What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

everlast75

Looks like the pressure is being applied to the Trump Foundation CFO in an effort to flip him..

https://twitter.com/ScottMStedman/status/1377339291794206721?s=19

54and56

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I sent him a message anyway. I have requested a zoom meeting with him requesting funds with an aim to set up an organisation focused exclusively on promoting all things Trump here in Ireland.

The key question is will he ever have a petrol station named after him though? That is peak appreciation here in Ireland.

Can't see it happening myself.

ohnonotgmail

54and56 wrote: »

The key question is will he ever have a petrol station named after him though? That is peak appreciation here in Ireland.

Can't see it happening myself.

The Barack Obama Plaza is no mere petrol station. It is a purpose built motorway service station with a state of the art conference facility as well as The Barack Obama visitors centre which is hugely popular with visiting tourists.

Quin_Dub

duploelabs wrote: »

Trump's nda for a campaign staffer has been voided, should lead to the slew of other people spilling the beans
https://www.businessinsider.com/court-voids-donald-trump-campaign-non-disclosure-agreements-2021-3?r=US&IR=T

That ruling could be hugely significant.

From what I've read it would appear that the NDA used by Trump for his campaign staff which was just scrapped by the judge is effectively a copy/paste of the same one that he has used for decades in his businesses.

Potentially means that multiple people from both his business and political life will now be free to provide insights into the goings on for many years.

He's really not having a very good 2021 so far is he?

everlast75

Quin_Dub wrote: »

That ruling could be hugely significant.

From what I've read it would appear that the NDA used by Trump for his campaign staff which was just scrapped by the judge is effectively a copy/paste of the same one that he has used for decades in his businesses.

Potentially means that multiple people from both his business and political life will now be free to provide insights into the goings on for many years.

He's really not having a very good 2021 so far is he?

I'm not interested in Omarosa type grifters selling their story.

I am interested in proof of acts with serious criminal liability.

ohnonotgmail

everlast75 wrote: »

I'm not interested in Omarosa type grifters selling their story.

I am interested in proof of acts with serious criminal liability.

I would be quite happy to hear the Omarso type stories while we wait for the criminal charges.

Quin_Dub

everlast75 wrote: »

I'm not interested in Omarosa type grifters selling their story.

I am interested in proof of acts with serious criminal liability.

I'd agree - Not really interested in this facilitating someone getting paid for an interview or a book etc.

But how many lower level staffers have been terrified by fear of litigation to come forward with information that could prove/disprove statements from Trump or others.

e.g. Trump denies meeting someone or having said/done something but there was a lower level staff member there that can now provide details because they aren't scared of being sued for breach of NDA any more.

Pussyhands

I see Facebook say that they're going to remove any "voice of Trump" profiles/videos.

This means Facebook will delete speeches/recordings of Trump.

It's very CCP like...

Pussyhands

Pussyhands wrote: »

I see Facebook say that they're going to remove any "voice of Trump" profiles/videos.

This means Facebook will delete speeches/recordings of Trump.

It's very CCP like...

Since he's regularly used the platform to push conspiracies and has incited crimes via social media, they're protecting themselves. He violated the rules and is now trying to dodge a ban.

Pussyhands

Deleted User wrote: »

Since he's regularly used the platform to push conspiracies and has incited crimes via social media, they're protecting themselves. He violated the rules and is now trying to dodge a ban.

I wonder what would happen if a TV station gave him a slot? Would they then ban Fox news for example?

duploelabs

Pussyhands wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if a TV station gave him a slot? Would they then ban Fox news for example?

Given the collosal suit handed to Fox by Dominion systems, I would say they would be very reluctant to have him on. Notice they way he has had very little media appearances since he left office?

Quin_Dub

Pussyhands wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if a TV station gave him a slot? Would they then ban Fox news for example?

Who is the "they" in your question?

The only people that could "ban" him from Fox would be Fox , so if they invite him that's not banning him.

Facebook can do whatever they want - They own the platform and they can decide who gets to use it.

Smee_Again

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Who is the "they" in your question?

The only people that could "ban" him from Fox would be Fox , so if they invite him that's not banning him.

Facebook can do whatever they want - They own the platform and they can decide who gets to use it.

Trump has turned himself into a figurative gay wedding cake.

Pussyhands

Pussyhands wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if a TV station gave him a slot? Would they then ban Fox news for example?

It's more akin to Fox choosing to not have him on their platform

Pussyhands

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Who is the "they" in your question?

The only people that could "ban" him from Fox would be Fox , so if they invite him that's not banning him.

Facebook can do whatever they want - They own the platform and they can decide who gets to use it.

They is facebook.

Wait, so Facebook can stop anyone they want using a platform, but Pontins were blasted for not wanting certain people staying?

Can't have it both ways. Can't say "private platform can ban whoever they like" and then when a private company does the same thing cry discrimination.


And don't get me started on classing Facebook as private platforms. They're far too big with far too big a userbase to claim they're just a private platform. Facebook and Twitter etc. are the modern equivalent of standing on a street corner.

Just imagine if Twitter said "hey, we don't want Bloomberg to have any chance of winning the democratic nomination, let's just ban him and any mention of him on Twitter". Would you think that's fine?

The problem with your line of thinking is, it's all well and good until you're negatively effected by it.

Penn

Pussyhands wrote: »

They is facebook.

Wait, so Facebook can stop anyone they want using a platform, but Pontins were blasted for not wanting certain people staying?

Can't have it both ways. Can't say "private platform can ban whoever they like" and then when a private company does the same thing cry discrimination.


And don't get me started on classing Facebook as private platforms. They're far too big with far too big a userbase to claim they're just a private platform. Facebook and Twitter etc. are the modern equivalent of standing on a street corner.

Just imagine if Twitter said "hey, we don't want Bloomberg to have any chance of winning the democratic nomination, let's just ban him and any mention of him on Twitter". Would you think that's fine?

The problem with your line of thinking is, it's all well and good until you're negatively effected by it.

The difference is making the decision based on who someone is, versus their actions. Pontins were banning people based on who they are (ie. discrimination). Facebook and Twitter banned Trump based on what he did (ie. incited insurrection after giving him a hell of a lot of leeway in terms of previously breaking their terms and conditions simply because he was President).

Facebook and Twitter banned Trump because of Trump breaking their rules and using their platforms in ways which broke their T&C. Why do you think Trump shouldn't be banned for that?

Pussyhands

Penn wrote: »

The difference is making the decision based on who someone is, versus their actions. Pontins were banning people based on who they are (ie. discrimination). Facebook and Twitter banned Trump based on what he did (ie. incited insurrection after giving him a hell of a lot of leeway in terms of previously breaking their terms and conditions simply because he was President).

Facebook and Twitter banned Trump because of Trump breaking their rules and using their platforms in ways which broke their T&C. Why do you think Trump shouldn't be banned for that?

Donald Trump is not on facebook anymore.

How does Donald Trumps niece or whoever get banned from a platform if she takes a video of their uncle talking?

Who said he incited an insurrection? Was he found guilty of it? Has he faced criminal prosecution?

Quin_Dub

Pussyhands wrote: »

Donald Trump is not on facebook anymore.

How does Donald Trumps niece or whoever get banned from a platform if she takes a video of their uncle talking?

Who said he incited an insurrection? Was he found guilty of it? Has he faced criminal prosecution?

As has already been stated , when Trump created his account he agreed to a set of terms and conditions , which he then broke allowing Facebook to remove him from the platform.

Lara Trump was not banned , they simply deleted her posts where she was in effect acting as a proxy for Trump as he isn't allowed to Post. It was a video taped political statement from Trump.

It's not like what she posted was a video of a family get together that Trump happened to be in or something.

If she keeps doing it , then she potentially will be considered to have broken the terms and conditions she also agreed to when she created the account.

Pussyhands

Quin_Dub wrote: »

As has already been stated , when Trump created his account he agreed to a set of terms and conditions , which he then broke allowing Facebook to remove him from the platform.

Lara Trump was not banned , they simply deleted her posts where she was in effect acting as a proxy for Trump as he isn't allowed to Post. It was a video taped political statement from Trump.

It's not like what she posted was a video of a family get together that Trump happened to be in or something.

If she keeps doing it , then she potentially will be considered to have broken the terms and conditions she also agreed to when she created the account.

How does Facebook know whether a family member is just recording a video from a speech Trump is giving to a small number of people in a room somewhere?

What happens if Trump hosts an event somewhere and people record him and post it. Facebook will delete those also it seems.

Pussyhands

Pussyhands wrote: »

How does Facebook know whether a family member is just recording a video from a speech Trump is giving to a small number of people in a room somewhere?

Because it was an interview with Lara Trump, posted by Lara Trump.

https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/03/lara-trump-donald-interview-01.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=2000

Pussyhands wrote: »

What happens if Trump hosts an event somewhere and people record him and post it. Facebook will delete those also it seems.

They won't, and they don't.

Leroy42

Pussyhands wrote: »

How does Facebook know whether a family member is just recording a video from a speech Trump is giving to a small number of people in a room somewhere?

What happens if Trump hosts an event somewhere and people record him and post it. Facebook will delete those also it seems.

It is not the video of Trump, it is message in the video.

If it was just Trump singing or whatever, then it probably wouldn't be cut (I don't work for FB so have no idea the exact policy).

But again, it is not a free for all. FB own everything on their site. They can choose whatever they want.

If Trump wants to get the word out he is free to use an number of other avenues.

everlast75

Pussyhands wrote: »

They is facebook.

Wait, so Facebook can stop anyone they want using a platform, but Pontins were blasted for not wanting certain people staying?

Can't have it both ways. Can't say "private platform can ban whoever they like" and then when a private company does the same thing cry discrimination.


And don't get me started on classing Facebook as private platforms. They're far too big with far too big a userbase to claim they're just a private platform. Facebook and Twitter etc. are the modern equivalent of standing on a street corner.

Just imagine if Twitter said "hey, we don't want Bloomberg to have any chance of winning the democratic nomination, let's just ban him and any mention of him on Twitter". Would you think that's fine?

The problem with your line of thinking is, it's all well and good until you're negatively effected by it.

See any inconsistency between having an issue with welfare cheats and supporting a former president who tax cheats?

(Just wondering - as I couldn't help but notice your subtle signature)

Pussyhands

everlast75 wrote: »

See any inconsistency between having an issue with welfare cheats and supporting a former president who tax cheats?

(Just wondering - as I couldn't help but notice your subtle signature)

Minimising the amount of tax you pay is nothing like hiding your income and then getting tax payer money because of it.

Has Trump been done for tax evasion?

Pussyhands

Pussyhands wrote: »

Minimising the amount of tax you pay is nothing like hiding your income and then getting tax payer money because of it.

Has Trump been done for tax evasion?

His finances are under investigation for tax fraud and bank fraud.. He paid 750 dollars of tax in 2015, so there's two ways for that to occur. Fraud or a disturbing lack of business ability.

Pussyhands

Pussyhands wrote: »

Minimising the amount of tax you pay is nothing like hiding your income and then getting tax payer money because of it.

Has Trump been done for tax evasion?

If he ends up being convicted of tax fraud, will you still support him? And why do you think he was the first recent president to conceal his tax returns?

everlast75

Pussyhands wrote: »

Has Trump been done for tax evasion?

Would it matter to you if he was?

ExMachina1000

banie01 wrote: »

What "things Trump" do you think he'd want promoted here that those on his payroll couldn't do better than you?

The deal has been done. Funds are almost ready to be delivered. The new social media platform offices and works will be based in Dublin with me holding a key role in development of the brand.

https://www.irishpost.com/news/donald-trump-to-base-headquarters-of-his-new-social-media-platform-in-dublin-208181

extra gravy

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The deal has been done. Funds are almost ready to be delivered. The new social media platform offices and works will be based in Dublin with me holding a key role in development of the brand.

https://www.irishpost.com/news/donald-trump-to-base-headquarters-of-his-new-social-media-platform-in-dublin-208181

At this stage, I'm afraid you actually believe that.

ExMachina1000

extra gravy wrote: »

At this stage, I'm afraid you actually believe that.

What are you trying to say?

I make a post with an obvious April fools joke article and you reply with an insult.

Unnecessary

ohnonotgmail

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The deal has been done. Funds are almost ready to be delivered. The new social media platform offices and works will be based in Dublin with me holding a key role in development of the brand.

https://www.irishpost.com/news/donald-trump-to-base-headquarters-of-his-new-social-media-platform-in-dublin-208181

more than 7 hours too late for april fools. cant even manage that properly.