing a company to shut up an employee expressing their opinion legally.
But of course you're ok with that.

I mean, in general, as a well-known employee of a company, your social media presence reflects on your employer to some degree and that makes your social media conduct actionable as it reflects on that employment. I won't contest that point; if he were chanting Nazi slogans on the same media sites, we'd all agree he should get shitcanned, right?

The issue is what messaging, exactly, he's being shitcanned for. And why their employer thought it crossed a line. Not whether they had the authority to do it, or even really the pressure by the government. It's all about the motivations of the company.

[Breccia]

It is accurate to say-

Your increasingly desperate deflection will be taken as admission you know Trump is a rapist terrorist dictator and you'd rather say anything than admit you support him.

[tehdang]

No. Not by looking at him.

Thank you for agreeing with me on that.

The problem here is if Trump actively does that over Newsoms wishes, they then fall under the Posse Comitatus Act since they would be active military. Which means they cannot be used for any actual official policing.

The Insurrection Act is the notable exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. I have tried to find you a lefty-friendly outlet to explain: The Brennan Center.

And no, it wouldn't deter that seeing as the Kent State shootings by the National Guard didn't prevent any violent protests and only caused more.

I should hope that the national guard isn't stuck in 1970. Your first clue should be that you're referring to events over 50 years ago, and not more recent national guard deployments.

Its still a violation of free speech. The government is forcing a company to shut up an employee expressing their opinion legally.
But of course you're ok with that.

The government forced the suspension? I'm afraid if you confuse the government and ABC News, you're really going to have issues understanding the meaning and interpretation of the First Amendment.

[Bodakane]

I mean, in general, as a well-known employee of a company, your social media presence reflects on your employer to some degree and that makes your social media conduct actionable as it reflects on that employment. I won't contest that point; if he were chanting Nazi slogans on the same media sites, we'd all agree he should get shitcanned, right?

The issue is what messaging, exactly, he's being shitcanned for. And why their employer thought it crossed a line. Not whether they had the authority to do it, or even really the pressure by the government. It's all about the motivations of the company.

I agree. But this is different. ABC is being pressured by the government to censor him. That's the issue. Cunty McTawt the press secretary, basically pulled a wink wink nudge nudge threat for ABC to do something.

- - - Updated - - -

The government forced the suspension? I'm afraid if you confuse the government and ABC News, you're really going to have issues understanding the meaning and interpretation of the First Amendment.

Karoline Leavitt, on FOX News, said ABC is going to have to answer for what Terry tweeted. She said they reached out to FOX. On no planet is that not a threat.

Go to 11:09 in this video from fox.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6374024562112

[Edge-]

Karoline Leavitt, on FOX News, saids ABC is going to have to answer for what Terry tweeted. She siad they reached out to FOX. On no planet is that not a threat.

Go to 11:09 in this video from fox.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6374024562112

I wonder if this raises to the bar of "improper threats by the government" more than the "Twitter files" "threats" of FBI agents flagging potentially rule-breaking Tweets to Twitter employees and letting them know they could handle/ignore however they wanted. Because apparently the latter was big bad and improper government pressure/influence, we've been told.

So I imagine this would be like super big bad if one was consistent.

[Bodakane]

I wonder if this raises to the bar of "improper threats by the government" more than the "Twitter files" "threats" of FBI agents flagging potentially rule-breaking Tweets to Twitter employees and letting them know they could handle/ignore however they wanted. Because apparently the latter was big bad and improper government pressure/influence, we've been told.

So I imagine this would be like super big bad if one was consistent.

The next time MAGAts are not hypocrites, will be the first time.

[Moralgy]

Guys has anyone heard from the NRA? they aren't rising up against a tyrannical government like they talked about all during the Obama administration. Kinda worried about them

[Templar 331]

Ok, so you weren't interested in federalization, but only when it happens over the governor's dissent. Your link says, "intent to deploy the California National Guard" and not "Newsom refuses to give the order federalizing the national guard." We'll see if he actually does that. He can whine all he likes and still permit the federalization.

What part of Trump unilaterally federalizing the California National Guard on his own without the consent of the Governor do you not get? What part of the Insurrection Act or the Constitution do you not understand? Or are you just intentionally ignoring it when it doesn't suit you? Do you know what kind of people do that?

Fascist....

It then moves to sections 252 and 253. Eisenhower did it to the Arkansas national guard, if you're looking for historical examples of its constitutionality.

Boy are you seriously un/misinformed...

https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/re...gration-crisis

On May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education that segregated schools are "inherently unequal." In September 1957, as a result of that ruling, nine African-American students enrolled at Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The ensuing struggle between segregationists and integrationists, the State of Arkansas and the federal government, President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, has become known in modern American history as the "Little Rock Crisis." The crisis gained world-wide attention. When Governor Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to surround Central High School to keep the nine students from entering the school, President Eisenhower ordered the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock to insure the safety of the "Little Rock Nine" and that the rulings of the Supreme Court were upheld.

The attacks on federal buildings in LA,

Oh look, you've got your own reichstag fire. You are willing to deny the rights of 300 million Americans because of buildings being.....(looks at news).....protested in front of? I'm sorry do you have any proof of a Federal building being attacked?

and all obstruction on arrests and federal vehicles and the rest, do obstruct the ability of the United States to execute its laws.

Are you talking about people physically stopping ICE or are you talking about the legal battles going on about their antics of denying the rights of people? Because I think we all know you mean the second one.

And the people doing these attacks to violently protest should know that the national guard may be called on them if they do it again. That alone should deter repeat performances.

And there it is. You are willing to misinterpret laws and damn the Constitution just so you can vicariously hit people with a stick.

[PACOX]

The Democratic party can make or break itself depending on how they respond to orotests. People remember the response to the BLM orotests.