Orange Duce

[Farfromgeneva]

...with such complete detachment from reality...

it was odd. undeniably. i thought the "don't talk to me like that. I'm the POTUS..." comment was particularly telling. it sounded like the words of a man realizing he's no longer the POTUS and that he was not a good POTUS (as dictated by losing the election) when he was. just a glass of cold reality splashed in his face.

Wait until he doesn't have lock down secret security to see how he is spoken to. More importantly how many shady country sovereign fund managers suddenly are "washing their hair" evey time he calls them about business now.

In my fantasy world, Trump would be greeted with chants of "Shame, Shame, Shame"

mgid-ao-image-mtv.com-202520.jpeg

I was thinking more between the "golden crown" that Aquaman puts on Khalesi's brother and when the Red Viper gets a little too confidnet in his fight with the Mountain over the dwarfs life.

[ggait]

IAAL, and have many many federal civil actions under my belt, and this guy does a very nice job explaining why the can of Judicial Whoop Ass has been spraying all over Rudy and Jenna.

But a comically inept and unsuccessful bank robbery attempt is still an attempted bank robbery.

And a comically inept and unsuccessful legal effort can still be a quite successful campaign to (i) raise money from mouth breathers, (ii) sow disinformation, (iii) sell subscriptions to Trump TV, (iv) get pardons (i.e. Kraken Sid and Flynn), and (v) position yourself for your next job.

I'm sure Kayleigh McGaslight, Smilin' Lyin' Jenna Ellis and Kraken Sid all will have well-paying gigs as sleazy media pundits in the very near future. No need to practice law any further for them.

[seacoaster]

IAAL, and have many many federal civil actions under my belt, and this guy does a very nice job explaining why the can of Judicial Whoop Ass has been spraying all over Rudy and Jenna.

But a comically inept and unsuccessful bank robbery attempt is still an attempted bank robbery.

And a comically inept and unsuccessful legal effort can still be a quite successful campaign to (i) raise money from mouth breathers, (ii) sow disinformation, (iii) sell subscriptions to Trump TV, (iv) get pardons (i.e. Kraken Sid and Flynn), and (v) position yourself for your next job.

I'm sure Kayleigh McGaslight, Smilin' Lyin' Jenna Ellis and Kraken Sid all will have well-paying gigs as sleazy media pundits in the very near future. No need to practice law any further for them.

Absolutely right. And so very sad a commentary on our country.

[foreverlax]

Maria "Trump" Bartiromo's display Sunday showed exactly how irrelevant she is....sad. Respected the hell out of her when she was in her financial reporter lane.

I just.....it's so sad to watch folks like her and Olbermann just go right off the deep end chasing after ratings and money.

Cyndi Lauper was right all those years ago: money changes everything.

Yes but if you manage to put a few shekels in your pocket and have a crowd of more financially insecure friends make sure to not talk about your problems to them. Even if they are very real it doesn't matter, they can't begin to understand that.

For sure she mediocre - respected her for being able to break it to the boom-boom room. She was a hottie back in the day.

Yeah it was back when it was more relative and she's always had a bit of junk in the trunk even when she was in her 20s, but good for her. It's just evolved a lot, kind of like some (not all but too many compared with where the students are today at those programs) Columbia, Penn, Harvard, etc MBAs who have kind of lost touch and their edge over time. Some of it coming with money and success, some for other reasons.

Same with sports women reporters. Was a different threshold to be hot in 2003 than 2019.

People are saying the same thing about porn stars....

Admit it, you miss those bushy forests of the 70s

Talk about improving the mouse trap......

[foreverlax]

Maria "Trump" Bartiromo's display Sunday showed exactly how irrelevant she is....sad. Respected the hell out of her when she was in her financial reporter lane.

I just.....it's so sad to watch folks like her and Olbermann just go right off the deep end

Olbermann? That's some false equivalence there. Bartiromo has a prominent program on the most-watched news channel in the country, and can score a POTUS interview.

Obermann was dismissed by MSNBC a decade ago and now has a youtube channel.

The parallel isn't viewer impact...it's starting with moderate positions, and then swinging waaaaaay out there over time.

And in his case, losing status and income.

[Matnum PI]

A federal judge has partially advanced a lawsuit accusing Russian mafia-tied businessman Felix Sater of laundering millions stolen from Kazakhstan's BTA Bank through Trump Organization properties. https://t.co/gx9WuBt3sY

[Brooklyn]

Ford was right to pardon Nixon. Joe Biden should do Trump no such favors


https://www.centredaily.com/article247426780.html



Gerald Ford was right. It was years before I understood that.

I was 17 years old on the day in 1974 when the 38th president pardoned the 37th, Richard Nixon, for his crimes in the Watergate affair. Like millions of others — like Ford’s own press secretary, who resigned in protest — I was disgusted by this largesse.

It wasn’t until years later that I came to see it as an act of political courage, freeing the country to move on from a sordid affair that had left us mesmerized and paralyzed. As Ford put it, had Nixon gone to trial, “ugly passions would again be aroused, our people would again be polarized in their opinions.”

I’ve also come to believe the sight of a former president, a symbol of the nation after all, in a prison jumpsuit, would have been emotionally corrosive — even for those who think it wouldn’t, even for those who gleefully anticipated it, even for those who loathed him.

You may think all this is offered by way of explaining why I think President-elect Biden should pardon Donald Trump. It’s actually offered to explain why I think he should not. The idea of pardoning Trump — which Biden has already rejected — has been kicking around the pundit sphere quite a bit recently, proposed by everyone from columnists E.J. Montini and David Leibowitz to former Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci and former House Judiciary Committee counsel Michael Conway.

Well, I’m here to join them in kicking the idea around. And down the stairs. And out the front door. And into traffic where, with any luck, an 18-wheeler is barreling down the street. Because 2020 is not 1974. Here are four reasons:

One: The idea that Biden should do this, as Ford did, to heal the country, is ludicrous on its face. There is no healing in this — a pardon would only infuriate the left and cripple Biden’s presidency while emboldening the ever-more lawless right. And not for nothing, but why is it always the left that is called upon to soothe the right’s hurt feelings? Liberals have feelings, too.

Two: Nixon was a Boy Scout next to this guy. He “only” tried to subvert the Constitution. Trump can be credibly accused of that, plus extortion, treason, tax fraud, bank fraud, obstruction of justice, campaign-finance violations and sexual assault. To let him off is to say none of that has meaning.

Three: No one lionized Nixon; no mass movement portrayed him as a hero. Indeed, even Republicans were repelled by his criminality. Trump, by contrast, has ascended to something very like a cult leader among his followers — some orange combination of Jim Jones, David Koresh and Charles Manson — and for that reason if for no other, he needs to be toppled, hard. That’s what you have to do with false idols.

Four: In 1974, no one doubted that the law matters. But in the abiding criminality of the Trump gang, that bedrock principle of American life has been smashed. Prosecuting him — and all of them — would go a long way toward reaffirming not only that law matters, but that none of us is above its reach.

Jerry Ford made a brave call in 1974. But that was 1974. And circumstances, to put it mildly, are different now. They demand that Trump answer for every crime that can be proven against him, down to and including parking tickets.

Will his followers be angry if he is prosecuted? Yes. They’ll also be angry if he’s not. For them, anger is the means, the end and the message. So they don’t need excuses for outrage. Like Trump, they thrive on chaos, upheaval and resentment. Whatever happens, they’re going to howl anyway. Might as well give them something to howl about.





The commentator is a bit benign towards Nixon. But let's face it, Tricky Dicky was a boy scout compared to the criminal tRUMP. The crook deserves a long stretch in jail along with his cohorts.

LOCK HIM UP!

[seacoaster]

Think this is the important question, and a pretty good article on the answer to it:

https://www.haaretz.com/amp/us-news/.pr ... -1.9330836

[Matnum PI]

Bombshell (on Amazon) is pretty good. Covers a lot of the stuff discussed here and within other threads. https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/ ... iEgOEZ_4_1

[Typical Lax Dad]

Think this is the important question, and a pretty good article on the answer to it:

https://www.haaretz.com/amp/us-news/.pr ... -1.9330836

Good article. Thanks

[youthathletics]

Think this is the important question, and a pretty good article on the answer to it:

https://www.haaretz.com/amp/us-news/.pr ... -1.9330836

Makes you wonder why she is so involved and interested in just the poorest & white areas not eager to further their education. Wouldn’t her credibility grow if she were to study, say, the growing black and ethnic 71 millions voters of Trump? Maybe she is just trying to dumb herself down, or she is ‘woke’ to only trailer park trash.

Some people will believe anything, so long as they are from a name brand university

[MDlaxfan76]

Think this is the important question, and a pretty good article on the answer to it:

https://www.haaretz.com/amp/us-news/.pr ... -1.9330836

Makes you wonder why she is so involved and interested in just the poorest & white areas not eager to further their education. Wouldn’t her credibility grow if she were to study, say, the growing black and ethnic 71 millions voters of Trump? Maybe she is just trying to dumb herself down, or she is ‘woke’ to only trailer park trash.

Some people will believe anything, so long as they are from a name brand university

do you have a hard count on those "black and ethnic" voters out of the 71 million?
Not a big # or % right?
But sure, quite a lot of reasonably well off whites, though certainly skewed to less education...

But these are all interesting questions...

For instance, it would be interesting to understand why some black men, more than black women, supported Trump. Not a big #, of course, but certainly more than the black women...could that have to do with black men being angry, like white men, at the rise of women in the world force and the dynamics that has had on family roles?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Think this is the important question, and a pretty good article on the answer to it:

https://www.haaretz.com/amp/us-news/.pr ... -1.9330836

Makes you wonder why she is so involved and interested in just the poorest & white areas not eager to further their education. Wouldn’t her credibility grow if she were to study, say, the growing black and ethnic 71 millions voters of Trump? Maybe she is just trying to dumb herself down, or she is ‘woke’ to only trailer park trash.

Some people will believe anything, so long as they are from a name brand university

Name brand universities are awful!! Best to send kids to schools you never heard of.

[youthathletics]

Think this is the important question, and a pretty good article on the answer to it:

https://www.haaretz.com/amp/us-news/.pr ... -1.9330836

Makes you wonder why she is so involved and interested in just the poorest & white areas not eager to further their education. Wouldn’t her credibility grow if she were to study, say, the growing black and ethnic 71 millions voters of Trump? Maybe she is just trying to dumb herself down, or she is ‘woke’ to only trailer park trash.

Some people will believe anything, so long as they are from a name brand university

Name brand universities are awful!! Best to send kids to schools you never heard of.

Says the guy that has posted on multiple occasions, that there are plenty of low cost no name universities for a great education.

“ Good example of how a person loses credibility.....”

[ggait]

Some people will believe anything, so long as they are from a name brand university

Sounds like YA has erected an "empathy wall" against highly educated people.

Which, actually, is exactly what this professor studies. You might want to check out "Strangers in Their Own Land." A good read -- somewhat similar to Hillbilly Elegy.

[youthathletics]

Think this is the important question, and a pretty good article on the answer to it:

https://www.haaretz.com/amp/us-news/.pr ... -1.9330836

Makes you wonder why she is so involved and interested in just the poorest & white areas not eager to further their education. Wouldn’t her credibility grow if she were to study, say, the growing black and ethnic 71 millions voters of Trump? Maybe she is just trying to dumb herself down, or she is ‘woke’ to only trailer park trash.

Some people will believe anything, so long as they are from a name brand university

do you have a hard count on those "black and ethnic" voters out of the 71 million?
Not a big # or % right?
But sure, quite a lot of reasonably well off whites, though certainly skewed to less education...

But these are all interesting questions...

For instance, it would be interesting to understand why some black men, more than black women, supported Trump. Not a big #, of course, but certainly more than the black women...could that have to do with black men being angry, like white men, at the rise of women in the world force and the dynamics that has had on family roles?

Agreed.

Her logic makes no sense and perfect sense. By that standard inner city low income, low educational blacks vote democratic.....why aren’t they labeled uneducated blacks of the city, like their counter part...the uneducated low educated republican hicks. Those black families vote for the same thing over and over and over, expecting a different result. Maybe that Is why more black men chose a republican this time.

She’s probably scared to spend 10 minutes in the inner city to learn something, rather than thumbing her nose at barely blue collar white man that wears dickies and drives a truck. She’s doing what exactly what she is saying Democrat’s need to change....creating division.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Think this is the important question, and a pretty good article on the answer to it:

https://www.haaretz.com/amp/us-news/.pr ... -1.9330836

Makes you wonder why she is so involved and interested in just the poorest & white areas not eager to further their education. Wouldn’t her credibility grow if she were to study, say, the growing black and ethnic 71 millions voters of Trump? Maybe she is just trying to dumb herself down, or she is ‘woke’ to only trailer park trash.

Some people will believe anything, so long as they are from a name brand university

Name brand universities are awful!! Best to send kids to schools you never heard of.

Says the guy that has posted on multiple occasions, that there are plenty of low cost no name universities for a great education.

“ Good example of how a person loses credibility.....”

Yes....I was being sarcastic....plenty pf cheap schools....but people don’t want to send their kids there.....shooting down “brand name schools” yet they will only send their kids to one.....it is consistent sarcasm Cap’n.......by the way, a college coach in Maryland called them “window sticker schools”.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Some people will believe anything, so long as they are from a name brand university

Sounds like YA has erected an "empathy wall" against highly educated people.

Which, actually, is exactly what this professor studies. You might want to check out "Strangers in Their Own Land." A good read -- somewhat similar to Hillbilly Elegy.

Hillbilly Elegy folk were my schoolmates!!

[seacoaster]

Think this is the important question, and a pretty good article on the answer to it:

https://www.haaretz.com/amp/us-news/.pr ... -1.9330836

Makes you wonder why she is so involved and interested in just the poorest & white areas not eager to further their education. Wouldn’t her credibility grow if she were to study, say, the growing black and ethnic 71 millions voters of Trump? Maybe she is just trying to dumb herself down, or she is ‘woke’ to only trailer park trash.

Some people will believe anything, so long as they are from a name brand university

I'm not sure what your point is here. But her scholarship and interests run broader than you might think.

https://sociology.berkeley.edu/professo ... hochschild

Her particular area of scholarship is focused on the white working class, who are the bedrock support of the outgoing President -- the GOP base.

[seacoaster]

Exiting Duce raises $150,000,000 since the election by falsely claiming foul play and fraud, and prying the dollars out of small donors. As usual, a complete disgrace:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

"President Trump’s political operation has raised more than $150 million since Election Day, using a blizzard of misleading appeals about the election to shatter fundraising records set during the campaign, according to people with knowledge of the contributions.

The influx of political donations is one reason Trump and some allies are inclined to continue a legal onslaught and public affairs blitz focused on baseless claims of election fraud, even as their attempts have repeatedly failed in court and as key states continue to certify wins for President-elect Joe Biden.

Much of the money raised since the election is likely to go into an account for the president to use on political activities after he leaves office, while some of the contributions will go toward what’s left of the legal fight.

The people with knowledge of the fundraising amounts spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose internal numbers. The Trump campaign declined to comment.

The surge of donations is largely from small-dollar donors, campaign officials say, tapping into the president’s base of loyal and fervent donors who tend to contribute the most when they feel the president is under siege or facing unfair political attacks. The campaign has sent about 500 post-election fundraising pitches to donors, often with hyperbolic language about voter fraud and the like.

“I need you now more than ever,” says one recent email that claims to be from the president. “The Recount Results were BOGUS,” another email subject line reads.

“Our democracy and freedom is at risk like never before, which is why I’m reaching out to you now with an URGENT request,” reads an email to donors from Vice President Pence. “President Trump and I need our STRONGEST supporters, like YOU, to join the Election Defense Task Force. This group will be responsible for DEFENDING the Election from voter fraud, and we really need you to step up to the front lines of this battle.”

The donations are purportedly being solicited for the Official Election Defense Fund, which is blazed in all red across the Trump campaign’s website, with an ominous picture of the president outside the White House.

There is no such account, however. The fundraising requests are being made by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint fundraising committee that raises money for the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee. As of Nov. 18, that committee also shares its funds with Save America, a new leadership PAC that Trump set up in early November and which he can use to fund his post-presidency activities.

The money raised since Nov. 3 is a massive haul for such a short period, especially after the election, when losing campaigns typically ramp down their fundraising operation. By comparison, the Trump Make America Great Again Committee raised $125 million in the second quarter of 2020, according to federal records. The campaign account’s best single month was September, when it raised $81 million, according to available data.

The contributions, from thousands of grass-roots donors across the country, are split into several accounts, including the leadership PAC that is loosely regulated and could be used to personally benefit the president after he leaves the White House.

According to the fine print in the latest fundraising appeals, 75 percent of each contribution to the joint fundraising committee would first go toward the Save America leadership PAC and the rest would be shared with the party committee, to help with the party’s operating expenses. This effectively means that the vast majority of low-dollar donations under the current agreement would go toward financing the president’s new leadership PAC, instead of efforts to support the party or to finance voting lawsuits.

“Small donors who give to Trump thinking they are financing an ‘official election defense fund’ are in fact helping pay down the Trump campaign’s debt or funding his post-presidential political operation,” said Brendan Fischer, who directs federal regulatory work at the Campaign Legal Center, which supports greater restrictions on the role of money in politics. “The average donor who gives in response to Trump’s appeal for funds to ‘stop the fraud’ likely doesn’t realize that their money is actually retiring Trump’s debt or funding his leadership PAC.”

Fischer said that “only bigger donors who’ve maxed-out to Trump’s campaign or the RNC will see any portion of their contribution go to dedicated recount or legal funds.”

“The RNC has spent tens of millions of dollars over the last two years funding legal efforts in multiple states, and we continue the fight for election integrity across the country,” RNC spokesperson Mike Reed said.

The leadership PAC could be spent, for example, to pay for events at his own properties, or to finance his travel or personal expenses. There are very few limitations on how money going to the group can be spent.

On Nov. 18, the Trump Make America Great Again Committee struck a formal agreement with Save America, the Trump campaign and the RNC to raise money together through the joint fundraising committee and share the funds, according to federal records. By Nov. 19, the contribution share to Save America PAC had changed to 75 percent from 60 percent as it had been for more than a week, according to a review of the fundraising appeals.

Leadership PACs do not face the same restrictions on “personal use” expenses as candidate committees do. They were established to allow members of Congress to raise money for their allies on Capitol Hill through fundraising vehicles separate from their campaign committees. The money is often used for what is called donor cultivation: feting wealthy supporters in the hopes that they will write big checks back to the leadership PAC and other committees.

Over the years, leadership PACs have become must-have accessories on Capitol Hill, as well as among former elected officials who want to retain their political influence by helping other candidates raise money or by raising money on their behalf.

One person with knowledge of the contributions said many were repeat donors, and that emails with dire language about the president potentially losing tended to ratchet up the contributions. The person said the campaign had a plan before Election Day to dial up requests for money if the result wasn’t immediately clear.

“Trump is making hay while the sun is shining. He’s taking advantage of all the free media coverage to pay off his campaign debt and fill his coffers for whatever comes next,” said Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor. He added: “I would rather give to Romney 2012 than Trump 2020 at this point.”

In an interview earlier this month, Texas donor Doug Deason said “some people are writing big checks because they are fired up.”

On Monday, the final day of the monthly fundraising period, Trump was on track to reach 500 fundraising emails. In November, the Trump operation set a record for monthly fundraising requests from the campaign, according to a tally by @TrumpEmail, a Twitter account that has tracked the president’s fundraising requests since January 2018.

The campaign had struggled some with finances earlier this fall, officials said, with campaign manager Bill Stepien deciding to cut TV spending because he feared they could run out of money. Officials said that some money was wasted on unnecessary expenditures, such as a pricey Super Bowl commercial and blimps flying over the skylines of states. But some Trump advisers said the money that has come in after the election was a reason the campaign should have never made the cuts."