trump: oblivious moron or psychotically narcissistic oblivious moron?

He is pretty damn confident, & IMHO rightly so.........

A new strain of battered wife syndrome, he can do no wrong..
 
[FONT=&quot]The New Yorker wasted no time following up with an editorial, "The Correct Punctuation of Donald Trump, Jr.,'s Name," which thoroughly explains why, grammatically, The New Yorker was correct the whole time.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"The reasoning for the punctuation of “Jr.,’s” is pretty straightforward. It’s a collision of conventions. The first convention is The New Yorker’s—we place a comma before “Jr.” Doing so leads to another of our conventions: when something like “Jr.” occurs in the middle of a phrase, clause, or sentence, it is set off by its preceding comma and a following comma. Thus: “Ed Begley, Jr., was in ‘St. Elsewhere.’ ” A third convention is one that we all accept: the possessive is indicated by the addition of an apostrophe and “s.” We (the magazine) like our punctuation; we set things off with commas a lot; it drives some people nuts (i.e., it’s “bullshit”). This reaction is not surprising; it is also not new. With “Jr.” occurring in the middle of a line, where else is the possessive indicator supposed to go? This styling doesn’t come up very often in the magazine, and its occurrence in a headline of sorts has brought it a weird kind of notoriety. Now it can comfortably stand alongside the diaeresis and “focussing.”
http://www.distractify.com/politics/2017/07/13/1XjG69/donald-trump-jrs-lates

[/FONT]
 
19961364_10207155739011139_1365205905069373023_n.jpg
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/opinion/republicans-elites-trump.html

Between 2010 and 2017, the Pew Research Center asked voters whether colleges and universities have a positive or negative effect “on the way things are going in the country.”

From 2010 to 2015, solid majorities of Republicans and Democrats agreed that institutions of higher learning had a positive effect on America. In 2010, Republicans were 58-32 positive and Democrats 65-22. For Democrats, this pattern grew stronger over time, reaching 72-19 in the most recent polling in June.

That was not the case for Republicans, who flipped from positive to negative on college education.


Somewhat like a less virulent (so far) version of the Cultural Revolution in China
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/opinion/republicans-elites-trump.html

Between 2010 and 2017, the Pew Research Center asked voters whether colleges and universities have a positive or negative effect “on the way things are going in the country.”

From 2010 to 2015, solid majorities of Republicans and Democrats agreed that institutions of higher learning had a positive effect on America. In 2010, Republicans were 58-32 positive and Democrats 65-22. For Democrats, this pattern grew stronger over time, reaching 72-19 in the most recent polling in June.

That was not the case for Republicans, who flipped from positive to negative on college education.


Somewhat like a less virulent (so far) version of the Cultural Revolution in China

"I love the poorly educated." - ham-fisted conman, expressing his reliance on the most gullible prey.
 
The New Yorker wasted no time following up with an editorial, "The Correct Punctuation of Donald Trump, Jr.,'s Name," which thoroughly explains why, grammatically, The New Yorker was correct the whole time.

"The reasoning for the punctuation of “Jr.,’s” is pretty straightforward. It’s a collision of conventions. The first convention is The New Yorker’s—we place a comma before “Jr.” Doing so leads to another of our conventions: when something like “Jr.” occurs in the middle of a phrase, clause, or sentence, it is set off by its preceding comma and a following comma. Thus: “Ed Begley, Jr., was in ‘St. Elsewhere.’ ” A third convention is one that we all accept: the possessive is indicated by the addition of an apostrophe and “s.” We (the magazine) like our punctuation; we set things off with commas a lot; it drives some people nuts (i.e., it’s “bullshit”). This reaction is not surprising; it is also not new. With “Jr.” occurring in the middle of a line, where else is the possessive indicator supposed to go? This styling doesn’t come up very often in the magazine, and its occurrence in a headline of sorts has brought it a weird kind of notoriety. Now it can comfortably stand alongside the diaeresis and “focussing.”
http://www.distractify.com/politics/2017/07/13/1XjG69/donald-trump-jrs-lates


I'm going to have to do some serious, sober thinking on this. At first sight, I am not at all convinced The New Yorker is correct.
I may, or may not, respond.
Of course, we could ask Flash or the Ant.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to have to do some serious, sober thinking on this. At first sight, I am not at all convinced The New Yorker is correct.
I may, or may not, respond.
Of course, we could ask Flash or the Ant.

Where do they get off putting a comma in someone's name?
 
I left last night about 8:30 PM or so and there was a constant stream, from BV, the Icepole himself, till early morning.

So you're wrong.

I'm in Chicago....I responded to your numerous lies....post the times of the first and last post of the series..

Then tell your new friends about the significance of Icepole, kunt.
 
By now the pattern is clear.
After every major news story regarding the relationship between the Trump administration and Russia comes the official denial. When that denial collapses, then comes a dismissal: Nothing really happened, it didn’t mean anything, it’s all just “a nothing burger,” in the flippant words of Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus.
Then, when additional reporting backs up the story, the Trump administration backpedals, insisting that while some version of the events in question might have in fact occurred, there’s no proof of collusion. In the end comes an attack on the news media or the raising of some other distraction.
We have seen this sequence of events play out again and again—most notably this week with Donald Trump Jr.’s emails revealing how he, along with then-campaign chief Paul Manafort and President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, met in June 2016 with a Russian-government-connected lawyer offering up dirt on the Clinton campaign. The New York Times broke the story this way:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/07/team-trumps-sad-playbook-tweet-deny-dismiss/
 
[h=5]No, it’s not illegal to meet with Russians Captain Obvious, but entering into conspiracies to break federal election law is illegal. So is perjury.

They deny every allegation made about possible collusion with Russia right up until they find out that someone has multiple-sourced facts that the last shoe really did drop then they expect us all to believe them when they say there are no more shoes left to drop.

When these people go down it’s going to be spectacular.

Text: In June 2016 Don Jr., Manafort and Kushner took a meeting where these top level Trump campaign figures fully expected to get “some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful” to his father that were sourced from Russian government officials. Don Jr. was told this gift of Russian state intelligence was meant as a good faith move to demonstrate “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump” and instead of calling the FBI to let them know a foreign government was offering to tip the scales in our most fundamental exercise of democracy he said “if it’s what you say I love it” and that’s why so many people left and right, liberal and conservative, are so pissed off: This wasn’t just an attack on the Democratic Party, it was an attack on the American democratic process.

That meeting, with a Russian attorney described to Jr. as “The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow” took place in Trump Tower on June 9th. Less than two months later on July 24th when he was confronted with the idea that the Russians were trying to hurt Hillary Clinton and help his father Don Jr. said, “They’ll say anything” and that this allegation was “disgusting” and “so phony” and that he couldn’t think of bigger lies than this idea that Russia was behind the hack of the DNC servers and that they did what they did to hurt Secretary Clinton and help his father going on to say “they will lie and do anything to win.”

On December 9th of last year all 17 US Intelligence agencies reached the consensus view that Russia was behind the hack of the DNC servers and that they did what they did to hurt Secretary Clinton and help his father.

Last March Don Jr. changed his story saying that he was sure he did meet with Russians but not in any meetings that were set up and certainly not in any meetings in which he “was representing the campaign in any way, shape or form." Then when evidence emerged that he did and Kushner and Manafort had that meeting on June 9th, 2016 with that “Russian government attorney” who flew in from Moscow he said the meeting "was not a campaign issue at that time" until he learned that someone shared those emails with the New York Times. Then we found out that yes, he met with Russians, no, it wasn’t just about adoptions, yes, it was about getting damning intelligence from the Russian government meant to hurt Secretary Clinton and help Donald Trump Sr. AS SINCE DETAILED IN THE EMAILS DON JR. HAS SINCE DUMPED ON HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT.

So we’ve gone from ‘Trump was kidding’ to ‘It never happened and this is fake news’ to ‘OK, it happened but it’s not a big deal’ to ‘OK, it’s a big deal but it’s not illegal’ and you idiots expect us to start taking you seriously? Don Jr. lied about ever having met with Russians, lied about whether or not the Russians were helping his father at Secretary Clinton’s expense, he lied about what his June 2016 meeting was about and he didn’t correct the record at any point in this timeline unless it was explained to him that there was proof he had been lying the whole time. Why should anyone believe him now when he says there’s nothing more to this?

Don Jr. has already admitted entering into a conspiracy to accept something of value from a foreign national on behalf of his father’s campaign, McClatchy is reporting that both the House and Senate intel committees have joined the Department of Justice in looking into whether or not the Trump campaign’s digital operation that Jared ran, the same Jared who tried setting up a way for the Trump campaign to have a direct channel to Putin’s inner circle in such a way that the US intelligence community would not be able to monitor his activities, coordinated efforts with the Russian botnet attacks in key states and an incriminating timeline of events is emerging that suggests the Kremlin and the Trump campaign worked hand in glove to land President Pussygrabber in the Oval Office.

Do you seriously think that there are no more shoes to be dropped here? -The Voice of Reason


















[/h]






 
HEY -- Remember this?


WASHINGTON — Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, was looking for a direct line to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia — a search that in mid-December found him in a room with a Russian banker whose financial institution was deeply intertwined with Russian intelligence, and remains under sanction by the United States.

Federal and congressional investigators are now examining what exactly Mr. Kushner and the Russian banker, Sergey N. Gorkov, wanted from each other. The banker is a close associate of Mr. Putin, but he has not been known to play a diplomatic role for the Russian leader. That has raised questions about why he was meeting with Mr. Kushner at a crucial moment in the presidential transition, according to current and former officials familiar with the investigations.

The New York Times first reported the meeting between Mr. Kushner and Mr. Gorkov in March, but the White House at the time did not explain its aim. That article quoted a White House spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, who said that the meeting came at the request of the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey I. Kislyak, with whom Mr. Kushner had met earlier in December at Trump Tower to discuss opening a communications channel with Russian officials during the presidential transition.

But the half-hour meeting with Mr. Gorkov since has come under increasing scrutiny. The current and former American officials now say it may have been part of an effort by Mr. Kushner to establish a direct line to Mr. Putin outside established diplomatic channels.
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE




RECENT COMMENTS

trey heavy

June 12, 2017"The current and former American officials now say it may have been part of an effort by Mr. Kushner to establish a direct line to Mr. Putin...
John Macgregor

June 8, 2017All these roads must lead to impeachment.There are surely too many of them to do otherwise.
Rodion Raskolnikov

June 8, 2017Here in the good 'ol USSR we are having a great time watching Americans dance to OUR flutes at long last...and to think....we just had to...



The meeting came as Mr. Trump was openly feuding with American intelligence agencies and their conclusion that Russia had tried to disrupt the presidential election and turn it in his favor.

 
I'm in Chicago....I responded to your numerous lies....post the times of the first and last post of the series..

Then tell your new friends about the significance of Icepole, kunt.
Not Her doesn't understand that 6 AM Pacific is simultaneously 9 AM Eastern. She's just fucking stupid.
 


"Trump son-in-law Kushner, now a senior adviser to the president and the only current White House aide known to be deemed a “person of interest” in the Justice Department investigation, appears to be under the microscope in several respects. His real estate finances and December meetings with Russia’s ambassador and the head of a sanctioned, state-controlled bank are also being examined.
"Kushner’s 'role as a possible cut-out or conduit for Moscow’s influence operations in the elections,' including his niche overseeing the digital operations, will be closely looked at, said the source knowledgeable about the Justice Department inquiry.
"Kushner joined Donald Trump Jr. and Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort at a newly disclosed June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in New York.. The meeting, revealed by The New York Times, followed emails in which Trump Jr. was told the lawyer for the Russian government would provide him with incriminating information on Clinton and he replied 'If it’s what you say I love it.'”
And...
"Mike Carpenter, who in January left a senior Pentagon post where he worked on Russia matters, also has suspicions about collaboration between the campaign and Russia’s cyber operatives.
“'There appears to have been significant cooperation between Russia’s online propaganda machine and individuals in the United States who were knowledgeable about where to target the disinformation,' he said, without naming any American suspects."


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article160803619.html
 
By now the pattern is clear.
After every major news story regarding the relationship between the Trump administration and Russia comes the official denial. When that denial collapses, then comes a dismissal: Nothing really happened, it didn’t mean anything, it’s all just “a nothing burger,” in the flippant words of Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus.
Then, when additional reporting backs up the story, the Trump administration backpedals, insisting that while some version of the events in question might have in fact occurred, there’s no proof of collusion. In the end comes an attack on the news media or the raising of some other distraction.
We have seen this sequence of events play out again and again—most notably this week with Donald Trump Jr.’s emails revealing how he, along with then-campaign chief Paul Manafort and President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, met in June 2016 with a Russian-government-connected lawyer offering up dirt on the Clinton campaign. The New York Times broke the story this way:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/07/team-trumps-sad-playbook-tweet-deny-dismiss/

Breaking.....


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...cer-donald-trump-jr-russia-meeting/478483001/

A former Soviet counter-intelligence officer, now working as a Russian-American lobbyist, was also in the room last June during a controversial meeting between Donald Trump, Jr. and a Russian lawyer that was purportedly aimed at getting dirt on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, NBC News reported Friday.

The lobbyist served in the Soviet military and emigrated to the U.S., where he holds dual citizenship, according to NBC News.
 
Back
Top