• 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.

Trump's Second Term

Last edited:
The idea that Trump's reputation could take $10bil of damage from this is a joke. Like this is the straw that broke that particular camel's back..
 
shemp said:
Apparently, Schitler and his lawyers have a different definition of the word "exclusive" than the rest of us.

Also, I suggest you click on this and read some of the great responses. Also, check out the legal filing, which looks like AI had a hand in it.

https://bsky.app/profile/joshuajfriedman.com%2Fpost%2F3lubk5eyb322y
Click to expand...

Trumpian nonsense lawsuit said:
““Notably, Murdoch and Thomson authorized the publication of the Article after President Trump put them both on notice that the letter was
fake and nonexistent.”
Click to expand...

Schrödinger's boobiedoodle?
 
shemp said:
Apparently, Schitler and his lawyers have a different definition of the word "exclusive" than the rest of us.

Also, I suggest you click on this and read some of the great responses. Also, check out the legal filing, which looks like AI had a hand in it.

https://bsky.app/profile/joshuajfriedman.com%2Fpost%2F3lubk5eyb322y
Click to expand...
Even after reading the lawsuit I'm struggling to see what the defamation part of it is. Epstein was a known associate of Trump at the time, we all know the infamous video of him with Epstein so the newspaper associating him with Epstein can't be defamatory. Is it that the message was "bawdy"? I.e. stating that Trump would send a bawdy message, well the "grab them by their pussies" conversation precludes that being defamatory.


ETA: For those not wanting to wade through the nonsense this is the paragraph that will have it laughed out of court:
​
Moreover, the statements tend to harm the reputation of Plaintiff as to lower his professional reputation in the community or deter third persons from associating or dealing with him and, as such, constitute defamation per se​
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Even after reading the lawsuit I'm struggling to see what the defamation part of it is. Epstein was a known associate of Trump at the time, we all know the infamous video of him with Epstein so the newspaper associating him with Epstein can't be defamatory. Is it that the message was "bawdy"? I.e. stating that Trump would send a bawdy message, well the "grab them by their pussies" conversation precludes that being defamatory.
Click to expand...

"How dare you suggest I was on friendly terms with this person I was frequently filmed and photographed laughing and socialising with, called a 'great guy' that I'd 'known about 15 years' and who described himself as my best friend. Now I'm off to McDonalds to buy a really hot coffee from the drive through window"
 
He is his own harshest critic, though, you have to admit; first there was the trade deal with Canada and Mexico from 2018, which he criticised very harshly back in early spring this year, lambasting whoever it was that made that terrible deal. It was him, of course. He has also spoken about how dismally bad the Fed is run under Jerome Powell, and how surprised he is that Powell was appointed. By him, of course. And there are also all those people he appointed during his first term, who were the best people when he appointed them, but turned out to be the worst by the time they were fired. So credit where credit is due; he really is very critical of himself. And very humble! Possibly even the humblest, If you ask him. And he would know!
 
Helen said:
He is his own harshest critic, though, you have to admit; first there was the trade deal with Canada and Mexico from 2018, which he criticised very harshly back in early spring this year, lambasting whoever it was that made that terrible deal. It was him, of course. He has also spoken about how dismally bad the Fed is run under Jerome Powell, and how surprised he is that Powell was appointed. By him, of course. And there are also all those people he appointed during his first term, who were the best people when he appointed them, but turned out to be the worst by the time they were fired. So credit where credit is due; he really is very critical of himself. And very humble! Possibly even the humblest, If you ask him. And he would know!
Click to expand...

He doesn't even have object perminence for himself.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
He doesn't even have object perminence for himself.
Click to expand...

We have a running joke in our house where my wife agrees to do things, or puts things off, so 'Tomorrow Jenny' can deal with it (with the expected reaction when they need to be done), it's her birthday next week so I've bought her a little stone plaque say 'Yesterday Jenny.. What a bitch!". It'll be even more apt on her birthday when not only is Yesterday Jenny always giving her horrible jobs to do, she's a year younger than her too!


If I suddenly and perminantly stop posting Tuesday week, you'll know she didn't see the funny side
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom