You’ve Been Trumped Too

You’ve Been Trumped Too: it’s the film Donald Trump doesn’t want you to see
by Anthony Baxter

When I found out about Trump’s treatment of a Scottish family in his attempt to force them off their land I had to make a film about it. Now he wants to sue.


Donald Trump is threatening to sue movie theatres, reporters or anyone who repeats the allegations made in my new film You’ve Been Trumped Too? No surprise there. He threatened the BBC with the same before the broadcast of my first film, back in 2012. But what makes Trump’s latest threat all the more terrifying is that he could soon hold the keys to the White House. Can you imagine a world where the president of the United States was throwing around lawsuits just because he objected to what was printed or broadcast about him?

Welcome to the world we could wake up to on 9 November if Trump becomes the most powerful man on the planet. And if the polls are to be believed, it’s a step closer to becoming a reality.



We won’t be cowered by Trump’s legal threats and cyberbullying. That’s why we’re making You’ve Been Trumped Too available free to all voters in America tonight. This is the film he doesn’t want you to see. And here’s why we think you should see it …


Full article and link to film here:


11 thoughts on “You’ve Been Trumped Too

  1. My parents live in a prime area where there are acres of land but where they are very near a large city. In the past few years, the people who had smaller plots of land closer to the main road were forced to sell to a developer so condominiums could be built. In the process, my father has talked to two builders [the first builder/developer had to stop halfway through, so now a second one is building apartments instead — which was originally ruled out of what was going to be put there]. They were going to lay pipes for city water to his property. Both talked big (on a trust basis) about how they would surely do this. (Currently, and from the inception* of this house, there is water coming from a lake/pond through a filter into the house.) Neither builder has cared at all to follow through.

    My father complains about this and about the fact he doesn’t think a promised fence will be put up (this particular promise was stated in town meetings and agreements) and says the government doesn’t do what it should. And yet, the last time I was visiting my parents, they were trying to talk me into voting for Trump. They knew I wasn’t voting for either major party candidate, but they just couldn’t stop their drive to push for this guy. I remember thinking they would vote for the guys who didn’t care about their desire to hook up for regular water and then complain about the government. At that time, I didn’t know of this story about Trump and these people who have been deprived of their previous water source because of him. Trump is worse, but should be President.

    * The house itself was built thirty-ish years ago, with approval to be on the kind of water system it has.

  2. I drew attention to this article on Bill Randles’ blog where he was accusing “the left” (and Obama) of hating the internet, because it gives access to alternative viewpoints that can’t be controlled by the traditional (leftist) media. He accuses “the leftists” such as Obama of trying to destroy tat freedom on the internet by removing control of the interne from US hands.

    He writes:

    With all of it’s flaws and vanities, I believe that we are in a period of light, while the internet remains under US supervision. It is still basically free. People can express themselves openly.

    Obama, like all of the other elite State worshippers, is very uncomfortable with that.

    After all, there are too many people dissenting the weaponizing of immigration as a means of destabilizing the west, there are too many people calling out the Satanic cult that is ISlam, there are too many people pointing out fake documents such as Obama’s birth certificate and Dan Rather’s fraudulent attempt to slander George Bush. It is too obvious that the emperor is not wearing anything, and that the New World order is a fascistic nightmare coming at us.

    I don’t know what will happen but I think if the internet is relinquished to the UN or to Russia, China or the Muslim world, (or some combination of the above),Websites are going to be shut down, and we will be back where we were in the 1990’s and before, with only the viewpoint of the left as our form of “News”. Night is falling.

    If they shut down the internet, a light goes out. “

    I’ve just tried to find my reference to the Trump article on Randles’ blog and I can no longer find it.

    Is Randles afraid of the truth? Is he afraid of information that doesn’t fit into his partisan viewpoint?

  3. Well, I don’t know for sure (although there are indications from some of the people he seems to like, such as Drudge and Breitbart/Bannon — who make people paranoid about other sources). But the last couple times I tried to post in that thread with a link to an article (which I tried before I ended up posting my last post that you can see there — naming O’Reilly, for example, who has lied), the posts just didn’t “take.” I don’t know if something was off with my own connection or with traffic at Bill’s site, but the screen that showed up wasn’t the normal one. It used to be that I noticed only one link could be posted at a time That can make a topic difficult. But the situation changed to none (it seems).

    Here are a few links. I’m wondering if I’m confusing things, other people are confusing things, all of us aren’t understanding the matter very well, or what. So, I was hoping to evaluate a little bit. I wrote the following up, in order to post in separate postings there if I could. But I gave up:

    I think there may be some confusion about what is happening. There have been two major and different stories (plus a third, minor one) about the Internet in recent years, or I could be wrong about that.
    It looks to me, by the way, like the headline, here, is incorrect — they voted for a study. This article was linked to from the one below. All three of these articles are different from the ones I said I read earlier (just recently). [Note: I had told Bill or anyone reading at that thread in the comments that I had read some articles not considered right wing but which, from the factual information, led to me to deciding I’d prefer we keep the regulating function.]

    When net neutrality was the topic (like a year and two ago), I was in favor of that; it keeps things running freer. [I think that’s a separate topic from “giving away the internet” — or letting go of management.]

    Managing or regulating is a general reality of government. When Republicans have talked incessantly of shrinking government, they have been pushing for our loss of government protections. They don’t seem to be able to think it through (and it hasn’t been only Republicans; Bill Clinton talked that way).

    To support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking and governance, the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) today announces its intent to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community.


    From the inception of ICANN, the U.S. Government and Internet stakeholders envisioned that the U.S. role in the IANA functions would be temporary. The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that the U.S. Government “is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.” [, 3/14/14]

  5. Hi Marleen, the first sentence of that first link seems to indicate a likely source of Bill Randles claims:

    Donald Trump’s campaign says a government plan to give up managing key operations of the internet poses a threat of outside censorship of online information. But such an outcome is highly unlikely

    Yet another case of the lies and deception at the heart of the pro-Trump campaign being swallowed and passed on by “evangelicals”.

  6. Republican presidential candidates have been talking about getting rid of agencies, and specifically Commerce, for one, on a regular basis. These links will remind us of two campaign cycles [and more].
    “It’s three agencies of government when I get there that are gone: commerce, education, and the uh … what’s the third one, there? Let’s see.” He went on to say: “The third one. I can’t.” He made it worse by adding: “Oops.”

    Fifteen minutes later he attempted to undo the damage, saying: “By the way that was the department of energy I was reaching for a while ago.” But it was too late.
    …. Bartiromo, a moderator in Tuesday night’s primary debate on Fox Business Network, tried to draw out Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) on …. his proposal to cut taxes… without accounting for effects on economic growth.

    Cruz replied that the government wouldn’t have to borrow that money, and that instead, he has a plan to reduce federal spending. That plan, he said, has “… specific cuts.” He also said that he would eliminate five federal agencies.

    Cruz didn’t list all five, though, instead naming the Commerce Department twice. And … how he’d achieve … $500 billion … is short on specifics.


    [Here’s a little history on the fascination with eliminating the Education Department.
    Ted Cruz (2nd from Texas this time), also history starting with Reagan]

  7. Incidentally, the right wingers across Europe are delighted Trump won. And they’re continuing to spread their worldview with talk of a new world order. I wonder if anyone in our right-wing nationalism noticed that Trump had such visitors to our country to attend his functions? I guess that’s the right elites?

  8. The night before election day, one of Trump’s main surrogates was saying he wasn’t sure about Trump at first but had finally decided he is conservative. Because of security, small government, and guns.

    As an aside, the spokesman pointed out Trump had been against guns and pro-choice.

    I started noticing and saying some years ago that if we weaken our government enough, it won’t be effective any more. But do they say things like that? No, they are pushing an idea of being able to cut taxes.

    And that, most especially for people making the most money, is what hasbeen “accomplished.”

    What happens when your government is weak? Does that mean you live then in an idyllic wonderland? More likely, someone else dominates. Ideology has been forwarding the strongest and richest.

Comments are closed.