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

[Darkballs]

It was obviously orchestrated to take him out with lawfare.

It was a civil claim. The fed, or the state of NY, had no control over whether or not a private citizen would file one.

And to those of you who cry about the change in the statute of limitations as your favorite made up word (lawfare; for fucks sake), no. That did not pertain just to trump, nor is it novel. The state of Louisiana (and others) did a similar thing so that catholic priests could still get sued.

Trump was found liable by a jury because he made a shit defense. He sat there and threw insults in a deposition where he came off so flustered and forgetful that he confused one of his wives with the plaintiff. The jury saw that and didn't find him credible. I know that seems impossible for you lot, because daddy could never look dumb. But have you considered that, instead of a nationwide conspiracy to frame him, maybe, just maybe, your boy looked like an ass and the jury didn't buy it?

 

[Crazy Source]

They do see it, they just don't care. Nobody actually believes Trump is a rapist. It's just a talking point to throw at people. Unfortunately for them, that talking point has about as much substance as the evidence against Trump.

Because it's such a stretch that a guy that literally brags about grabbing pussy is guilty of sexual assault. I would be surprised if Trump doesn't have a trail of victims from his 78 years. He is an A-1 choice scumbag of the highest order. An absolute horror of a human being.

 

[Hog-train]

If there was something that came out in discovery that wasn’t disclosed then obviously that changes things. I can all talk about what we know. But we don’t have that information. A lot of lawyers have been asking the question why he settled. I think it’s most likely ABC is just trying to avoid lawfare, which is something Trump is famous for btw.

There was no discovery at all because ABC quickly settled before they had a chance to do so.

You realize you’re following a double standard here btw? Like you’re willing to accept that a settlement is proof that the law was violated, but not an actually jury decision that was reached in civil court?

There's no double standard at all. Because you were saying there is NO CASE. That there was no defamation case at all and Trump did not qualify for it (due to the civil case ruling.)

Well if he didn't qualify, how was he successful getting the court case against ABC to go forward?

Why did ABC have to settle and officially show regret for their actions?

It's obvious - because Trump had a legit case.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Yes you very much can. Feel free to reread my posts and research it yourself.

Yes..a news station can literally lie, but sometimes there are consequences. Sounds like you believe there shouldn't be consequences, why do you believe that?

 

[HereticBD]

Yes you very much can. Feel free to reread my posts and research it yourself.

I don't need to read your posts. They settled, and your only defense is just "Gee golly willickers, I don't know why they settled. Probably didn't want to make Trump mad."

Yeah, or they knew they'd lose at trial and chose the cheaper option. No, you can not defame someone like that, on national television no less. If you're gonna call someone a rapist, you best make sure they've been convicted of rape. Otherwise, take a guess at what legal term it's called.

 

[essie]

It seems to me there is a big misunderstanding here.

 

[Confucamus]

Because it's such a stretch that a guy that literally brags about grabbing pussy is guilty of sexual assault. I would be surprised if Trump doesn't have a trail of victims from his 78 years. He is an A-1 choice scumbag of the highest order. An absolute horror of a human being.

Cool opinion.

 

[Witchhunt]

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

Well, prior to 1974, the impoundments clause had more teeth and gave the president the right to hold allotted funds.
I'm only guessing here, but i'd assume there are steps to the overall plan, depending on how things go, maybe something like:

1. Move DOGE quickly during the stopgap period through executive order, expose a bunch of waste, inefficiency and potential corruption and/or fraud.

2. Implement the same with appointments, not as restricted by the constitution.

3. Hopefully win over public opinion by exposing the bloat and wastefulness.

4. Negotiate with Congress to possibly take another look at the impoundments clause, but at the least pay attention to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

5. Argue that he can use "Signing statement" to negotiate changes to future legislation AND adjust active, signed bills that restrict presidential authority just as GWB and Obama did. Excerpt from an article in "The Law":
"Obama also objected to a number of provisions that he claimed would violate his“constitutional duty to supervise the executive branch” and several others that he saidcould encroach upon his “constitutional authority to recommend such measures to theCongress as I ‘judge necessary and expedient.’ My Administration will interpret andimplement these provisions in a manner that does not interfere with my constitutionalauthority” (Obama 2013).What the president could not block or modify through concessions or veto threatsduring budget negotiations with members of Congress, he decided he could unilaterallystrip from a signed bill. Similar to his predecessor, George W. Bush, Obama suggestedthat he was the ultimate “decider” on what is constitutional and proper. Few acts byoccupants of the White House so completely embody the unchecked presidency."

Link: https://markrozell.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/President_Obamas_Signing_Statements.pdf

6. Fight 'em out in court...


Something to chew on, anyhow.

 

[BFoe]

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

The Constitution gives the POTUS no power whatsoever to impound funds. As the Forbes article mentions, there is a process by which POTUS could mark certain funds for recission (cancellation, basically), but he has to provide Congress with his reasoning and they have 45 days to act. If they agree, then yes, those funds would be cancelled—because Congress did it. If they don’t agree, or don’t respond, those funds need to be spent.
That is not what’s happening here.

Edit: I should specify that the process I’m referring to is a law, not a constitutional provision.

 

[Blayt7hh]

I don't need to read your posts. They settled, and your only defense is just "Gee golly willickers, I don't know why they settled. Probably didn't want to make Trump mad."

Yeah, or they knew they'd lose at trial and chose the cheaper option. No, you can not defame someone like that, on national television no less. If you're gonna call someone a rapist, you best make sure they've been convicted of rape. Otherwise, take a guess at what legal term it's called.

Yes I am aware that ignorance is your thing. That’s why I didn’t invest in my response to you

 

[Blayt7hh]

Yes..a news station can literally lie, but sometimes there are consequences. Sounds like you believe there shouldn't be consequences, why do you believe that?

Nothing I wrote in this thread was an opinion I hold. Why do you think I shared an opinion?

 

[HereticBD]

Yes I am aware that ignorance is your thing. That’s why I didn’t invest in my response to you

The reason you don't "invest in a response"(LOL), is because I won't play your game, and just call your bullshit out bluntly.

You have made no argument. You are literally acting confused as to why the network settled, as if the LOLawyers on Reddit you're reading have more insight into the case, than the network's lawyers that settled it. You're just flailing, and think you're making a point. You avoid trying to engage, because you have no argument and I'm not as patient as @Hog-train in just telling you that you're being an salty idiot.

 

[BFoe]

@west42 basically this is American democracy at work.

We asked the DNC to give us better if not the best candidates they could offer and we would consider a vote against Ron Desantis. They gave us a bunch of garbage, (Andrew Glillum, Charlie Crist) just like the Democrats do all over the country and nationally... (Joe Biden & Kamala Harris were really the two best options in the Democrat ranks last few years... lol NO)

So now Ron Desantis is doing what the majority of Florida voters asked for. Thats a problem for Bfoe as he does not live down here, but he has a monumentally grandiose problem with Republicans, Conservatives, etc. basically the majority of the people in our state. Naturally he and those who he assumes are authorities on the subject, wants to control which books our libraries and schools are allowed to carry. Never mind that Desantis is choosing to err on the side of caution here with books featuring explicitly sexual themes and aggressive racially divisive content. Florida is "banning books" therefore Florida is stupid, you know just like you see on the TV all the time.

Bfoe says he dislikes Florida and will never visit Florida (gonna have to take everyone elses trustworthy opinion on it) essentially, he really has no real lived experience whatsoever in our state other than what he reads from his trusted "book illustrators, book editors and publishers, and people like that" not to mention the New York Times lol

Hey @BFoe you should consider a career in politics. We could use some good liberal left leaning politicians down here.

I think I’ve mentioned that I’ve visited Florida before, and it’s a beautiful state.
It’s a shame that so much discrimination and hatred has taken hold there.

It’s been made pretty clear that liberals like me are not welcome there, and since I don’t want a penny of mine going into the FL state government’s pockets, I am happy to oblige and stay away until such time as they stop treating minorities like shit. So I am sorry, but I will not be running for elected office there. Or doing anything else there for that matter.

Out democratic process is not simply a majority getting together and deciding to shit on a minority group. That does seem to be the way conservatives look at it these days though. And it’s pretty laughable to claim you’re banning books because of explicit sex when that accounts for barely 1/5 of what you’re banning, and then say “oh, the other 80% of bans is just us erring on the side of caution.”
I actually laughed out loud at that. Schools should know wtf they’re banning—period.
And personally, I believe they do know. It is their intention to ban books with characters of color, or LGBTQ characters. It’s their intention so marginalize and silence these people. And they’ve proven that time and time again with the laws and policies that they pass.

 

[lowlife]

yeah let's see who can manipulate the American people the best, the idiots on the right or the idiots on the left?

 

[SKYNET]

I think I’ve mentioned that I’ve visited Florida before, and it’s a beautiful state.

My apologies, It does suck to mention things in good faith just to see they are so easily forgotten.

It’s a shame that so much discrimination and hatred has taken hold there.
It’s been made pretty clear that liberals like me are not welcome there

Those are lies. Quite sad someone like you would harbor such paranoia. I'll chalk that up as delusional.

Out democratic process is not simply a majority getting together and deciding to shit on a minority group. That does seem to be the way conservatives look at it these days though. And it’s pretty laughable to claim you’re banning books because of explicit sex when that accounts for barely 1/5 of what you’re banning, and then say “oh, the other 80% of bans is just us erring on the side of caution.”

You can frame it as shitting on a minority group, I will frame it as making sure our children are not exposed to "barely 1/5" of whatever disgusting filth your side insists on making available for young children. (My dad has a bigger pee pee than yours) Sad that you would laugh at sane, level headed parents showing they have a steadfast desire to try and protect their children, but it is understandable at this point.

I actually laughed out loud at that.

The feeling is mutual my friend. See: laugh reaction I will add to your post.

Schools should know wtf they’re banning—period.

Our schools are doing just fine without your delusional corrosive input thanks.

And personally, I believe they do know. It is their intention to ban books with characters of color, or LGBTQ characters. It’s their intention so marginalize and silence these people. And they’ve proven that time and time again with the laws and policies that they pass.

What you believe and what I know are two entirely different things. You arrogantly assume you are correct based on what you read and I know what I see with my own two eyes. I never question your integrity, but you willingly question my emperical knowledge. You always have, never given me the benefit of the doubt, not once. What you read in the NYT is what I have to read when you try to snag a dub at my expense. Not impressive at all, not to me at least, but who am I to get in the way of your delusions. You refuse to visit my state and I couldn't give 3 fucks about yours so...

Well at least us Floridians will know you will harbor paranoid delusions based off of what you were told by the others and not what I, personally am telling you. But at this point, I would expect nothing but bad faith coming from you when it comes to US party related politics.