Donald Trump on Truth Social

The BBQ Pit
1

I was going to post this in one of the many ongoing Donald Trump threads, but I finally figured…”this is something that happens with so much regular frequency, that it probably deserves its own thread finally”.

Every time he makes a post on truth social, and it gets reported by my friends on facebook, I don’t believe it. You would think there would come a point where I would stop being surprised at what the diarrhea-at-the-mouth-in-Chief is posting, but I never do for some reason.

Last night he posted a brutal, graphic video of a Florida woman being killed by Haitian immigrant. This is basically where we are right now. Our own president of the US is posting gore videos.

Sometimes I am extremely convinced that Donald Trump cannot possibly be managing his own truth social account. I am halfway convinced that it is being controlled by somebody who deliberately wants to make him look bad. They want to start “normalizing” outrageous and offensive behavior so that later on it can pretty much post anything and nobody will blink an eye. Seriously, if we look at the pattern, a year from now truth social posts will be like “I’m tired of all the Mexicans in the us, I want to kill them all” and people will just accept it and nod to themselves and go “old Donnie is having a rather bad spot of dementia again”…

.. but beyond that, nobody is going to take action, nobody is going to stop it in any way, nobody is really going to do anything beyond just being outraged and aghast. I mean what can we do anyway? What can anyone do?

But that’s how I see it, little by a little, whoever is controlling the account is normalizing outrageous behavior. Eventually there will come a time when people are just desensitized to it. I mean he all of threatened to destroy all of Iran just a couple days ago, and the most anyone could do was just go “oh my gosh!”. That’s it.

If he has already gone that far, then by next year we’re going to be at those points where he can post anything and people will just largely shrug it off.

“Hey guys, I invited a 14-year-old over here to play in my bedroom in private for a couple hours, you’re all okay with this right?”

“Oh, Trump, you so crazy!”

You may think that is a ridiculous and hyperbolic example, but I would argue we are already at and past the ridiculous point.

So I have made this thread to use for people to update what the current spew is on his nazi-like social media form. If it doesn’t take off or is used, that’s fine…but it seems to be recurring so often now, that he’ll make a post on there, that its own topic seems like it’s merited. I could be wrong.

2

This feels like a good one for me to post a ChatGPT-generated answer:

Is it frankly unethical, and possibly illegal for the President of the United States to constantly post official messages on a social media platform that he largely owns? Isn't this an abject example (one of many) of monetizing the Presidency?

You raise an important point that blends ethics, legality, and the principles of democracy in the context of modern media and leadership.

Let’s break it down:

1) Ethics of a President Using a Personal Platform for Official Messaging

There are several ethical considerations to address when a sitting president uses a social media platform that they largely own for official communications:

A) Conflict of Interest

  • Ownership: If the president owns or has significant control over a platform used for government messages, there’s an inherent conflict of interest.

    • Personal vs. Public Interests: The president’s personal stake in the platform may lead to decisions driven by financial interests (e.g., increasing platform engagement to drive revenue) rather than purely by the public good. This can undermine the integrity of official government communications, especially if the platform’s owner profits from user engagement or data.
    • Monetization of Political Influence: There’s a potential risk of monetizing influence—using the prestige and power of the office to boost the platform’s relevance and, in turn, the president’s financial standing. This can create concerns about whether policy decisions are influenced by personal gains.

B) Unfiltered Access to the Public

  • Unfiltered, unmediated speech: Social media can bypass traditional media channels (journalists, fact-checkers, editorial processes), allowing the president to communicate directly with the public. While direct communication is positive, it also risks spreading misinformation, particularly if statements are not scrutinized before publication.
  • Accountability Issues: Unlike press conferences or speeches, where there is often some institutional oversight (e.g., prepared remarks, reporters, staffers) to ensure accuracy and appropriateness, social media can lead to less accountability. If the platform is owned by the president, it risks reducing transparency or making it more difficult to hold them accountable for inflammatory or misleading statements.

2) Legal Concerns: Is It Illegal?

Possibly illegal, depending on context, particularly around ethics laws and emoluments (financial gain):

A) The Emoluments Clause

  • The Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits a president from receiving any “present, emolument, office, or title” from foreign or domestic governments without Congressional consent. If a social media platform owned by the president profits from foreign governments or entities with business before the U.S. government, this could raise legal concerns.
  • Even domestic profits could become problematic if the president’s influence leads to government contracts, favorable policies, or other benefits to the social media company.

B) Monetizing the Presidency

  • Monetization of the presidency, while not explicitly prohibited, is a legal gray area. If a president is using their position to directly or indirectly benefit financially through a platform they own or control, it could constitute a violation of ethics laws.
  • The Federal Election Commission (FEC) also has rules about the use of official resources for fundraising or personal benefit. If official actions or communications are intended to benefit the president’s platform financially, it might cross the line into illegal activity.

C) Misuse of Official Communications

  • The Hatch Act restricts the use of federal resources for political campaigning, and any use of the presidency’s platform to promote the personal financial interests of the president could be challenged as a violation of this law. For instance, if the platform promotes policies, speeches, or advertisements that benefit the president personally, this could be construed as illegal self-promotion or misuse of public office.

3) The Broader Impact on Democracy

A) Erosion of Democratic Norms

  • Authority without oversight: A president using a platform they own could diminish the credibility of official communications. If this platform is used to shape public opinion directly, it risks undermining the integrity of democratic processes. Presidents typically rely on neutral media outlets to reach the public; controlling that outlet—especially for personal financial gain—undermines the system of checks and balances.
  • It also raises questions about media concentration, where a single person or company could hold too much sway over public discourse.

B) Influence on Public Opinion

  • The power to manipulate public opinion is amplified when a president controls the media platform:

    • It’s not just about controlling messages, but shaping narratives in ways that benefit personal, political, or financial agendas.
    • If misinformation or propaganda is spread unchecked, it could affect elections, public policy, and even foreign relations.

C) Transparency and Accountability

  • A key part of democratic accountability is the ability of voters, journalists, and institutions to scrutinize a leader’s actions. If a president has a monetizable platform, it risks:

    • Lack of transparency: There may be no oversight over what content gets pushed or promoted, which distorts what citizens see and hear.
    • Accountability undermined: The president could use the platform to sidestep questions or scrutiny from independent media. If content is suppressed, deleted, or not fact-checked by independent bodies, it erodes trust in government communications.

4) Conclusion: Is This Ethical and Legal?

  • Ethically, it is a gray area at best and potentially unethical at worst:

    • A president using a platform they own blurs the line between public office and private enterprise. Even if not immediately illegal, it’s highly questionable if the president is monetizing their influence for personal gain.

  • Legally, it could be illegal depending on:

    • Profits derived from government actions or foreign influence.
    • Violations of laws like the Emoluments Clause, Hatch Act, or other ethics regulations related to public office.

  • Monetizing the Presidency in such a direct manner, especially using it as a financial tool for personal benefit, poses risks to the integrity of democratic institutions, as it shifts the balance of power toward individuals or corporations with large platforms and capital.

How is this relevant and responsive to the OP? Among all the other detestable, horrid, execrable, repugnant, and indecent things Trump is, he is also a social media content creator. It’s all about the clicks and views. The more controversial, incendiary, inflammatory, and polarizing his content is, then – generally – the more attention it will garner.

And that’s aside from his ability to use the platform as the ultimate shiny object – a way to deflect our attention from where he doesn’t want it, and focus it where he does want it.

Talk about your perverse incentive … on so many levels.

And as we all know … whether for the money or for the gratification of his infinitessimally tiny penis ego, he’s all about the attention.

“It’s almost impossible to believe he exists. It’s as if we took everything that was bad about America, scraped it up off the floor, wrapped it all up in an old hot dog skin, and then taught it to make noises with its face.”

–Anthony Citrano

3

I believe trump is a snuff film aficionado.

4

Trump is a sociopath. A narcistic egomaniac.

That fits fine with what was posted.

5

For his audience, though, they are just going to see the gore video as “Trump posting the harsh reality of illegal-immigrant crime in America.” They aren’t going to be repulsed by the gore, they will just it as gritty truth-telling.

We aren’t the intended audience of that post.

6

At one point I thought I would subscribe to Truth Social so I could rebut his ravings, but I’ve heard that anyone who challenges him on that site gets banned, so there’s no point.

7

You might also get a knock on the door. What am I saying, they don’t knock.

8

I find that Trump still surprises me from time-to-time but he doesn’t really shock me. His recent Easter message wasn’t even a surprise as it was totally on brand for him.

The reason I sometimes wonder if Russia has kompromat on Trump is because many of his decisions seem deliberately designed to hurt the United States. But in decades past he ran his own businesses into the ground, so running the United States into the ground seems on brand for him.

That whoever is Trump. And the normaliztion of his outrageous behavior has affected all aspects of political life. I find myself numb to a lot of what Trump says or does when it previous years I would have been shocked or outraged. It’s some form of fatigue on my part I suspect.

9

This was right after Melania publicly mentioned how she wasn’t friends with Jeffrey Epstein.

That was a message meant for one.

10

If I were Melania, I’d probably studiously avoid Fifth Avenue.

11

Nah. The video was of a Florida woman who was killed.

It’s Mar-a-Lago that she has to avoid.

She can safely hide in New York City. He’ll never return there, I’m sure. The risk of being heckled is just too great.

12

It’s all theatre of the perverse.

I, too, am not sure whether he’s actually posting these things.
Somehow it seems implausible.

But then we have “Covefe” type things and yeah, it’s him alright. If it’s truly him, someone needs to monitor him at night. 'Cause he’s bat shit crazy!

I worry that there’s young impressionable people reading these.
What ya gonna do?

13

48 minutes ago he posted a long post that includes the part:

“Effective immediately, the United ‌States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of ⁠BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, ‌the Strait of Hormuz.”

That section was in the middle of a much longer post, so if you want to get the full reading of it, go look it up. The sum up of it seems to be that he’s going to start blockading the strait.

Clearly this is a perfect idea with no downsided and not liable to fail at all..:expressionless_face:

14

At least sometimes it’s him, because he loves to post crap (he’s notorious for it) and nobody is going to tell him not to.

15

It’s the Uno reverse of international relations. Iran can’t get away with blockading the international flow of oil if he orders the US Navy to blockade the international flow of oil.

It’s also really emblematic of TFG. Every time I think he couldn’t possibly post something more completely insane, he proves me wrong.

16

He made a really long post today on there attacking the Pope. Ranting about him for a good, long paragraph

17

I thought this was particularly loathsome.

18