Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[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.

[tehdang]

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

Absolutely amazing that a reporter lets loose on the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, and the White House Comms team fires back.

Also, isn't the entire video 11:09?

[Bodakane]

Absolutely amazing that a reporter lets loose on the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, and the White House Comms team fires back.

Also, isn't the entire video 11:09?

Oh for fuck's sake, i didn't paraphrase. She literally said, "ABC is going to have to answer for that". That's a threat and you're literally trying to justify it. I'm fairly certain you used to scream about "censorship" talking about "woke" stuff by businesses. Now here you are a "small government conservative", doing backbends to defend an admin forcing censorship and quite literally mobilizing a gestapo to illegally kidnap people without due process, warrants or even fucking badges.

You cannot defend this.

Yes, i got the timestamp wrong, its 9:00

[tehdang]

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....

Politicians play a double game of complaining bitterly and then taking no useful action. Remember, criticizing Trump's intent to deploy the California National Guard is not a statement that the governor has ordered the California National Guard to stand down as part of his Title 10 authority.

Boy are you seriously un/misinformed...

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

See: Eisenhower's Executive Order #10730. You're at the bakery, and saying "No, he didn't order a chocolate mousse, he ordered a ice cream cake!" Actually, he ordered both the chocolate mousse and the ice cream cake. The presence of one does not imply the absence of the other.

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?

Calling in the national guard is not denying the rights of 300 million Americans. Stop trolling, you aren't helping your case. Also, nice sneaky implication that these are undercover MAGA that brought out a bunch of Mexican flags and fireworks.

Pick your favorite video, but as an example, firing fireworks at the metropolitan detention center. Federal Bureau of Prisons-managed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fobc-4ZRlQ.

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.

Blocking intersections, throwing themselves in front of federal vehicles and police vehicles. The stuff I watched live on TV literally yesterday. I live in California. I drive through LA regularly. This is my area of southern california.

Let's turn it on now ... oh, I see they're blocking the 101 freeway instead of shooting fireworks into a federal building. Good stuff.

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

Your ignorance of both the laws and the constitution culminates in your pearl-clutching on the deployment of the national guard. The left has this issue with illegal immigrants and violent rioters, and it's going to keep hurting that political side of the aisle so long as you continue.

[SAY HER NAME]

Its so fun that the Trump administration gets to threaten news networks bc of the the PERSONAL opinions of their reporters. Reporters cant have opinions under the Trump administration I guess.

Good stuff. Conservatives defending free speech nowhere to be found

[Endus]

Your ignorance of both the laws and the constitution culminates in your pearl-clutching on the deployment of the national guard. The left has this issue with illegal immigrants and violent rioters, and it's going to keep hurting that political side of the aisle so long as you continue.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/06/08/ic...al-guard-unit/

"No unmet law enforcement needs". This isn't about handling violent protestors, and there was no a significant issue with violence at the protests in the first place.

You're lying, to protect the lies of a corrupt regime.

If not falling for obvious bullshit is gonna "hurt that political side of the aisle", you're just confessing that using bullshit to try to justify authoritarian takeovers is SOP for the Trump regime.

[tehdang]

Oh for fuck's sake, i didn't paraphrase. She literally said, "ABC is going to have to answer for that". That's a threat and you're literally trying to justify it. I'm fairly certain you used to scream about "censorship" talking about "woke" stuff by businesses. Now here you are a "small government conservative", doing backbends to defend an admin forcing censorship and quite literally mobilizing a gestapo to illegally kidnap people without due process, warrants or even fucking badges.

You cannot defend this.

Yes, i got the timestamp wrong, its 9:00

Yes, answering for the actions of their employees on social media is done a dozen times a day by a million different corporations in America. Sorry, buddy. Just because it's the press secretary telling ABC News that they'll have to answer for the actions of their employees is not a threat of using government force against the news agency. You're playing this very dumb game where every vague statement is immediately interpreted into unconstitutional action. When you stop with the dumb games, let me know.

Nothing says "threat to the first amendment" like one sentence from an 11 minute segment done by a press secretary. Yes, give the reporter a suspension, and give Karoline Leavitt the middle finger, while giving the blandest statement of your corporate ideals.

[Edge-]

Yes, answering for the actions of their employees on social media is done a dozen times a day by a million different corporations in America.

"Hey, here are some potentially rule-breaking tweets. Handle them however you want." via private email- very bad coercion

"ABC is going to have to answer for that." in public - totally ok.

Even though she's speaking of ABC the corporate entity and not the employee facing disciplinary action. They have to "answer" nobody, much less the government as she not-so-subtly implies. The only one answering anyone is the reporter answering his employer regarding his companies social media policy.

You do choose the more curious framing and interpretation of things.

- - - Updated - - -

Just because it's the press secretary telling ABC News that they'll have to answer for the actions of their employees is not a threat of using government force against the news agency.

Answer to whom? Why? ELI5.

[SAY HER NAME]

Are we really saying that the Trump administration doesnt threaten news networks while there is an ongoing case regarding the AP being banned from attending Press meetings with the white house? Or after 60 minutes released a long statement about how they wanted to change the content if they didnt want to cause issues to the parent company?

I dont know the legality of that (bc its currently being litigated between the AP and the Trump admin) but these are actions that dont come from someone that is interested in the first amendment.

[tehdang]

"Hey, here are some potentially rule-breaking tweets. Handle them however you want." via private email- very bad coercion

Secret communication to social media companies urging bans does not occur in public and was being conducted by organizations like the fucking FBI. Let me know if the FBI texts ABC News employees within the organization urging nefarious actions.

"ABC is going to have to answer for that." in public - totally ok.

Vague, and like I said, ABC News should give Leavitt the finger and issue the blandest restatement of their corporate values.

Even though she's speaking of ABC the corporate entity and not the employee facing disciplinary action. They have to "answer" nobody, much less the government as she not-so-subtly implies. The only one answering anyone is the reporter answering his employer regarding his companies social media policy.

Almost like, and stay with me here, the threat is nonsense. They don't actually have to answer anybody, because this is America. When Leavitt says ABC News will have to answer for it, the best she could ever hope for is a corporate statement.

Answer to whom? Why?

Kind of the point of me calling it vague. Stephen Miller is full of hate, ABC news will have to answer for it. You sure they aren't trying to bore us to death (not a threat)?

[Bodakane]

Yes, answering for the actions of their employees on social media is done a dozen times a day by a million different corporations in America. Sorry, buddy. Just because it's the press secretary telling ABC News that they'll have to answer for the actions of their employees is not a threat of using government force against the news agency. You're playing this very dumb game where every vague statement is immediately interpreted into unconstitutional action. When you stop with the dumb games, let me know.

Nothing says "threat to the first amendment" like one sentence from an 11 minute segment done by a press secretary. Yes, give the reporter a suspension, and give Karoline Leavitt the middle finger, while giving the blandest statement of your corporate ideals.

Yes it does. The difference AGAIN, is that the government is forcing it. That is censorship.

It wasn't vague. She said that AND said they've contacted ABC directly. You say I'm playing dumb games but you literally just tried to argue censorship can't be 1 sentence. The cult is strong in this one.

[gondrin]

Yes, answering for the actions of their employees on social media is done a dozen times a day by a million different corporations in America. Sorry, buddy. Just because it's the press secretary telling ABC News that they'll have to answer for the actions of their employees is not a threat of using government force against the news agency. You're playing this very dumb game where every vague statement is immediately interpreted into unconstitutional action. When you stop with the dumb games, let me know.

Nothing says "threat to the first amendment" like one sentence from an 11 minute segment done by a press secretary. Yes, give the reporter a suspension, and give Karoline Leavitt the middle finger, while giving the blandest statement of your corporate ideals.

Actually, the Press Secretary stating that they will do anything to a news network because of a post IS literally threatening them if they don't silence the person. Hence it would become a First Amendment violation. Unless the person was actively threatening the President or any staff, calling Miller a "world class hater" is not that. And the Press Secretary stating that ABC will "have to answer for the actions of their employees" is literally the government threatening speech.

[tehdang]

Are we really saying that the Trump administration doesnt threaten news networks while there is an ongoing case regarding the AP being banned from attending Press meetings with the white house?

You of all people should know the difference between "this statement is barely a threat, and not bucking the first amendment" and "the Trump administration has never taken action against a press outfit."

Next I'll be hearing that a chair in the press briefing room is a core first amendment right.

Or after 60 minutes released a long statement about how they wanted to change the content if they didnt want to cause issues to the parent company?

I dont know the legality of that (bc its currently being litigated between the AP and the Trump admin) but these are actions that dont come from someone that is interested in the first amendment.

You don't know the legality, but you're very sure that a person interested in the first amendment is compelled to assert that the AP has a constitutional right to be in the White House and Air Force One? I'm afraid you're opening a big can of worms about the first amendment and rights vs privileges. You're also showing that the first amendment is a feeling to you---that you feel like nobody that loves it could ever distinguish between legal threats and verbal attacks made in public. "You'll answer for that" ... maybe there's going to be another run-on Truth Social post that's 200 words long.