Miscellaneous Trump (2 Viewers)

[Huntn]

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'​

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the 2024 election.

www.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – It looks like American politics is entering a new age of anxiety, triggered by an unprecedented legal development: The potential indictment of a former president and current presidential candidate.

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests by his followers – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the unknowable impact all this will have on the already-tense 2024 presidential election

I’ll reframe this is a more accurate way, Are Presidents above the law? This new age was spurred into existence when home grown dummies elected a corrupt, mentally ill, anti-democratic, would be dictator as President and don’t bother to hold him responsible for his crimes, don’t want to because in the ensuing mayhem and destruction, they think they will be better off. The man is actually advocating violence (not the first time). And btw, screw democracy too. If this feeling spreads, we are In deep shirt.

This goes beyond one treasonous Peice of work and out to all his minions. This is on you or should we be sympathetic to the idea of they can’t help being selfish suckers to the Nation’s detriment? Donald Trump is the single largest individual threat to our democracy and it‘s all going to boil down to will the majority of the GOP return to his embrace and start slinging his excrement to support him?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Gotta pay up to stay in Trump’s good graces
==================


Major donors to Donald Trump’s inaugural committee are having to contribute twice as much to get direct access to him and vice-president-elect JD Vance at private events around the swearing-in ceremony compared with the first inauguration, according to fundraising materials.

The ability to briefly interact with Trump and Vance requires donors to contribute at least $1m to the committee – the highest-tier ticket package – in a marked increase from the previous cycle when the same access cost $500,000.

That top-tier package provides donors and lobbyists seeking to curry favor with the second Trump administration with two tickets to a dinner with the vice president-elect and six tickets to the “candlelight dinner” where Trump will be in attendance.

The increased donation amounts needed to have face time with Trump and Vance reflects the dramatic increase in demand to get on his good side after a divisive election where many deep-pocketed donors stood on the sidelines waiting to see the outcome.

With Trump’s imminent return to the White House and his known personal interest in who has supported him, according to people familiar with the matter, a number of people expected to have business before the federal government have made major donations at the $1m level.

The inaugural committee has raised over $170m and expects to ultimately receive $200m, the people said, meaning the committee is overfunded and has paid for the costs to put on the various receptions, lunches, dinners and balls several times over……..

Access to Trump and Vance is twice as expensive for donors at inauguration

Exclusive: dinners with both the president and vice president-elect will cost $1m, up from $500,000

www.theguardian.com

Mo' Money...Mo' Money!

Trump’s property company in talks to buy back his Washington DC hotel​

Trump International hotel, currently a Waldorf Astoria, was a venue for influence peddling, opponents say.

Donald Trump’s property company is in negotiations to re-purchase his Washington hotel, which opponents say was a venue for illicit influence peddling during his first presidency.
The Trump International hotel, housed in the city’s old post office building a short walk from the White House, was sold in 2022 and is now the Waldorf Astoria.

The president-elect’s son, Eric Trump, who is an executive vice-president at his father’s company, met a senior executive from BDT & MSD Partners, the merchant bank that controls its long term lease, at the family’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida this week to discuss buying it back, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Talks are said to be at an early stage.
Trump opened the hotel in 2016, the same year he was first elected president, four years after winning a fierce bidding competition to buy the lease against other hotel operators, including Marriott and Hilton.
He spent about $200m turning it into an “ultra-luxury” hotel, according to Forbes.
But while it became a magnet during his presidency for Trump admirers, lobbyists and Republican Congress members, it generated less annual revenue than anticipated, the website reported, dropping to $20m – well short of the $100m-plus expected – after the Covid-19 pandemic struck.

He sold the leasing rights for $375m about 18 months after his 2020 election defeat at the hands of Joe Biden.

Trump’s property company in talks to buy back his Washington DC hotel

Trump International hotel, currently a Waldorf Astoria, was a venue for influence peddling, opponents say

www.theguardian.com

 

[fooferdoggie]

Mo' Money...Mo' Money!

​

​

he has so many ways now to get money from foreign governments why bother? he has his 10,000 fake watches his crypto that really lets him take the money in why the hotel too?

 

[superchuck500]

The wild thing is that there are literally people in Congress talking this week about what a staunch defender of free speech Trump is

 

[horse2H5]

The wild thing is that there are literally people in Congress talking this week about what a staunch defender of free speech Trump is

Do you think he is limiting free speech? Can he not speak out over things he disagree's with? Saying he can't say this would be limiting free speech, no?

 

[Dragon]

Do you think he is limiting free speech? Can he not speak out over things he disagree's with? Saying he can't say this would be limiting free speech, no?

Saying that someone should pay a lot of money for broadcasting against him IS LITERALLY Trump trying to limit free speech. He is the one doing it.
But you already know that. You use the same approach again and again in multiple threads.

 

[superchuck500]

Do you think he is limiting free speech? Can he not speak out over things he disagree's with? Saying he can't say this would be limiting free speech, no?

The president-elect saying there "should" be penalty for what is otherwise clearly free speech is stifling to free speech - and, as of a count last October, he has made such threats against broadcasters at least 15 times in the last two years. The First Amendment prohibits government action against protected speech (which Myers' comments clearly are).

As private citizen Trump he can certainly say it and I never said he can't. But as president can't attempt to act on that belief that he clearly has - but that's all beside the point. The point I made was that there are people in the world of MAGA and GOP who say ridiculous things like how much Trump supports free speech. He only supports pro-Trump speech - and has a very clear record of stating that speech he doesn't like should be punished in various forms.

 

[horse2H5]

Saying that someone should pay a lot of money for broadcasting against him IS LITERALLY Trump trying to limit free speech. He is the one doing it.
But you already know that. You use the same approach again and again in multiple threads.

Well, you guys seem to only see one side of every single subject. By you saying he can't say that is LITERALLY wanting to limit his speech.

I don't think the government is shutting them down or fining them in any way. He is telling his supporters to not support Comcast.

Am I doing something in multiple threads against rules or am I just pointing out the hypocrisy of some stated positions? Are you wanting to limit my speech. (I'm kidding-----halfway

 

[superchuck500]

Well, you guys seem to only see one side of every single subject. By you saying he can't say that is LITERALLY wanting to limit his speech.

I don't think the government is shutting them down or fining them in any way. He is telling his supporters to not support Comcast.

Am I doing something in multiple threads against rules or am I just pointing out the hypocrisy of some stated positions? Are you wanting to limit my speech. (I'm kidding-----halfway

Please point to where someone said he can't say that.

And sorry but "they should lose their license" is not the same as telling his supporters not to support Comcast. Yes, it's rhetoric . . . at least until January 20.

 

[horse2H5]

The president-elect saying there "should" be penalty for what is otherwise clearly free speech is stifling to free speech - and, as of a count last October, he has made such threats against broadcasters at least 15 times in the last two years. The First Amendment prohibits government action against protected speech (which Myers' comments clearly are).

As private citizen Trump he can certainly say it and I never said he can't. But as president can't attempt to act on that belief that he clearly has - but that's all beside the point. The point I made was that there are people in the world of MAGA and GOP who say ridiculous things like how much Trump supports free speech. He only supports pro-Trump speech - and has a very clear record of stating that speech he doesn't like should be punished in various forms.

Fair. Does not every single politician do the same thing? Does that not happen on this board every day? It just seems odd that the left consistently points at trump like he is doing something that isn't done every day. The only difference is that he is "in your face with it" and not worried if he hurts your feelings. (your is not you particularly)

 

[horse2H5]

Please point to where someone said he can't say that.

And sorry but "they should lose their license" is not the same as telling his supporters not to support Comcast. Yes, it's rhetoric . . . at least until January 20.

I must have missed the lose their license part.

 

[superchuck500]

Fair. Does not every single politician do the same thing? Does that not happen on this board every day? It just seems odd that the left consistently points at trump like he is doing something that isn't done every day. The only difference is that he is "in your face with it" and not worried if he hurts your feelings. (your is not you particularly)

No, I don't think you can show me a mainstream politician with a history of at least 15 various forms of complaining that obviously protected speech should be penalized.

For example, I'd love to get your defense of this statement by Trump in a speech on August 17: “I believe it’s illegal what they do,” Trump said. “I believe they are playing the ref. They’re constantly criticizing our great — some of our greatest justices and a lot of great judges. … Playing the ref with our judges and our justices should be punishable by very serious fines and beyond that.”

First of all, Trump complaining about people criticizing judges is completely whacko - he's literally the most accomplished judge-trashing figure in modern American history. But he's talking about real punishment for criticizing judges (and in a similar comment, criticizing cases). And this commentary from him started a few weeks after the SCOTUS ruled on his immunity petition . . . so I think it's fair context that he was seeing some of the critical commentary about that ruling.

Do you not see the issue here when the president is the one making these comments? Nobody here is saying he's somehow prohibited from saying them, we're saying the content here is very adverse to free speech. And claiming that he's some free speech advocate or that this is ordinary stuff from American politics are both ridiculous ideas.

 

[horse2H5]

No, I don't think you can show me a mainstream politician with a history of at least 15 various forms of complaining that obviously protected speech should be penalized.

For example, I'd love to get your defense of this statement by Trump in a speech on August 17: “I believe it’s illegal what they do,” Trump said. “I believe they are playing the ref. They’re constantly criticizing our great — some of our greatest justices and a lot of great judges. … Playing the ref with our judges and our justices should be punishable by very serious fines and beyond that.”

First of all, Trump complaining about people criticizing judges is completely whacko - he's literally the most accomplished judge-trashing figure in modern American history. But he's talking about real punishment for criticizing judges (and in a similar comment, criticizing cases). And this commentary from him started a few weeks after the SCOTUS ruled on his immunity petition . . . so I think it's fair context that he was seeing some of the critical commentary about that ruling.

Do you not see the issue here when the president is the one making these comments? Nobody here is saying he's somehow prohibited from saying them, we're saying the content here is very adverse to free speech. And claiming that he's some free speech advocate or that this is ordinary stuff from American politics are both ridiculous ideas.

We all know he is a bloviator.

What has he actually done to limit anyones speech? Adversely, do not forget, he was banned from social media. Now I understand you argument of him being the president and the others private companies, but I understand why it bothers him. I also understand why conservatives feel they have been suppressed. They are not delineating from private to public, but why should they.

I would imagine if we saw the numbers of Democrat posters here banned vs Republican, I would imagine the number would lean heavily one way because of the type of community this is. Is that suppressing speech, YES. Is it illegal, NO.

If a poster gets on here and starts talking about how politicians should be hung if they support abortion. Is that person suppressing speech, NO. Is it illegal, NO. Yet they may be banned.

However, one is looked down upon and the other isn't.

I understand what you are saying with Trump. Trump is a blowhard and I don't let it bother me. I support many of his ideas, I disagree with many and I pay no attention to many. If that makes me a bad person O WELL!!

I don't trust politicians. I support Trump, because he is upsetting the apple cart. Washington is full of a bunch of ivory tower sitters, using the masses to fill their pockets.

 

[Dragon]

We all know he is a bloviator.

What has he actually done to limit anyones speech? Adversely, do not forget, he was banned from social media. Now I understand you argument of him being the president and the others private companies, but I understand why it bothers him. I also understand why conservatives feel they have been suppressed. They are not delineating from private to public, but why should they.

I would imagine if we saw the numbers of Democrat posters here banned vs Republican, I would imagine the number would lean heavily one way because of the type of community this is. Is that suppressing speech, YES. Is it illegal, NO.

If a poster gets on here and starts talking about how politicians should be hung if they support abortion. Is that person suppressing speech, NO. Is it illegal, NO. Yet they may be banned.

However, one is looked down upon and the other isn't.

I understand what you are saying with Trump. Trump is a blowhard and I don't let it bother me. I support many of his ideas, I disagree with many and I pay no attention to many. If that makes me a bad person O WELL!!

I don't trust politicians. I support Trump, because he is upsetting the apple cart. Washington is full of a bunch of ivory tower sitters, using the masses to fill their pockets.

You said ?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-threatens-lawsuit-des-moines-register-poll-media/

Trump frequently sues journalists or news organizations when he dislikes their coverage of him. For example, he sued The New York Times in 2021 over an opinion piece discussing his alleged tax schemes and CNN in 2022 for using the term 'the Big Lie' to describe his false claims about the 2020 election. These lawsuits, often dismissed as frivolous, are part of a broader strategy to intimidate critics and suppress unfavorable reporting.

Trump uses funds from his various PACs, such as Save America PAC, to cover his legal expenses. Meanwhile, the individuals and organizations he targets are forced to pay their own legal costs, which can reach millions. This tactic suppresses free speech by imposing potentially ruinous financial burdens, deterring people from speaking out—even when every word they write or say is entirely true.

This approach mirrors mob boss tactics designed to intimidate and silence dissent, leveraging financial pressure and legal threats as tools of suppression."

 

[superchuck500]

We all know he is a bloviator.

What has he actually done to limit anyones speech? Adversely, do not forget, he was banned from social media. Now I understand you argument of him being the president and the others private companies, but I understand why it bothers him. I also understand why conservatives feel they have been suppressed. They are not delineating from private to public, but why should they.

I would imagine if we saw the numbers of Democrat posters here banned vs Republican, I would imagine the number would lean heavily one way because of the type of community this is. Is that suppressing speech, YES. Is it illegal, NO.

If a poster gets on here and starts talking about how politicians should be hung if they support abortion. Is that person suppressing speech, NO. Is it illegal, NO. Yet they may be banned.

However, one is looked down upon and the other isn't.

I understand what you are saying with Trump. Trump is a blowhard and I don't let it bother me. I support many of his ideas, I disagree with many and I pay no attention to many. If that makes me a bad person O WELL!!

I don't trust politicians. I support Trump, because he is upsetting the apple cart. Washington is full of a bunch of ivory tower sitters, using the masses to fill their pockets.

It continues to blow my mind how thoughtful people (and you appear to be a thoughtful person - as opposed some of these blindly partisan types) would look at Trump, his true interests and record, and think that this is a person fighting for the masses. I get the culture war stuff and while I think it is misplaced, there's certainly some accuracy to the notion that Trump's views on the culture war match up with the views of a great many of his constituency. But when it comes to things like fighting corruption, or big business, or improving the status quo that favors rich and special interests by making them more democratic and favorable to the common man, I don't think you could find a person more antagonistic to that than Donald Trump.

But we digress - I think there's an obvious distinction to be made between a poster on a message board saying just about anything at all, versus the unquestioned leader of the majority party in the United States, who is the president-elect and soon to be president.

You're not wrong, though, that there remains a difference between rhetoric and action. For example, in 2017 Trump made a series of posts about how NBC should lose their license for reports that that Trump's military leaders had refuted some of his claims - and thereafter the FCC chairman simply said that the FCC wasn't going to take any action that violated the First Amendment . . . and that was the end of it. Just bluster from Trump, as it turned out.

But it's very clear that this time, Trump doesn't want anyone to take the view that the law prevails over Trump's directive - that's actually what the "deep state" is to Trump (federal officials or employees believing that the law requires something different than what Trump wants). So it's certainly fair to question whether it won't be different this time.

As of January 20, he will be the president of the United States. When he's speaking about issues that are within the sphere of the presidency, he IS the government. He's not the same as a private citizen.

 

[horse2H5]

It continues to blow my mind how thoughtful people (and you appear to be a thoughtful person - as opposed some of these blindly partisan types) would look at Trump, his true interests and record, and think that this is a person fighting for the masses. I get the culture war stuff and while I think it is misplaced, there's certainly some accuracy to the notion that Trump's views on the culture war match up with the views of a great many of his constituency. But when it comes to things like fighting corruption, or big business, or improving the status quo that favors rich and special interests by making them more democratic and favorable to the common man, I don't think you could find a person more antagonistic to that than Donald Trump.

But we digress - I think there's an obvious distinction to be made between a poster on a message board saying just about anything at all, versus the unquestioned leader of the majority party in the United States, who is the president-elect and soon to be president.

You're not wrong, though, that there remains a difference between rhetoric and action. For example, in 2017 Trump made a series of posts about how NBC should lose their license for reports that that Trump's military leaders had refuted some of his claims - and thereafter the FCC chairman simply said that the FCC wasn't going to take any action that violated the First Amendment . . . and that was the end of it. Just bluster from Trump, as it turned out.

But it's very clear that this time, Trump doesn't want anyone to take the view that the law prevails over Trump's directive - that's actually what the "deep state" is to Trump (federal officials or employees believing that the law requires something different than what Trump wants). So it's certainly fair to question whether it won't be different this time.

As of January 20, he will be the president of the United States. When he's speaking about issues that are within the sphere of the presidency, he IS the government. He's not the same as a private citizen.

I agree with most of this. I don't think he his looking out for the masses by any means. But he is listening to what the american people want and promoting that. Smart business honestly. Trump campaigned on america first. Coming up as a fight fan, chants of USA were everywhere. Over the last 20 years that has disappeared.

Instead of talking about the greatness of our country, politicians were apologizing that our country (just like every other major country in the world) had slaves. And then for the last so many years, the mantra (opposite of trump, but in my mind same tactics) was white man sucks. Specifically if he is a Christian.

My daughter who attends college in manhattan was told on day 1 her opinion didn't matter as much as the rest of the class on gender equity and inclusion class. There were 2 white kids in the class. Everyone in the class received an A except the 2 white kids. My childs only B in her life. I was livid. She said dad, i deserved a B. Of course I was flabbergasted. She said, both of us received B's because we did not participate in the discussions. But we didn't participate because we were told our opinions didn't really count. I read the "teacher review" she wrote and I could not be more proud of my child.

This is the type of stuff along with the boys playing in girls sports and the forcing of DEI in corporations along with the threat of destroying your life if you didn't take a shot......the Lion was awakened. And Trump has played a pretty good Ringmaster knowing what his audience wants.

We are not a monolithic voting base. This is just my perception and honestly the people that I know.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I agree with most of this. I don't think he his looking out for the masses by any means. But he is listening to what the american people want and promoting that. Smart business honestly. Trump campaigned on america first. Coming up as a fight fan, chants of USA were everywhere. Over the last 20 years that has disappeared.

Instead of talking about the greatness of our country, politicians were apologizing that our country (just like every other major country in the world) had slaves. And then for the last so many years, the mantra (opposite of trump, but in my mind same tactics) was white man sucks. Specifically if he is a Christian.

My daughter who attends college in manhattan was told on day 1 her opinion didn't matter as much as the rest of the class on gender equity and inclusion class. There were 2 white kids in the class. Everyone in the class received an A except the 2 white kids. My childs only B in her life. I was livid. She said dad, i deserved a B. Of course I was flabbergasted. She said, both of us received B's because we did not participate in the discussions. But we didn't participate because we were told our opinions didn't really count. I read the "teacher review" she wrote and I could not be more proud of my child.

This is the type of stuff along with the boys playing in girls sports and the forcing of DEI in corporations along with the threat of destroying your life if you didn't take a shot......the Lion was awakened. And Trump has played a pretty good Ringmaster knowing what his audience wants.

We are not a monolithic voting base. This is just my perception and honestly the people that I know.

There is no way this actually happened

 

[Saint by the Bay]

That is like a false rightwing fever dream post. It's the same stories, nearly word for word, I hear from all the "us po' white folks" culture warriors. It's like y'all get a starter kit with these stories in them.

If y'all are going to lie, at least spend the time to come up with different stories. I guess since Trump doesn't even put effort into his lies his acolytes don't think they have to either.

 

[Dragon]

I agree with most of this. I don't think he his looking out for the masses by any means. But he is listening to what the american people want and promoting that. Smart business honestly. Trump campaigned on america first. Coming up as a fight fan, chants of USA were everywhere. Over the last 20 years that has disappeared.

Instead of talking about the greatness of our country, politicians were apologizing that our country (just like every other major country in the world) had slaves. And then for the last so many years, the mantra (opposite of trump, but in my mind same tactics) was white man sucks. Specifically if he is a Christian.

My daughter who attends college in manhattan was told on day 1 her opinion didn't matter as much as the rest of the class on gender equity and inclusion class. There were 2 white kids in the class. Everyone in the class received an A except the 2 white kids. My childs only B in her life. I was livid. She said dad, i deserved a B. Of course I was flabbergasted. She said, both of us received B's because we did not participate in the discussions. But we didn't participate because we were told our opinions didn't really count. I read the "teacher review" she wrote and I could not be more proud of my child.

This is the type of stuff along with the boys playing in girls sports and the forcing of DEI in corporations along with the threat of destroying your life if you didn't take a shot......the Lion was awakened. And Trump has played a pretty good Ringmaster knowing what his audience wants.

We are not a monolithic voting base. This is just my perception and honestly the people that I know.

And back to the topic of gender again...

If this story is true—and you certainly seem to have many of them when it comes to LGBTQ+ issues—then I have to say, while I don’t know your daughter or how she expresses herself, if she used language similar to some of the things you’ve written here about LGBTQ+ individuals, I can understand why her classmates wouldn’t support such opinions.

Statements suggesting that LGBTQ+ individuals are 'sick,' 'abused,' or 'evil' for expressing themselves or wearing clothing aligned with their gender identity are not conducive to a constructive discussion. Similarly, if she echoed some of the prejudiced views on race that you’ve shared here, that could also explain the negative reception.

In a class focused on gender equity and inclusion, openly displaying such prejudices would easily justify receiving a lower grade, as these attitudes undermine the principles of respect and open dialogue that such a course is designed to foster.