Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
I have tremendous respect for women and the many roles they serve that are vital to the fabric of our society and our economy.
Besides Don himself, does anyone on the planet believe this?
Clearly he has tremendous respect for women. He includes them in lockeroom talk and games. Unexpectedly groping them is no different then, say, unexpectedly snapping a wet towel at your squash partners ass in the locker room.
He's a horrible, horrible person.
I always find the talk of Hillary not being "genuine" as quite funny. She's robotic and guarded and some would argue that is because as a woman in politics she needs to be (and likely be correct). She might even be interested in power for powers sake (like most politicians). But from a teenager she has dedicated her life to trying to help people. I can't for the life of me understand how her presidential campaigns didn't go to great efforts detailing all those things.
Hahaha of course this happens on Women's Day: China approves 38 Trump trademarks, including.....Trump Escorts. I mean come the #### on lol
Quote:
China has granted preliminary approval for 38 new Trump trademarks, paving the way for President Donald Trump and his family to develop a host of branded businesses from hotels to insurance to bodyguard and escort services, public documents show.
Trump's lawyers in China applied for the marks in April 2016, as Trump railed against China at campaign rallies, accusing it of currency manipulation and stealing US jobs. Critics maintain that Trump's swelling portfolio of China trademarks raises serious conflict-of-interest questions.
China's Trademark Office published the provisional approvals on February 27 and Monday.
If no one objects, they will be formally registered after 90 days. All but three are in the president's own name. China already registered one trademark to the president, for Trump-branded construction services, on February 14.
If Trump receives any special treatment in securing trademark rights, it would violate the US Constitution, which bans public servants from accepting anything of value from foreign governments unless approved by Congress, ethics lawyers from across the political spectrum say. Concerns about potential conflicts of interest are particularly sharp in China, where the courts and bureaucracy are designed to reflect the will of the ruling Communist Party.
Dan Plane, a director at Simone IP Services, a Hong Kong intellectual-property consultancy, said he had never seen so many applications approved so quickly. "For all these marks to sail through so quickly and cleanly, with no similar marks, no identical marks, no issues with specifications — boy, it's weird," he said.
The trademarks are for businesses including branded spas, massage parlors, golf clubs, hotels, insurance, finance and real-estate companies, retail shops, restaurants, bars, and private bodyguard and escort services.
Quick summary: The CIA has an incredible capacity to hack most OS's and devices (including phones, TVs, vehicles). They've also co-opted russian malware that allows them to disguise their hacks as russian hacks.
Over 8,000 documents were released, so it will take time to comb through it all, but lots of media outlets are starting to pick up on it.
Quick summary: The CIA has an incredible capacity to hack most OS's and devices (including phones, TVs, vehicles). They've also co-opted russian malware that allows them to disguise their hacks as russian hacks.
Over 8,000 documents were released, so it will take time to comb through it all, but lots of media outlets are starting to pick up on it.
Nice try. But WikiLeaks is a Russian backed op. The release time is convenient.
I think your last sentence here speaks to a core problem with the American electorate: they've had it too good for too long and, accordingly, can't appreciate the privileges they enjoy. They simply take them for granted.
"What do you have to lose?" That's the line that Trump fed inner-city communities, but it's also the way a lot of the people who voted for him felt, i.e., things aren't great or getting better under Obama, so I'm willing to roll the dice on any chance because I've got nothing to lose.
I reckon anyone who comes from a war-torn or third world country would love to slap those people upside the head because they know what it's like to struggle, to not have democracy, to have their environments and their rights eroded, to live under authoritarian rule, to deal every day with propaganda from their governments, restrictions on their ability to vote or travel, and to continually watch the resources of the state being stripped down to benefit the powerful.
Americans - even poorer ones - have a lot to lose, but they're so removed from the experience of say, Somalis, Iranians, Syrians, Yugoslavians, Afghanis, that they think they have nothing to lose, and don't know what it's like to see their country actually go all to hell. So they're willing to take a chance on a clear authoritarian like Trump. An obvious Xenophobe. A likely racist. An unapologetic misogynist. A prolific liar. A tiresome narcissist. A man with fantastical promises - delivered with no explanation for how they'll be achieved - that even his supporters didn't really believe he'd actually follow through on.
Donald Trump is a bad person. It was obvious during the campaign, and it continues to be obvious today. "Change for the sake of change" is not a good reason to equip a bad person with the power to destroy not only the social and political institutions of one's own country, but the ability to destroy the actual, real-life, no-bull$#!+, mother%#$%^&% entire world. It is insanely, irrationally, crazily, suicidally irresponsible.
And even if you don't care about whether he takes your healthcare away, or lies to you daily about things that matter (like whether your democracy's voting system is rigged or whether his predecessor committed crimes) as well as things that don't (like the size of his crowds, hands, and penis), it is not only irresponsible but reprehensible that you would not care that he takes the rights of other people away, plays upon the prejudices and fears of the white majority, and foments hatred against Mexicans, Muslims, and any other group of brown-skinned people that might serve as a convenient fabricated enemy.
Those voters who failed to do this, who failed to consider the obvious impact this man was going to have on their country and the people in it - even if they were other people - and who voted for this guy "for the sake of change" or "for $#!+$ and giggles", need to take a long hard look at themselves and figure out what, if any, principles they actually stand for.
And the crazy thing is, even if those voters can look inward and honestly say "you know what, I'm in it for me, and screw everybody else", Trump is still a bad option because, unless they're rich and white he doesn't have those voters' backs either.
All that to say, I think we dearly miss the greatest generation. They fought and stood for something. It's a shame so many people today seem willing to throw those efforts and achievements - not to mention selfless sacrifice for the sake of others - to the wind, unconcerned about whether the civil society they created blows away for good.
But yeah. Hillary seemed kind of fake. That would have been way worse.
There is a lot of merit to this post, but honestly I think Redvans post deserves a different response; Trump won not because of apathetic Americans that have forgotten how well they have it, he won because he is a conman. He spews out so many lies that people just believe the ones they agree with and assume the other ones he won't follow through with. We have seen tons of reports of people that voted for Trump coming to that realization. He ran an effective campaign that painted Clinton as some awful candidate and he stuck to his message. He repeated the same crap so many times that people eventually believed him. Its the same reason Bernie Madoff managed to swindle thousands of people out of billions of dollars: Trump is a grifter.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dobbles For This Useful Post:
Nice try. But WikiLeaks is a Russian backed op. The release time is convenient.
So russia created 8,000+ documents that convincingly pass as CIA documents, in addition to all the other wikileaks documents? Has wikileaks been wrong about anything? I've heard the allegations that Wikileaks is an russian op, but haven't been convinced, source?
It seems odd to me that russia sucks at everything with the exception of global intelligence, where they seem to lead the field by such a margin that no one can keep up, I have a much easier time believing the CIA is in the lead.
So russia created 8,000+ documents that convincingly pass as CIA documents, in addition to all the other wikileaks documents? Has wikileaks been wrong about anything? I've heard the allegations that Wikileaks is an russian op, but haven't been convinced, source?
It seems odd to me that russia sucks at everything with the exception of global intelligence, where they seem to lead the field by such a margin that no one can keep up, I have a much easier time believing the CIA is in the lead.
Right. This happens right after Trumps wire "tapp" tantrum. Wikileaks only served the RNC during the election. Roger Stone bragged about having a back channel to Julian Assange. This is a damage control attack on the CIA because Trump is in trouble. They are trying to discredit the CIA and IC. It's part of their new war on the "Deep State." As President, Trump should be condemning Wikileaks on this but he hasn't said a word.
I think your last sentence here speaks to a core problem with the American electorate: they've had it too good for too long and, accordingly, can't appreciate the privileges they enjoy. They simply take them for granted.
"What do you have to lose?" That's the line that Trump fed inner-city communities, but it's also the way a lot of the people who voted for him felt, i.e., things aren't great or getting better under Obama, so I'm willing to roll the dice on any chance because I've got nothing to lose.
I reckon anyone who comes from a war-torn or third world country would love to slap those people upside the head because they know what it's like to struggle, to not have democracy, to have their environments and their rights eroded, to live under authoritarian rule, to deal every day with propaganda from their governments, restrictions on their ability to vote or travel, and to continually watch the resources of the state being stripped down to benefit the powerful.
Americans - even poorer ones - have a lot to lose, but they're so removed from the experience of say, Somalis, Iranians, Syrians, Yugoslavians, Afghanis, that they think they have nothing to lose, and don't know what it's like to see their country actually go all to hell. So they're willing to take a chance on a clear authoritarian like Trump. An obvious Xenophobe. A likely racist. An unapologetic misogynist. A prolific liar. A tiresome narcissist. A man with fantastical promises - delivered with no explanation for how they'll be achieved - that even his supporters didn't really believe he'd actually follow through on.
Donald Trump is a bad person. It was obvious during the campaign, and it continues to be obvious today. "Change for the sake of change" is not a good reason to equip a bad person with the power to destroy not only the social and political institutions of one's own country, but the ability to destroy the actual, real-life, no-bull$#!+, mother%#$%^&% entire world. It is insanely, irrationally, crazily, suicidally irresponsible.
And even if you don't care about whether he takes your healthcare away, or lies to you daily about things that matter (like whether your democracy's voting system is rigged or whether his predecessor committed crimes) as well as things that don't (like the size of his crowds, hands, and penis), it is not only irresponsible but reprehensible that you would not care that he takes the rights of other people away, plays upon the prejudices and fears of the white majority, and foments hatred against Mexicans, Muslims, and any other group of brown-skinned people that might serve as a convenient fabricated enemy.
Those voters who failed to do this, who failed to consider the obvious impact this man was going to have on their country and the people in it - even if they were other people - and who voted for this guy "for the sake of change" or "for $#!+$ and giggles", need to take a long hard look at themselves and figure out what, if any, principles they actually stand for.
And the crazy thing is, even if those voters can look inward and honestly say "you know what, I'm in it for me, and screw everybody else", Trump is still a bad option because, unless they're rich and white he doesn't have those voters' backs either.
All that to say, I think we dearly miss the greatest generation. They fought and stood for something. It's a shame so many people today seem willing to throw those efforts and achievements - not to mention selfless sacrifice for the sake of others - to the wind, unconcerned about whether the civil society they created blows away for good.
But yeah. Hillary seemed kind of fake. That would have been way worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobbles
There is a lot of merit to this post, but honestly I think Redvans post deserves a different response; Trump won not because of apathetic Americans that have forgotten how well they have it, he won because he is a conman. He spews out so many lies that people just believe the ones they agree with and assume the other ones he won't follow through with. We have seen tons of reports of people that voted for Trump coming to that realization. He ran an effective campaign that painted Clinton as some awful candidate and he stuck to his message. He repeated the same crap so many times that people eventually believed him. Its the same reason Bernie Madoff managed to swindle thousands of people out of billions of dollars: Trump is a grifter.
Thanks for your posts guys, well thought out and great points. Agree with a lot of it, although I still feel like ANY republican would have done most of the policy implementation that Trump is criticized for. Sure, the woman-grabbing isn't good, he's an a-hole, he likes his steak well done with ketchup on it, he might like golden showers and younger girls, his people are in cahoots with the Russians, ok fine he's a terrible person and has no morals or ethics other than $$MONEY$$, great... but his policies as a President aren't different from what any other Republican would have enacted.
I guess my question is now, would most posters here who are so vehemently against Trump be this against any republican president, or are you just hating on his policies because you think he's a bad person too?
Trump won because he deserved it- he was a better politician and campaigner than Hillary, and he got his supporters motivated against her. He strategically targeted states he needed to win, and the Clinton group ignored some of them. Whether he's right or wrong (ie/ did he tell some lies, and is he out-to-lunch on some things, yes) but it doesn't matter, it worked. The point was to win, and he did by whatever means necessary.
Thanks for your posts guys, well thought out and great points. Agree with a lot of it, although I still feel like ANY republican would have done most of the policy implementation that Trump is criticized for. Sure, the woman-grabbing isn't good, he's an a-hole, he likes his steak well done with ketchup on it, he might like golden showers and younger girls, his people are in cahoots with the Russians, ok fine he's a terrible person and has no morals or ethics other than $$MONEY$$, great... but his policies as a President aren't different from what any other Republican would have enacted.
I guess my question is now, would most posters here who are so vehemently against Trump be this against any republican president, or are you just hating on his policies because you think he's a bad person too?
Trump won because he deserved it- he was a better politician and campaigner than Hillary, and he got his supporters motivated against her. He strategically targeted states he needed to win, and the Clinton group ignored some of them. Whether he's right or wrong (ie/ did he tell some lies, and is he out-to-lunch on some things, yes) but it doesn't matter, it worked. The point was to win, and he did by whatever means necessary.
I for one would've voted for just about any Democrat against a current Republican. The current GOP is completely detached from reality--they gleefully ignore science and logic. Any of the top GOP candidates would've been a disaster because they would in no way stop Paul Ryan and his cohorts from doing their best to dismantle the US healthcare system further, to roll back women's rights, roll back LGBT rights, roll back environmental protections.
But Ted Cruz would not likely be picking fights with our allies. Jeb Bush wouldn't be starting twitter wars over non-existent evidence of wiretapping. John Kasich wouldn't be going over classified material over the dinner table at Mar-a-Lago.
Any Republican at this point would be a disaster for the environment, for women, for the LGBT community, but Trump is unhinged enough to cause an international incident. Any bad policy put in place by one of those other GOP president could be fixed in the future--if Trump starts a nuclear showdown, that's a hell of a lot harder to recover from.
The Following User Says Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
I guess my question is now, would most posters here who are so vehemently against Trump be this against any republican president, or are you just hating on his policies because you think he's a bad person too?
No, you're still missing the point. Mike Pence would be far more true-blue (or red) Republican as president than Trump. Nonetheless, he would be preferable. Republicans have policy positions we don't support, but they are still, for the most part, responsible, thinking adults (the Michelle Bachmann / Sarah Palin wing of the party notwithstanding).
Trump isn't an adult. He is a child with no sense of the importance of what he's doing and no regard for its impact on anyone. The volume knob being turned up to twelve on criticism is not about him being right wing - many of us object to that as well, being pro-choice, pro-gay rights and pro-health care for everyone among other things - but that's not it. Him being the sort of terrible person he is - self-obsessed, ignorant, quick to anger, and with no regard for democratic institutions except where they're serving his personal interests - is dangerous. As John Oliver put it, "This is just how things are going to work now - the President once saw a banana bruise that looked like a picture in an article he read in a dream, and that is why we're at ####ing war". That sort of insanity is a realistic scenario now.
Since being sworn in about a month ago, he has threatened the legitimacy of the rule of law, undermined the nation's intelligence services (the only basis upon which he could make informed foreign policy decisions), and undermined the electoral process, repeatedly, by claiming that he really won the popular vote. This is not just madness, it's highly destabilizing, and to answer your question again, no, it's absolutely not the case that "any Republican" would do these things. Not even remotely close to true.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
He is a sleazy guy and not much would surprise me, but this escort thing has to be a a hoax. Doesn't it? Anyone could have made that screencap.
Did you read the article? The trademark for escort services in China is approved. Also massage parlors as well. So no, it's not a hoax, he wants to make girlfriend experiences and rub and tugs great again.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
