Once his term of office is over will it matter to Mr Trump what people think of him or will the cash in his pocket mean more?
I don’t think Trump conceives of a time when his term in office is over. He tried to overthrow the Biden presidency when it commenced and I reckon he will declare some kind of National Emergency to permit him to continue in office for as long as his flunkies permit.
Or, he'll be out of office and then spend the rest of his life in court defending himself against assorted charges of corruption (his investments seem to be doing very well with people having an uncanny ability to pre-empt market changes to Presidential actions that hadn't happened), criminal actions relating to Epstein files when the unredacted versions are finally released, hopefully some crimes against humanity (assuming the rulings that grant immunity to the President are overturned) for the illegal detention in inhumane conditions of thousands and the execution of peaceful protestors ... the list of potential legal cases seems almost endless.
Though his apparent cognitive decline may mean by then he'll be blissfully unaware of the world around him.
Once his term of office is over will it matter to Mr Trump what people think of him or will the cash in his pocket mean more?
Yes and no. Ego is a major driver for Trump, and it matters to him that he’s seen as The Best Ever. That’s at least part of what’s behind the ballroom and the triumphal arch—monuments to him.
That said, his ego is such that he’s utterly convinced he’s The Best Ever, regardless of what others think.
Newsweek came out with a very interesting article on just how sour the nation has become in regards to Trump here.
If I am reading this right, Trump appears to have gone south more in many of the red states, than blue states. Of course, when a blue state already disapproves of him, he cannot go much lower, but when a red state sours, the disparity really shows. I mean Wyoming is one of the reddest states out there, and yet his approval rating has dropped 25 points. Nearly all the swing states have gone from pro Trump to the negative side.
It would seem to me, even with all the redistricting attempts by the Trump GOP people, it might all be for naught given how underwater he appears. Could we have a Democratic House?
Now that the Texas GOP has selected Paxton, I am betting it well go to Talarico (D) in the general election. Paxton has so many negatives going against him. There are long running corruption allegations, past indictments, a couple of impeachment proceedings by his own majority party, ongoing federal investigation, and allegations of misuse of office.
If there is one thing about the Texas campaign it will be the ugliest ever,
Ken Paxton...ah, I thought that name was familiar.
That's a link to a blog run by someone who I think is no longer a believer, but who retains a pretty keen thirst for truth and justice. And we're in Hell, so - go at it.
Now that the Texas GOP has selected Paxton, I am betting it well go to Talarico (D) in the general election. Paxton has so many negatives going against him. There are long running corruption allegations, past indictments, a couple of impeachment proceedings by his own majority party, ongoing federal investigation, and allegations of misuse of office.
Paxton’s nomination is certainly a gift to Democrats, but I suspect the odds still favor the GOP in Texas. That’s what the betting markets indicate right now.
Now that the Texas GOP has selected Paxton, I am betting it well go to Talarico (D) in the general election. Paxton has so many negatives going against him. There are long running corruption allegations, past indictments, a couple of impeachment proceedings by his own majority party, ongoing federal investigation, and allegations of misuse of office.
Paxton’s nomination is certainly a gift to Democrats, but I suspect the odds still favor the GOP in Texas. That’s what the betting markets indicate right now.
I have to be honest, I was rooting for Crockett against Talarico during the primaries. My doubts about the latter were sonewhat validated during the build-up to this latest Iran debacle, when the Guardian listed the statements of various political figures, and Crockett got into the necessity for a war-aims resolution etc etc, whereas Talarico just posted the single phrase "No more forever wars".
For the record, I actually think Talarico WOULD fight for better policies on the war-and-peace front, and I am wary of an under-dovish "war aims resolution" possibly legitimizing the war itself. But I also think Crockett showed a better understanding of the sorta procedures needed to make one's political positions into a reality.
Blanche says the DoJ will not go forward with the anti-weaponization fund.
If true, I think that actually might be less-than-fantastic news for the Democrats. Because if the admin is dropping the scheme, it's likely because they know it's gonna be pretty unpopular outside the MAGA cult(whose vote is not in play anyway), especially given the effect of Trump's other policies on the current economy. And it's always good for a political party to have their opponents push along with unpopular policies.
Blanche says the DoJ will not go forward with the anti-weaponization fund.
If true, I think that actually might be less-than-fantastic news for the Democrats. Because if the admin is dropping the scheme, it's likely because they know it's gonna be pretty unpopular outside the MAGA cult(whose vote is not in play anyway), especially given the effect of Trump's other policies on the current economy. And it's always good for a political party to have their opponents push along with unpopular policies.
The Dems and a few Republicans are not letting this go. They will hold up the Homeland funding until they get wording in the bill prohibiting any such slush fund.
Blanche says the DoJ will not go forward with the anti-weaponization fund.
If true, I think that actually might be less-than-fantastic news for the Democrats. Because if the admin is dropping the scheme, it's likely because they know it's gonna be pretty unpopular outside the MAGA cult(whose vote is not in play anyway), especially given the effect of Trump's other policies on the current economy. And it's always good for a political party to have their opponents push along with unpopular policies.
The Dems and a few Republicans are not letting this go. They will hold up the Homeland funding until they get wording in the bill prohibiting any such slush fund.
If they can find a way to keep this in the news even after a GOP walkback, great.
Hi guys, this night appear to be a tangent, but please bear with me as it is interesting and gives insight into Trump’s character as it was years ago.
I was reading ‘How words get good’ by Rebecca Lee’ (highly recommended by the way) and the chapter about ghost writers has this to say about ‘The art of the deal’ which was ghost written by journalist Mark Schwartz. Schwartz confides that he struggled to make Trump a more winning than he actually is: ‘It was a kind of trick’, he writes, ‘to mimic trump’s blunt staccato no-apologies delivery while making him almost boyishly appealing’. Quite so.
Schwartz adds (in 2016, before the presidential election): ‘I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention … I genuinely believe that if he gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent (sic) possibility it will lead to the end of civilization’.
Prescient indeed!
Trump turns 80 in a few days' time. He can't - in the natural order of things, some of which must apply to him, whether he likes it or not - last much longer.
Whether or not civilisation and/or the planet outlive him remains to be seen.
I had been wanting to go back to the Trump lawsuit against the IRS, that he settled with the Trump appointed acting Attorney General. He had hoped to squeak the settlement through the Federal Court. Essentially, the settlement would have set up the slush fund and prevent the IRS from auditing the Trump syndicate.
Obviously, he thought he could get by with it by declaring he was dropping the case.
At first, it appeared the judge was going to let it go.
But wait, the judge has re-opened the case, looking at the possibility Trump and associates were trying to defraud the court. (The lawyer people can explain this much better than I can).
Remember back in 2016, the Supreme Court said the president cannot be charged with any crime as long as what he did was under the auspices of the offices?
As I understand it, committing fraud against the court, is exempt from that ruling.
Trump is in deep doo doo here, if the court finds cause.
Probably can't be prosecuted unless the court appoints a special prosecutor.
He better hope that he can retain power in the Senate at least.
I had been wanting to go back to the Trump lawsuit against the IRS, that he settled with the Trump appointed acting Attorney General. He had hoped to squeak the settlement through the Federal Court. Essentially, the settlement would have set up the slush fund and prevent the IRS from auditing the Trump syndicate.
Obviously, he thought he could get by with it by declaring he was dropping the case.
At first, it appeared the judge was going to let it go.
But wait, the judge has re-opened the case, looking at the possibility Trump and associates were trying to defraud the court. (The lawyer people can explain this much better than I can).
Remember back in 2016, the Supreme Court said the president cannot be charged with any crime as long as what he did was under the auspices of the offices?
As I understand it, committing fraud against the court, is exempt from that ruling.
Trump is in deep doo doo here, if the court finds cause.
Probably can't be prosecuted unless the court appoints a special prosecutor.
He better hope that he can retain power in the Senate at least.
He has not been to bothered about court rulings in the past. Would he be bothered now? He has a lot to cope with at the moment. He may push it back somehow. His reputation for paying for legal representation is not good. Would anyone take the case?
I’d say rather that he’s gotten this far working from the assumption that the rules don’t apply to him, and if someone tries to apply the rules to him, he can buy or muscle his way out of any consequences.
Trump turns 80 in a few days' time. He can't - in the natural order of things, some of which must apply to him, whether he likes it or not - last much longer.
Sure he can. The average life expectancy for an 80-year-old American man is another 8.11 years, according to the Social Security Administration actuarial life tables. Every time I see a zoomed-in picture of make-up covering the back of one of Trump's hands accompanied by a breathless "OMG he's dying" caption I lose a little bit off the end of my own life. He's not in great shape, and he might not finish out his term, but we've all known old people who were greatly diminished who held on and on and on ...
Trump turns 80 in a few days' time. He can't - in the natural order of things, some of which must apply to him, whether he likes it or not - last much longer.
Sure he can. The average life expectancy for an 80-year-old American man is another 8.11 years, according to the Social Security Administration actuarial life tables. Every time I see a zoomed-in picture of make-up covering the back of one of Trump's hands accompanied by a breathless "OMG he's dying" caption I lose a little bit off the end of my own life.
Yeah. I know Democrats on-line who, every time they see one of those photos, start jabbering about how in just a matter of days, Trump's health is going to become the number one topic of political controversy in the USA.
The other eye-roller is when they claim he's clearly suffering from clinical dementia, and when you ask for evidence, they reply with something along the lines of "He says crazy stuff like immigrants in Ohio are eating dogs and cats." Which confuses a penchant for racist urban-legends with a psychiatric diagnosis.
FWIW, while I am mostly a medical illiterate, I did do opinion-polling and market-research phone-jockeying for over five years, and one thing I noticed was a marked tendency among over-55s, especially male, to get fixated on one idea or one opinion to the exclusion of all else, to the point of being unwilling to even listen to alternative questions on the same topic, let alone opposing viewpoints.
A: How would you rate Mayor McCheeze's chances of winning re-election?
B(blandly, and as if asked about McCheeze's honesty): McCheeze. He's just a damn crook.
A: I see. But do you think he's likely to get re-elected?
B:(as if asked why he thinks McCheeze is crooked): All he does is take our money for his buddies.
And so on and so forth. Based on what I've seen of Trump's meltdowns, and taking into account near-contemperaneous oratory of better quality in front of sympathetic audiences, I think he might be stuck in the same sort of mental funk(whatever the cause may be), but with having a more belligerent base personality from the get-go.
On that latter note, I think I'd also factor in that Trump managed to get extremely far in politics by employing a shock-jock persona, and it's possible that he's stuck in a mode where he doesn't know how to respond to adversarial questioning in any other way. How these possible personality -phenomena may fall on the nature/nurture spectrum of causality, I would not care to say.
A few days after it had it become obvious that Iran-contra was gonna be a bigger deal than just the usual paperwork scandal, Reagan was at a turkey-pardon, and when a reporter shouted a question about the allegations, RR pointed to the turkey and said "Right now, my mind's on Thanksgiving. I'm looking forward to tomorrow, but he's not."
It really had a feel of the magic finally fading away. I've gotten this impression a couple of times from Trump when he's been unable to gain the rhetorical upper hand in a given exchange. Though, as I say, you will see him back in better form a few days later, whereas with Reagan, I think the general consensus these days is that by the time of Iran-contra, he was basically just being walked around by his aides and given cue cards to read.
Trump is continuing to lose in the courts. This week, a judge ruled the $200,000 fee for the HB-1b Visa is an unauthorized tax imposed by the government. Another judge ordered the Trump administration to process immigration and asylum cases from the 39 countries he had banned. Most of them were other than white. And a suit is pending in the Washington DC court to stop the UFC fight that is supposed to happen next Sunday. Personally, I hope that court acts quickly. The idea of a UFC fight on the front lawn of the White House is the tackiest thing that can happen,
Sorry for the double post. I just thought of the last exchanged Trump lawyers had with the judge regarding the East Wing. The judge asked the lawyer if Trump could bulldoze the Statue of Liberty. Guess what the lawyer said. Actually the lawyer works for the DOJ, but we all know the new DOJ works for Trump, not for the American people.
Personally, I hope that court acts quickly. The idea of a UFC fight on the front lawn of the White House is the tackiest thing that can happen,
You mean you DON'T want that event to go forward?! Come on, it's gonna be the most hilarious unintentional irony of all time!
(Granted, I'm biased. When the late, great Rob Ford was mayor of Toronto, it was announced that he would be refereeing a lingerie-football match in that city. I REALLY wanted that one to happen as well, but alas, someone on his team came to their senses.)
Does anyone happen to know the legal arguments being put forth against the match at the WH? Prohibition of commercial sponsorships or some such?
Regarding trump's health, don't forget that he has access to the highest possible level of health care, and he will be kept alive for as long as it's convenient and medically possible to do so.
Personally, I hope that court acts quickly. The idea of a UFC fight on the front lawn of the White House is the tackiest thing that can happen,
You mean you DON'T want that event to go forward?! Come on, it's gonna be the most hilarious unintentional irony of all time!
(Granted, I'm biased. When the late, great Rob Ford was mayor of Toronto, it was announced that he would be refereeing a lingerie-football match in that city. I REALLY wanted that one to happen as well, but alas, someone on his team came to their senses.)
In case (like me) someone is wondering what lingerie football is - here's a (Guardian, SFW) link.
Do say - 'this sort of thing annoys me in the same way as female athletes in revealing outfits shilling for dubious wellness supplements in adverts on the back of GM busses'.
Don't say - 'AI, give me an image of Wayne Rooney in a basque'.
Personally, I hope that court acts quickly. The idea of a UFC fight on the front lawn of the White House is the tackiest thing that can happen,
You mean you DON'T want that event to go forward?! Come on, it's gonna be the most hilarious unintentional irony of all time!
(Granted, I'm biased. When the late, great Rob Ford was mayor of Toronto, it was announced that he would be refereeing a lingerie-football match in that city. I REALLY wanted that one to happen as well, but alas, someone on his team came to their senses.)
In case (like me) someone is wondering what lingerie football is - here's a (Guardian, SFW) link.
Do say - 'this sort of thing annoys me in the same way as female athletes in revealing outfits shilling for dubious wellness supplements in adverts on the back of GM busses'.
Don't say - 'AI, give me an image of Wayne Rooney in a basque'.
That's a good impression of Pass Notes.
According to wiki, the sport might possibly be in its death throes. I've never heard a really convincing explanation as to why the players do it for free, but I suspect they aspire to work in industries that involve displaying their bodies in scanty attire, and this is a way to get noticed. Like starving actors in the 1970s who'd go on The Dating Game etc.
Personally, I hope that court acts quickly. The idea of a UFC fight on the front lawn of the White House is the tackiest thing that can happen,
I heard a lot of DC gays bought tickets and are going to enjoy scantily clad sweaty musclemen while making the whole thing fabulous.
According to a news site(albeit one I had never heard of before), that's a story that originated on a satire site, but there's no evidence it's actually happening.
Does anyone happen to know the legal arguments being put forth against the match at the WH? Prohibition of commercial sponsorships or some such?
Just read something about this in The Guardian. Yes, apparently the challenge is based on some National Park Service rule that such events can only be sponsored by the federal government.
Personally, I hope that court acts quickly. The idea of a UFC fight on the front lawn of the White House is the tackiest thing that can happen,
I heard a lot of DC gays bought tickets and are going to enjoy scantily clad sweaty musclemen while making the whole thing fabulous.
According to a news site(albeit one I had never heard of before), that's a story that originated on a satire site, but there's no evidence it's actually happening.
Well, Trump may live another 8 years or so, but, if he doesn't, there's a chance that he might be succeeded by the equally loathsome Vance.
Even our usually reticent government, in the person of deputy PM David Lammy, has rebuked Vance for his inflammatory remarks concerning the murder of teenager Henry Nowak in the UK last year.
Just supposing that he does die within that time frame, I appreciate that Vance would take over straightaway. I guess it doesn't automatically follow that Vance would win the next presidential election, though.
30 plus years ago there was another VP with the initials JD and the story goes that nobody would have a go at Bush Snr. for fear of getting the awful J Danforth Quayle in the top job.
30 plus years ago there was another VP with the initials JD and the story goes that nobody would have a go at Bush Snr. for fear of getting the awful J Danforth Quayle in the top job.
Even I (in the UK) remember the joke 'what are the 6 most feared words in the world?'
The questions about Trump’s health are subservient to his badness.
In general, poor mental health may be used, legitimately, as a mitigating factor when considering bad behaviour.
Given that Trump asserts, repeatedly, that his mental health and cognitive capability is fine, we’re justified in asserting that his bad behaviour is inexcusable.
I suppose you can argue that, in the example I linked, Trump’s behaviour isn’t bad. I disagree. He’s arrogant and rude. Demonstrably so
He insults when his ridiculous and deluded assertions are questioned.
So is this intended to demonstrate that Trump, contrary to my argument, is, in fact, suffering from an organic psychiatric condition?
Because, if it is, I have to wonder what the word "bad" is doing there, since it seems to me rather beside the point.
He’s always been bad. He seems to be getting worse. Maybe cognitive decline explains some of this? I don’t know.
But that’s not so important as his malevolence, and his abuse of power. He represents a present danger. He’s a destabilising force in an already unstable world.
While I try to avoid calling people bad (or good) I will say that they do bad (or good) things and Mr Trump is certainly pushing the global average up for the number of bad things people do.
It’s a bit like the jerk rule in Commandment 1. People can do jerkish things without being a total jerk. But I’ve got no problem in categorising Trump as a jerk. Jerks are bad.
In general I agree with @The Rogue but Trump is an exception.
Comments
I don’t think Trump conceives of a time when his term in office is over. He tried to overthrow the Biden presidency when it commenced and I reckon he will declare some kind of National Emergency to permit him to continue in office for as long as his flunkies permit.
Though his apparent cognitive decline may mean by then he'll be blissfully unaware of the world around him.
That said, his ego is such that he’s utterly convinced he’s The Best Ever, regardless of what others think.
He appears to be in excellent health, according to his doctors, who are, of course, completely unbiased:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/30/trump-health-memo-released
Probably the fittest President ever...
If I am reading this right, Trump appears to have gone south more in many of the red states, than blue states. Of course, when a blue state already disapproves of him, he cannot go much lower, but when a red state sours, the disparity really shows. I mean Wyoming is one of the reddest states out there, and yet his approval rating has dropped 25 points. Nearly all the swing states have gone from pro Trump to the negative side.
It would seem to me, even with all the redistricting attempts by the Trump GOP people, it might all be for naught given how underwater he appears. Could we have a Democratic House?
Now that the Texas GOP has selected Paxton, I am betting it well go to Talarico (D) in the general election. Paxton has so many negatives going against him. There are long running corruption allegations, past indictments, a couple of impeachment proceedings by his own majority party, ongoing federal investigation, and allegations of misuse of office.
If there is one thing about the Texas campaign it will be the ugliest ever,
Hold on to your seats, people.
That's a link to a blog run by someone who I think is no longer a believer, but who retains a pretty keen thirst for truth and justice. And we're in Hell, so - go at it.
With his attitude to the Constitution being what it is, I'm not sure he'll outlive his term of office no matter how excellent his health is...
I have to be honest, I was rooting for Crockett against Talarico during the primaries. My doubts about the latter were sonewhat validated during the build-up to this latest Iran debacle, when the Guardian listed the statements of various political figures, and Crockett got into the necessity for a war-aims resolution etc etc, whereas Talarico just posted the single phrase "No more forever wars".
For the record, I actually think Talarico WOULD fight for better policies on the war-and-peace front, and I am wary of an under-dovish "war aims resolution" possibly legitimizing the war itself. But I also think Crockett showed a better understanding of the sorta procedures needed to make one's political positions into a reality.
If true, I think that actually might be less-than-fantastic news for the Democrats. Because if the admin is dropping the scheme, it's likely because they know it's gonna be pretty unpopular outside the MAGA cult(whose vote is not in play anyway), especially given the effect of Trump's other policies on the current economy. And it's always good for a political party to have their opponents push along with unpopular policies.
The Dems and a few Republicans are not letting this go. They will hold up the Homeland funding until they get wording in the bill prohibiting any such slush fund.
If they can find a way to keep this in the news even after a GOP walkback, great.
I was reading ‘How words get good’ by Rebecca Lee’ (highly recommended by the way) and the chapter about ghost writers has this to say about ‘The art of the deal’ which was ghost written by journalist Mark Schwartz. Schwartz confides that he struggled to make Trump a more winning than he actually is: ‘It was a kind of trick’, he writes, ‘to mimic trump’s blunt staccato no-apologies delivery while making him almost boyishly appealing’. Quite so.
Schwartz adds (in 2016, before the presidential election): ‘I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention … I genuinely believe that if he gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent (sic) possibility it will lead to the end of civilization’.
Prescient indeed!
Whether or not civilisation and/or the planet outlive him remains to be seen.
Obviously, he thought he could get by with it by declaring he was dropping the case.
At first, it appeared the judge was going to let it go.
But wait, the judge has re-opened the case, looking at the possibility Trump and associates were trying to defraud the court. (The lawyer people can explain this much better than I can).
Remember back in 2016, the Supreme Court said the president cannot be charged with any crime as long as what he did was under the auspices of the offices?
As I understand it, committing fraud against the court, is exempt from that ruling.
Trump is in deep doo doo here, if the court finds cause.
Probably can't be prosecuted unless the court appoints a special prosecutor.
He better hope that he can retain power in the Senate at least.
He has not been to bothered about court rulings in the past. Would he be bothered now? He has a lot to cope with at the moment. He may push it back somehow. His reputation for paying for legal representation is not good. Would anyone take the case?
Sure he can. The average life expectancy for an 80-year-old American man is another 8.11 years, according to the Social Security Administration actuarial life tables. Every time I see a zoomed-in picture of make-up covering the back of one of Trump's hands accompanied by a breathless "OMG he's dying" caption I lose a little bit off the end of my own life. He's not in great shape, and he might not finish out his term, but we've all known old people who were greatly diminished who held on and on and on ...
Yeah. I know Democrats on-line who, every time they see one of those photos, start jabbering about how in just a matter of days, Trump's health is going to become the number one topic of political controversy in the USA.
The other eye-roller is when they claim he's clearly suffering from clinical dementia, and when you ask for evidence, they reply with something along the lines of "He says crazy stuff like immigrants in Ohio are eating dogs and cats." Which confuses a penchant for racist urban-legends with a psychiatric diagnosis.
He’s a bad old man.
Just the latest example.
He insults when his ridiculous and deluded assertions are questioned.
So is this intended to demonstrate that Trump, contrary to my argument, is, in fact, suffering from an organic psychiatric condition?
Because, if it is, I have to wonder what the word "bad" is doing there, since it seems to me rather beside the point.
A: How would you rate Mayor McCheeze's chances of winning re-election?
B(blandly, and as if asked about McCheeze's honesty): McCheeze. He's just a damn crook.
A: I see. But do you think he's likely to get re-elected?
B:(as if asked why he thinks McCheeze is crooked): All he does is take our money for his buddies.
And so on and so forth. Based on what I've seen of Trump's meltdowns, and taking into account near-contemperaneous oratory of better quality in front of sympathetic audiences, I think he might be stuck in the same sort of mental funk(whatever the cause may be), but with having a more belligerent base personality from the get-go.
On that latter note, I think I'd also factor in that Trump managed to get extremely far in politics by employing a shock-jock persona, and it's possible that he's stuck in a mode where he doesn't know how to respond to adversarial questioning in any other way. How these possible personality -phenomena may fall on the nature/nurture spectrum of causality, I would not care to say.
It really had a feel of the magic finally fading away. I've gotten this impression a couple of times from Trump when he's been unable to gain the rhetorical upper hand in a given exchange. Though, as I say, you will see him back in better form a few days later, whereas with Reagan, I think the general consensus these days is that by the time of Iran-contra, he was basically just being walked around by his aides and given cue cards to read.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/trump-could-get-away-with-bulldozing-statue-of-liberty-if-he-wanted-doj-argues-in-ballroom-fight/ar-AA250lJW?ocid=BingNewsSerp
You mean you DON'T want that event to go forward?! Come on, it's gonna be the most hilarious unintentional irony of all time!
(Granted, I'm biased. When the late, great Rob Ford was mayor of Toronto, it was announced that he would be refereeing a lingerie-football match in that city. I REALLY wanted that one to happen as well, but alas, someone on his team came to their senses.)
Does anyone happen to know the legal arguments being put forth against the match at the WH? Prohibition of commercial sponsorships or some such?
In case (like me) someone is wondering what lingerie football is - here's a (Guardian, SFW) link.
Do say - 'this sort of thing annoys me in the same way as female athletes in revealing outfits shilling for dubious wellness supplements in adverts on the back of GM busses'.
Don't say - 'AI, give me an image of Wayne Rooney in a basque'.
I heard a lot of DC gays bought tickets and are going to enjoy scantily clad sweaty musclemen while making the whole thing fabulous.
That's a good impression of Pass Notes.
According to wiki, the sport might possibly be in its death throes. I've never heard a really convincing explanation as to why the players do it for free, but I suspect they aspire to work in industries that involve displaying their bodies in scanty attire, and this is a way to get noticed. Like starving actors in the 1970s who'd go on The Dating Game etc.
According to a news site(albeit one I had never heard of before), that's a story that originated on a satire site, but there's no evidence it's actually happening.
Just read something about this in The Guardian. Yes, apparently the challenge is based on some National Park Service rule that such events can only be sponsored by the federal government.
Aww, shame.
Even our usually reticent government, in the person of deputy PM David Lammy, has rebuked Vance for his inflammatory remarks concerning the murder of teenager Henry Nowak in the UK last year.
Not that anyone is counting down the days.
Just supposing that he does die within that time frame, I appreciate that Vance would take over straightaway. I guess it doesn't automatically follow that Vance would win the next presidential election, though.
Even I (in the UK) remember the joke 'what are the 6 most feared words in the world?'
...'Dan - I don't feel so good'.
The questions about Trump’s health are subservient to his badness.
In general, poor mental health may be used, legitimately, as a mitigating factor when considering bad behaviour.
Given that Trump asserts, repeatedly, that his mental health and cognitive capability is fine, we’re justified in asserting that his bad behaviour is inexcusable.
I suppose you can argue that, in the example I linked, Trump’s behaviour isn’t bad. I disagree. He’s arrogant and rude. Demonstrably so
He’s always been bad. He seems to be getting worse. Maybe cognitive decline explains some of this? I don’t know.
But that’s not so important as his malevolence, and his abuse of power. He represents a present danger. He’s a destabilising force in an already unstable world.
In general I agree with @The Rogue but Trump is an exception.
I also think he's emboldened racists throughout the world
Yes Nigel Farage over here has largely based himself on Trump. The right are getting a lot more positive press.