President Trump

[Alan Harper's Tash]

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

According to documents the NYT has seen, these are the words, and combinations of words, Trump has ordered to be removed from government use and educational materials:

• accessible

• activism
• activists
• advocacy
• advocate
• advocates
• affirming care
• all-inclusive
• allyship
• anti-racism
• antiracist
• assigned at birth
• assigned female at birth
• assigned male at birth
• at risk
• barrier
• barriers
• belong
• bias
• biased
• biased toward
• biases
• biases towards
• biologically female
• biologically male
• BIPOC
• Black
• breastfeed + people
• breastfeed + person
• chestfeed + people
• chestfeed + person
• clean energy
• climate crisis
• climate science
• commercial sex worker
• community diversity
• community equity
• confirmation bias
• cultural competence
• cultural differences
• cultural heritage
• cultural sensitivity
• culturally appropriate
• culturally responsive
• DEI
• DEIA
• DEIAB
• DEIJ
• disabilities
• disability
• discriminated
• discrimination
• discriminatory
• disparity
• diverse
• diverse backgrounds
• diverse communities
• diverse community
• diverse group
• diverse groups
• diversified
• diversify
• diversifying
• diversity
• enhance the diversity
• enhancing diversity
• environmental quality
• equal opportunity
• equality
• equitable
• equitableness
• equity
• ethnicity
• excluded
• exclusion
• expression
• female
• females
• feminism
• fostering inclusivity
• GBV
• gender
• gender based
• gender based violence
• gender diversity
• gender identity
• gender ideology
• gender-affirming care
• genders
• Gulf of Mexico
• hate speech
• health disparity
• health equity
• hispanic minority
• historically
• identity
• immigrants
• implicit bias
• implicit biases
• inclusion
• inclusive
• inclusive leadership
• inclusiveness
• inclusivity
• increase diversity
• increase the diversity
• indigenous community
• inequalities
• inequality
• inequitable
• inequities
• inequity
• injustice
• institutional
• intersectional
• intersectionality
• key groups
• key people
• key populations
• Latinx
• LGBT
• LGBTQ
• marginalize
• marginalized
• men who have sex with men
• mental health
• minorities
• minority
• most risk
• MSM
• multicultural
• Mx
• Native American
• non-binary
• nonbinary
• oppression
• oppressive
• orientation
• people + uterus
• people-centered care
• person-centered
• person-centered care
• polarization
• political
• pollution
• pregnant people
• pregnant person
• pregnant persons
• prejudice
• privilege
• privileges
• promote diversity
• promoting diversity
• pronoun
• pronouns
• prostitute
• race
• race and ethnicity
• racial
• racial diversity
• racial identity
• racial inequality
• racial justice
• racially
• racism
• segregation
• sense of belonging
• sex
• sexual preferences
• sexuality
• social justice
• sociocultural
• socioeconomic
• status
• stereotype
• stereotypes
• systemic
• systemically
• they/them
• trans
• transgender
• transsexual
• trauma
• traumatic
• tribal
• unconscious bias
• underappreciated
• underprivileged
• underrepresentation
• underrepresented
• underserved
• undervalued
• victim
• victims
• vulnerable populations
• women
• women and underrepresented

Dictators gotta dictate!

I'm a bit surprised he hasn't included nonce on that list.

 

[Vic]

Not a SNL best but still on the button

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Trump’s FBI Moves to Criminally Charge Major Climate Groups​

Trump’s FBI Moves to Criminally Charge Major Climate Groups

The Trump administration is targeting climate organizations that received a Biden-era grant.

newrepublic.com

Retrospective legality?

What strikes me about this is that this is not Trump's idea. It's too schemy for him.

This is coming from Miller and the Project 2025ers, hellbent on tearing up everything that impinges on their greed.

 

[Dax777]

Again, you have sauced your dish with a hint of truth but then overcooked it!

Biden was working on IMMIGRATION REFORM LEGISLATION that would have addressed the “crisis at the border.” Engaging even the conservatives in Congress, they came to an agreement and then…AND ONLY THEN…Trump (a private citizen!!!) intervened and told Republicans to vote AGAINST IMMIGRATION REFORM…OR ELSE!

They did and then used the “crisis at the border” to create the FUD that right wingers suck down like Lindsay Graham at a glory hole!

Please don’t pretend that Biden couldn’t, because once the R’s showed their arse, he did do an EO, but it is NOT LEGISLATION, that is funded and set in stone! In addition, one can only go so far with an EO, as Trump is finding out on a daily basis!

If you have the ACTUAL FACTS on your side, you don’t need to obfuscate the whole truth behind a scintilla of it. Not only does it weaken your argument, it shows you to be a snidy fucker with the truth!

It's funny how you always accuse me of whst tou are doing.

Lets start with:

1. They didn't start any legislative action for 3 years. Until it was electorally unpopular.

2. It was a terrible bill that had a ridiculous daily 2500 daily encounter (i.e. illegal crossing) before the automatic asylum application process is stopped.

Do the math, and it becomes quickly obvious that the bill was useless. In that more people could cross than the current average number of crossings before sny enforcement even begins to be consider

3. Not to mention the absence of mandatory employment verification in the bill.

For this, and many other technical points i am not that well versed on, that pile of shit bill was voted down.

Any Republican who needed Trump's urging to vote against that shit, needed to be primaried on principle.

For all intent and purpose, it was a farce

 

[Dax777]

You overdo the smiley’s. Too many of them look artificial and it comes across as weak when you are trying to project a casual confidence.

:)

 

[moggymoz]

You don't need to tell us. People like you are pathetically predictable.

Haha, have I hit a nerve.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

No its not wrong. It is letting assholes who pretend.vandalism and harassment is a form of 'protest' will not be tolerated. Hence why he purposely uses the term 'illegal protests '

But it seems you are more interested in believing something else. Oh well.

Take umbrage all you like Dax.
Boycotting anything is a personal choice and is not illegal.
How you try to convince others may well be.
Vandalising someone else’s property because of their choice is not something I condone but I personally would not buy from Musk.

The insinuation that an individual’s boycott is illegal, that their choice not to buy is illegal, in the condemning of the actions of these people, in my opinion is not unintentional.
It’s par for the course with Trump. We call him thick, but his choice of phrase is quite often very deliberate.
It can be passed off by his defenders as not what was meant, if it attracts too much heat.

You carry on and see things the way you do.
I’ve long since determined what I regard as modus operandi.
And not just from Trump.

 

[Gogootz]

According to documents the NYT has seen, these are the words, and combinations of words, Trump has ordered to be removed from government use and educational materials:

• accessible

• activism
• activists
• advocacy
• advocate
• advocates
• affirming care
• all-inclusive
• allyship
• anti-racism
• antiracist
• assigned at birth
• assigned female at birth
• assigned male at birth
• at risk
• barrier
• barriers
• belong
• bias
• biased
• biased toward
• biases
• biases towards
• biologically female
• biologically male
• BIPOC
• Black
• breastfeed + people
• breastfeed + person
• chestfeed + people
• chestfeed + person
• clean energy
• climate crisis
• climate science
• commercial sex worker
• community diversity
• community equity
• confirmation bias
• cultural competence
• cultural differences
• cultural heritage
• cultural sensitivity
• culturally appropriate
• culturally responsive
• DEI
• DEIA
• DEIAB
• DEIJ
• disabilities
• disability
• discriminated
• discrimination
• discriminatory
• disparity
• diverse
• diverse backgrounds
• diverse communities
• diverse community
• diverse group
• diverse groups
• diversified
• diversify
• diversifying
• diversity
• enhance the diversity
• enhancing diversity
• environmental quality
• equal opportunity
• equality
• equitable
• equitableness
• equity
• ethnicity
• excluded
• exclusion
• expression
• female
• females
• feminism
• fostering inclusivity
• GBV
• gender
• gender based
• gender based violence
• gender diversity
• gender identity
• gender ideology
• gender-affirming care
• genders
• Gulf of Mexico
• hate speech
• health disparity
• health equity
• hispanic minority
• historically
• identity
• immigrants
• implicit bias
• implicit biases
• inclusion
• inclusive
• inclusive leadership
• inclusiveness
• inclusivity
• increase diversity
• increase the diversity
• indigenous community
• inequalities
• inequality
• inequitable
• inequities
• inequity
• injustice
• institutional
• intersectional
• intersectionality
• key groups
• key people
• key populations
• Latinx
• LGBT
• LGBTQ
• marginalize
• marginalized
• men who have sex with men
• mental health
• minorities
• minority
• most risk
• MSM
• multicultural
• Mx
• Native American
• non-binary
• nonbinary
• oppression
• oppressive
• orientation
• people + uterus
• people-centered care
• person-centered
• person-centered care
• polarization
• political
• pollution
• pregnant people
• pregnant person
• pregnant persons
• prejudice
• privilege
• privileges
• promote diversity
• promoting diversity
• pronoun
• pronouns
• prostitute
• race
• race and ethnicity
• racial
• racial diversity
• racial identity
• racial inequality
• racial justice
• racially
• racism
• segregation
• sense of belonging
• sex
• sexual preferences
• sexuality
• social justice
• sociocultural
• socioeconomic
• status
• stereotype
• stereotypes
• systemic
• systemically
• they/them
• trans
• transgender
• transsexual
• trauma
• traumatic
• tribal
• unconscious bias
• underappreciated
• underprivileged
• underrepresentation
• underrepresented
• underserved
• undervalued
• victim
• victims
• vulnerable populations
• women
• women and underrepresented

Dictators gotta dictate!

Imagine being such a whiney little bitch getting triggered and upset over words you order them to get removed

 

[Dax777]

Yet therein lies the very problem which you apparently don't see, The President did NOT confine his remarks to the limited number of people who have engaged in acts of vandalism or other forms of criminality. He used the words "illegal boycott." Criminal damage is not a "boycott." Attempted arson is not a "boycott."

In other words, he lumps in the many many thousands of people who legitimately exercise their rights as consumers to buy whichever car they want, and who have exercised that right by NOT buying a Tesla, and a handful or criminals who burn and vandalise (you will have to forgive me if the number of criminals is more that the low tens, this criminality has not been widely reported in the UK.)

Wrong! The term 'illegal boycott' necessarily excludes ALL legitimate boycotts. Even if he is also unhappy with the Boycotts that are legat. The 'everyday people' you are worried for clearly do not qualify in the term 'illegal boycott.'

Yet there is a rash of illegal boycotting going on in many Cities all over America.

When he says " when this people doing this things are caught" what did you presume he was talking about?
People caught not buying the car they don't want to buy? I mean come on...
Y

However I will donate a thousand dollars to a charity of your choice if you can demonstrate that the number of criminals vandalising Tesla dealerships etc is greater than the volume of sales Tesla are down on when compared with this time last year.

I dont understand your point. I never claimed people who were vandalizing were more. Just that they were visible and protesting illegally.

Tesla does have a problem in that more of its customers lean left. Sonthey can damage the company with boycotts.

But illegal boycotts are still unacceptable.

There is no doubt Trumps failure to distinguish between the lawful and the unlawful is both deliberate and problematic.

Wrong. Again, there are multiple videos where he has cleary done this by actually stating whst the criminals are doing.

Its not problematic to point out that a form of action is illegal. Even if some one to lie to themselves and pretend its just protests.

Both are swept up within the same generalisation, which covers both the criminals and the law-abiding alike. He says nothing about the individuals committing acts of criminality, his use of the phrase "illegal boycott" just wraps up the actions of the lawful with the unlawful. They are his enemies, the messaging runs, therefore they are criminals. And those who voted for him will simply hear the messaging that the boycott is illegal therefore those doing the boycotting are criminals, when the reality is (almost certainly) that a tiny minority have resorted to criminality.

Again, you cant even quantify who doesn't wanna buy a type of car anymore. What you can quantity is who is breaking windows, scratching cars, blowing up Teslas and Tesla charging stations and who is promoting doing this as protest.

I mean i participated in the Bud light boycott. But then again, it was easy coz i don't drink beer anyways and never bought one before the protests.

If someone suggests those burning down Bud light trucks ( no one did by the way) were illegally protesting, i wouldn't suddenly go "Oh my God! How fare you compare me to Truck burners." It's silly. My protest is not illegal.

i
And you fall for it, because when you say "the left" ( you actually said the "lert" but I'm assuming this is what you meant) you are making the same generalisation that involves assumes anyone on what you define (though you don't actually define it) as "the left" is incapable of distinguishing between the two. More worryingly, it fails to distinguish between peaceful and lawful protest that is fundamental in any democracy and sheer criminality.

That way fascism lies.

Ah! Fascism... But im the one generalizing.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Take umbrage all you like Dax.
Boycotting anything is a personal choice and is not illegal.
How you try to convince others may well be.
Vandalising someone else’s property because of their choice is not something I condone but I personally would not buy from Musk.

The insinuation that an individual’s boycott is illegal, that their choice not to buy is illegal, in the condemning of the actions of these people, in my opinion is not unintentional.
It’s par for the course with Trump. We call him thick, but his choice of phrase is quite often very deliberate.
It can be passed off by his defenders as not what was meant, if it attracts too much heat.

You carry on and see things the way you do.
I’ve long since determined what I regard as modus operandi.
And not just from Trump.

The Irish invented the Boycott.

Named after a landowner who was a bit of a **** and got his comeuppance.

 

[Dax777]

Or maybe they were right and there's a load of things you can't change by executive order.

Enforcing existing laws is one of the things you can absolutely do with an executive order

 

[Dax777]

No one is. You’re being disingenuous now.

You are wrong. Eben people on the news purposely conflate violence with protest. I'll see if i can find the CNN report that did just that and post it here.

Not that it would change any minds

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

The Irish invented the Boycott.

Named after a landowner who was a bit of a **** and got his comeuppance.

Exactly.
I don’t need to be lectured on what’s legal and what’s not.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

You are wrong. Eben people on the news purposely conflate violence with protest. I'll see if i can find the CNN report that did just that and post it here.

Not that it would change any minds

It won’t because you seem to believe boycott can be violent.

It cannot.

You trying to shoehorn violence into the definition of boycott is disingenuous and pretty much WUMming at this point.

 

[BlueRodent]

Fucks sake is he still breathing. Ice cream back in the freezer till tomorrow then

shitgibbon ****

I think you may have a long wait - more's the pity!

 

[BobKowalski]

Wrong! The term 'illegal boycott' necessarily excludes ALL legitimate boycotts. Even if he is also unhappy with the Boycotts that are legat. The 'everyday people' you are worried for clearly do not qualify in the term 'illegal boycott.'

Yet there is a rash of illegal boycotting going on in many Cities all over America.

When he says " when this people doing this things are caught" what did you presume he was talking about?
People caught not buying the car they don't want to buy? I mean come on...
Y


I dont understand your point. I never claimed people who were vandalizing were more. Just that they were visible and protesting illegally.

Tesla does have a problem in that more of its customers lean left. Sonthey can damage the company with boycotts.

But illegal boycotts are still unacceptable.



Wrong. Again, there are multiple videos where he has cleary done this by actually stating whst the criminals are doing.

Its not problematic to point out that a form of action is illegal. Even if some one to lie to themselves and pretend its just protests.


Again, you cant even quantify who doesn't wanna buy a type of car anymore. What you can quantity is who is breaking windows, scratching cars, blowing up Teslas and Tesla charging stations and who is promoting doing this as protest.

I mean i participated in the Bud light boycott. But then again, it was easy coz i don't drink beer anyways and never bought one before the protests.

If someone suggests those burning down Bud light trucks ( no one did by the way) were illegally protesting, i wouldn't suddenly go "Oh my God! How fare you compare me to Truck burners." It's silly. My protest is not illegal.



Ah! Fascism... But im the one generalizing.

There is no such thing as an ‘illegal boycott’. The End.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

There is no such thing as an ‘illegal boycott’. The End.

Think he’s training to be the next White House Press Officer.

 

[1.618034]

Wrong! The term 'illegal boycott' necessarily excludes ALL legitimate boycotts. Even if he is also unhappy with the Boycotts that are legat. The 'everyday people' you are worried for clearly do not qualify in the term 'illegal boycott.'

Yet there is a rash of illegal boycotting going on in many Cities all over America.

When he says " when this people doing this things are caught" what did you presume he was talking about?
People caught not buying the car they don't want to buy? I mean come on...
Y


I dont understand your point. I never claimed people who were vandalizing were more. Just that they were visible and protesting illegally.

Tesla does have a problem in that more of its customers lean left. Sonthey can damage the company with boycotts.

But illegal boycotts are still unacceptable.



Wrong. Again, there are multiple videos where he has cleary done this by actually stating whst the criminals are doing.

Its not problematic to point out that a form of action is illegal. Even if some one to lie to themselves and pretend its just protests.


Again, you cant even quantify who doesn't wanna buy a type of car anymore. What you can quantity is who is breaking windows, scratching cars, blowing up Teslas and Tesla charging stations and who is promoting doing this as protest.

I mean i participated in the Bud light boycott. But then again, it was easy coz i don't drink beer anyways and never bought one before the protests.

If someone suggests those burning down Bud light trucks ( no one did by the way) were illegally protesting, i wouldn't suddenly go "Oh my God! How fare you compare me to Truck burners." It's silly. My protest is not illegal.



Ah! Fascism... But im the one generalizing.

Fuck off.

 

[Dax777]

Or they didn't want to abuse the executive order route in case it set precedents for a "bad actor" president.

They still have the moral high ground - "what Trump is doing in unprecedented"

Well, if that's the case, they failed miserably whet he used executive order to reinstate DACA, start KFT program and a pathway to Citizenship or when he mandated Covid 19 vaccination for federal workers.

Not to mention changing the meaning of Title 9 via executive action.

No moral high ground my friend.