Wednesday, September 30, 2020

How You Can Sue Social Media Companies For Censorship Under The Bane Act

As most of our readers know, most social media platforms have been taken over by Russian trolls and I don't a bunch of troll have invaded the platforms willy nilly under that direction of Vladimir Putin. What I mean is the owners who own these platforms have sold out to Putin. While it is common knowledge that traitors like Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Jack Dorsey of Twitter have a "special' relationship with Trump and Putin other lesser known platforms are also on the Trump/Putin payroll. On of those platforms is Political Jack. Like the mega platform Political Jack and others like it use censorship under the guise"moderation" to control speech.  This technique is nothing new in that it has been used by dictatorships for a very long time and in the 50s and 60s our own CIA referred to it as right thinking as they spied on Americans who were smeared with the communist label and called pinko and black listed. Now that America is more fascist/corporatist than ever the ruling class no longer needs to rely of the government to spread lies and disinformation. The billionaire class does that. 

Bigger Fatter Politics is getting help from other media sources in an investigation into the subversive social media propaganda industry. Now we have the muscle to accurately doxx the traitorous propagandists involved in their information coup against America and Western democracy. 

During our investigation of Reddit our readers and investigators uncovered over 20 pro Trump "redditors" and referred them for further action. While Reddit is basically a cluster fuck of liars, and anti-American trolls we have yet to determine how sinister it asshole owner Steve Huffman actually is. Other investigators probably have more dirt on him. Like the other traitorous propaganda social media platform such as Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, Reddit also deboosts, shadowbans any speech it deems unpopular by calling it dangerous, hateful or harassing. This is much more than something a nanny state would do because the true intention is not to keep people safe from words. The true intention is to groom speech and create schools of group think in order to fully polarize humanity.

The Twitter hypocrisy is a little different. If you are on the right the Trump owned Twitter moderator/censors allow rule breaking and lying. Trump lies and breaks rules with every post and Jack Dorsey and his mob allows it.  Twitter denies that it shadow bans and deboosts but it does. Here's a free Twitter Shadow Ban Checker.   

The Bane Act provides protection from threats, intimidation, or coercion and for attempts to interfere with someone’s state or federal statutory or constitutional rights.

Twitter and other social media through their censorship, subjective rules, banning, shadow banning and deboosting are in violation of the Bane Act and can be sued for doing it. If social media was honest it would only have two rules governing speech. Rule one. NO LYING. Rule two. NO DEATH THREATS! Any speech that is legal in the public square should be legal on social media because social media is the public square.

Bigger Fatter Politics along with our readers and media partners are going to make an example out of Political Jack and its administrator. Our investigators are breaking down the walls in anonymity that hide the identity of the owners and the country or origin of Political Jack. While we don't have the muscle to take down the major bad actors we can take down the trolls like we did with Reddit. 

One of our readers sent us the following exchange with the administrator at Political Jack. This is the type of evidence required to win a lawsuit against a social media company. Our reader was banned because the punk administrator didn't like what our reader had written. Republican hate when the truth about their proclivity for pedophilia get mentioned. They also get very upset when anyone speculates or theorizes about what seems to be an incestuous relationship between Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka. 

Our reader turned the tables of the trash at Political Jack by pretending to be one of them while doing a Poe's law style much in the manner of Steven Colbert. It was fucking brilliant. It reminiscent of Tina Fey mimicking  Sarah Palin word for word on SNL.  We may add this reader to our editorial staff and have him write OdEd as Sean Whannity or Fucker Carlson. 


Below is the exchange between our reader and the punk running Political Jack


[QUOTE="PhilFish, convMessage: 69505, member: 9198"]


Me. I don't care either way.  It's been made perfectly clear to every poster many times over. And it'll be no different with you. Unless you're posting proof that Donald Trump fathered his child by way of his daughter ivanka, such posts, from whatever poster or party are not welcome here.

Paedo peddlers will find their time here short.

Otherwise I could give two shits. Just don't [Unwelcome language removed] up the site.

Bd can speak for himself.

Ps.  make your signature smaller still or I'm going to post a glorious picture of myself there in its place


[/QUOTE]

I never claimed Trump knocked up Ivanka. I presented a theory. Barron appears to be special needs which is often the case when incest is involved. Trump has repeatedly spoken of Ivanka in a sexual way. Moral fathers don't do that. Barron bares no resemblance to Melania. 

Again you have accused me of being a "Pedo Peddler". We know who the "pedo peddlers really are. Since you have not defined the term I will. A pedo peddler is anyone who would promote, defend, ignore or support a pedophile so if you agree with that definition then you would have to ban every Trump supporter on this forum. 

There is nothing in the rules that forbid the discussion of conspiracy theories so in that case it would be up to the MAGAts to prove Melania was indeed pregnant for Barron.  

As you may recall, your people flooded the internet that Obama was gay and Mrs Obama was a tranny. They gave no thought to Sasha or Malia who were little kids at the time both of whom looked like Mrs Obama's little sisters. In spite of that, the MAGAts  still persisted in trashing the Obama's . I'm returning the favor. Do you have a problem with that?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After this private message exchange the Administrator philfish banned our reader. He fucked with the bull now he's getting the horns



 

Shrinks Explain Trump's Narcissism

 

Tuesday, September 29, 2020

1st Trump Biden Debate Preliminary Fact Check

President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden shouted at each other across the debate stage in Cleveland during the first presidential debate of the 2020 election. As they traded blows over everything from the next Supreme Court nominee to Hunter Biden's business dealings, some of their claims stretched the bounds of the truth. A few claims were outright whoppers.

NBC News is fact-checking their statements in real time. Please check back regularly for the latest updates. For full coverage, visit the debate live blog.

Did Trump call veterans 'losers'?

Biden made this claim Tuesday evening, and it accurately reflects media reports citing multiple sources.

“And speaking of my son, the way you talk about the military, the way you talk about them being losers and just being suckers. My son was in Iraq. He spent a year there. He got the Bronze Star. He got a service medal. He was not a loser. He was a patriot, and the people left behind there were heroes,” Biden said, speaking of his son Beau Biden.

Biden appears to be referring to a recent report in The Atlantic, which zeroed in on Trump's rhetoric about service members. Citing four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussions, the magazine reported that Trump canceled a visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018 because he feared his hair would become disheveled in the rain. The Atlantic then was first to report that in a conversation with senior staff members, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.”

Trump also unequivocally  called the more than 1,800 fallen Marines “suckers” for getting killed during the World War I battle. The Atlantic’s report was confirmed by the Associated Press, while the Washington Post reported similar rhetoric about fallen service members. The president denied The Atlantic report as “fake.”

Did violent crime fall under Obama, rise under Trump, as Biden claimed?

On Tuesday night, Biden says, “Violent crime went down 17 percent, 15 percent in our administration. It's gone up on his watch.”

Biden's attack is true. Asked about this claim, the Biden campaign pointed to a FactCheck.org review of FBI violent crime data during the Obama administration that found that the violent crime rate fell nearly 16 percent when adjusted for population. While that number appears to check out, his attack on Trump is unfounded: While homicide has been on the rise, violent crime has remained largely flat under the Trump administration.

Did Biden call Black Americans 'superpredators'?

"Look at the crime bill, 1994, where you called them 'super predators,' African-Americans are 'super-predators,'" Trump said. "And they’ve never forgotten that."

This is totally false. It was Hillary Clinton, then the first lady, who used the term "super predator" to advocate for the 1994 crime bill that Biden co-authored more than thirty years ago. Biden did warn of "predators" in a floor speech in support of his bill, however.

Did Trump pay 'a total of $750 in taxes,' as Biden claimed?

Biden, during a prolonged exchange over the amount of federal taxes Trump has paid, said, "this guy paid a total of $750 in taxes."

Trump LIED by saying, "I've paid millions of dollars in taxes, millions of dollars of income tax."

Biden's claim accurately reflects new reporting by The New York Times for the years 2016 and 2017.

Trump’s federal income tax bill was just $750 dollars the year he won the presidency, The New York Times reported after obtaining and reviewing more than two decades of the president’s tax information. During his first year in office, his bill remained $750. The information does not include his returns from 2018 and 2019.

Trump had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years prior to 2016, because he reported losing much more money than he made during that time. NBC News has not seen or verified any of the documents reported by The Times.

Does Trump support cutting police funding?

"His budget calls for a $400 million cut in local law enforcement assistance," Biden said Tuesday night, reiterating his own opposition to defunding the police.

This is 100% true, though Biden actually undercounts the proposed cuts. While Trump has opposed calls from some Democrats to reduce police funding in response to the death of George Floyd and other Black Americans over the summer, the Trump administration’s budget proposal does indeed call for big cuts for several police programs. In the Justice Department’s budget plan for fiscal year 2021, the Trump administration requested $1.51 billion for over 50 programs funding state and local law enforcement. That number cuts about $515 million from previous fiscal years, in part by slashing budgets for a number of Obama-era programs, including initiatives that provided body cameras for police officers.

Could Biden have fixed the tax code in a way to prevent Trump from taking advantage of it?

During an acrimonious exchange, the president defended himself for his reportedly low tax bill by suggesting that if Biden wanted Trump to have not taken advantage of the tax code, then he should have taken action to fix it during his tenure in the U.S. Senate.

"The tax code that put him in a position that he pays less tax than a school teacher is because of — he says he’s smart because he can take advantage of the tax code. And he does take advantage of the tax code," Biden said.

Trump replied with a lie, "But why didn’t you do it over the last 25 years? Why didn’t you do it over the last 25 years?"

In reality, despite being in Senate for 36 years, Biden was never  in a position to re-write the federal tax code.

While in the Senate from 1973 to 2009, Biden was chair of the Judiciary and Foreign Relations committees and had no direct hand in writing tax laws. That’s the job of the Senate Finance Committee.

Trump, on the other hand, takes advantage of several loopholes to avoid paying taxes, including some for which he personally lobbied.

Among them is a law passed in 1986 to limit investors not actively involved in a business from taking deductions and attributing losses against their income. An “at-risk” rule was also added to prevent a taxpayer from deducting losses greater than their investment. But Congress largely exempted real estate developers, like Trump.

At the same time his Atlantic City investments were suffering, Trump appeared before Congress in 1991 to advocate for “tax shelters” that would “incentivize” “investment in real estate” to help boost the economy during the recession.

Were Trump's claims about Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings true?

Trump and his traitorous allies have attacked the former vice president's son, Hunter Biden, for his foreign business dealings.

On Tuesday, Trump echoed one of the biggest claims from the recent Senate GOP Homeland Security Committee's "conflicts of interest investigation" into Hunter Biden — Trump claimed on the debate stage that "the mayor of Moscow's wife gave your son $3.5 million. What did he do to deserve it?"

The report, authored by known Republican liars Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, claimed that Elena Baturina, the former wife of the late former mayor of Moscow, wired $3.5 million to a firm associated with Hunter Biden.

Hunter Biden’s legal team told NBC News that Biden had "no interest" in that firm that received the money, so "the claim he was paid $3.5 million was false."

And on the debate stage, the former vice president said the claim had been "totally discredited."

The Senate GOP-led "conflicts of interest" report largely resurfaced outstanding allegations, specifically as to Hunter Biden’s role on the board of a Ukrainian energy company as well as what the committee called “questionable financial transactions between Hunter Biden and his associates and foreign individuals.”

Largely focusing on those optics, the report doesn’t say that Hunter Biden’s work changed U.S. policy. Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates slammed the report as an “attack founded on a long-disproven hardcore right-wing conspiracy theory” that Johnson “has now explicitly stated he is attempting to exploit to bail out Donald Trump's re-election campaign."

Read the GOP’s summary of the report here and the Biden campaign’s criticism of the probe here.

Did Trump lower drug prices?

“I'm cutting drug prices. I'm going with favored nations which no president has the courage to do because you're going against big pharma. Drug prices will be coming down 80 or 90 percent,” Trump said on Tuesday night.

“He has no plan for health care,” Biden argued. “He hasn't lowered drug costs for anybody.”

Numerous fact checks found that there's no evidence that Trump's policies have meaningfully slashed drug prices, as he's repeatedly claimed, let alone "80 to 90 percent."

Brand name drug prices are on the rise, too.

Were there really 'no negative effects' from Trump's rallies, as he claimed?

Trump just said that "we've had no negative effect" from coronavirus at his rallies, a claim that ignores the spate of Covid-19 cases that have been linked to those campaign events.

A handful of Trump's own campaign staff tested positive for Covid-19 in the days surrounding his late-June rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, including members of the Secret Service. Former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain tested positive days after the rally and ultimately died due to complications from the virus. While Cain attended the rally and was photographed without a mask on, it's unclear where he contracted the virus.

Tulsa's top health official said that the rally "likely contributed" to a surge in cases after the rally.

Did Trump accurately characterize the Obama administration's response to swine flu?

"Well you didn’t do that well on swine flu, H1N1, you were a disaster. Your own chief of staff said you were a disaster," Trump said to Biden Tuesday night.

Trump's lying here. Ron Klain, Biden’s former chief of staff, has criticized the Obama administration's swine flu response, not Biden specifically.

“We did every possible thing wrong — 60 million Americans got H1N1,” he said at a biosecurity summit in May 2019. “It is purely a fortuity that this isn’t one of the great mass casualty events in American history. It had nothing to do with us doing anything right. It just had to do with luck.”

Klain later told Politico his comments referred to the administration’s difficulties producing enough of the vaccine they developed, and argued the Obama team quickly adapted to the pandemic — quickly responding and distributing supplies from the federal stockpile, for example — and made very different choices than the Trump administration.

It's also worth noting that the swine flu is estimated to have killed 12,000 in the U.S., far smaller than the more than 209,128 who have died of Covid-19 to date. The Obama administration also received generally high marks for its response to the swine flu. While government reports after the fact identified room for growth they also highlighted successes, like rapid research and development of a vaccine that arrived in less than six months. There’s little contemporaneous reporting on the Obama administration response that portrays the kind of unmitigated disaster Trump is suggesting occurred.

How many people are there in the U.S. with pre-existing conditions?

Trump and Biden came out of the gate with conflicting statements over how many people in the U.S. have pre-existing conditions. Biden said there are 100 million such people — and that they would lose their health care coverage should the Affordable Care Act be eliminated. Trump insisted Biden's number was wrong.

“There's 100 million people who have pre-existing conditions and they'll be taken away as well,” Biden said. Trump shot back, “There aren’t 100 million people with pre-existing conditions.”

Studies on the topic show a range that would technically make both men correct.

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated in 2018 that at least 53.8 million adults under had a pre-existing condition that would make them unable to buy insurance.

Another study, conducted by Avalere, a health care consulting firm, estimated that 102 million Americans had a pre-existing condition that would make them unable to buy insurance.

A 2017 study from the Department of Health and Human Services estimated that about 133 million people had a pre-existing condition that would make them unable to buy insurance.

Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics

Do GOP health plans protect people with pre-existing conditions, as Trump claimed?

Trump said Tuesday, "Obamacare is no good. We made it better. And I had a choice to make very early on. We took away the individual mandate. We guarantee pre-existing conditions."

It's true that Republicans eliminated Obamacare’s individual mandate — a provision designed to require people to purchase healthcare coverage or pay a fine through their taxes — as part of its 2017 tax bill. But Trump LIED on the point of pre-existing conditions. We’ve fact checked this at length before, and it’s still false.

Trump has long LIED that he and the GOP will protect people with pre-existing conditions from losing their health insurance — but he has pursued legislation, litigation and executive actions to dismantle those protections under the Affordable Care Act.

A Republican bill backed by Trump included ACA state waivers that would allow insurers to charge higher prices to people with pre-existing conditions, potentially pricing them out of the market. It passed the House and died in the Senate in 2017. Trump has also used executive actions to expand the use of short-term insurance plans that aren't required to cover pre-existing conditions.

Trump recently signed a symbolic executive order affirming the protections Obamacare created, but his administration is backing a Republican-led lawsuit claiming the actual protections in the law should be struck down. Republicans have yet to offer a plan that would restore pre-existing conditions protections.

Did Trump correctly characterize Biden's health care plan?

Trump, during a testy exchange about health care, said of Biden's health care plan, "the bigger problem that you have is you're going to extinguish 180 million people with their private health care that they're very happy with."

This claim is false. It conflates Biden’s plan with that of other Democrats pushing “Medicare for All.”

While there are varying estimates about how many Americans have private insurance, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates that about 180 million people have private insurance.

Biden’s plan doesn’t end private insurance, like some of Biden's other Democratic presidential primary opponents proposed. Instead, Biden's health care plan creates a public option for those who want to get government health insurance while allowing those with private insurance to stay on their plan.

Many lying Republicans have sought to tie the proposals for "Medicare for All" to all Democrats — and it is true that many Democratic members of Congress are sponsoring the bill (118 in the House and 14 in the Senate).

But Biden has criticized "Medicare for All" throughout his campaign.

Will a GOP lawsuit 'strip 20 million people' of their insurance, as Biden claimed?

Biden claimed that the Republican-backed lawsuit targeting the Affordable Care Act would strip 20 million people of their health care.

This checks out, according to multiple studies. The Center for American Progress estimates 23.3 million would lose their health care if the GOP-backed legal challenge to the law succeeded before the Supreme Court in a recent analysis. An estimated 20 million people gained coverage under Obamacare, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

 

Is Barron Trump The Love Child Of Donald and Ivanka?

Take a close look and you will see no resemblance between "mother and son" 










This one is the clincher and here's why. Children take on the characteristics of their fathers and mothers but as you can see, Barron shares no facial characteristics of  Melania. He dosen't have Trump's nose or Melania's nose but his nose looks like Ivanka's. Barron's jaw line is identical to Ivanka's Barron's eyebrows and eye sockets are identical to Ivanka's. 


As you can see Tiffany and her mother Marla Maples have identical eyes. 

With no evidence, the death deserving trash on the right started a lie claiming Obama was gay and Mrs Obama was a man and that Sasha and Malia were adopted. If I were to get face to face with one of those cocksuckers I would turn them into a quadriplegic.  


Malia Obama is the spitting image of her mother. They look like sisters. 


Eric Trump left Gary Busey Right 






 















Ex-Watergate Prosecutor Says 'No Question' Trump And Ivanka Could Both Face Prison

 Ed Mazza

·Overnight Editor, HuffPost

A former federal prosecutor during the Watergate proceedings that brought down President Richard Nixon says new tax revelations about President Donald Trump could ultimately send him to prison.

“No question about it,” Nick Akerman said Monday on CNN. “And his daughter could go to jail, too.”

Both the president and his oldest daughter, Ivanka Trump, who also serves as a White House adviser, are named in the New York Times report detailing the schemes that allowed Donald Trump to avoid taxes for much of the past decade and a half.

“Tax evasion is a five-year felony,” said Akerman, who was an assistant special Watergate prosecutor investigated Nixon’s taxes. “It’s a pretty serious crime, and the more money that’s stolen, the longer you go to jail for.”

Trump has denied any wrongdoing. However, he has also refused to publicly disclose his tax returns, as has been customary for presidential candidates for nearly half a century.

Akerman said the Times report details “a whole series of activities that could qualify as tax fraud, not tax avoidance.”

Avoidance, he said, is merely taking advantage of the tax code in legal ways to maximize deductions. Fraud, on the other hand, involves lying about income and deductions.

He pointed specifically to consultant fees paid by Donald Trump to Ivanka Trump. Since Ivanka Trump was already an employee of the Trump Organization, Akerman said, there was “no legitimate reason” for those payments.

He speculated the two could have been shifting the money around to avoid paying taxes on it.

That, he said, could lead to an ominous development for the president should he leave office in January.

“The only thing that’s saving him at this point is the Department of Justice’s guideline that says you can’t indict a sitting president,” Akerman said. “Once he’s no longer a sitting president, he is subject to being indicted.”

He added that “any decent prosecutor” could make a “pretty viable” case:

Akerman also tweeted his reaction to the Times report on Trump’s tax filings on Sunday:

Love HuffPost? Become a founding member of HuffPost Plus today.

Trump Wrote Off Ivanka 

Payments 

As 'Consulting Fees' On 

His Taxes: New York Times

Marina Fang
·Reporter, HuffPost

President Donald Trump wrote off payments to his daughter Ivanka as a tax deduction for “consulting fees,” according to a revelatory New York Times investigation into the president’s taxes published Sunday night.

The reporting, drawn from tax returns obtained by outlet, reveals the extent to which Trump avoided paying taxes. He wrote off myriad business expenses as deductions, ranging from property taxes to legal fees to $70,000 for hairstyling.

He also wrote off as “consulting fees” related to his businesses.

“There appears to be a closer-to-home explanation for at least some of the fees: Mr. Trump reduced his taxable income by treating a family member as a consultant, and then deducting the fee as a cost of doing business,” the Times wrote.

The reporters matched up the tax records with Ivanka Trump’s financial disclosures, filed when she became a White House senior adviser. They found that more than $700,000 in payments she disclosed pertaining to a consulting company were the same amount as the tax deductions for “consulting fees” on a pair of hotel projects listed on the Trump Organization’s tax records.

At the time, Ivanka Trump was a top executive at the Trump Organization, not an outside consultant. People close to Trump’s businesses “were not aware of any outside consultants who would have been paid,” the Times reported.

The reporters believe this is likely a common practice Trump has used to avoid paying taxes, and could potentially be a way to have paid his adult children without incurring gift taxes.

“If the payments to his daughter were compensation for work, it is not clear why Mr. Trump would do it in this form, other than to reduce his own tax liability,” they wrote.

Among the many other revelations in the Times’ report: between 2011 and 2014, Trump paid $0 in income taxes; in both 2016 and 2017, he paid only $750 in income taxes; and years of failed business ventures and bankruptcies have left him with $421 million of debt and loans.

For years, Trump has refused to release his tax returns, something every president since Richard Nixon has done. During his 2016 campaign, he claimed he could not disclose his tax information because he was under IRS audit. In response, the IRS said that being under audit does not bar anyone from releasing their tax information.

Related...

Trump Blasts Bombshell Report On His $750 U.S. Tax Bills As 'Fake News'

Trump Holds $421 Million In Debt, Could Owe IRS $100 Million In Penalties, Times Says

Trump’s Massive Hairstyling Bill Revealed In NYT Bombshell Tax Report

Love HuffPost? Become a founding member of HuffPost Plus today.

This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.

Eric Trump aka Tweedle Dumber Went On Fox To Talk About LGBTQ+ Support For His Father & It Got Confusing

 Elly Belle



Eric Trump, the lesser-heard-from-but-still-problematic son of president Donald Trump, has been the subject of an unforeseen Twitterstorm involving his statements about the LGBTQ+ community.

In a new segment from Fox and Friends that aired Tuesday, host Ainsley Earhardt questioned Eric Trump about LGBTQ+ people supporting his father in the presidential election. Specifically, Trump was questioned about the potential “secret voters” or members of the LGBTQ+ community who have not admitted to supporting a Trump second term. Earhardt read the story of a gay woman who says she is supporting Trump’s 2020 campaign before asking his son, Eric, about that supporter base.

“There are a lot of people that might be voting for your dad that might be admitting it. So are you counting on this person? The ‘secret voter?'” she asked. In response, Eric Trump stated, “The LGBT community, they are incredible. And you should see how they come out in full force for my father every single day. I’m part of that community, and we love the man.”

But as soon as Eric Trump said the words “I’m part of that community,” speculations ran rampant online. The internet immediately exploded with queer folks questioning their reality, wondering if this was the strange way that Eric Trump had chosen to address his own sexuality. But in reality, it’s more likely that Trump was seemingly (albeit poorly) just quoting a supporter saying “I’m part of that community” to drive his point. And this felt like more of a relief than anything for many other LGBTQ+ people online who tweeted in response that they don’t want to “claim” him anyway.

But, of course, Eric Trump has made himself an easy target, and there’s been no shortage of jokes that the internet has made about him in recent years (though, unfortunately, not in a himbo way). The internet similarly had a field day when he spoke at a rally in October and gave a bizarrely-timed Christmas shout-out, almost two months before Thanksgiving, saying he was taking the “war on Christmas” head on. “Very important update: the war on Christmas has begun before Halloween this year,” one writer tweeted in response then.

More recently in May, the middle Trump child also claimed that the coronavirus would “magically all of a sudden go away and disappear” and the country could reopen. At this point, it seems he’s just living in a completely different reality. What kind of VR goggles does he have on, we wonder?

Though, one might say that Eric Trump is simply carrying on the family tradition of speaking before knowing what you’re talking about. Earlier this year, the internet similarly responded to Ivanka clearly not understanding a Matrix reference and tweeting about being “red pilled.”

With election fever ramping up, here’s hoping that Eric continues his streak of saying things without thinking, if anything as a reprieve, though perhaps less aimed at a community that absolutely does not want to claim him.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Trump Tax Returns Show How Rich People Avoid Taxes

Is Tulsi Gabbard Backing A Right-Wing Group?

Did Lara Trump Use A Fake Abraham Lincoln Quote?