TheEye👁️🇺🇸✝️🇺🇦 @DeepStateEye

@CoVet_81 Because it’s already been debunked ya stupid fool!🤦‍♂️

It ain't over yet.

@she683412 @PamelaHensley22 He deserves to be insulted.

He’s made peace 38 times! The Nobel Prize Committee CAN’T refuse @POTUS the peace prize now! ❤️

James Tate @JamesTate121

2 days ago

All we got was double gas prices.

0 13 22 351 0

@johnrockshomes 🤦‍♂️

🤔 The primary incentive for foreign accounts (often linked to state actors like Russia, China, or Iran) posting divisive memes is geopolitical strategy: to weaken target countries like the US by amplifying existing societal divisions. This makes the target less cohesive, distracts from foreign policy challenges, erodes trust in institutions, and can influence elections or public opinion indirectly. It’s a form of “active measures” or information warfare—low-cost, deniable, and highly scalable via social media.2 Strategic/Geopolitical Incentives •Divide and conquer: By pushing memes on hot-button issues (race, immigration, politics, guns, etc.), these operations pit groups against each other. Russian efforts, for example, have targeted both sides of the political spectrum—boosting pro-Trump and anti-Trump content, or amplifying Black Lives Matter alongside counter-narratives—to heighten polarization without needing to “win” for one side.15 •Undermine democracy and unity: A more divided US is seen as weaker on the global stage (e.g., less support for Ukraine, NATO, or confronting China). This has been documented in operations by Russia’s Internet Research Agency (IRA, or “troll farm”), Iranian networks, and Chinese influence efforts.20 •Amplification and virality: Memes are cheap, emotionally charged, and spread easily. They exploit algorithms that reward engagement (outrage drives clicks, shares, and replies). Foreign actors often pose as Americans, create fake grassroots groups, or use bots to boost visibility.8 These aren’t new tactics—Russia has run similar ops for years, including pre-2016 election interference—but social media made them far more effective and harder to trace.35 Financial Incentives Yes, money plays a role, but it’s often secondary or enabling for state goals. •State-funded troll farms: Russia’s IRA was financed by oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin (linked to Putin) via his companies, with a budget around $1.25 million per month at peaks. Employees (hundreds working shifts) created content, memes, and posts for salaries of a few hundred dollars monthly—cheap for the impact. Similar operations exist for other countries.60 •Platform monetization (e.g., on X): Some foreign accounts post rage-bait or divisive US politics content to farm engagement for revenue sharing. X’s program pays based on impressions/views, creating incentives for non-US accounts (e.g., from India, Nigeria, or elsewhere) to pretend to be American MAGA or other voices. This has led to “foreign slop” flooding feeds. X has adjusted policies (e.g., weighting home-region impressions) to curb this.0 •Hybrid: Some ops blend state direction with profit motives or use proxies/influencers. Individuals might do it purely for ad revenue or clicks, while governments run or tolerate farms for strategic ends. In short, for governments it’s mostly about power and disruption (with taxpayer/oligarch funding), while some operators chase platform payouts. The low barrier (memes are easy to make, especially with AI) makes it attractive. Platforms’ engagement-driven models inadvertently help by rewarding controversy.7 These efforts succeed partly because they exploit real divisions rather than inventing them from scratch. Awareness, better platform tools, and source labeling can reduce their impact.

@DavidJo70430257 No slush fund for you. I suggest chasing ambulances. 💋 youtu.be/bYhi3KGHvF0?is…

THERE IS NO BOTTOM 🤷 NONE

@MinkBzComMinute @MikeBales Obamacare covers mental illnesses.

@DavidJo70430257 How’d that work out?

You’re the moron, ask Grok. Yes, Donald Trump is widely known for making false or misleading statements at an unprecedented scale in modern American politics.16 Major nonpartisan fact-checkers have extensively documented this: •The Washington Post Fact Checker tracked 30,573 false or misleading claims during his first presidency (2017–2021), averaging about 21 per day. This started with 492 in his first 100 days and accelerated later, with over 500 on one day near the 2020 election. Many were repetitions of the same claims (e.g., on the economy, elections, or crowds).15 •PolitiFact has rated a high percentage of checked Trump statements as False or “Pants on Fire” (their worst rating). In one mid-2016 review of 158 claims, 60%+ fell into those categories. Trump won their “Lie of the Year” in 2015 for the volume of falsehoods.11 •Other outlets like FactCheck.org, the Toronto Star, and CNN have similarly catalogued repeated inaccuracies.16 Context and Comparisons Fact-checkers note this volume and persistence stand out compared to prior presidents. Historians and analysts (e.g., James Pfiffner) describe Trump’s pattern as including trivial exaggerations, self-aggrandizing claims, policy deceptions, and “egregious” lies contrary to well-known facts—more than predecessors in both frequency and normalization of repetition.42 Studies show variability in what fact-checkers select and rate (e.g., WaPo and PolitiFact overlap significantly but not perfectly on severity or choices), and some critics argue selection can reflect news priorities (powerful figures and controversial claims get more scrutiny).14 However, the raw documented volume for Trump far exceeds typical politicians, including comparisons to Obama, Biden, or Clinton in checked samples.46 All politicians stretch truths, exaggerate, or mislead at times (a human and political reality). Trump’s case is distinguished by the sheer quantity, daily pace, and willingness to repeat debunked claims even after correction. Public Perception Views are sharply polarized: •Overall, majorities in many polls (e.g., AP-NORC, Quinnipiac) see him as dishonest or say his claims are rarely/never fact-based.29 •Among Republicans, large portions (often 70-80% in some surveys) still view him as honest/trustworthy on key issues or don’t mind the inaccuracies, seeing them as “embellishment,” fighting bias, or “belief-speaking” rather than literal falsehoods.37 This divide reflects broader polarization: supporters often prioritize his style, results, or distrust of media fact-checkers, while critics see it as corrosive to discourse and trust in institutions. In short, the evidence from fact-checkers is overwhelming on the record of falsehoods, making it a defining part of his public image—even if opinions on its significance vary by political tribe.

@MCarbonaraFL Fake news

@irishpatriot91 tRump couldn’t hold President Obama’s jock strap, never mind fill it.😂 @POTUS

@AmericaPapaBear Fake news

@GuntherEagleman You have convictions for fraud? Fake news.

@ForgiatoBlow47 It’s already on its last legs.

@anagard0306 Fuck off ya commie!🤦‍♂️

@GM4USAmerica This guy commented and blocked me before I could respond. What a Q’unt!🤣 MAGA are a bunch of snowflakes.😂