Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Ripster42]

How about the person who declared himself the healthiest man to ever run for office? Be honest.

Read what he's saying. Trump is probably physically capable of maintaining a healthy weight. It's his brain that's mush.

[Breccia]

Read what he's saying. Trump is probably physically capable of maintaining a healthy weight. It's his brain that's mush.

Yeah, he said something like that before, I'm just trying to steer the conversation back on topic, namely, Trump and the people who support Trump. People who have no chance at a model going full sour grapes isn't really the issue in this thread, toxic opinions of MMO-C posters expressed or not.

[Kaleredar]

Read what he's saying. Trump is probably physically capable of maintaining a healthy weight. It's his brain that's mush.

I'd argue that's an even worse disqualifier for why someone like Trump should have ever been president.

"Hey, don't make fun of glorious leader for being fat. He'd be skinny, but he's just too stupid and mentally degraded to be!"

[Edge-]

https://thehill.com/news/house/34938...e-gop-no-vote/

The House passed a resolution on Wednesday condemning the rise of antisemitism in a nearly unanimous vote, with one Republican lawmaker objecting to the measure.

The resolution passed 420-1, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) representing the only vote against it. Eight other Republicans did not vote.

Now I'm trying to track down the actual vote on this, it doesn't seem public yet, but uh...is Massie alright? Should we be worried about him? Also, weird other Republicans didn't vote for this literal gimme that's the legislative equivalent of waving a piece of paper around saying "we're doing something!"

Oddly, this isn't the first time this resolution passed in recent years. It also did so in 2019 - https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/07/polit...mar/index.html

The vote was 407-23. Twenty-three Republicans voted against the measure, and all Democrats – including Omar – who voted voted in support of the resolution.

Weird...sensing a bit of a pattern here with the Republican party and their votes when it comes to *checks notes* saying that hating Jewish people is bad.

[Edge-]

https://projects.propublica.org/repr...17/house/2/213

Dope, thanks. So all 221 Democrats voted in support. Weird that this is apparently a feature of at least a not insignificant part of the Republican, not just a random bug.

Maybe they're just committed memers and really wanted it to pass with 420 votes. I mean, we know it's not true, but it's funnier than the alternatives.

[Poopymonster]

https://thehill.com/news/house/34938...e-gop-no-vote/



Now I'm trying to track down the actual vote on this, it doesn't seem public yet, but uh...is Massie alright? Should we be worried about him? Also, weird other Republicans didn't vote for this literal gimme that's the legislative equivalent of waving a piece of paper around saying "we're doing something!"

Oddly, this isn't the first time this resolution passed in recent years. It also did so in 2019 - https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/07/polit...mar/index.html



Weird...sensing a bit of a pattern here with the Republican party and their votes when it comes to *checks notes* saying that hating Jewish people is bad.

They're representing their constituents.

[Edge-]

They're representing their constituents.

I know. It's saying something about the Republican party, eh?

[some guy]

Does trust fund Tucker not have enough pull to get his son into Georgetown himself?

[Edge-]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/madiso...a=twitter_page

Thank fucking god Madison Cawthorn is not going quietly into the night.

Before vowing that this Dark MAGA would “defeat the cowardly and weak members of our own party,” Cawthorn said the “time for gentile politics as usual has come to an end,” presumably not in reference to the politics of non-Jews.

I mean...maybe he meant "gentle", because honestly he hasn't seemed to be very pro-antisemitism (despite being otherwise gross) and that's just a really weird choice of words. He's not even Jewish, so he's one of them gentiles.

I look forward to the great things this loser won't accomplish. Hopefully he can at least keep making enough money to keep his live-in male cousin taken care of.

[Poopymonster]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/madiso...a=twitter_page

Thank fucking god Madison Cawthorn is not going quietly into the night.



I mean...maybe he meant "gentle", because honestly he hasn't seemed to be very pro-antisemitism (despite being otherwise gross) and that's just a really weird choice of words. He's not even Jewish, so he's one of them gentiles.

I look forward to the great things this loser won't accomplish. Hopefully he can at least keep making enough money to keep his live-in male cousin taken care of.

Given the stereotypes, he's implying that he plans to use a shitload of money to buy what he wants politically. Such as donating to the "Let Cousin Fuckers Fuck Their Cousins" Superpac.

[Fugus]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/madiso...a=twitter_page

Thank fucking god Madison Cawthorn is not going quietly into the night.



I mean...maybe he meant "gentle", because honestly he hasn't seemed to be very pro-antisemitism (despite being otherwise gross) and that's just a really weird choice of words. He's not even Jewish, so he's one of them gentiles.

I look forward to the great things this loser won't accomplish. Hopefully he can at least keep making enough money to keep his live-in male cousin taken care of.

Maybe we get lucky and he goes scorched earth on the rest of the GOP and tries to burn down any who didn't fall in line with him and outing their stuff as much as they can. As a North Carolinian, hopefully about lots of people he met at the state level and praying he mentions a few of them.

[Breccia]

Thank fucking god Madison Cawthorn is not going quietly into the night.

So...when this comes down to the brawlfest I reeeeeeeeeeally hope it is, is this the GOP kicking him out for being a loser or being gay?

[PhaelixWW]

So...when this comes down to the brawlfest I reeeeeeeeeeally hope it is, is this the GOP kicking him out for being a loser or being gay?

Porque no los dos?

To be fair, though, GoP leadership might not actually care that he's gay, just that he got caught at it.

The cultists, on the other hand, probably consider being gay worse than murder, so...

[shimerra]

Being obese is a moral failing in the vast majority of cases. I think you probably know this, no matter how hard that rationalization motor spins to make excuses for people that are sedentary and gluttonous. That's actually one of the good things about how this one works - you usually can't actually visualize the results of a lack of character, but you sure can with fat people.

I mean if you consider me using historical fact to correct your blatantly false statements rationalizing then we've run into another case of you not understanding what words mean. Which is also funny as you rationalize your own shitty morals by thinking that somehow being an ideal weight automatically makes you a better person and being overweight makes you a worse person. I guess you do you. Let me know when you invent that time machine and manage to completely change historical differences as to what constitutes the perfect or most beautiful person.


I just disagree with it being some major moral failing, especially when obese can mean people anywhere from 20 lbs over weight but still overall physical fit/healthy to 800 lbs and needing help to wipe their own ass because they're too fat to reach it. And if we're going off of character I'd happily take moral failure exhibited by an obese person than the lack of morality demonstrated by the words you vomit onto this forum through your fingers. I don't know this mostly because it's not true and I considering "knowing" something to be true when it isn't a fairly stupid thing to do.


To reiterate correcting your incorrect statements is not rationalizing and I will definitely disagree with such a blatantly stupid premise that obesity is some automatic moral failure and question the ability of anyone who'd suggest it is to zip their own pants without help. Especially one that tries to hand waive objective economic realities like poverty, a job market that has become overwhelmingly less physical, and food deserts as rationalizations. Being obese is a moral failing in your opinion, not as a statement of fact, and one at least partially rooted in the fact that you think people have a duty to try and strive for what you personally consider physically attractive. And considering the lack of morality you choose to display on these forums I'd say if you are obese it's the least of your worries.

Of course, there's the matter of someone appearing on Sports Illustrated's cover being a figure that's inviting commentary on their physique. Commenting on the physique of some rando from Facebook really would be rude and inappropriate, but commenting on the physique of someone whose job is entirely about looking good is clearly fair game.

And there's also the matter that Jordan Peterson, a public figure as well, after criticizing someone's physique and inviting every ounce of backlash he's receiving deciding to throw a tantrum as a supposed proponent of free speech. Seems like quite the moral failure from someone who claims to support free speech to cry when people use it against him in the same fashion he decided to comment on someone else. Thank God he's so skinny or he'd be a truly terrible person.

And for the record I personally don't even find her attractive. I just unlike you don't see the need to give her or people who do find her attractive unnecessary shit to make myself feel better. The appropriate action in that situation is to just fuck off. People going out of their way to insult her and being major assholes sure aren't showing very good morals regardless of their weight. I just felt it necessary to comment on the ridiculous notion that being obese is an automatic moral failure.

[Poopymonster]

For ratting them out on cocaine fueled orgies.

As long as they were straight orgies, it's ok.

[Rasulis]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander?

Conservatives fume over tech industry’s ‘shadow docket’ play

Progressives outraged over the use of the Supreme Court’s emergency “shadow docket” to resolve legal fights over issues like abortion and immigration got some company this week from an unexpected group — conservative skeptics of the tech industry.

The tech platforms’ foes on the right are fuming about a crush of pro-Silicon Valley lawyering that has hit the high court in the past seven days, as the industry's allies urge Justice Samuel Alito to block a Texas law that forbids social media companies from “censoring” their users. Legal briefs from groups supporting the industry have outnumbered pro-Texas briefs by 4 to 1, leaving Republicans to complain that tech is again using its wealth and muscle to overwhelm its critics.

The Texas law (HB 20) would have a titanic impact on social media worldwide, limiting the ability of platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to remove content that they consider harmful, extremist or otherwise objectionable. Two tech industry groups filed an emergency petition with the court May 13 seeking to head that off, setting the stage for a decision that could come as soon as Friday.

The tech industry will “pay the best lawyers in D.C. to have a pile of amicus briefs” in front of the justices, said Rachel Bovard, senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute, who supports the Texas law. “Meanwhile, the rest of us are scrambling.”

The shadow docket petition in the tech case came from tech lobbying groups NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, which among other arguments said the Texas law could bring a flood of frivolous lawsuits against social media companies.

“It’s kind of frankly ridiculous to me that NetChoice is using the shadow docket,” said Bovard, adding that it was originally meant for execution stays and other life-and-death issues. “It's just egregious to me. It's so arrogant that they would put this in front of SCOTUS right now.”

Adam Candeub, a law professor who held senior posts in former President Donald Trump’s Commerce and Justice departments, also questioned the pro-tech side’s use of the shadow docket.

“The whole idea that there's this huge need for immediate action, that there's this great irreparable injury that will be created, is kind of crazy,” said Candeub, who had played a key role in Trump’s efforts to punish social media companies accused of censoring conservatives.

NetChoice and CCIA filed their emergency Supreme Court decision just two days later, followed by eight friend-of-the-court briefs from a broad collection of lawyers and advocacy groups. Supporters of the tech position spanned the political spectrum, including the Texas branch of the NAACP and the libertarian Cato Institute.

In contrast, right-wing populists who back the Texas law struggled to rally the troops ahead of the court’s Wednesday filing deadline. Texas got support from only two amicus briefs, in addition to a brief filed by state Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Given the short turnaround time required by the shadow docket, Bovard said she’d struggled to find lawyers who can weigh in on Texas’ side. One reason, she said, was the tech industry’s aggressive hiring of lawyers in recent years.

“Anyone who has a [Supreme Court] bar at a law firm is conflicted out by the fact that Google’s bought out every law firm,” said Bovard, who framed the conflict as one between tech industry goliaths and a “small, straggly band” of tech-skeptical conservatives.

Not sure how the second most populous state in the US joined by a dozen other states would be considered "small, straggly band."

The Supreme Court bar part was news to me. I thought any licensed lawyers can argue a case in the Supreme Court.

Bar admission is essential for attorneys practicing before the court. “For nearly all purposes, the rules of the Court require that every party (unless appearing pro se) be represented by at least one member in good standing of the Supreme Court Bar,” according to a leading Supreme Court treatise, Stephen M. Shapiro et al., “Supreme Court Practice” §20.1 (10th ed. 2013).

I wonder how many Supreme Court bar members have conflict of interests because they represented one of the giant tech companies in the past.

[gondrin]

Well, this can belong in either this thread or the RvW thread. So here goes.

Trump is afraid that suburban women will punish him(doesn't he pay for that anyway) for bringing in judges to overturn RvW.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...e38422513aa404

Trump is telling close allies that 'suburban women' could punish him for the overturning of Roe v Wade, hurting his 2024 reelection chances, report says

Former President Donald Trump is telling his close allies that the potential overturning of Roe v Wade could cost him politically, hurting his chances of winning reelection should he run again in 2024, according to Rolling Stone.

Citing sources familiar with the matter, Rolling Stone reported that Trump has been telling allies that the issue of abortion could turn "suburban women" against him.

"Suburban women have been a recurring concern for [former] President Trump, including during the 2020 campaign, when his smarter advisers were sounding the alarm to him about how he was losing suburbs," a source said, per Rolling Stone.

"He is … worried women in the suburbs could punish him for this one day, [too]," the source continued.

Since a draft opinion to overturn Roe v Wade was leaked, Trump has been uncharacteristically quiet about it. He has not referenced it on Truth Social and has only once alluded to it once during a rally, Rolling Stone reported. Two sources told the media outlet that the silence is "intentional and calculated."

Trump has reportedly been telling allies that suburban women don't like hearing about the issue as they are typically more pro-choice than the mainstream of the Republican Party, according to Rolling Stone.

He has told several associates that his enemies could "use it against him" in 2024 if he went too hard now on pushing for the overturning of Roe v Wade, the media outlet said.

"'Suburban women — some who voted for me — they don't like it when we talk about it," Trump reportedly said at a small gathering this month, a source told Rolling Stone.

Trump once described himself as pro-choice. Speaking to NBC in 1999, he declared: "I'm very pro-choice."

His position changed by the time he became president. In 2016, he promised to select judges for the Supreme Court who would "automatically" overturn Roe v Wade. Three of his appointees — Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch — have reportedly agreed to the draft opinion.

Trump's post-presidency office did not respond to Insider's request for comment on Saturday morning.

[DarkTZeratul]

Well, this can belong in either this thread or the RvW thread. So here goes.

Trump is afraid that suburban women will punish him(doesn't he pay for that anyway) for bringing in judges to overturn RvW.

Yeah, turns out when you're a populist shill who vocally supports whatever you think will get people to vote for you, that leads to policies you really disagree with actually being implemented. Who knew?

[postman1782]

Apparently the group that went after him is now vowing to go after Boebert. Can’t wait for that tea.

Well, they have plenty to work with. I mean, the dumbass failed her GED test twice before passing, only 8 months before she was elected congressman, she was on that website where they find political people, forgot what the name of it is, but they found Cawthorn, Bimboebert, Candace Owens and a bunch of others, she poisoned hundreds of people with food poisoning with her restaurant, her husband is a registered sex offender, flashed himself to 17 year old girls, one of which was Boebert, oh, and they have weapons in their house with a convicted felon, she took pictures with those weapons, and then she is directly implicated in the January 6th insurrection directing people to where Pelosi was. She knew it was coming because she was shouting "patriot" terrorist slogans on Twitter.

[Dontrike]

DJTJ is still trying to prove how manly he is by shooting large animals. This time it was a bear and the guide is facing 5 years in prison for baiting.



It’s weird how many fraudsters the Trumps surround themselves with.

You'd think as the man that paid to have that done and did it (Jr) would also face prison time.