Opinion The Trump-onslaught: Dems are losing the online information battle to Trump and Musk

[AWilder]

Amazing there are still people who believe the Russia hoax.

LMAO, imagine thinking this response doesn't make you look twice as stupid.

 

[Scerpi]

Both are true. But lets not fool ourselves about why the party of banning books etc, became adamantly pro-free speech, seemingly out of nowhere.

Fuck off... Banning pornography in Elementary schools should be an easy call.

Who wants kids reading graphic stories about gay sex.

 

[ringking1982]

Fuck off... Banning pornography in Elementary schools should be an easy call.

Who wants kids reading graphic stories about gay sex.

This is why the democrats overwhelming lost the election. Many of them are actually brain dead.

 

[UberHere]

Fuck off... Banning pornography in Elementary schools should be an easy call.

Who wants kids reading graphic stories about gay sex.

This is the correct answer

 

[UberHere]

This is why the democrats overwhelming lost the election. Many of them are actually brain dead.

The ones who aren’t complete retards are sexual deviants. The Democrat party right now is a literal freak show.

 

[Andy Capp]

That’s the thing with this whole Project 2025 blueprint: when you do everything by executive order, regardless of whether it’s illegal or unconstitutional, it can be done super quickly. It doesn’t take long to draft and sign executive orders, and there’s not many ways to fight back.

Litigating it is the only real solution, and that’s a slow process. You can do it with legislation, maybe…but since these agencies are already funded with legislation and that’s just being ignored anyhow, that doesn’t seem a viable path. Even less so when Dems are the minority party.

Yes, I think it's been pretty obvious since the beginning the reason they are in so much of a hurry to do everything is to not only solidify their hold while the cases wind their way through the court system, but also to flood the courts with cases. The number of cases that Trump faced before the election seemed to help delay all of them except the least consequential one. Anyway, this is not a new tactic for Trump.

 

[Crazy Source]

It’s definitely a challenge to the impoundments clause, hence the rush to achieve as much as possible during the stop-gap period.
The President does have a duty to ensure the constitutional validity of executive branch use of funds, so I think they’re going after the most legally challenged stuff during the stopgap.
JMO, I’m no attorney.
This is a pretty fair write up on it..

There Is A Legal Path For The President To Impound Funds

A U.S. president has the authority to not spend (or impound) funds provided by Congress, but a legal procedure must be followed that involves congressional approval.

www.forbes.com

So, there is a legal path. Trump and Musk aren't taking that path, so why even bring it up?

 

[Andy Capp]

But OJ can technically sue for defamation though. Or a Casey Anthony for example.

It's just they would have to meet certain conditions that would be hard for OJ because he would have to prove the claim is false.

There are no legal consequences unless:

1. The person accused of being a murderer can demonstrate that the claim is false.
2. The claim was made in a way that it would be understood in that context to be a factual claim and not hyperbole, ridicule, or opinion.
3. The claim caused some actual damages. That is, it was actually taken seriously enough to cause harm and did cause harm.
4. If the claim was about a matter of public importance, the claim was made knowing it was false or recklessly disregarding the possibility that it was false.

Yes defamation is hard to win, but in these cases I actually think he could have won if he really went hard against them in court (they settled instead.)

The stations kept emphasizing "he's a rapist" to do damage to him. That's usually the hardest part to prove in defamation cases - That there was actual damage.

And I also think he can prove the claims are false. There is literally zero evidence. It's all based on her claims where she doesn't even remember the year or date.

People hate Trump so much, they just completely ignore the absolute lack of evidence. It is quite astonishing. Cognitive dissonance is a real thing for a lot of people. They just choose to believe something because they want to. I just try to call balls and strikes.

Yeah, the Big Orange Turd will have trouble establishing #3.

 

[Andy Capp]

Fuck off... Banning pornography in Elementary schools should be an easy call.

Who wants kids reading graphic stories about gay sex.

Do you think a children's book relating a true story of two male penguins adopting a baby penguin and raising it is pornography?

 

[Crazy Source]

Still on this. Sad

That isn't a rebuttal.

 

[b-hop]

The true is way more simple. The left can only resonate with emotions and idealism. They don't pass a pragmatic message at all.

Is simply irrational or unpragmatic to say millions pouring to the country its a good thing, there is not logic argument for that, or that a woman can be a man and vice-versa.

About socialist policies, taxation, environment concerns, there i can see a logic train of thought even though i disagree about some.

 

[BFoe]

Any sources, examples, ect?

Ok, soooooooo.....what books were banned?

PEN America is a non-profit organization primarily made up of writers, book illustrators, book editors and publishers, and people like that, and they’ve been tracking all of the books banned throughout the country.

I’ll drop some stats in here, and also mention some specific banning that I think are troubling. @west42 you can find the answer to your question in this index of all banned books. Florida is leading the nation in these, and I guess they’re probably delighted to be #1 at something finally.
In the 2021-2022 school year, the bans broke down as follows, by category. Interestingly, books with “sexually explicit content” included books anout puberty, books that touch on themes like teen pregnancy, and stuff like that—and all together made up only 22% of banded books. Barely 1/5th. So what is it they’re really banning?

• 41 percent explicitly address LGBTQ+ themes or have protagonists or prominent secondary characters who are LGBTQ+ (this includes a specific subset of titles for transgender characters or stories—145 titles, or 9 percent);
• 40 percent contain protagonists or prominent secondary characters of color;
• 21 percent directly address issues of race and racism;
• 22 percent contain sexual content of varying kinds, as I described above.

Simply having characters of color, or characters that are queer, make up 81% of the banded books.

The next year, 2022-2023, bans increased 33%, with 3362 instances books banned. Once again, “Overwhelmingly, book bans target books on race or racism or featuring characters of color, as well as books with LGBTQ+ characters. And this year, banned books also include books on physical abuse, health and well-being, and themes of grief and death.”

We’ve seen some very interesting bans, like when Republicans in FL banned Holocaust textbooks for being “woke.”
Or the book Maus, which is a graphic novel about the true story of the author’s parents’ experiences during the Holocaust (Maus isn’t intended for small kids btw, but ages 12+).

It’s also important to note that most of these books are not part of any curriculum, so students aren’t made to read them. They’re simply available in classrooms or libraries where students could choose to read them.

I think there’s a pretty good picture of what’s going on here. Republicans are trying to rid schools of any educational resource for minority students—and they’re covering it up by pretending they’re “protecting the children” from supposed sexually explicit material or porn, which they allege that the evil groomer liberals are forcing on kids.
It’s garbage.

 

[UberHere]

The true is way more simple. The left can only resonate with emotions and idealism. They don't pass a pragmatic message at all.

Is simply irrational or unpragmatic to say millions pouring to the country its a good thing, there is not logic argument for that, or that a woman can be a man and vice-versa.

About socialist policies, taxation, environment concerns, there i can see a logic train of thought even though i disagree about some.

In the 90’s and early 2000’s they were the rational and pragmatic party. Now they’re like the religious right was back then but way way worse.

 

[UberHere]

That isn't a rebuttal.

You haven’t made a valid point to rebut

 

[BFoe]

You haven’t made a valid point to rebut

His point bothered you enough to comment on it. Go ahead and try and prove it wrong.

 

[Blayt7hh]

But OJ can technically sue for defamation though. Or a Casey Anthony for example.

It's just they would have to meet certain conditions that would be hard for OJ because he would have to prove the claim is false.

There are no legal consequences unless:

1. The person accused of being a murderer can demonstrate that the claim is false.
2. The claim was made in a way that it would be understood in that context to be a factual claim and not hyperbole, ridicule, or opinion.
3. The claim caused some actual damages. That is, it was actually taken seriously enough to cause harm and did cause harm.
4. If the claim was about a matter of public importance, the claim was made knowing it was false or recklessly disregarding the possibility that it was false.

Yes defamation is hard to win, but in these cases I actually think he could have won if he really went hard against them in court (they settled instead.)

The stations kept emphasizing "he's a rapist" to do damage to him. That's usually the hardest part to prove in defamation cases - That there was actual damage.

And I also think he can prove the claims are false. There is literally zero evidence. It's all based on her claims where she doesn't even remember the year or date.

People hate Trump so much, they just completely ignore the absolute lack of evidence. It is quite astonishing. Cognitive dissonance is a real thing for a lot of people. They just choose to believe something because they want to. I just try to call balls and strikes.

You’re explaining how if OJs case was different it would qualify. I understand that. My point in bringing that up is that a not guilty charge doesn’t mean you can’t still accuse them of the crime in public.

The damage does not really matter if the station has reason to believe the claim. You say there is no evidence but that’s actually not true. He’s been accused by a lot of different people women of assault or rape, including his ex wife.

Btw I just looked it up, and the jury found him not guilty of rape because they determined that only his fingers forcibly entered her. In New York law that doesn’t qualify as rape. The judge in his opinion called it rape “in the plain sense of the word”. So if a news station is calling it rape if he used his fingers, do you really think that’s wrong?

How the jury determined he sexually assaulted her I don’t quite understand. But that’s neither her nor there. The fact that they did more than justifies the claim that he is a rapist by journalists. This is not defamation.

 

[BFoe]

But OJ can technically sue for defamation though. Or a Casey Anthony for example.

It's just they would have to meet certain conditions that would be hard for OJ because he would have to prove the claim is false.

There are no legal consequences unless:

1. The person accused of being a murderer can demonstrate that the claim is false.
2. The claim was made in a way that it would be understood in that context to be a factual claim and not hyperbole, ridicule, or opinion.
3. The claim caused some actual damages. That is, it was actually taken seriously enough to cause harm and did cause harm.
4. If the claim was about a matter of public importance, the claim was made knowing it was false or recklessly disregarding the possibility that it was false.

OJ had already been found liable for wrongful death, so I don’t really see what case he’d have had in civil court if he’d sued.

 

[Halge]

The Democrats are losing the online information battle to a man who is currently praising Sergey Lavrov as a model of competent leadership.



You remember? The guy who denied Russia had invaded Crimea, and Donbas, and then the entire rest of the country?
"What miles-long convoy of military vehicles outside of Kiev? I don't know anything about any miles-long convoy of military vehicles outside of Kiev."

 

[UberHere]

His point bothered you enough to comment on it. Go ahead and try and prove it wrong.

Maybe open a 4th grade social studies book. Which branch of government has the power of purse?

The executive isn’t “blocking allocated funds to Congress”. That’s the Treasury who does that. Not the same thing as shutting down wasteful government programs which does fall under executive and judicial powers.

 

[Hog-train]

The damage does not really matter if the station has reason to believe the claim. You say there is no evidence but that’s actually not true. He’s been accused by a lot of different people women of assault or rape, including his ex wife.

He was accused in other instances but that is not part of this case and irrelevant. Nor was he found to be culpable in any court of law. It was all accusations in the media.

Btw I just looked it up, and the jury found him not guilty of rape because they determined that only his fingers forcibly entered her. In New York law that doesn’t qualify as rape. The judge in his opinion called it rape “in the plain sense of the word”. So if a news station is calling it rape if he used his fingers, do you really think that’s wrong?

How the jury determined he sexually assaulted her I don’t quite understand. But that’s neither her nor there. The fact that they did more than justifies the claim that he is a rapist by journalists. This is not defamation.

Yea but there is literally zero evidence any of this happened. That's the problem. It's just her claiming it happened. Do you believe OJ or Casey Anthony are not guilty just because the court found not guilty? Obviously not, we look at the evidence.

This allegedly happened in 1995 or 1996. At that time, she was an unattractive women in her mid-50's FFS. Strains credibility. Why TF would a famous and rich Trump who owned the Ms. Universe pageant rape some 50 something year old in the dressing room of a department store?

If anyone actually took the time to look into the actual facts and evidence objectively, it is pretty obvious this was a politically motivated hit job.

NY literally changed the statute of limitations to be able to sue someone in (only) civil court
for sex related crimes decades in the past. This law expired after only one year.

Then E Jean Carroll sues him literally the day after with zero evidence. And has no idea what year or date this supposedly happened. Her only evidence is that she told a friend about it 30 years ago. The timing of her "recollection" very odd, right at the same time she is coming out with a book.

Then she made a whole bunch of really bizarre comments over the years as well.