Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Templar 331]

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.

There's this thing called "chain of command." When someone of higher rank gives an order someone with a lesser rank can't contradict that order. And since the office of the President is the highest office in the nation no amount of complaining or refusal to act by Gavin Newsom will do anything. The California National Guard is being controlled by Trump without the consent of it's Governor.

See: Eisenhower's Executive Order #10730.

Funny how NO FUCKING WHERE IN THERE DOES IT SAY "INSURRECTION ACT!"

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.

What in the absolute fuck is this shit?

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.

You accuse me of trolling, reporting this by the way, while also saying that I am posting a conspiracy? Since the reference went way over your head the implication was that these "fires" are your justification to use what ever force you deem needed. Not that there are MAGAs running around with Mexican flags.

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.

Kind of hard to see any fireworks, lol, amid all that tear gas. And I'm not watching a 20 min video of a woman coughing up a lung. I asked you for a report of "attacks on Federal buildings" and what I got was a video of smoke you're blowing up my ass.

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.

Oh boy has those goal posts moved.....

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.

"Pearl clutching" is when you make a fuss about imaginary problems. We literally have Trump taking control of a defensive force to subjugate the population. And here you are wishing it to happen.

[Gestopft]

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.

The whole organization "will have to answer" for the actions of one employee.

Who are they going to have to answer to?

I mean, this is the administration that already banned AP from the Oval Office for not using "Gulf of America" and sued CBS over a 60 minutes interview, but nah...this couldn't be perceived as 'threatening' or anything...

[Edge-]

Secret communication to social media companies urging bans

oh good a thing that never happened glad we can put this behind us. no bans were ever urged

Vague, and like I said

I don't buy it. That's very specific, actually. It beggars belief one could honestly call it vague.

the threat is nonsense.

It's just made in public. From an administration with a history, including recently, of weaponizing the government against political opponents and the media including harassing them with pointless lawsuits.

They don't actually have to answer anybody, because this is America.

So why did she say it?

When Leavitt says ABC News will have to answer for it, the best she could ever hope for is a corporate statement.

That's not "ABC News is going to have to answer for this." That's not "answering". Do you not know what words mean?

Stephen Miller is full of hate, ABC news will have to answer for it.

answer to whom

you're still dodging, and you actually just said they don't have to answer to anyone because this is america? which is it?

Their reporter has to answer to them. They have to answer to nobody on this. The lengths you go to to defend gender-bent Goebbels is pretty stunning.

[tehdang]

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.

How are they forcing it? What actions have been taken? What actions have been threatened? Why can't ABC News give her the finger, hang up on whatever comms staffer called them, and issue a bland statement of their corporate values?

You're reading into it in a totally arbitrary and capricious manner. It doesn't fly here.

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.

What's the threat, again? I heard something so vague it was laughable. We have a vibrant democracy, and I hope ABC News fires back by mailing some bologna to the White House address as the entirety of their answer. It would be better than a bland statement of their corporate values, but that one works too.

Once you get a Republican in the White House, every sentence is a threat, and every threat promises real action.

Give the story some air, and give the Trump administration some rope to hang itself.

[Gestopft]

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.

"You shouldn't take the White House seriously" really isn't the win you think it is. It's almost like, and stay with me here, this administration is utterly and completely unserious as a government.

[Edge-]

"You shouldn't take the White House seriously" really isn't the win you think it is. It's almost like, and stay with me here, this administration is utterly and completely unserious as a government.

"the press secretary is just yappin with vague threats it's no big deal, she's just the press secretary who speaks for the white house and president"

it's incredible how conservative reality works

[Captain N]

"the press secretary is just yappin with vague threats it's no big deal, she's just the press secretary who speaks for the white house and president"

it's incredible how conservative reality works

I mean "He's just talking out of his ass and this stuff would never really happen" was the defense they used before the 2nd Term started when it came to doing the horrible things he's doing.

[SAY HER NAME]

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.

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.

You will answer for that from an administration that has a pattern of behavior of punishing media orgs and law firms for first amendment protected actions does come off as a threat. If some random person approaches me and says Ill do X to you then I dont know if they are serious or not. If a person that is known to do X even implies hell do X to me then yeah that should be taken seriously and ABC did take it seriously.

Also I find it weird that we are arguing that things cant be feelings? Not everything is explicitly what it says in the constitution. If the president declares martial law and successfully manages to fight off the court battles are we supposed to say it doesn't go against the principles of democracy? The erosion of rights is rarely carried out illegally, its usually done legally. These are weird arguments coming from a conservative.

[gondrin]

How are they forcing it? What actions have been taken? What actions have been threatened? Why can't ABC News give her the finger, hang up on whatever comms staffer called them, and issue a bland statement of their corporate values?

You're reading into it in a totally arbitrary and capricious manner. It doesn't fly here.

What's the threat, again? I heard something so vague it was laughable. We have a vibrant democracy, and I hope ABC News fires back by mailing some bologna to the White House address as the entirety of their answer. It would be better than a bland statement of their corporate values, but that one works too.

Once you get a Republican in the White House, every sentence is a threat, and every threat promises real action.

Give the story some air, and give the Trump administration some rope to hang itself.

You are the one who made the statement about the Press Secretary stating what she said.

Here is what she said:

"We have reached out to @ABC to inquire about how they plan to hold Terry accountable."

The problem is, it isn't up to the government to hold ANYONE accountable for their speech unless it is speech actively inciting violence or to purposely cause a mass panic. Otherwise, her even reaching out is literally the government stating "We don't like this speech. You need to do something about it.". It is blatant censorship since she is an official spokesperson for the White House.

If she were to say "We don't agree with what Terry has said.", that is perfectly fine. If she were to try and refute the point that Miller is a "world class hater", great. But them reaching out in any way because they disagree with what was said, outside of speech that actively incites violence or to purposely cause a mass panic, is borderline censorship. It is the same people that were complaining about Biden reaching out the Facebook and the like telling them that certain posts they didn't like and what were they going to do about it. That was borderline censorship too. And remember, you, yes YOU, were actively complaining about that.

So why is THIS OK but Biden's not? Hmm?

[tehdang]

There's this thing called "chain of command." When someone of higher rank gives an order someone with a lesser rank can't contradict that order. And since the office of the President is the highest office in the nation no amount of complaining or refusal to act by Gavin Newsom will do anything. The California National Guard is being controlled by Trump without the consent of it's Governor.

This neither addresses the portion of the post it purports to respond to, nor contemplates the difference between the national guard and federalizing the national guard. "Chain of command" doesn't help you when we're talking specific laws and federal vs state.

Funny how NO FUCKING WHERE IN THERE DOES IT SAY "INSURRECTION ACT!"

I linked the executive order. Go google a little bit on how laws become codified in statutes. That is literally an executive order that quotes statutes created by the Insurrection Act. This is some real "How a bill becomes a Law" stuff.

What in the absolute fuck is this shit?

You implied that the deployment of federal troops meant that Eisenhower did not federalize the national guard under authority granted by the Insurrection Act. You are wrong. It's possible for two things to be true at once, quoting one thing as true does not make the second untrue.

You accuse me of trolling, reporting this by the way, while also saying that I am posting a conspiracy? Since the reference went way over your head the implication was that these "fires" are your justification to use what ever force you deem needed. Not that there are MAGAs running around with Mexican flags.

You said that calling out the national guard violates the rights of 300 million Americans. That's a ludicrous assertion and absolutely trolling.

Kind of hard to see any fireworks, lol, amid all that tear gas. And I'm not watching a 20 min video of a woman coughing up a lung. I asked you for a report of "attacks on Federal buildings" and what I got was a video of smoke you're blowing up my ass.

I watched it live while living a short drive away. I can try to find more video of the fireworks, but that video will due for now. The sounds of fireworks, reporting on it from the washington post, and google fireworks with LA federal building if you need more sourcing.

Oh boy has those goal posts moved.....

Obstructing arrest and blocking intersections is what I said and meant. Sorry if you thought I said more, then quickly whirled around to pounce on that fiction.

"Pearl clutching" is when you make a fuss about imaginary problems. We literally have Trump taking control of a defensive force to subjugate the population. And here you are wishing it to happen.

Here comes the trolling again. "To subjugate the population." We have riots in LA and the national guard is deployed to subjugate the population. Are you trying to be so extreme and nonsensical to get me to dismiss you as unserious?

The whole organization "will have to answer" for the actions of one employee.

Who are they going to have to answer to?

I mean, this is the administration that already banned AP from the Oval Office for not using "Gulf of America" and sued CBS over a 60 minutes interview, but nah...this couldn't be perceived as 'threatening' or anything...

I just said that the vagueness of the charge makes the "threat" absolutely nonsense. Which is a little different than launching a lawsuit against ABC News or banning them from the Oval Office, Mar A Lago, and Air Force One.

- - - Updated - - -

You are the one who made the statement about the Press Secretary stating what she said.

Here is what she said:



The problem is, it isn't up to the government to hold ANYONE accountable for their speech unless it is speech actively inciting violence or to purposely cause a mass panic. Otherwise, her even reaching out is literally the government stating "We don't like this speech. You need to do something about it.". It is blatant censorship since she is an official spokesperson for the White House.

If she were to say "We don't agree with what Terry has said.", that is perfectly fine. If she were to try and refute the point that Miller is a "world class hater", great. But them reaching out in any way because they disagree with what was said, outside of speech that actively incites violence or to purposely cause a mass panic, is borderline censorship. It is the same people that were complaining about Biden reaching out the Facebook and the like telling them that certain posts they didn't like. That was borderline censorship too. And remember, you, yes YOU, were actively complaining about that.

So why is THIS OK but Biden's not? Hmm?

You'll have to let me know specifically what you intend to compare to Biden.

I won't repeat myself a third time on how I think ABC News should handle such a "threat," see my previous posts on the matter.

You will answer for that from an administration that has a pattern of behavior of punishing media orgs and law firms for first amendment protected actions does come off as a threat. If some random person approaches me and says Ill do X to you then I dont know if they are serious or not. If a person that is known to do X even implies hell do X to me then yeah that should be taken seriously and ABC did take it seriously.

Also I find it weird that we are arguing that things cant be feelings? Not everything is explicitly what it says in the constitution. If the president declares martial law and successfully manages to fight off the court battles are we supposed to say it doesn't go against the principles of democracy? The erosion of rights is rarely carried out illegally, its usually done legally. These are weird arguments coming from a conservative.

"Well, ABC News is going to have to answer for what their, again, so-called journalist put out on Twitter on the wee hours of the night calling Stephen Miller 'vile' they said that President Trump is a world-class hater. And this is again coming from someone who is supposed to be an unbiased and professional journalist. This is unacceptable and unhinged rhetoric." Immediately, she pivots onto how the real problem is its impact on ABC News' neutrality and bias. I don't see it. I'm hearing that others do, but I don't see it. Standard fare for an equal exchange of verbal barbs.

You can have feelings for what people that love the first amendment should say and not say, but I can't justify or explain your feelings on the matter. I hope that you will develop your perspective around privileges, and how Trump fits into the Obama and Biden successions. Other than flipping which news organizations exchange barbs with the President, of course.

Speaking of vagueness, I can't really understand your points on hypotheticals of martial law and the "its usually done legally." I guess, true, in a very general sense? Unsure how you mean it to apply here.

"You shouldn't take the White House seriously" really isn't the win you think it is. It's almost like, and stay with me here, this administration is utterly and completely unserious as a government.

It's almost like critiquing the administration in this way can be done honestly, and specifically, and earn my agreement! Hillary Clinton is not in jail, the 22nd amendment is not repealed, martial law hasn't been declared, Trump has been getting slapped down in numerous courts including the Supreme Court, and Karoline Leavitt said something on Fox News Sunday Morning Futures w/ Maria Bartiromo before immediately pivoting to the threats employee statements make to the perception of news impartiality and bias. Tell me which part of the circus I'm supposed to focus in on. I don't rank Karoline Leavitt as much better than Karine Jean-Pierre (but she was an absolute disaster), and Leavitt is clearly below Jen Psaki?

[Bodakane]

How are they forcing it? What actions have been taken? What actions have been threatened? Why can't ABC News give her the finger, hang up on whatever comms staffer called them, and issue a bland statement of their corporate values?

You're reading into it in a totally arbitrary and capricious manner. It doesn't fly here.

I'm being arbitrary and capricious now?

They threatened them on TV then contacted them directly. That is not the governments job no matter how intellectually dishonest you want to be about what is and isn't a threat.

You need to understand, that handwaving all this government overreach because you'll agree with anything Trump does, makes every argument you've ever made in favor of conservative ideology, not just null and void, but provably bullshit.

[Kaleredar]

@tehdang if her threat was just an idle one carrying no weight because what the press secretary says as an official White House statement can just be for the lolz, then ABC shouldn’t have to worry about doing anything, right?

Like, if they don’t discipline their employee then Trump and co. will take no actions against ABC, legal or otherwise?

And if ABC does or did discipline the reporter, it was anctually entirely unnecessary?

[Gestopft]

I just said that the vagueness of the charge makes the "threat" absolutely nonsense.

The mob makes vague threats too, but woe to anyone that takes them as 'nonsense'

It's almost like critiquing the administration in this way can be done honestly, and specifically, and earn my agreement! Hillary Clinton is not in jail, the 22nd amendment is not repealed, martial law hasn't been declared, Trump has been getting slapped down in numerous courts including the Supreme Court, and Karoline Leavitt said something on Fox News Sunday Morning Futures w/ Maria Bartiromo before immediately pivoting to the threats employee statements make to the perception of news impartiality and bias. Tell me which part of the circus I'm supposed to focus in on. I don't rank Karoline Leavitt as much better than Karine Jean-Pierre (but she was an absolute disaster), and Leavitt is clearly below Jen Psaki?

I can certainly agree Jean-Pierre was a disaster, but I don't know if I'd put Leavitt above her. Give me Spicer back; at least he didn't look like he was enjoying it when he lied to the public.

[tehdang]

@tehdang if her threat was just an idle one carrying no weight because what the press secretary says as an official White House statement can just be for the lolz, then ABC shouldn’t have to worry about doing anything, right?

Like, if they don’t discipline their employee then Trump and co. will take no actions against ABC, legal or otherwise?

And if ABC does or did discipline the reporter, it was anctually entirely unnecessary?

I assume you read that ABC News suspended their reporter, before Karoline Leavitt did the Sunday Morning Political News Program appearance?

I'm being arbitrary and capricious now?

They threatened them on TV then contacted them directly. That is not the governments job no matter how intellectually dishonest you want to be about what is and isn't a threat.

You need to understand, that handwaving all this government overreach because you'll agree with anything Trump does, makes every argument you've ever made in favor of conservative ideology, not just null and void, but provably bullshit.

How you characterized the "threat," and explained in the previous post. I don't really want to repeat it once again. You've dismissed the argument, so there's really nothing more to say.

The mob makes vague threats too, but woe to anyone that takes them as 'nonsense'

I'm sorry if I view the mob and Press Secretary Leavitt on sunday morning TV as possessing different attitudes towards ""Well, ABC News is going to have to answer for what their, again, so-called journalist put out on Twitter on the wee hours of the night calling Stephen Miller 'vile' they said that President Trump is a world-class hater. And this is again coming from someone who is supposed to be an unbiased and professional journalist." For one, I don't think the mob would pivot smoothly into what this says about media bias, as if the previous was no threat at all. Maybe the mob in a Zucker, Abrahams and Zucker movie?

I can certainly agree Jean-Pierre was a disaster, but I don't know if I'd put Leavitt above her. Give me Spicer back; at least he didn't look like he was enjoying it when he lied to the public.

I also would prefer Spicer to Leavitt. Maybe even Huckabee Sanders. Definitely not Kayleigh McEnany.

[Kaleredar]

I assume you read that ABC News suspended their reporter, before Karoline Leavitt did the Sunday Morning Political News Program appearance?

And said suspension was obviously unnecessary then, right?

[Bodakane]

How you characterized the "threat," and explained in the previous post. I don't really want to repeat it once again. You've dismissed the argument, so there's really nothing more to say.

Oh I see, you don't like arguments with facts...

Look, you've tried to handwave this by saying a threat can't be one sentence and then argued with someone else that this is meaningless because of all the other terrible and illegal things your dear leader is doing and you just can't keep up with it all...which is peak brainwashed cult logic.

And you do all that by admonishing me for relating what was said by a government official and gave direct evidence of it from a source not on my side.

[Templar 331]

This neither addresses the portion of the post it purports to respond to, nor contemplates the difference between the national guard and federalizing the national guard. "Chain of command" doesn't help you when we're talking specific laws and federal vs state.

It addressed it exactly. Stick you fingers in your ears all you want, you are wrong.

I linked the executive order. Go google a little bit on how laws become codified in statutes. That is literally an executive order that quotes statutes created by the Insurrection Act. This is some real "How a bill becomes a Law" stuff.

Nothing in what you posted said or referenced "Insurrection Act." The only thing Eisenhower referenced was "the Constitution and Statutes of the United States, including Chapter 15 of Title 10 of the United States Code, particularly sections 332, 333 and 334."

And then he wasn't using the National Guard to attack protesters, he was making the National Guard stand down.

You said that calling out the national guard violates the rights of 300 million Americans. That's a ludicrous assertion and absolutely trolling.

It isn't trolling to say the President bypassed the lawful authority (the Governor) and sent troops into their state to suppress protests. It is exactly what has happened. And by doing so put the rights of everyone in this country at risk. By making up bullshit like he always does Trump will us any excuse to bypass anyone that disagrees with him and use force to punish them. For further proof just look at the threat of denying federal funds, which were passed into law by Congress, to states who don't tow the line.

https://fox5sandiego.com/news/califo...onship-report/

It isn't just the act that's the danger, it's the intent behind it. The fact that the little handed fuck doesn't like people telling him no and then him going out of his way to fuck them over is the danger to this nation.

I watched it live while living a short drive away. I can try to find more video of the fireworks, but that video will due for now. The sounds of fireworks, reporting on it from the washington post, and google fireworks with LA federal building if you need more sourcing.

All I'm seeing in that link is the word "tear gas" and nothing about "attacks on federal buildings" or "fireworks." Oh and there was this little tidbit.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said he had formally requested that the Trump administration rescind the “unlawful deployment” of National Guard troops in Los Angeles County “and return them to my command.”

Obstructing arrest and blocking intersections is what I said and meant. Sorry if you thought I said more, then quickly whirled around to pounce on that fiction.

Here comes the trolling again. "To subjugate the population." We have riots in LA and the national guard is deployed to subjugate the population. Are you trying to be so extreme and nonsensical to get me to dismiss you as unserious?

What you had were protests. Then Trump sent in forces to aggravate the situation. Now you have push back. Which is going to make Trump push more, which was the plan all along.

[Edge-]

I assume you read that ABC News suspended their reporter, before Karoline Leavitt did the Sunday Morning Political News Program appearance?

So what was the point of her "non-threat", then?

[gondrin]

Oh I see, you don't like arguments with facts...

Look, you've tried to handwave this by saying a threat can't be one sentence and then argued with someone else that this is meaningless because of all the other terrible and illegal things your dear leader is doing and you just can't keep up with it all...which is peak brainwashed cult logic.

And you do all that by admonishing me for relating what was said by a government official and gave direct evidence of it from a source not on my side.

That is the thing here.

It isn't that she herself said it. She said it in an official capacity. That is the problem. The moment she said "And what is ABC going to do about X person?" when reaching out to ABC, it became an implied threat of potential sanctions of some sort.

If ABC wants to fire their anchor over whatever speech they deem unacceptable, so be it. However, if it is a coerced firing from a government source, that is a problem. A major problem.

And if anyone thinks this administration won't start sanctioning them because of something they said, take a look at Harvard and other schools. Take a look at Executive Orders actively illegally targeting law firms over past grievances. Take a look at the funding that is about to be pulled from PBS and NPR because of articles the administration doesn't like. Trump ACTIVELY is targeting CBS because of a perceived slight due to an edit. Those are direct First Amendment violations. They are violations because they are targeting them because of their speech and it is government officials doing it. Not because of any other reason.

So, it isn't too much of a leap to think that ABC would think they would be next.

[SAY HER NAME]

Underlying all of the stuff, tehdangs argumetn is that Biden and Obama did simialr things. So tis whatever

- - - Updated - - -

Which is pretty dumb