Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Forogil]

Is joe even planning on running for a second term? Only way I could see him winning is if joe or clinton are put against him.

Well, the most obvious choice if the president doesn't run is the vice-president - and Kamala Harris would also struggle against Trump; as she seems both unpopular on her own and associated with an unpopular president (Biden and Trump have similar unpopularity numbers).

There are some current polls suggesting that Trump would lose against both in terms of percentages, but with tiny margins of overall voters so it isn't obvious how that would actually go.

And Hillary Clinton seem to say that she wouldn't run again, so I don't know what we will actually see in 2024.

[Kaleredar]

Is joe even planning on running for a second term? Only way I could see him winning is if joe or clinton are put against him.

I don’t think Biden’s “performance” is what would hurt him in the long run. People are dissatisfied with Biden for two wholly different reasons: people who think he’s not being progressive enough, and the “let’s go Brandon” idiots who would never have voted for Biden to begin with. People who think Biden isn’t progressive enough aren’t suddenly going to vote for trump, and I think the threat of a return to a trump presidency would be enough to rally them to action.

More concerning is his age. Trump isn’t meaningfully younger, and actually probably in far poorer health, but Biden certainly presents as older.

[Edge-]

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreak...like_desantis/

Neo-Nazi's in Florida are big DeSantis fans and would very much like for you to vote for him!

I'm usually on #TeamVoteForAnybodyNazi'sDon'tLike. Telling that the KKK and Nazi's so often support Republican candidates.

[Xyonai]

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreak...like_desantis/

Neo-Nazi's in Florida are big DeSantis fans and would very much like for you to vote for him!

I'm usually on #TeamVoteForAnybodyNazi'sDon'tLike. Telling that the KKK and Nazi's so often support Republican candidates.

Toast brained motherfuckers will claim that they're 'plants' or feds, but then never mention why none of the other supporters even just ask them to fucking leave or at least cut it out.

[Edge-]

Toast brained motherfuckers will claim that they're 'plants' or feds, but then never mention why none of the other supporters even just ask them to fucking leave or at least cut it out.

They're always "secret antifa" or "secret FBI". Always.

Yet curiously, the refusal by Republicans like DeSantis to condemn them sure makes it seem like DeSantis likes "secret antifa" or "secret FBI" trying to entrap people or something. DESANTIS IS DEEP STATE!

[Breccia]

There appears to be a path forward in the "I just don't want to testify" defense in Georgia. A/the judge in the case has denied Rep. Jody Hice's "legislative process lol" handwaving of the subpoena, but instead has said she'll rule on individual statements one at a time.

This means, we'll be seeing exactly what Team Trump considers to be privileged. Obviously, it's possible that every single defendant will simply claim every single statement individually is protected. The legal term for that is "contempt of court".

- - - Updated - - -

As Trump refuses to look back at the past -- no really, here's a video of him unable to pronounce the word "yesterday" -- we have new evidence that Trump was pushing back against prosecuting the Capitol rioters, which I know doesn't surprise anyone reasonable but it's worth shoving it in Trump supporters' faces.

A document for a Jan. 7, 2021, Trump speech, titled "Remarks on National Healing," shows several key phrases crossed out that would have more strongly denounced the siege. It also shows suggested edits for added words.

"It looks like a copy of a draft of the remarks for that day," Trump's daughter and former senior White House adviser Ivanka Trump told a committee investigator during her recorded video interview. She said plans for the speech began the evening after the riot.

The investigator asked her if she recognized the handwriting on the page, and she responded she did.

"It looks like my father's handwriting," she said.

Most notably? There were references in the speech to how the murderous insurrectionists didn't represent Trump. Trump crossed that out.

In Sharpee.

No, really.



- - - Updated - - -

Another quick point, we all know about those editorials by right-wing media against Trump. NPR did their take on the subject which boils down to "Murdoch is tired of Trump".

Murdoch didn't want Trump to win in 2016, and the Journal in particular and the Post were very critical after January 6 of Trump, in one case going so far as to say he should resign. But in this case, it's a reiteration looking ahead to 2024, not simply accepting the fact that Trump polls seemingly ahead of the pack, saying, look; we want to put this guy out of bounds, and therefore we're giving cover to major donors. The financial folks who, for example, read The Wall Street Journal. We're giving cover for you to send your money in other directions. People can point to the Journal and say, we've been sanctioned. Murdoch is basically not on board at this point. We can go in another direction. And you've seen Ron DeSantis rise in coverage, and I think that's really the alternative the Murdochs are looking to at the moment.

I think a couple of you called that, correctly.

[Edge-]

https://www.businessinsider.com/dona...numbers-2022-7

Donald Trump has ended his friendship with Fox and Friends. He doesn't have a new friend to replace them with, this isn't a meme. That's the story, Fox and Friends is no longer his best friend. All because they showed polling showing that DeSantis was more popular than Trump.

[Breccia]

Donald Trump has ended his friendship with Fox and Friends.

Hmm.

I think a couple of you called that, correctly.

If Trump makes it this easy for FOX News to leave him for a younger woman, I mean new candidate, and also Trump doesn't have Twitter, I think all that stuff about running in 2024 is going to fizzle out like a Trump business.

While half my library updates -- I swear, I left town for a week and everyone adds a patch -- what else is going on?

1) Mike Lindell admits to using crack.

"Har har. What did he really say?"

"I was on crack".

For the last "10, 20, 30 years".

"Surely he was joking."

We've seen his claims over the years. I think the evidence lies with "crack".

2) The Secret Service agents that said they could contradict Hutchinson's testimony? The ones the rabid fanbase put all their faith in? They lawyered up and are not only refusing to testify, but will likely take the 5th when they are forced to.

After her testimony, journalists citing anonymous sources reported that Engel and the driver of Trump's vehicle were "prepared to testify under oath" to dispute Hutchinson's account and that Ornato denied telling Hutchinson that Trump "grabbed the steering wheel or an agent."

"Some of the officers said that they would be coming and talking under oath," said Lofgren, a member of the committee. "They have not come in, and they recently retained private counsel, which is unusual but they have a right to do that."

Questions have swirled about Ornato and Engel's credibility since Hutchinson's testimony. Washington Post reporter Carol Leonnig, who wrote the book "Zero Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Secret Service" during the Trump administration, told MSNBC that both men were "very, very close to President Trump."

"Some people accused them of at times being enablers and 'yes men' of the president—particularly Tony Ornato—and very much people who wanted to do what he wanted and see him pleased," she said, adding that "both of these individuals lose a little credibility because of how closely they have been seen as aligned to Donald Trump."

It's a problem when government employees, doing their job as government officials, refuse to tell their employers and the public what they did in their role as government employees. One of two things has happened.
One, it's top secret.
Two, they know they fucked up.

Bear in mind, we've had a lot of discussion (thanks Texas) about when you obey illegal orders. I'm 90% confident the SS don't actually, as part of their job description, work for Trump specifically or have to follow his orders -- especially after Trump legally and fairly lost the election.

3) Jim Jordan attacks the Jan 6th panel for going after Ginni Thomas, claiming they're threatening the court.

"Um...didn't Mrs. Thomas start this by putting pressure on --"

Jordan is doing a mix of deflecting, and screaming WITCH HUNT at passing clouds. It is not a threat to investigate and prosecute criminals for crimes. If Justice and/or Mrs. Thomas disagree with being the target, they should have thought of that before trying to install a dictator.

4) A potted plant just gave a speech, urging the Republican Party to look forward, not back. As you can see from this quote:

Yesterday (pronounced correctly)

No, wait, this quote:

I don’t know that our movement is that divided — I don’t know that the president and I differ on issues, but we may differ on focus

We can see that Pence still disagrees with Biden, no big surprise there considering they're of different parties. But it's also likely he's publicly breaking with Trump on the whole "Trump tried to murder Pence in 2020" thing, but not to the point of risking his life by saying "Trump was wrong".

[Endus]

2) The Secret Service agents that said they could contradict Hutchinson's testimony? The ones the rabid fanbase put all their faith in? They lawyered up and are not only refusing to testify, but will likely take the 5th when they are forced to.

It's a problem when government employees, doing their job as government officials, refuse to tell their employers and the public what they did in their role as government employees. One of two things has happened.
One, it's top secret.
Two, they know they fucked up.

I'm pretty sure taking the 5th is grounds for firing them, with cause. Given that any potential self-incrimination would be unethical conduct that would be grounds for dismissal. While that argument wouldn't fly in court, employers aren't held to nearly that standard, not even government employers. Especially since their superiors don't have to let them "plead the 5th" in examining their conduct; you were on the clock, you'll tell them what happened, or you'll get your ass fired, with cause.

3) Jim Jordan attacks the Jan 6th panel for going after Ginni Thomas, claiming they're threatening the court.

"Um...didn't Mrs. Thomas start this by putting pressure on --"

Jordan is doing a mix of deflecting, and screaming WITCH HUNT at passing clouds. It is not a threat to investigate and prosecute criminals for crimes. If Justice and/or Mrs. Thomas disagree with being the target, they should have thought of that before trying to install a dictator.

Ginni Thomas isn't on the court. Prosecuting her presents no such threat. If you want to argue the hypothetical charges have no merit, that's an entirely different argument, Jordan, and one you clearly don't want to try and make.

[Breccia]

If you want to argue the hypothetical charges have no merit, that's an entirely different argument, Jordan, and one you clearly don't want to try and make.

We shouldn't have to have this "does prosecuting the criminal actions of one spouse qualify as a threat against the other?" discussion, but then again, I still remember Bel Biv DeVos.

[Edge-]

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/07/...sex-marriages/

And we're back with our old pal and one-time liberal darling, J.D. Vance! He has thoughts on marriage -

“This is one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace, which is the idea that like, ‘Well, OK, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy. And so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that’s going to make people happier in the long term,'” he said.

“And maybe it worked out for the moms and dads, though I’m skeptical. But it really didn’t work out for the kids of those marriages. And that’s what I think all of us should be honest about, is we’ve run this experiment in real time. And what we have is a lot of very, very real family dysfunction that’s making our kids unhappy.”

He's firmly on #TeamStayInAbusiveRelationships.

Why does it honestly seem like Republicans end-goal with every position is to maximize the suffering of others?

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...rence-1388015/

So about those Nazi's openly supporting Ron DeSantis at the TPUSA convention in Florida -

In addition to DeSantis, other high-profile Student Action Summit attendees — including former President Donald Trump, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) — have also stayed silent on the matter.

Surprisingly, Rick Scott was the only Republican from Florida, or at the event, that seemed actually concerned with the Nazi's. The only other people concerned were all Democrats -

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) was the only featured speaker at the conference who openly condemned the group’s presence outside the convention center. “This is a disgusting act of hateful anti-Semitism and doesn’t belong in Florida, our nation or anywhere across the world,” he tweeted. “We stand with our Jewish community and against this hate. It must end.”

And, predictably -

(Meanwhile, alt-right conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec, who also attended, bizarrely claimed the neo-Nazis were, in fact, liberal protestors. “There are now actual Neo-Nazis outside of Turning Point protesting the event,” he wrote on Twitter. “Got a little closer and yup, they are definitely leftists.”)

It's always "secret libs" or "secret antifa", even if it's literally just bargain-bin Neo-Nazi's who love Republicans, and Republicans who love their Neo-Nazi supporters back.

In a statement, Turning Point USA spokesperson Andrew Kolvet said the group “condemns those ideologies in the strongest of terms” but claimed there was little event organizers could do to remove the racist protesters from the vicinity. “Since these individuals were located on public property, our security attempted to, but was not permitted to remove them,” Kolvet said, adding: “They have nothing to do with TPUSA, our event, or our students.”

At least TPUSA condemned them, but I'd have done a lot more than that were I the organizer of that event, including sending out staff and attendees to counterprotest until those Nazi fucks leave. Use your First Amendment right to drown out their First Amendment right and send them back packing to their family home with their sister-wife and uncle-cousins, because genetic inbreeders are the most likely people to be Nazi's, probably.

- - - Updated - - -

https://gizmodo.com/abortion-google-...ers-1849333088

A coalition of 17 state attorney generals are pressuring Google to prevent it from limiting the search results of so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” known for masquerading as legitimate abortion clinics and persuading pregnant people away from receiving abortions.

Critics warn unrestricted search results could steer abortion seekers toward these clinics, potentially putting their health at risk. Republicans, on the other hand, say efforts to limit those bad faith clinics in search results amounts to market discrimination against anti-abortion organizations.

In a letter spearheaded by Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares, the Republican lawmakers pushed back against earlier pleas from Democrats and claimed Google’s decision to moderate its results, “would constitute a grave assault on the principle of free speech.” The Republicans then lashed out at previous Democratic efforts to pressure the company before proceeding to, seemingly unironically, threaten Google if they didn’t get their way.

“We wish to make this very clear to Google and the other market participants that it dwarfs: If you fail to resist this political pressure, we will act swiftly to protect American consumers from this dangerous axis of corporate and government power,” the lawmakers wrote.

If Google does opt to alter the search results, Republicans say they will conduct investigations to determine whether or not the actions violate antitrust or religious discrimination laws. In other words, don’t moderate your search results…or else.

Google did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment.

Republicans still hate free speech. They want to force Google and other search companies to host dishonest search results and mislead users, because Republicans require lies to promote their positions.

[Breccia]

"pressuring Google to prevent it from limiting the search results of--"

Wait a minute, isn't that what Trump accused them of? And as always, "isn't that?" is code for "here is the link"

Trump on Tuesday accused Google and other U.S. tech companies of rigging search results about him “so that almost all stories & news is BAD.” He offered no evidence of bias, but a top adviser said the White House is “taking a look” at whether Google should face federal regulation.

Google pushed back sharply, saying Trump’s claim simply wasn’t so: “We never rank search results to manipulate political sentiment.”

The president’s tweets echoed his familiar attacks on the news media — and a conservative talking point that California-based tech companies run by CEOs with liberal leanings don’t give equal weight to opposing political viewpoints. They also revealed anew his deep-seated frustration he doesn’t get the credit he believes he deserves.

HAHAHAHAHA...Trump tweeted...man, that didn't age.

So yes, in the first one, Trump accused Google of making a political statement by blocking information and was considering federal regulation to block that. In your article, the GOP said they were making a political statement by not blocking information and are considering federal regulation to block that. In both, they were taking a stand on what a "corporations are people too" would be allowed to say and using the federal government to enforce that.

There's a couple reasons they never got further. One, good luck taking on Google. Two, as you hinted, they flat-out can't. That's the First Amendment. This isn't an actual call for government action, this is just the "everyone against us is evil" dog whistle, like claiming basketball players kneeling isn't about race.

[postman1782]

https://www.wjcl.com/article/kemp-te...-wjcl/40711617

Brian Kemp, who won the Georgia governor primary against Trump's pick David Purdue by a large margin, testified yesterday against Trump in the grand jury for election fraud. To which, the same grand jury is supposed to be hosting Trump on August 9th.

[Breccia]

supposed to be hosting Trump on August 9th.

Wait, you can't possibly be suggesting Trump will testify.

[solinari6]

Wait, you can't possibly be suggesting Trump will testify.

Whoa, it actually does say that at the end. talk about burying th lead! LOL

Trump is scheduled to testify on Aug. 9.

[Breccia]

Whoa, it actually does say that at the end. talk about burying th lead! LOL

I haven't seen that in anything else. So either I missed it dozens of times, KJCL is wrong, or it's a recent development.

By the way, just going to bet any/all people on this thread: Trump won't testify Aug 9th.

[Edge-]

Remember how Republicans all voted against efforts to investigate extremism in the US military? How they were adamant that there are no problems?

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...krieg-1388238/

Except for Matthew Belanger, I guess. US Marine. What'd he do?

Matthew Belanger was arrested on June 10 in New York and charged with making false statements to a federal firearms licensee in order to make straw purchases of an assault rifle and handgun. Belanger pleaded not guilty to the firearms charges during an arraignment hearing on Monday.

In a July 14 court memo, federal prosecutors say that while a Marine, Belanger plotted far more serious crimes as part of the neo-Nazi group. The memo says Belanger trained with airsoft guns in the woods of Long Island as part of a plot to attack the “Zionist Order of Governments.” The memo also says Belanger was the subject of an FBI Joint Terrorism Taskforce investigation into allegedly plotting to “engage in widespread homicide and sexual assault.” Much of Belanger’s ideology and plotting, the memo says, is based around a desire to lessen the number of nonwhite Americans and to rape “white women to increase the production of white children.”

And uh...the Nazi group he's involved with is pretty on the nose with their name -

Federal prosecutors say a former U.S. Marine plotted mass murder and sexual assault to “decrease the number of minority residents” in the United States as part of his membership in a far-right neo-Nazi group, “Rapekrieg.”

Now to disabuse anyone of any notions that this is all just a simple misunderstanding -

In October 2020, Marine Corps officials and the FBI searched Belanger’s Marine Corps barracks housing and his electronic devices. They found “1,950 images, videos and documents related to white power groups, Nazi literature, brutality towards the Jewish community, brutality towards women, rape, mass murderers,” along with “violent uncensored executions and/or rape” and “previous mass murderers such as Dylan Roof.”

What does his lawyer say?

Belanger’s attorney, Leighton Lee, had argued that his client should be allowed home detention with an ankle monitor. In court documents, Lee claimed Belanger was not a flight risk in part because he had not fled despite being aware that he was under federal investigation for nearly two years.

Eyo fuck that. Nazi's, especially Nazi's with a hunger for rape, can rot in jail, kkthxbai.

- - - Updated - - -

AND THERE'S MORE!

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/te...ctive/3032288/

More than 20 Republican attorneys general including Texas' Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit Tuesday against President Joe Biden's administration over a Department of Agriculture school meal program that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The challenge, led by Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery, claims that the federal government is attempting to force states and schools to follow anti-discrimination requirements that "misconstrue the law."

The coalition of attorneys general are hoping for a similar result to a separate challenge from earlier this month when a Tennessee judge temporarily barred two federal agencies from enforcing directives issued by Biden's administration that extended protections for LGBTQ people in schools and workplaces.

Republicans want to starve LGBTQ+ kids now.

Just a reminder: Republicans hate children and the cruelty is absolutely the point.

[postman1782]

Wait, you can't possibly be suggesting Trump will testify.

Yeah, I dunno, I was just posting what the post said.

- - - Updated - - -

Whoa, it actually does say that at the end. talk about burying th lead! LOL

Wait, you can't possibly be suggesting Trump will testify.

Well, I dunno, the article does say Trump is testifying that day, but a judge has ordered Rudy Guiliani to testify that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/20/u...stigation.html

[Ripster42]

I'm pretty sure taking the 5th is grounds for firing them, with cause.

It's not. Literally what the 5th amendment is. The gov't can't punish you, which is what firing them would be, for not testifying. Please stop talking about american law.

[Breccia]

The gov't can't punish you, which is what firing them would be, for not testifying.

They could probably fire you for not following the rules of your job and the direct instructions of your commanding officer. Which would technically not be for taking the Fifth, but for failing to bring evidence when your boss says you have to. SCOTUS has already ruled on that, in 2009, and to the best of my knowledge it hasn't been overturned yet. It's not 100% the same thing, but basically, your boss can ask you to tell them what you did and if you refuse, he can fire you -- even in the government. Now, that still can't be used in a court of law against you.

As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, public employees may face discipline for failing to answer the employer’s questions so
long as two conditions are met: (1) the public employee must be advised of the fact that information given in the course of an internal
investigation will not be used in a subsequent criminal proceeding against the employee; and (2) the employee cannot be required to
waive his or her right to the privilege against self-incrimination under threat of job discipline.

To me, this looks like "testify or you're fired". Once you're fired, you can just, you know, still not testify while you're reading the help wanted ads.