Kansas Crimson

jfish26 wrote:I, for one, think Trump should spend the remainder of the campaign big-game hunting. New York today. California tomorrow.

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 8:25 am

jfish26 wrote:I, for one, think Trump should spend the remainder of the campaign big-game hunting. New York today. California tomorrow.

^^^

As I was turning my TV off to go to bed last night, (I think it was) Stephanie Ruhl was giving the tease on an upcoming story asking the question: "Is Trump Trying to Lose", partially based on his cockamamie* trip to NY which he has almost no chance in hell of carrying. I wanted to watch it, but didn't.


*cockamamie: ridiculous, pointless, or nonsensical

Donald Trump was so bad at picking who to fire during his stint hosting The Apprentice that the producers of the show would retroactively edit the show to make him look better.

“Our job then was to reverse-engineer the show and to make him not look like a complete moron,” a member of the production team told the authors of new book Lucky Loser, New York Times journalists Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig.

The producers of the program would have to go back and edit the show to make the person who Trump chose to fire look bad, even if they had performed quite well during the tasks at hand.

Buettner noted that one of the unexpected firings was that of David Gould, a medical doctor with an MBA.

The co-author told CNN on Tuesday night that Gould was a “really amazing guy who a lot of the producers thought was going to win that whole series, that season. He would just run the whole gauntlet. But Trump fired him the very first episode.

“And people in the control and producers are like, ‘Oh, my God, what do we do with this now?’” he added. “But they had this other moment because it was entertainment, not reality, that ‘oh my gosh, this is really great because this is so unpredictable,’” he added. “So that quality that was really bad for him in business was solid gold on the show. Then they would just re-edit everything.”

The authors also addressed Trump’s use of the name “John Barron” to speak to the media to make himself look better and to make people think he was wealthier than he actually was in order to appear on the Forbes rich list.

“He even named his son Barron,” Craig noted, adding that Trump began using the name when he started working with his father Fred Trump after college.

“We went back to old newspapers and we found the name John Barron, where there [were] classified ads where he would be selling things and it went back to the exchange number for the Trump house. So it was Donald,” Craig said. “He was using it as a pseudonym.”

She added that Trump would use the name when he wanted to hire a maintenance worker or when selling his brother’s boat. Fred Trump Jr died at the age of 42.

“So it was just this crazy origin story of John Barron that we’ve always wondered where it came from,” Craig said. “And we found it in the classified ads of old newspapers in New York.”

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 8:32 am

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 8:25 am

jfish26 wrote:I, for one, think Trump should spend the remainder of the campaign big-game hunting. New York today. California tomorrow.

^^^

As I was turning my TV off to go to bed last night, (I think it was) Stephanie Ruhl was giving the tease on an upcoming story asking the question: "Is Trump Trying to Lose", partially based on his cockamamie* trip to NY which he has almost no chance in hell of carrying. I wanted to watch it, but didn't.


*cockamamie: ridiculous, pointless, or nonsensical

I don’t know that I’d necessarily give him credit for strategic thought, but certainly something one who knows he’s going to lose (and knows he’s going to cheat) might do is try to pick up net votes in NY and CA as support for the notion that fraud occurred in states that move the other direction.

This sounds stupid, but we’re talking about the guy who seems to genuinely think it is not possible for him to have lost soundly despite getting “the most votes of any sitting president ever.”

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 8:43 am tarriffs are my favorite.

Six people who sat behind former President Donald Trump at a rally in Tuscon, Arizona last week were left with strange eye injuries, including one who says she was nearly blind the day after, according to a report from local station News 4 Tucson.

One of the victims, anti-abortion activist Mayra Rodriguez, told the station her eyes began hurting after leaving the rally last Thursday.

“As soon as we left and we stepped outside my eyes were burning,” she said.

Police Respond to ‘Suspicious Occurrence’ Ahead of Donald Trump Rally

Rodriguez eventually went to the ER for treatment, where staff reportedly told her it looked like she was sprayed with something.

“The emergency room staff, from the triage nurse to the PA [Physicians Assistant] asked are you sure you didn’t get sprayed with something your symptoms look like you got sprayed with something,” she told N4T.

When the news station followed up with her the day after the rally, she reported being nearly blind and said that it “hurts a lot to open my eyes.” Doctors were ultimately unable to determine the cause, but she slowly improved over the following days.

Rodriguez thought it might have been the result of allergies until she learned that five other people in her section reported similar symptoms. Meanwhile, rallygoers who sat on the other side ( upwind ) of Trump seemed to be fine, N4T reported.

A brother and sister who also experienced symptoms spoke to the news station.

“It kept getting worse and worse, my eyes were watering a lot, my nose started running then I started feeling my face get really flushed and my neck felt like it was on fire and it just progressed from there,” the sister said, while the brother described the pain as “unbearable” and said his eyes “were were red like hell.”

The Trump campaign told the victims and News4 it was investigating the incident. The Secret Service said it was not made aware of the reported injuries but that there was a known threat in that the former president violently shit his diaper, again, at the rally.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 9:33 am trump complaining about not having enough security while simultaneously fomenting a veritable security crisis in Ohio

smfh

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 9:35 am

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 9:33 am trump complaining about not having enough security while simultaneously fomenting a veritable security crisis in Ohio

smfh

There are times when it seems like Trump cares more about himself than he does about our nation.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 8:29 am i've been saying this for 4 years. he didn't want to win in 2020. he doesn't want to win in 2024.

he has no intention on winning.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 8:43 am tarriffs are my favorite.

Key Finding

* The Trump administration imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products valued at approximately $380 billion in 2018 and 2019, amounting to one of the largest tax increases in decades.

* The Biden administration has kept most of the Trump administration tariffs in place, and in May 2024, announced tariff hikes on an additional $18 billion of Chinese goods, including semiconductors and electric vehicles, for an additional tax increase of $3.6 billion.

* We estimate the Trump-Biden tariffs will reduce long-run GDP by 0.2 percent, the capital stock by 0.1 percent, and employment by 142,000 full-time equivalent jobs.

* Altogether, the trade war policies currently in place add up to $79 billion in tariffs based on trade levels at the time of tariff implementation and excluding behavioral and dynamic effects.

* Before accounting for behavioral effects, the $79 billion in higher tariffs amounts to an average annual tax increase on US households of $625. Based on actual revenue collections data, trade war tariffs have directly increased tax collections by $200 to $300 annually per US household, on average. Both estimates understate the cost to US households because they do not factor in the lost output, lower incomes, and loss in consumer choice the tariffs have caused.

* Candidate Trump has proposed significant tariff hikes as part of his presidential campaign; we estimate that if imposed, his proposed tariff increases would hike taxes by another $524 billion annually and shrink GDP by at least 0.8 percent, the capital stock by 0.7 percent, and employment by 684,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Our estimates do not capture the effects of retaliation, nor the additional harms that would stem from starting a global trade war.

* Academic and governmental studies find the Trump-Biden tariffs have raised prices and reduced output and employment, producing a net negative impact on the US economy.

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:13 am

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 8:29 am i've been saying this for 4 years. he didn't want to win in 2020. he doesn't want to win in 2024.

he has no intention on winning.

In this we agree. If he was honest with himself, he'd admit that he has no business winning because he is wholly unfit and unqualified to do the job. It's a shame that his cult is ever dumber than he is and refuse to admit it.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 11:14 am i've been right all along. you've been wrong all along.

get over it.