Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[D Luniz]

Ive never gotten my hair professionally washed, but I do know if I has wanted it braided back in college by just one of the women on campus, it was about 40-60 was when range they tended to offer
so Im sure it would be way more to go to people that are actually trying to run a business

[Spectral]

Not going to create my own thread, but again Republicans/Conservatives and Trumpkins have a heart-on for AOC.

Supposedly she tweeted out or something she got an $80 haircut. So OMG the right had a shit fit for her getting I guess such an expensive haircut. Alright, some honesty on the internet. As a male I even know that woman's haircuts cost more plus there are much more expensive salon hair than $80.

So here is resident prick Scott Walker tweeting about his $20 haircut.

Getting my $26 (with tip) haircut

I'm pretty sure my wife spent something dopey in the multiple hundreds of dollars range at her hairdresser for some dye/styling/something thing. Doesn't really make sense to me, but it looked nice and haircut costs just aggressively don't matter in the scheme of budgets.

- - - Updated - - -

I can't imagine any guy with a gf or wife actually believes that's it's a clever attack to point out hair cuts/styles for men are generally a lot cheaper than for women. Unless you're with rough cut tomboy kinda girl, that also applies to just about everything related to style/hygiene. Shoes alone... mine has over twenty pair (not kidding) while I have a couple.

I spent a lot on these bad boys.

[Benggaul]

I can't imagine any guy with a gf or wife actually believes that's it's a clever attack to point out hair cuts/styles for men are generally a lot cheaper than for women. Unless you're with rough cut tomboy kinda girl, that also applies to just about everything related to style/hygiene. Shoes alone... mine has over twenty pair (not kidding) while I have a couple.

Not only that, but since they're generally (and unfairly) held to a higher standard they have to shell out to look better.

[Canpinter]

Whoops....

Hear from the people of the state? Wisconsins not that big, it only takes like 2 hours to drive from Wausau to Madison and there are no big population centers north of Wausau.

[Pendulous]

These morons are actually complaining because a woman spent money on a hair cut. Like, that's it. There's nothing more to it than that.

[Paranoid Android]

“Occasionally, while on the phone with foreign heads of state, Trump has handed the receiver to his daughter, Ivanka Trump, so she can talk with the leader, according to this individual.” https://t.co/qjk7jyZLg8

https://apnews.com/ab67c31d9b3c4acdada93a624052ddc4

The Shitshow we all have come to know.

The story tells us that when Trump of somewhat we know. First when taking calls with leaders, the President is generally briefed by advisors. Well, Trump of course does not want to be briefed or read materials.

Remember all the stories of Trump briefings being slimmed down and best of it was he liked pictures. Seems to be true.

Plus President is usually given talking points to be discussed but of course Trump never abided by this.

In the article it says Obama always had a package and I assumed this would be typical protocol for Presidents to hit the important topics.

Yes, best of all Trump would put is ill-qualified daughter, Ivanka on calls.

[Orbitus]

These morons are actually complaining because a woman spent money on a hair cut. Like, that's it. There's nothing more to it than that.

They are saying she spent too much, because she is getting paid by taxpayers. Because they think, as a guy, that their $15-20 cuts should be what she gets and nothing more. Though, every place that I go to, has cost extra for long hair. Same for coloring long hair. Though, for just about everywhere in DC, $300 is about the average or even cheap for a cut, color and 20% tip.

[Stormspellz]

These morons are actually complaining because a woman spent money on a hair cut. Like, that's it. There's nothing more to it than that.

Not just money, her money. But republicans abusing tax payers money, well thats alright as long as its a republican doing it.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Honestly any time they throw a fit, just ask them to do a simple test:

Would they be ok with it if Obama did it?

[Benggaul]

Honestly any time they throw a fit, just ask them to do a simple test:

Would they be ok with it if Obama did it?

I think you mean "Would they be okay if Trump did it"? I think we've all seen by now they hate everything about Obama so they'd scrutinize anything he did. Trump, on the other hand, they routinely give a free pass to.

[Zaydin]

And Trump is reiterating that he doesn't care that the thug in Ankara is murdering our allies.

He's once again declaring he knows better than US generals, calling them 'overrated'. How do you think the military will take that? One would assume that sort of talk would enrage vets. Can you imagine the outrage from the anti-American right if Obama had said that? They would have shit themselves in rage.

Think this might give the GOP the excuse they need to turn on him?

[Santti]

Think this might give the GOP the excuse they need to turn on him?

This, and not the billion other perfectly good reasons? Maybe, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Fugus]

Honestly any time they throw a fit, just ask them to do a simple test:

Would they be ok with it if Obama did it?

I tried to have that conversation with a few of them, they always make excuses about how "That is different" and the closest thing I can get to an admission was either them trying to change the subject using insults hoping to eek out a consolation prize or they just shut down, stopped talking and started nodding only to go back to the same talking points a week later.

Mentally they shut down when the concept of them being wrong or a hypocrite came up, they would rather screw this nation, their children and their own future than take the time and consider that they might be wrong. Their ego is just too important to them.

[Wyrt]

And Trump is reiterating that he doesn't care that the thug in Ankara is murdering our allies.

He's once again declaring he knows better than US generals, calling them 'overrated'. How do you think the military will take that? One would assume that sort of talk would enrage vets. Can you imagine the outrage from the anti-American right if Obama had said that? They would have shit themselves in rage.

Think this might give the GOP the excuse they need to turn on him?

Got to protect his business in Turkey even if it requires genocide I guess.

[Levelfive]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/12/polit...osi/index.html

Trump threatens to sue top Democrats Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi amid impeachment inquiry

"Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump threatened on Saturday night to sue top congressional Democrats Rep. Adam Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi amid the House impeachment inquiry into the President.

Trump, who has a long track record of calling for lawsuits against his critics and not following through, said, "We're going to take a look at it. We're going after these people. These are bad, bad people." The President was speaking at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, DC.

Trump said he spoke to his lawyers about Schiff and told them, "Sue him anyway, even if we lose, the American public will understand." Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence committee, is spearheading the impeachment inquiry.

"And sue Nancy Pelosi," Trump continued. "Or maybe we should just impeach them, because they're lying and what they're doing is a terrible thing for our country." Members of Congress cannot be impeached, according to the US Constitution."

Blah blah blah. And et cetera. I do like the deadpan, "Members of Congress cannot be impeached, according to the US Constitution," though.

[Zaydin]

Breaking news: Sondland intends to tell Congress that his 'no quid pro quo' text was dictated to him by Trump and that Sondland had no idea if Trump was telling the truth about there not being a quid pro quo and that it was just what Trump told him.

That thumping sound you heard was Sondland pushing Trump under the bus Trump intended to throw him under.

[Dontrike]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/12/polit...osi/index.html

Trump threatens to sue top Democrats Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi amid impeachment inquiry

"Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump threatened on Saturday night to sue top congressional Democrats Rep. Adam Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi amid the House impeachment inquiry into the President.

Trump, who has a long track record of calling for lawsuits against his critics and not following through, said, "We're going to take a look at it. We're going after these people. These are bad, bad people." The President was speaking at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, DC.

Trump said he spoke to his lawyers about Schiff and told them, "Sue him anyway, even if we lose, the American public will understand." Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence committee, is spearheading the impeachment inquiry.

"And sue Nancy Pelosi," Trump continued. "Or maybe we should just impeach them, because they're lying and what they're doing is a terrible thing for our country." Members of Congress cannot be impeached, according to the US Constitution."

Blah blah blah. And et cetera. I do like the deadpan, "Members of Congress cannot be impeached, according to the US Constitution," though.

I don't understand why Trump loves losing lawsuits so much.

[Breccia]

Breaking news: Sondland intends to tell Congress that his 'no quid pro quo' text was dictated to him by Trump and that Sondland had no idea if Trump was telling the truth about there not being a quid pro quo and that it was just what Trump told him.

That thumping sound you heard was Sondland pushing Trump under the bus Trump intended to throw him under.

No no no, you have to say the whole thing!

The U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, intends to tell Congress this week that the content of a text message he wrote denying a quid pro quo with Ukraine was relayed to him directly by President Trump in a phone call, according to a person familiar with his testimony.

Sondland plans to tell lawmakers he has no knowledge of whether the president was telling him the truth at that moment. “It’s only true that the president said it, not that it was the truth,” said the person familiar with Sondland’s planned testimony, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic matters.

The Sept. 9 exchange between Sondland and the top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine has become central to the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into whether the president abused his office in pressuring Ukraine to open an investigation into his political rival Joe Biden and his son, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian energy company. The White House and its defenders have held up Sondland’s text, which included “no quid pro quo’s of any kind,” as proof that none was ever considered.

Sondland will hold out the possibility that Trump wasn’t truthful in his denial of a quid pro quo as well as an alternative scenario in which the president’s interest in the scheme soured at a time when his administration faced mounting scrutiny over why it was withholding about $400 million in security assistance to Ukraine and delaying a leader-level visit with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“Whether he’s deciding it’s getting too hot to handle and he backs off whatever his position really was a month earlier, I don’t know,” the person said of Sondland’s understanding.

Hours before Sondland called the president, he received a text message from the acting ambassador to Ukraine, William B. Taylor, raising questions about the aid holdup. “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” Taylor texted Sondland.

That’s when Sondland, according to the person’s understanding, called Trump, who then told him he didn’t “want a quid pro quo . . . didn’t want anything from Ukraine.” The call lasted less than five minutes, and Trump appeared to be in a foul mood, according to the person, who spoke to The Post with Sondland’s permission, an intermediary said.

Sondland is expected to say that for months before the Sept. 9 message, he worked at the direction of Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, to secure what he would call in another text message the “deliverable” sought by Trump: a public statement from Ukraine that it would investigate corruption, including mentioning Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, by name. In exchange for the statement, the president would grant Ukraine’s new president a coveted White House audience.

“It was a quid pro quo, but not a corrupt one,” the person familiar with Sondland’s testimony said.

Sondland appears poised to say that he and other diplomats did not know that the request to mention Burisma was really an effort to impugn the reputations of Biden and his son Hunter, who had served as a Burisma board member. Sondland contends that he didn’t know about the Biden connection until a whistleblower complaint and transcript surfaced in late September.

To trust Sondland’s testimony, members of Congress will have to believe Sondland had not seen televised appearances by Giuliani over the spring and summer, or numerous newspaper and magazine articles questioning whether Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma could prove to be a drag on his father’s presidential campaign.

“If people find that incredulous, it strikes me that the incredulity is hindsight bias,” said the person familiar with Sondland’s testimony. “The things that seem so clear to people now didn’t seem so clear in real time.”

Sondland is prepared to say he had a very limited role over the summer. He did not speak directly to Giuliani until Aug. 1, the person said. And because of his job in Brussels, he “was not the central connection.”

Giuliani, in conversations with The Washington Post, has described Sondland’s role as more expansive, saying he spoke with Sondland about six times this summer about Ukraine. “He seemed to be in charge. It just seemed like he was more decisive,” Giuliani said.

Giuliani acknowledges seeking a statement in which the Ukrainians would have publicly committed to investigating Burisma, but he says Volker and Sondland drafted it, not him.

This isn't someone trying not to be pushed under the bus. This is the fucking Orient Express. Everyone did it. Oh fuck you, that's not a spoiler, the book's older than Trump is.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't understand why Trump loves losing lawsuits so much.

Because he's used to suing the people who work for him when they ask for their paycheck. He's a bully who uses his lawyers to sue or threaten to sue and use his wealth and power to scare them off.

But Pelosi just brought scissors to a paper-fight.

[Wyrt]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/12/polit...osi/index.html

Trump threatens to sue top Democrats Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi amid impeachment inquiry

"Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump threatened on Saturday night to sue top congressional Democrats Rep. Adam Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi amid the House impeachment inquiry into the President.

Trump, who has a long track record of calling for lawsuits against his critics and not following through, said, "We're going to take a look at it. We're going after these people. These are bad, bad people." The President was speaking at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, DC.

Trump said he spoke to his lawyers about Schiff and told them, "Sue him anyway, even if we lose, the American public will understand." Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence committee, is spearheading the impeachment inquiry.

"And sue Nancy Pelosi," Trump continued. "Or maybe we should just impeach them, because they're lying and what they're doing is a terrible thing for our country." Members of Congress cannot be impeached, according to the US Constitution."

Blah blah blah. And et cetera. I do like the deadpan, "Members of Congress cannot be impeached, according to the US Constitution," though.

lol "even if we lose"

Trump's not going to lose, he's going to get laughed out of court by the judge because he has no grounds for a lawsuit.

[Xyonai]

I don't understand why Trump loves losing lawsuits so much.

I think he's desperately hoping that the soundbite of 'Trump Sues Schiff and/or Pelosi!' will be enough to sway public opinion, and implying some sort of guilt without any real substance. Y'know, because people like reading headlines but don't actually like reading articles.