[2006alum]

To me, this entire thread is exemplary of why Hilary lost, and there are interesting optics here: a forum full of dudes endlessly criticizing a woman for over multiple thread pages for getting a haircut that we all agree was recorded without her consent and in violation of California eavesdropping laws. But. Her. Haircuts.

I'm sure our presidential candidates have had many more haircuts since the pandemic started, but boy does it feel good to rail endlessly at an 80-year-old woman who has literally zero role in deciding what stays open and what closes because her audacity to stay loyal to a small business proves the depths of her hypocrisy.

Google "politicians getting haircuts." You will not be surprised that all the top US hits are about the outrage of female politicians getting haircuts during the pandemic.

[2006alum]

To me, this entire thread is exemplary of why Hilary lost, and there are interesting optics here: a forum full of dudes endlessly criticizing a woman for over multiple thread pages for getting a haircut that we all agree was recorded without her consent and in violation of California eavesdropping laws. But. Her. Haircuts.

I'm sure our presidential candidates have had many more haircuts since the pandemic started, but boy does it feel good to rail endlessly at an 80-year-old woman who has literally zero role in deciding what stays open and what closes because her audacity to stay loyal to a small business proves the depths of her hypocrisy.

Google "politicians getting haircuts." You will not be surprised that all the top US hits are about the outrage of female politicians getting haircuts during the pandemic.

[OutsiderFan]

What I find fascinating is Mick posted a link with data that provides meaningful insight into what is happening in the entire country, and it ends up being a discussion about two people in a freaking hair salon.

THAT is the real reason we aren’t Germany with the pandemic. Americans - even ostensibly educated ones - focus on arguing about the drapes being the wrong color when the entire house is on fire.

On a day it was reported and confirmed the POTUS called fallen American soldiers who died protecting freedom and liberty “suckers and losers,” the absurdity of obsessing about a woman’s hair salon appointment has never been more profound.

[OutsiderFan]

What I find fascinating is Mick posted a link with data that provides meaningful insight into what is happening in the entire country, and it ends up being a discussion about two people in a freaking hair salon.

THAT is the real reason we aren’t Germany with the pandemic. Americans - even ostensibly educated ones - focus on arguing about the drapes being the wrong color when the entire house is on fire.

On a day it was reported and confirmed the POTUS called fallen American soldiers who died protecting freedom and liberty “suckers and losers,” the absurdity of obsessing about a woman’s hair salon appointment has never been more profound.

[lex24]

To me, this entire thread is exemplary of why Hilary lost, and there are interesting optics here: a forum full of dudes endlessly criticizing a woman for over multiple thread pages for getting a haircut that we all agree was recorded without her consent and in violation of California eavesdropping laws. But. Her. Haircuts.

I'm sure our presidential candidates have had many more haircuts since the pandemic started, but boy does it feel good to rail endlessly at an 80-year-old woman who has literally zero role in deciding what stays open and what closes because her audacity to stay loyal to a small business proves the depths of her hypocrisy.

Google "politicians getting haircuts." You will not be surprised that all the top US hits are about the outrage of female politicians getting haircuts during the pandemic.

Oh please.  If you want a discussion on why Clinton lost an unloseable election, I don’t think this is the place.  This “dude” posted on the hypocrisy politicians exhibit.  This was simply a simple example.

---

What I find fascinating is Mick posted a link with data that provides meaningful insight into what is happening in the entire country, and it ends up being a discussion about two people in a freaking hair salon.

THAT is the real reason we aren’t Germany with the pandemic. Americans - even ostensibly educated ones - focus on arguing about the drapes being the wrong color when the entire house is on fire.

On a day it was reported and confirmed the POTUS called fallen American soldiers who died protecting freedom and liberty “suckers and losers,” the absurdity of obsessing about a woman’s hair salon appointment has never been more profound.

I will ALWAYS be glad we aren’t Germany.

---

To me, this entire thread is exemplary of why Hilary lost, and there are interesting optics here: a forum full of dudes endlessly criticizing a woman for over multiple thread pages for getting a haircut that we all agree was recorded without her consent and in violation of California eavesdropping laws. But. Her. Haircuts.

I'm sure our presidential candidates have had many more haircuts since the pandemic started, but boy does it feel good to rail endlessly at an 80-year-old woman who has literally zero role in deciding what stays open and what closes because her audacity to stay loyal to a small business proves the depths of her hypocrisy.

Google "politicians getting haircuts." You will not be surprised that all the top US hits are about the outrage of female politicians getting haircuts during the pandemic.

Oh please.  If you want a discussion on why Clinton lost an unloseable election, I don’t think this is the place.  This “dude” posted on the hypocrisy politicians exhibit.  This was simply a simple example.

---

What I find fascinating is Mick posted a link with data that provides meaningful insight into what is happening in the entire country, and it ends up being a discussion about two people in a freaking hair salon.

THAT is the real reason we aren’t Germany with the pandemic. Americans - even ostensibly educated ones - focus on arguing about the drapes being the wrong color when the entire house is on fire.

On a day it was reported and confirmed the POTUS called fallen American soldiers who died protecting freedom and liberty “suckers and losers,” the absurdity of obsessing about a woman’s hair salon appointment has never been more profound.

I will ALWAYS be glad we aren’t Germany. The Germans but/for the US would be speaking Russian. And continuing to blindly follow orders. It’s what the Germans do.  Helped here.  Not so much historically.  As about 90,000,000 dead could attest to.  

And we talk  incessantly on the whole house being on fire. As our so called leaders, on both sides of the aisle, pour gasoline on the fire. 

The Pelosi kerfuffle is, to an extent, comic relief. No one is “obsessing” on the thing. They are mocking her, using it as an example of politicians hubris etc. Happens all the time. Whether you (or any of us) “like it” depends on whose ox is getting gored. This board doesn’t lack for doomsday discussions. Some comic relief is welcome.

[lex24]

To me, this entire thread is exemplary of why Hilary lost, and there are interesting optics here: a forum full of dudes endlessly criticizing a woman for over multiple thread pages for getting a haircut that we all agree was recorded without her consent and in violation of California eavesdropping laws. But. Her. Haircuts.

I'm sure our presidential candidates have had many more haircuts since the pandemic started, but boy does it feel good to rail endlessly at an 80-year-old woman who has literally zero role in deciding what stays open and what closes because her audacity to stay loyal to a small business proves the depths of her hypocrisy.

Google "politicians getting haircuts." You will not be surprised that all the top US hits are about the outrage of female politicians getting haircuts during the pandemic.

Oh please.  If you want a discussion on why Clinton lost an unloseable election, I don’t think this is the place.  This “dude” posted on the hypocrisy politicians exhibit.  This was simply a simple example.

---

What I find fascinating is Mick posted a link with data that provides meaningful insight into what is happening in the entire country, and it ends up being a discussion about two people in a freaking hair salon.

THAT is the real reason we aren’t Germany with the pandemic. Americans - even ostensibly educated ones - focus on arguing about the drapes being the wrong color when the entire house is on fire.

On a day it was reported and confirmed the POTUS called fallen American soldiers who died protecting freedom and liberty “suckers and losers,” the absurdity of obsessing about a woman’s hair salon appointment has never been more profound.

I will ALWAYS be glad we aren’t Germany.

---

To me, this entire thread is exemplary of why Hilary lost, and there are interesting optics here: a forum full of dudes endlessly criticizing a woman for over multiple thread pages for getting a haircut that we all agree was recorded without her consent and in violation of California eavesdropping laws. But. Her. Haircuts.

I'm sure our presidential candidates have had many more haircuts since the pandemic started, but boy does it feel good to rail endlessly at an 80-year-old woman who has literally zero role in deciding what stays open and what closes because her audacity to stay loyal to a small business proves the depths of her hypocrisy.

Google "politicians getting haircuts." You will not be surprised that all the top US hits are about the outrage of female politicians getting haircuts during the pandemic.

Oh please.  If you want a discussion on why Clinton lost an unloseable election, I don’t think this is the place.  This “dude” posted on the hypocrisy politicians exhibit.  This was simply a simple example.

---

What I find fascinating is Mick posted a link with data that provides meaningful insight into what is happening in the entire country, and it ends up being a discussion about two people in a freaking hair salon.

THAT is the real reason we aren’t Germany with the pandemic. Americans - even ostensibly educated ones - focus on arguing about the drapes being the wrong color when the entire house is on fire.

On a day it was reported and confirmed the POTUS called fallen American soldiers who died protecting freedom and liberty “suckers and losers,” the absurdity of obsessing about a woman’s hair salon appointment has never been more profound.

I will ALWAYS be glad we aren’t Germany. The Germans but/for the US would be speaking Russian. And continuing to blindly follow orders. It’s what the Germans do.  Helped here.  Not so much historically.  As about 90,000,000 dead could attest to.  

And we talk  incessantly on the whole house being on fire. As our so called leaders, on both sides of the aisle, pour gasoline on the fire. 

The Pelosi kerfuffle is, to an extent, comic relief. No one is “obsessing” on the thing. They are mocking her, using it as an example of politicians hubris etc. Happens all the time. Whether you (or any of us) “like it” depends on whose ox is getting gored. This board doesn’t lack for doomsday discussions. Some comic relief is welcome.

[BostonCard]

I mean on a relative basis, going to get a haircut barely registers compared to calling soldiers who've given up their lives for their country "losers" (and that's just superficial stuff); I would of course very willingly take a competent politician handling the COVID-19 epidemic who made a faux pas with "bad optics" over one who could look good but whose incompetence has contributed to nearly 200,000 COVID deaths.

However, I think you underestimate the degree of resentment that is out there towards people who impose very costly burdens on the country.  SO any action that makes it clear that the rules don't apply to the elites is bound to draw scorn.

But again, a haircut versus calling dead soldiers "losers".  Pelosi is already off the front page. 

BC

[BostonCard]

I mean on a relative basis, going to get a haircut barely registers compared to calling soldiers who've given up their lives for their country "losers" (and that's just superficial stuff); I would of course very willingly take a competent politician handling the COVID-19 epidemic who made a faux pas with "bad optics" over one who could look good but whose incompetence has contributed to nearly 200,000 COVID deaths.

However, I think you underestimate the degree of resentment that is out there towards people who impose very costly burdens on the country.  SO any action that makes it clear that the rules don't apply to the elites is bound to draw scorn.

But again, a haircut versus calling dead soldiers "losers".  Pelosi is already off the front page. 

BC

[lex24]

I mean on a relative basis, going to get a haircut barely registers compared to calling soldiers who've given up their lives for their country "losers" (and that's just superficial stuff); I would of course very willingly take a competent politician handling the COVID-19 epidemic who made a faux pas with "bad optics" over one who could look good but whose incompetence has contributed to nearly 200,000 COVID deaths.

However, I think you underestimate the degree of resentment that is out there towards people who impose very costly burdens on the country.  SO any action that makes it clear that the rules don't apply to the elites is bound to draw scorn.

But again, a haircut versus calling dead soldiers "losers".  Pelosi is already off the front page. 

BC

But did he actually say that?  I take anything that is attributed to unnamed sources with a brobdingnagian grain of salt.  Of course, Trumps denial means nothing.  He lies for breakfast. So he has no credibility.  But unless someone has the guts to identify him or herself, it’s questionable.  Because there are a whole lot of folks that will say damn near anything to a reporter to try to take this guy down.

[lex24]

I mean on a relative basis, going to get a haircut barely registers compared to calling soldiers who've given up their lives for their country "losers" (and that's just superficial stuff); I would of course very willingly take a competent politician handling the COVID-19 epidemic who made a faux pas with "bad optics" over one who could look good but whose incompetence has contributed to nearly 200,000 COVID deaths.

However, I think you underestimate the degree of resentment that is out there towards people who impose very costly burdens on the country.  SO any action that makes it clear that the rules don't apply to the elites is bound to draw scorn.

But again, a haircut versus calling dead soldiers "losers".  Pelosi is already off the front page. 

BC

But did he actually say that?  I take anything that is attributed to unnamed sources with a brobdingnagian grain of salt.  Of course, Trumps denial means nothing.  He lies for breakfast. So he has no credibility.  But unless someone has the guts to identify him or herself, it’s questionable.  Because there are a whole lot of folks that will say damn near anything to a reporter to try to take this guy down.

[BostonCard]

I mean on a relative basis, going to get a haircut barely registers compared to calling soldiers who've given up their lives for their country "losers" (and that's just superficial stuff); I would of course very willingly take a competent politician handling the COVID-19 epidemic who made a faux pas with "bad optics" over one who could look good but whose incompetence has contributed to nearly 200,000 COVID deaths.

However, I think you underestimate the degree of resentment that is out there towards people who impose very costly burdens on the country.  SO any action that makes it clear that the rules don't apply to the elites is bound to draw scorn.

But again, a haircut versus calling dead soldiers "losers".  Pelosi is already off the front page. 

BC

But did he actually say that?  I take anything that is attributed to unnamed sources with a of immense proportions grain of salt.  Of course, Trumps denial means nothing.  He lies for breakfast. So he has no credibility.  But unless someone has the guts to identify him or herself, it’s questionable.  Because there are a whole lot of folks that will say damn near anything to a reporter to try to take this guy down.

I would like to see at least one of the sources come forward.  Of course with the way Trump has treated those, like Alexander Vindman, who dare to cross him, I don't blame anyone for wanting to maintain their anonymity.  The original piece cited four unnamed sources, and was verified by two independent news outlets.  And, as you mention, on the other hand Trump not only has no credibility left, we know he has a history of making this very type of derogatory statement (he called John McCain a loser, for example).

So, yeah, the balance here strongly favors the idea that he said it.

BC

[BostonCard]

I mean on a relative basis, going to get a haircut barely registers compared to calling soldiers who've given up their lives for their country "losers" (and that's just superficial stuff); I would of course very willingly take a competent politician handling the COVID-19 epidemic who made a faux pas with "bad optics" over one who could look good but whose incompetence has contributed to nearly 200,000 COVID deaths.

However, I think you underestimate the degree of resentment that is out there towards people who impose very costly burdens on the country.  SO any action that makes it clear that the rules don't apply to the elites is bound to draw scorn.

But again, a haircut versus calling dead soldiers "losers".  Pelosi is already off the front page. 

BC

But did he actually say that?  I take anything that is attributed to unnamed sources with a of immense proportions grain of salt.  Of course, Trumps denial means nothing.  He lies for breakfast. So he has no credibility.  But unless someone has the guts to identify him or herself, it’s questionable.  Because there are a whole lot of folks that will say damn near anything to a reporter to try to take this guy down.

I would like to see at least one of the sources come forward.  Of course with the way Trump has treated those, like Alexander Vindman, who dare to cross him, I don't blame anyone for wanting to maintain their anonymity.  The original piece cited four unnamed sources, and was verified by two independent news outlets.  And, as you mention, on the other hand Trump not only has no credibility left, we know he has a history of making this very type of derogatory statement (he called John McCain a loser, for example).

So, yeah, the balance here strongly favors the idea that he said it.

BC

[lex24]

I mean on a relative basis, going to get a haircut barely registers compared to calling soldiers who've given up their lives for their country "losers" (and that's just superficial stuff); I would of course very willingly take a competent politician handling the COVID-19 epidemic who made a faux pas with "bad optics" over one who could look good but whose incompetence has contributed to nearly 200,000 COVID deaths.

However, I think you underestimate the degree of resentment that is out there towards people who impose very costly burdens on the country.  SO any action that makes it clear that the rules don't apply to the elites is bound to draw scorn.

But again, a haircut versus calling dead soldiers "losers".  Pelosi is already off the front page. 

BC

But did he actually say that?  I take anything that is attributed to unnamed sources with a of immense proportions grain of salt.  Of course, Trumps denial means nothing.  He lies for breakfast. So he has no credibility.  But unless someone has the guts to identify him or herself, it’s questionable.  Because there are a whole lot of folks that will say damn near anything to a reporter to try to take this guy down.

I would like to see at least one of the sources come forward.  Of course with the way Trump has treated those, like Alexander Vindman, who dare to cross him, I don't blame anyone for wanting to maintain their anonymity.  The original piece cited four unnamed sources, and was verified by two independent news outlets.  And, as you mention, on the other hand Trump not only has no credibility left, we know he has a history of making this very type of derogatory statement (he called John McCain a loser, for example).

So, yeah, the balance here strongly favors the idea that he said it.

BC

Except Bolton, who hates his guts, said he was there and it didn’t happen.  McCain was different.  It was typical Trump striking back at a perceived enemy.  Don’t get me wrong, it was disgusting.  But it’s a different situation. 

What does it mean that it was “verified by independent news sources”.  I don’t doubt that the anonymous sources made the comments.  But they still are anonymous.  If one comes forward, and was there, you have verification.

[lex24]

I mean on a relative basis, going to get a haircut barely registers compared to calling soldiers who've given up their lives for their country "losers" (and that's just superficial stuff); I would of course very willingly take a competent politician handling the COVID-19 epidemic who made a faux pas with "bad optics" over one who could look good but whose incompetence has contributed to nearly 200,000 COVID deaths.

However, I think you underestimate the degree of resentment that is out there towards people who impose very costly burdens on the country.  SO any action that makes it clear that the rules don't apply to the elites is bound to draw scorn.

But again, a haircut versus calling dead soldiers "losers".  Pelosi is already off the front page. 

BC

But did he actually say that?  I take anything that is attributed to unnamed sources with a of immense proportions grain of salt.  Of course, Trumps denial means nothing.  He lies for breakfast. So he has no credibility.  But unless someone has the guts to identify him or herself, it’s questionable.  Because there are a whole lot of folks that will say damn near anything to a reporter to try to take this guy down.

I would like to see at least one of the sources come forward.  Of course with the way Trump has treated those, like Alexander Vindman, who dare to cross him, I don't blame anyone for wanting to maintain their anonymity.  The original piece cited four unnamed sources, and was verified by two independent news outlets.  And, as you mention, on the other hand Trump not only has no credibility left, we know he has a history of making this very type of derogatory statement (he called John McCain a loser, for example).

So, yeah, the balance here strongly favors the idea that he said it.

BC

Except Bolton, who hates his guts, said he was there and it didn’t happen.  McCain was different.  It was typical Trump striking back at a perceived enemy.  Don’t get me wrong, it was disgusting.  But it’s a different situation. 

What does it mean that it was “verified by independent news sources”.  I don’t doubt that the anonymous sources made the comments.  But they still are anonymous.  If one comes forward, and was there, you have verification.

[oldalum]

we don't know the details, but it seems to me that an anonymous source is different from anonymous sources. If the latter independently told the reporter the same thing, either multiple sources conspired to make up an identical story and pass it off as the truth, or they are truthfully reporting the same event. IIRC, that is how most of the Watergate stories were reported.

[oldalum]

we don't know the details, but it seems to me that an anonymous source is different from anonymous sources. If the latter independently told the reporter the same thing, either multiple sources conspired to make up an identical story and pass it off as the truth, or they are truthfully reporting the same event. IIRC, that is how most of the Watergate stories were reported.

[BostonCard]

Update...

The Atlantic article was confirmed by a Fox News reporter who cited two sources:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jengriffinfnc/status/1301975321495973889?s=21[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

Update...

The Atlantic article was confirmed by a Fox News reporter who cited two sources:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jengriffinfnc/status/1301975321495973889?s=21[/tweet]

BC

[lex24]

we don't know the details, but it seems to me that an anonymous source is different from anonymous sources. If the latter independently told the reporter the same thing, either multiple sources conspired to make up an identical story and pass it off as the truth, or they are truthfully reporting the same event. IIRC, that is how most of the Watergate stories were reported.

True. But we don’t know the “quality” of the sources.  Back in Watergate days, I believe there was a lot more “vetting” of the anonymous source(s). Cause they were much less likely to run a story “early”. Then “get it right” trumped (pun intended) “get it first”.  Not so today.  Further, Deep Throat was Mark Felt who was,at the time the 2nd Asso Director of the FBI.  He had direct knowledge from the FBI investigation.  Pretty strong source. 

I tend to go to Occams Razor when it comes to these.  Although, admittedly, that’s tough to do with Trump.  But even if he believes what he allegedly said, he gains nothing saying it. While he risks it getting out and damaging him.  I admit, I’m using logic with an illogical man.  But he is obviously self interested.  And he knows that leaks are commonplace. So why?  Conversely, as disgusting as his McCain comment was it served Trump’s purpose - mocking an enemy.  His favorite sport. And an enemy that many conservatives had soured on as a RINO.  So, another “reason”.

---

Update...

The Atlantic article was confirmed by a Fox News reporter who cited two sources:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jengriffinfnc/status/1301975321495973889?s=21[/tweet]

BC

Heard that yesterday.  Doesn’t change anything.  He certainly may have said it.  The mans capable of saying damn near anything.  I’m just tired of the anonymous source barrage.  And frankly, there is a “boy that cried wolf” element.

[lex24]

we don't know the details, but it seems to me that an anonymous source is different from anonymous sources. If the latter independently told the reporter the same thing, either multiple sources conspired to make up an identical story and pass it off as the truth, or they are truthfully reporting the same event. IIRC, that is how most of the Watergate stories were reported.

True. But we don’t know the “quality” of the sources.  Back in Watergate days, I believe there was a lot more “vetting” of the anonymous source(s). Cause they were much less likely to run a story “early”. Then “get it right” trumped (pun intended) “get it first”.  Not so today.  Further, Deep Throat was Mark Felt who was,at the time the 2nd Asso Director of the FBI.  He had direct knowledge from the FBI investigation.  Pretty strong source. 

I tend to go to Occams Razor when it comes to these.  Although, admittedly, that’s tough to do with Trump.  But even if he believes what he allegedly said, he gains nothing saying it. While he risks it getting out and damaging him.  I admit, I’m using logic with an illogical man.  But he is obviously self interested.  And he knows that leaks are commonplace. So why?  Conversely, as disgusting as his McCain comment was it served Trump’s purpose - mocking an enemy.  His favorite sport. And an enemy that many conservatives had soured on as a RINO.  So, another “reason”.

---

Update...

The Atlantic article was confirmed by a Fox News reporter who cited two sources:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jengriffinfnc/status/1301975321495973889?s=21[/tweet]

BC

Heard that yesterday.  Doesn’t change anything.  He certainly may have said it.  The mans capable of saying damn near anything.  I’m just tired of the anonymous source barrage.  And frankly, there is a “boy that cried wolf” element.

[Goose]

I tend to go to Occams Razor when it comes to these.  Although, admittedly, that’s tough to do with Trump.  But even if he believes what he allegedly said, he gains nothing saying it. While he risks it getting out and damaging him.

You are assuming Trump decides what to say based on a gain/loss function. I think it is clear based on his past history that he does not. He says the first thing that comes into his head, regardless of it's truth or the consequences to him. His entire life experience has been with people who were beholden to him and would ignore stupid/offensive things he said. The "bleach drinking" episode is a case in point. If he had thought about if for 30 seconds he would probably have realized it wasn't a good idea. I admit I am assuming even he is not that stupid. However, he doesn't have any filter at all between his thoughts and his mouth/tweets.

[Goose]

I tend to go to Occams Razor when it comes to these.  Although, admittedly, that’s tough to do with Trump.  But even if he believes what he allegedly said, he gains nothing saying it. While he risks it getting out and damaging him.

You are assuming Trump decides what to say based on a gain/loss function. I think it is clear based on his past history that he does not. He says the first thing that comes into his head, regardless of it's truth or the consequences to him. His entire life experience has been with people who were beholden to him and would ignore stupid/offensive things he said. The "bleach drinking" episode is a case in point. If he had thought about if for 30 seconds he would probably have realized it wasn't a good idea. I admit I am assuming even he is not that stupid. However, he doesn't have any filter at all between his thoughts and his mouth/tweets.

[terry]

This thread is drifting into politics . . .

[terry]

This thread is drifting into politics . . .

[lex24]

I tend to go to Occams Razor when it comes to these.  Although, admittedly, that’s tough to do with Trump.  But even if he believes what he allegedly said, he gains nothing saying it. While he risks it getting out and damaging him.

You are assuming Trump decides what to say based on a gain/loss function. I think it is clear based on his past history that he does not. He says the first thing that comes into his head, regardless of it's truth or the consequences to him. His entire life experience has been with people who were beholden to him and would ignore stupid/offensive things he said. The "bleach drinking" episode is a case in point. If he had thought about if for 30 seconds he would probably have realized it wasn't a good idea. I admit I am assuming even he is not that stupid. However, he doesn't have any filter at all between his thoughts and his mouth/tweets.

As I said - it is questionable that any logic, including mine, applies to Trump....And you are spot on regarding the lack of a filter.

[lex24]

I tend to go to Occams Razor when it comes to these.  Although, admittedly, that’s tough to do with Trump.  But even if he believes what he allegedly said, he gains nothing saying it. While he risks it getting out and damaging him.

You are assuming Trump decides what to say based on a gain/loss function. I think it is clear based on his past history that he does not. He says the first thing that comes into his head, regardless of it's truth or the consequences to him. His entire life experience has been with people who were beholden to him and would ignore stupid/offensive things he said. The "bleach drinking" episode is a case in point. If he had thought about if for 30 seconds he would probably have realized it wasn't a good idea. I admit I am assuming even he is not that stupid. However, he doesn't have any filter at all between his thoughts and his mouth/tweets.

As I said - it is questionable that any logic, including mine, applies to Trump....And you are spot on regarding the lack of a filter.

[fullmetal]

Good to know you don’t wish her dead.  That’s quite noble.  As for the death threats, I’m not the least bit surprised.  What, you think only conservatives stoop so low.  Go talk to Steve Scalise.  Or Rand Paul.

I'm pretty sure Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer get death threats every other Twitter mention from Drumpf.  It is, as they say, par for the course when it comes to fame these days.  No one's feeling sorry for Pelosi or Schumer as far as I can tell.  But Pelosi and Schumer aren't milking death threats for pity/fame.

The salon owner knew what she was getting into, and I bet she sleeps soundly having made her gamble for fame.

[fullmetal]

Good to know you don’t wish her dead.  That’s quite noble.  As for the death threats, I’m not the least bit surprised.  What, you think only conservatives stoop so low.  Go talk to Steve Scalise.  Or Rand Paul.

I'm pretty sure Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer get death threats every other Twitter mention from Drumpf.  It is, as they say, par for the course when it comes to fame these days.  No one's feeling sorry for Pelosi or Schumer as far as I can tell.  But Pelosi and Schumer aren't milking death threats for pity/fame.

The salon owner knew what she was getting into, and I bet she sleeps soundly having made her gamble for fame.

[CornFed]

Update...

The Atlantic article was confirmed by a Fox News reporter who cited two sources:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jengriffinfnc/status/1301975321495973889?s=21[/tweet]

BC

And they were two of the SAME sources used by Atlantic in the first place.  This is BS journalism and everybody is willing to go along if it confirms there bias.

[CornFed]

Update...

The Atlantic article was confirmed by a Fox News reporter who cited two sources:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jengriffinfnc/status/1301975321495973889?s=21[/tweet]

BC

And they were two of the SAME sources used by Atlantic in the first place.  This is BS journalism and everybody is willing to go along if it confirms there bias.

[Mick]

Here's why the true unemployment is likely to be 11% or higher:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/08/why-the-...rcent.html

[Mick]

Here's why the true unemployment is likely to be 11% or higher:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/08/why-the-...rcent.html

[BostonCard]

The salon owner closes the salon.

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/san-...ntroversy/

But as mentioned elsewhere, she is laughing all the way to the bank.

BC

[BostonCard]

The salon owner closes the salon.

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/san-...ntroversy/

But as mentioned elsewhere, she is laughing all the way to the bank.

BC