|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
His Twitter digit would still be free. Unless that's where they'll have his oxygen sensor clamped.
ABE: But if it's Pence whom he can blame for their defeat, then he'll be happy to blame him. Just so long as he can still get a full blanket pardon from acting-Pres. Pence. Second fantasy: acting-Pres. Pence also gets hospitalized with this (poetic justice for a COVID co-conspirator) in which case Pelosi is next in line. If anyone watched "Last Man on Earth", a sit-com about a handful of survivors of a world-wide pandemic that has killed off just about everybody else -- it was off-beat and uneven. A few seasons in, Kristen Wiig plays a spoiled rich woman who survived in a friend's doomsday bunker. In flashbacks, we watch her watching the pandemic unfold by the succession of presidential funerals for Pres. Trump, then Pres. Pence, then Pres. Pelosi, etc. Speaking of which, one of the first things a new president does in office is to specify what kind of funeral he wants to have. Can you imagine the garish North Korean military pagentry BS show that Trump must have specified? If nothing else, that alone should have us all cheering for his survival. Edited by dwise1, : ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
That bumper sticker has been around for decades. As I remember it: "Sorry, my karma just ran over your dogma."
Bumper stickers don't seem that popular or common anymore. My guess is that car bumpers now make it much harder to remove a bumper sticker. But probably a larger factor is that in this atmosphere of polarization a bumper sticker might be seen as an invitation for someone to vandalize your car. Even about a decade ago, I was hearing from people who had put a "Darwin fish" on their car and they would get vandalized.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Too many crooks despoil the funds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
For Trump to really "get" Corona virus, he needs to get the full treatment.
That is to say, he needs to lose his job and get evicted. We're working on that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
My friend just texted me that last year she had been put on the same steroids as Trump is now on and how it affected her mentally and emotionally such that she had to maintain her self-awareness to keep from saying or doing anything dangerous (it had her swinging from suicidal to homicidal -- she still hasn't told me how she was planning to kill me).
So that means that Trump is literally a psychopath on steroids.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
The Wikipedia page, United States presidential pets, reports that Trump is the first President since Polk (1845-1849) to not have had a pet while in office. Actually, Polk is the only other President to not have had a pet. All the other Presidents had pets, though not always the conventional dog, cat, bird types.
That page has a list. van Buren had two tiger cubs, but Congress forced him to give them to a zoo. John Quincy Adams had silkworms (his wife's actually, for the silk) and an alligator (which is considered apocryphal). Several had horses, plus the occasional cow or goat. Jefferson had a pair of grizzly cubs until they grew too troublesome to keep. Andrew Johnson fed white mice he found in his bedroom. It does tell you something about a person that they would have and take care of pets. And it tells you so much more about a person who is incapable of caring for an animal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Even his own children are extensions of himself... He doesn't "love" them the way a father should. I have long noticed the same thing. Even more now as almost everybody in the Trump Administration or even close to them is popping positive for COVID. Except for Trump's kids. As if they never see each other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Sorry for the delay in replying. I found this while looking for my estimations of the effects of the Great GOP Tax Scam of 2017.
INdeed, part of the proposal is eliminating the tax deduction for local and state taxes in the federal income tax form. That is what is known as 'a tax raise on the middle class'. A classic example of the old "shell game". They "gave us double of something" while taking away something else of nearly as high a value. Yeah, we a little bit more, which amounts to a few table scraps. Remembering off the top of my head, they doubled the standard deduction, while at the same time eliminating the personal deduction. In another message on this forum, I crunched through the numbers to show just how that worked but I don't know where that is (I seem to recall that Percy and I went back and forth on that at the time). At the same time they got rid of the old dependent deductions and replaced it with some other kind of credit, but I don't have the personal experience to comment on how that had screwed us over.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Here's a thought that keeps coming back to me.
Everybody keeps complaining about US manufacturing jobs going overseas. OK. Many also complain about so many regulations making things harder for industry "driving jobs overseas". Many also mindlessly support the idea of "free enterprise". What nobody seems to understand is that it is exactly that "free enterprise" freed of regulations that is sending our manufacturing jobs overseas. All that too many companies care about is the bottom line. If they can save a few pennies per unit by manufacturing those units overseas and then shipping them here, then they will choose that option. When there is no economic benefit to keeping manufacturing jobs in the US, then those jobs will go overseas. This ain't rocket science. The only way to get companies to keep jobs in the US is to force them to do so. That is done through regulation. Yes, such regulations will make it harder for those companies to make a profit, but if that is what we need to do to keep those jobs in the US, then that is what we need to do. So what do you want? Keep jobs in the US or have free enterprise freed of regulations? You cannot have both. Make up your mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Reminds me of a radio interview I heard a few years ago with a New England business/economy reporter.
He described the situation in a small town in New Hampshire, as I recall, that had lost its main industry which was lumber. Instead of just folding up, they set up their local bank and had their local stores and were able to keep going even though it was a struggle. They could do it because they kept their money in the community and circulating within the community. Then a chain opened in town. I seem to recall that it was a MacDonald's, but it could just as well have been a Walmart. So now instead of keeping the profits within the community, those profits were leaving town to corporate headquarters and the community started to fail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Well just look at the pattern.
He never wanted an actual Ukrainian investigation, just the mere announcement of an investigation. Trump never ever wants any actual investigation of anything, only the announcement of an investigation. Reminds me of an old dirty joke that I don't quite remember from nearly half a century ago. A woman who's been married three times visits the doctor and he's surprised to find that she's still a virgin. Her first two husbands were some kind of emergency responders who were always away. Her third husband was a salesman who always spent all night selling her on how great it was going to be, but then never ever delivering on his promises. Sounds oddly familiar, doesn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
We've already heard Trump talking about running for President again in 2024. Might this be a continuation of the grift?
Trump charging the government for his golf trips to his own resorts all at full price (or more?) even for himself is just one example of his flagrant corruption. So the increase in his golfing activity after losing the election can be seen not so much as his way of sulking, but rather he's trying to suck up as much of that money as he can while he still can. But his golfing is just a continuation of his early campaign grift. During the 2016 campaign, I noted that Trump was running his campaign entirely (as far as I could tell) from his own properties and through his own businesses. IOW, all the expenses (eg, office space, catering) were being paid into his own businesses with the profit going ultimately to himself. In addition, investigative reporters found that some of his properties that his campaign was paying to lease and for support expenses (eg, catering, utilities, custodial services) had not even been used hence serving to pad the bill he was giving to his own campaign. Not only did the contracts for Trump's inaugural go to Trump businesses (with attempts at overcharging), but there are tens of millions of dollars from that massive fund that are still unaccounted for and have gone missing. Any guesses where to? Then the soonest after his inauguration that he could, Trump registered for re-election. I read that as his campaign fund having been so profitable for him that Trump wanted to keep that cash cow giving as much and for as long as possible. Trump went into this election with a campaign fund of about one billion (109) dollars, with many millions of dollars of it disappearing mysteriously. But apparently this time many of the missing millions were siphoned off by grifters other than Trump, such as Trump's campaign fundraiser Brad Parscale, into whose LLCs millions disappeared. And that was just scratching the surface. Now Trump has launched a new fundraising campaign ostensibly to cover the legal expenses of fighting "the voter fraud that's trying to steal the election" (which ironically is what Trump himself is attempting). However, those funds are instead going to go to paying off the Trump campaign's debt. In addition, only a portion of the money contributed will end up in that fund which the rest disappearing to cover "cost of funds", the term for how much it takes to raise a dollar -- the Trump 2020 campaign's "cost of funds" was about 60%, so out of every dollar Trump raised, his campaign took home about $0.40. So somebodies made all kinds of money raising that $1 billion the fund ended up with. And now Trump is also floating a 2024 campaign. If he is able to register for that immediately upon leaving office in 62 days, then he can spin up that iteration of the Grift. BTW, not only was Trump's his campaign a way of enriching himself by funneling contributions into his own businesses and hence into his own pocket, but it also provided a conduit for what would amount to bribe money -- though that function seems to have been better served by contributions to his inaugural fund and his re-election campaign fund. The proof of that pudding would be the high number of government positions that went to high contributors (eg, DeVos, Sondlund, DeJoy). So, is that what Trump is trying to do with his 2024 campaign announcement?
{ABE:
Stylistically, I was going for a take on the Sonny & Cher song, The Beat Goes On, and that song was playing in my head when I started writing. But in trying to parody the lyrics, I could only get as far as:
}quote:After that, I ran out of ideas so I just went with the facts. Edited by dwise1, : ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
OK, you are part theologian, part apologist, part whatever else, who cares.
And I have no doubt that you have found that there are people who don't like you for what you do. Have you ever asked why that might be? Is it that typical "persecuted Christian" martyrdom bullshit that you keep trying to milk? That Jesus had said that you would be persecuted in His Name? Well, first, you are not being persecuted and, second, none of the massive negative feedback you may get is in "His Name". All of that massive negative feedback you get is totally and completely because of your own misdeeds. I would suggest that that is mostly due to you being so legalistic. You think similarly to a lawyer, which is an unpopular critter. Why? Because lawyers, especially the worst of them, tend to operate through the definitions of words, extending them, bending them, breaking them, redefining them, and just plain ignoring what they actually mean. AKA "weasel wording". Which is exactly what theologians and especially apologists do. The moment an apologist goes running to a dictionary, you know exactly what kind of deception he is planning. Scientists are completely different from that. They see things for what they are, so they try to find the words to describe what the reality that they are seeing. They try to classify what they are seeing. They seek to describe reality, not redefine it. You are taking classic definitions and then try to pigeon-hole real-world things into it (the success of which depends largely on the size of that poor pigeon's hole). That is not how it works! Instead, we observe the system in place and how it works and from that try to classify it and describe how it works. IOW, the entire evolution (Navy-speak) is descriptive, not prescriptive. We are describing what is instead of what we would instead what it to be.
Could you explain what a democratic republic is? A democratic republic is where the government is run by representatives of the populace who have been elected by the populace in a democratic process; ie, a free and fair election. Simple. Direct. So why is that simple and direct concept so far beyond your ken? And why are you so intent on practicing your deception? And you dare to drag your god into your anti-American efforts? In the Gospels, Jesus himself (ever hear of him?) promised the hypocrites that they would have their reward. Are you lining up eagerly for your reward? It might not taste as you image it would.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Well, he has certainly put in a lot of work to win that title. I cannot think of anyone who deserves it more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
I heard the report on the radio this morning, I think from the Philadelphia area, that a dead person having voted was finally found. A man, in his 60's I seem to recall, had registered his dead mother and his dead mother-in-law, though he only filled out and mailed in a ballot for his mother. He had her vote for Trump.
A lot of the claims for how one could commit "voter fraud" seem to be based on old tricks that could no longer work in our current system(s -- since each state has its own system). For example, there's the story, practically an urban legend, of party operatives combing the Chicago cemeteries for names to register to vote. But then there's the one that Trump kept talking about. About how you could go in to vote, then go out the car and put on a hat and a different shirt and go right back in to vote again and the poll workers wouldn't be the wiser. I had seen that trick described for Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed (1858-1870). They'd hire men with beards (only men could vote, of course) to go in and vote multiple times. First time with a full beard. Then they'd shave part of it off (maybe go with a goatee and side burns) and a different coat (and maybe change the hat too) and he'd vote again. Another shave (and maybe haircut) and change of clothing and another vote. Until he votes clean-shaven with nothing more to shave off. Of course, that could never work with our current systems. Though I'm only familiar with how we would vote in person in California and every state has a different system, but they should all have official voter registration and some effort to match the voter with the registration. That 170-year-old Tammany Hall trick depended entirely on the poll worker not recognizing you from before, so it could never get past our current systems of verifying that you are on the rolls. For that matter, I'm not even sure whether they had voter registration at the time. Which just proves the point we've been making consistently for the past four years: Trump is an f***ing moron who has absolutely no clue how anything works. BTW, for comparison, California's system before we switched to mail-in voting (though you can still vote in person if you want) went thus:
My memory's not completely exact, but that's how I remember it. Before the voting machines, the only difference was that there was no code and you would be handed a paper ballot that you would fill out, place in the envelope they had given you, and drop the entire thing into the ballot box. If there's any kind of problem (eg, they can't find you in their rosters, somebody had already voted under your name), then you fill out a provisional ballot so that the matter can be resolved later. I've never had to go that route, so I don't know any details.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024