• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trump Presidency VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ummm ...

I don't think the point of that tweet, or Stacko's comment at any rate, had anything to do with her accent.

I think it was the unrepentant plagiarism. "Again".

Maybe that wasn't her fault, either. They claimed it wasn't the last time, too.

It's sort of a Trump family tradition. It isn't ever their fault.

It goes a bit beyond just her, though. Most likely, someone just cleaned up the old manual a bit, showed it to her, and she said "That's good", having no clue that this had been done before.

It's the sort of slovenly and dishonest conduct that Dolt 45 himself seems to require out of every staffer, more than anything to do with Melania. I could be wrong, but since the common man in all of this is Tang the Conqueror, I'm looking to him first.
 
Trump came out against Tom Blankenship ,the wackjob GOP senate candidate in a move designed to prevent him from wining the nomination, which in many people eyes would pretty much guarantee Democrat Minchin's relection in November.

What a moron. He made the one statement that would INCREASE Blankenship's chances.

He said to vote for one of the other two guys running.
 
It goes a bit beyond just her, though. Most likely, someone just cleaned up the old manual a bit, showed it to her, and she said "That's good", having no clue that this had been done before.

It's the sort of slovenly and dishonest conduct that Dolt 45 himself seems to require out of every staffer, more than anything to do with Melania. I could be wrong, but since the common man in all of this is Tang the Conqueror, I'm looking to him first.


Not his fault either.

He has people for that.
 
Trump will probably pull out of the Iran Deal tomorrow.
Further isolating America.
Making odds as to how long until the bombing begins.....
 
And when one of the senior statesman of your own party says he does not want you going to his funeral, that is some kind of a new low. Congrats on reaching it, Donald.
 
Slight adjustment.

Aside from that, I agree completely.

You're correct as far as almost every major city I've been in thus far goes. I'm told that some PDs are actually making a fairly good effort at creating relationships with community residents and leaders - the main one that comes to mind is Dallas, and 1990s Boston (this is the exception among places I've lived for any length of time).
 
So besides Stormy and Russian hacking and the pee tape, the biggest threat to Trump seems to be behind the "red line" he drew for his business finances.

A phrase that does not appear in the Post’s article, because the reporters cannot prove it, is “money laundering.” But money laundering is the suspicion hovering over all these curious purchases, and the reason the Post is devoting so many investigative resources to the subject in the first place. “This is all about money laundering,” Steve Bannon told Michael Wolff. “[Mueller’s] path to *********** Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr. and Jared Kushner … It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner ****.”

Money laundering would be criminal activity. If you are involved in criminal activity, you are subject to blackmail. And if the criminals who can blackmail you have connections to a foreign government — say, Russia — then that government has blackmail leverage. Ten years ago, Donald Trump Jr. casually said, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” And as recently as 2014, Eric Trump told a reporter, “We don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia,” which is quite different than his current explanation that the Trump Organization does not require outside funding at all.

The secret sauce of Trump’s real-estate business in its early stages was his ability to manipulate the media and willingness to borrow massive sums and not pay them back. When he exhausted his ability to stiff his creditors, the new secret sauce became a willingness to take money from shady overseas sources, especially (but not exclusively) Russian oligarchs looking either to park their cash overseas, or to gain some measure of influence. Whether Russia was investing in Trump for the purpose of gaining some hidden leverage over him is not incidental to the Mueller investigation but its very heart.

Likewise, a casual reader of the Times report on Michael Cohen’s business history may have missed the significance concealed beneath its carefully measured language. The upshot is that Cohen is not the schlubby, unethical lawyer Ben Stiller portrayed him as on Saturday Night Live. Cohen’s father uncle, the Times reveals, worked closely with La Cosa Nostra and gained the organization’s trust. Cohen’s first employer was a criminal, his father-in-law was a criminal with ties to the Russian Mafia, and Cohen maintained extensive criminal associations throughout his public life. Sometimes people involved in mostly legitimate business have gangster friends, but if you’re surrounded at all stages by gangsters — including operating your business out of a criminal headquarters, as Cohen did — then your real profession is “crook.” The Times can’t prove it, nor can I, but this is the takeaway.

Linky.
 
Not his fault either.

He has people for that.

Nah. Truth is, good people want nothing to do with anyone as clearly corrupt and incompetent as he is. It's not even good for future employment at this point, much less for, say, self-esteem. And while I don't really have that much sympathy for Melania, I really doubt that she was behind this mess, either.

ETA: Come to think of it...this was probably rushed out as a sad attempt to distract.
 
Last edited:
Well, even that runs counter to the idyllic mental image I have of London, with “Bobbies on bicycles, two by two”.

Dixon Of Dock Green was never a documentary.

It was suggested that London needed to work on stronger knife laws. Seems like a slippery slope designed to make sure a law-abiding citizen has virtually NO means of self defense.

In general, carrying a knife is illegal anyway. And if your use of a knife to defend yourself is not considered proportionate to the attack you're fending off, you'll be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, and perhaps manslaughter.
 
Dixon Of Dock Green was never a documentary.



In general, carrying a knife is illegal anyway. And if your use of a knife to defend yourself is not considered proportionate to the attack you're fending off, you'll be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, and perhaps manslaughter.

There's no direct equivalent in English law of "assault with a deadly weapon" - our laws in this area are based on the severity of the injuries and the intent of the assailant. Of course a weapon may well be evidence of that intent. In cases where self defence is a factor the person defending themselves is given some latitude because the law recognises that one can't weigh the niceties so easily when under threat. Related to that is the concept of "instant arming" so if you grab hold of something to use as a weapon to defend yourself with you should not fall foul of the laws aimed at preventing the carrying of weapons.
 
I didn't mean to imply there was.

No problem, I was just thinking that this is becoming an unnecessary diversion anyway.

Might be worth a new thread on the different approaches to public ownership and carrying of weapons - it's a topic that's come up in other parts of the forum.
 
So besides Stormy and Russian hacking and the pee tape, the biggest threat to Trump seems to be behind the "red line" he drew for his business finances.



Linky.

I like the standard this sets. It's a shame Andrew Puzder withdrew his name as Sec'y of Labor. He could've held all his business lunches at Hardee's. Betsy could have school security funneled to her brother.

Remember, this is the party that got conniption fits that the evil Clintons were accepting foundation donations from human rights wings of various governments and well situated princes.
 
Not his fault either.

He has people for that.

Nah. Truth is, good people want nothing to do with anyone as clearly corrupt and incompetent as he is. It's not even good for future employment at this point, much less for, say, self-esteem.


I may not have been clear in the point I was making.

Trump never allows any blame to fall on himself. He will always try to pass the blame onto a subordinate.

He doesn't need to hire good people for that. In fact, it might be counterproductive to that goal.

I don't think that good people would ever work for Trump. Even before this political foray he was a pile of stink that no good person would want to be involved with. I just assume that anyone who is willing to work for him is bent, broken, or stupid. Or some combination of those.

And while I don't really have that much sympathy for Melania, I really doubt that she was behind this mess, either.


Mebbe not, but she was willing to be in front of it. So I agree. No sympathy.

ETA: Come to think of it...this was probably rushed out as a sad attempt to distract.


No doubt.
 
I read about that in a CNN article earlier today.

I thought this quote was particularly ironic;



This in a state that voted for Trump by 68%.

I can't imagine whatever gave him the idea that they would suddenly develop the ability to see through "misleading campaign".

Especially in a GOP primary, where closer to 100% of them had been completely snowed by Trump.


They always did see through his misleading campaigning. The whole you have to take him seriously not literally BS. They knew he was spouting 50% BS at least, they just thought they could see through to which was real policy and which was BS solely to win the votes of fools who believed what he was saying.

When his own supporters argue that you can not take what he is saying as a statement of intent they are not exactly missing that he is engaging in "misleading campaigning".
 
They always did see through his misleading campaigning. The whole you have to take him seriously not literally BS. They knew he was spouting 50% BS at least, they just thought they could see through to which was real policy and which was BS solely to win the votes of fools who believed what he was saying.


And yet, they couldn't, could they?

When his own supporters argue that you can not take what he is saying as a statement of intent they are not exactly missing that he is engaging in "misleading campaigning".


And yet, they were, weren't they?

It doesn't matter which parts they were or were not misled by, the fact remains that they were misled.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom