Trump 25: Stephen King’s Next Horror Story

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s name is coming off his SoHo hotel as politics weigh on president’s brand"

Spoiler

President Trump’s company has agreed to remove the Trump name from its hotel in Lower Manhattan and give up management of the property, the most visible sign yet of the toll his presidency has taken on his brand.

The decision, announced by the company Wednesday afternoon, follows signs that business has flagged for months at Trump SoHo, beginning during his polarizing campaign last year.

The hotel’s sushi restaurant closed. Professional sports teams, once reliable customers, began to shun the property. The hotel struggled to attract business for its meeting rooms and banquet halls, according to reporting by radio station WNYC.

Trump SoHo has emerged as one of the clearest examples of how Trump’s divisive politics have redefined his luxury hotel and real estate company, which spent years courting upscale customers in liberal urban centers where he is now deeply unpopular.

The Trump name appears poised to come off the SoHo hotel before the president celebrates his first year in office. “The transition is anticipated to take place by year-end,” the Trump Organization and the property’s owners said in a statement.

The change was first reported Wednesday afternoon by the New York Times.

The deal to remove the Trump name was made with the Trump SoHo condominium board and the property’s majority owner, CIM Group, a California-based real estate investment firm. The hotel is divided into condominiums whose owners allowed them to be rented out as hotel rooms.

“We recognize and sincerely appreciate [the Trump Organization’s] contributions to this exceptional asset,” Bill Doak, CIM Group’s first vice president of hotels, said in a statement.

The release did not specify what the building would be renamed or who would run it. Trump Organization and CIM Group officials declined to answer questions about the reasons for the move.

Officials described the transaction as a “buyout” but did not specify whether any money changed hands between the Trump Organization and the building’s owners. The president’s business now receives 5.75 percent of the hotel’s operating revenue as a management fee, according to company documents posted online by Reuters.

This will be the third time since Trump’s election that his name has been removed from a building. In July, the Trump name was taken off the Trump International Hotel in Toronto after the property’s owner reached a similar buyout deal. The hotel will be reopened as a St. Regis, according to the Toronto Star.

And last year, the owners of three Trump Place apartment buildings in New York announced that those properties would be renamed after tenant complaints. Trump’s company no longer had a business relationship with the buildings.

In the United States, the Trump name still adorns hotels in Hono­lulu, Las Vegas, Chicago, New York and Washington. The Washington hotel, opened last year, has been a bright spot in the company’s portfolio. Flush with business from Christian groups, trade associations and foreign clients, its profits have greatly exceeded expectations.

Elsewhere, the Trump Organization has seen greens-fee revenue fall at its golf courses in Los Angeles and the Bronx, and it has lost dozens of customers who rented out banquet rooms for parties or golf courses for charity tournaments.

One of the biggest changes has happened at Mar-a-Lago, the president’s for-profit social club, which doubles as the “winter White House” in Palm Beach, Fla. Last summer, 19 charities canceled galas or other fundraisers they had planned for this winter at Mar-a-Lago, costing the Trump Organization hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenue.

The SoHo hotel was once a jewel of the Trump empire. Opened in 2010, it offered Hudson River views, a spa named after Ivanka Trump and a location in one of New York’s most fashionable neighborhoods. Trump promoted the property on his reality show “The Apprentice.”

In 2012, prosecutors in the Manhattan district attorney’s office scrutinized the property’s development as part of an investigation into whether Trump’s children Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. committed fraud by misleading condo buyers about the project, according to a report last month from ProPublica, WNYC and the New Yorker. District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. decided not to pursue charges.

In its early days, the hotel attracted Hollywood celebrities and many National Basketball Association teams. “When I stay here in New York, I’m at the Trump SoHo,” Oklahoma City Thunder star Russell Westbrook told GQ in 2014, saying the hotel’s luxe lobby had inspired his fashion designs.

But by this year, at least 11 of the 12 NBA teams that previously stayed at Trump SoHo had quit. Some cited logistical reasons. Others said they could not stay at a hotel with Trump’s name on it.

“The president has seemingly made a point of dividing us as best he can,” Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr told The Washington Post in an interview earlier this year. His team quit using Trump SoHo in 2016. “He continually offends people, and so people don’t want to stay at his hotel,” Kerr said. “It’s pretty simple.”

Trump SoHo hotel rates have fallen dramatically. Rooms are routinely offered online for below $300 a night. Luxury Manhattan hotels took in an average daily rate of $451 in the second quarter of this year, according to the accounting and consulting firm PWC.

The Trump Organization does have plans to expand its hotel business, targeting areas where Trump’s political brand is more popular.

Those plans include two new, less-expensive brands of hotels called Scion and American Idea. But since those brands were announced in June, progress has been slow. The three discount hotels that were supposed to start the American Idea brand are still operating under their old names.

And at the site chosen for the first Scion hotel, in Cleveland, Miss., construction stopped weeks ago while Trump Organization and its partners reworked plans.

I hope his name comes off everything.

[WiseGirl]

11 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Trump’s name is coming off his SoHo hotel as politics weigh on president’s brand"

  Reveal hidden contents

President Trump’s company has agreed to remove the Trump name from its hotel in Lower Manhattan and give up management of the property, the most visible sign yet of the toll his presidency has taken on his brand.

The decision, announced by the company Wednesday afternoon, follows signs that business has flagged for months at Trump SoHo, beginning during his polarizing campaign last year.

The hotel’s sushi restaurant closed. Professional sports teams, once reliable customers, began to shun the property. The hotel struggled to attract business for its meeting rooms and banquet halls, according to reporting by radio station WNYC.

Trump SoHo has emerged as one of the clearest examples of how Trump’s divisive politics have redefined his luxury hotel and real estate company, which spent years courting upscale customers in liberal urban centers where he is now deeply unpopular.

The Trump name appears poised to come off the SoHo hotel before the president celebrates his first year in office. “The transition is anticipated to take place by year-end,” the Trump Organization and the property’s owners said in a statement.

The change was first reported Wednesday afternoon by the New York Times.

The deal to remove the Trump name was made with the Trump SoHo condominium board and the property’s majority owner, CIM Group, a California-based real estate investment firm. The hotel is divided into condominiums whose owners allowed them to be rented out as hotel rooms.

“We recognize and sincerely appreciate [the Trump Organization’s] contributions to this exceptional asset,” Bill Doak, CIM Group’s first vice president of hotels, said in a statement.

The release did not specify what the building would be renamed or who would run it. Trump Organization and CIM Group officials declined to answer questions about the reasons for the move.

Officials described the transaction as a “buyout” but did not specify whether any money changed hands between the Trump Organization and the building’s owners. The president’s business now receives 5.75 percent of the hotel’s operating revenue as a management fee, according to company documents posted online by Reuters.

This will be the third time since Trump’s election that his name has been removed from a building. In July, the Trump name was taken off the Trump International Hotel in Toronto after the property’s owner reached a similar buyout deal. The hotel will be reopened as a St. Regis, according to the Toronto Star.

And last year, the owners of three Trump Place apartment buildings in New York announced that those properties would be renamed after tenant complaints. Trump’s company no longer had a business relationship with the buildings.

In the United States, the Trump name still adorns hotels in Hono­lulu, Las Vegas, Chicago, New York and Washington. The Washington hotel, opened last year, has been a bright spot in the company’s portfolio. Flush with business from Christian groups, trade associations and foreign clients, its profits have greatly exceeded expectations.

Elsewhere, the Trump Organization has seen greens-fee revenue fall at its golf courses in Los Angeles and the Bronx, and it has lost dozens of customers who rented out banquet rooms for parties or golf courses for charity tournaments.

One of the biggest changes has happened at Mar-a-Lago, the president’s for-profit social club, which doubles as the “winter White House” in Palm Beach, Fla. Last summer, 19 charities canceled galas or other fundraisers they had planned for this winter at Mar-a-Lago, costing the Trump Organization hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenue.

The SoHo hotel was once a jewel of the Trump empire. Opened in 2010, it offered Hudson River views, a spa named after Ivanka Trump and a location in one of New York’s most fashionable neighborhoods. Trump promoted the property on his reality show “The Apprentice.”

In 2012, prosecutors in the Manhattan district attorney’s office scrutinized the property’s development as part of an investigation into whether Trump’s children Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. committed fraud by misleading condo buyers about the project, according to a report last month from ProPublica, WNYC and the New Yorker. District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. decided not to pursue charges.

In its early days, the hotel attracted Hollywood celebrities and many National Basketball Association teams. “When I stay here in New York, I’m at the Trump SoHo,” Oklahoma City Thunder star Russell Westbrook told GQ in 2014, saying the hotel’s luxe lobby had inspired his fashion designs.

But by this year, at least 11 of the 12 NBA teams that previously stayed at Trump SoHo had quit. Some cited logistical reasons. Others said they could not stay at a hotel with Trump’s name on it.

“The president has seemingly made a point of dividing us as best he can,” Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr told The Washington Post in an interview earlier this year. His team quit using Trump SoHo in 2016. “He continually offends people, and so people don’t want to stay at his hotel,” Kerr said. “It’s pretty simple.”

Trump SoHo hotel rates have fallen dramatically. Rooms are routinely offered online for below $300 a night. Luxury Manhattan hotels took in an average daily rate of $451 in the second quarter of this year, according to the accounting and consulting firm PWC.

The Trump Organization does have plans to expand its hotel business, targeting areas where Trump’s political brand is more popular.

Those plans include two new, less-expensive brands of hotels called Scion and American Idea. But since those brands were announced in June, progress has been slow. The three discount hotels that were supposed to start the American Idea brand are still operating under their old names.

And at the site chosen for the first Scion hotel, in Cleveland, Miss., construction stopped weeks ago while Trump Organization and its partners reworked plans.

I hope his name comes off everything.

From your words to the universe's ears. Hit him in the only place he cares about - $$$.

[AmazonGrace]

 

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"If Trump wants to use nuclear weapons, whether it’s ‘legal’ won’t matter"

Spoiler

No national decision is as consequential, irreversible and fateful as the decision to use nuclear weapons. In the United States the president, and only the president, has the authority to order the unleashing of nuclear weapons. This power is not given by the Constitution, nor any specific law. It results from a series of Cold War-era decisions made secretly by the executive branch and the U.S. military.

Which means recent statements by current and former four-star commanders of the Strategic Command — the branch of the military that would launch nuclear weapons were such a thing to happen — that the military would only carry out “legal” presidential orders to use nukes shouldn’t be particularly reassuring.

News coverage of these comments seemed to convey the idea that the military could be a fail-safe to prevent a nuclear launch, but the opposite remains true. Instead, they revealed what many of us outside the system have suspected for a long time: There are no “checks and balances” on nuclear launch decisions in any formal sense. There is no need for congressional authorization; there is no “two-man rule” for the decision to use the bomb; and although the process for initiating a nuclear attack spells out the need for “consultation” with officials such as the secretary of defense, they have no power to veto the order, and ultimately, their consent is not required. If President Trump wants to use one of the thousands of nuclear weapons in the U.S. military’s arsenal, the chance of anyone stopping him appears to be very low.

Both Gen. John Hyten, the head of U.S. Strategic Command, and retired Gen. C. Robert Kehler, the commander from 2011 to 2013, have spoken recently about not following “illegal” orders to use nukes. Speaking at the Halifax International Security Forum last weekend, Hyten said he’d push back: “I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do,” he said. “And if it’s illegal, guess what’s going to happen? I’m going to say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ And guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And we’ll come up with options, with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.”

Hyten meant this to calm alarm, but it shouldn’t. If anything, it reaffirms our belief that “legality” is the wrong issue altogether. For a general to affirm that he would not obey an “illegal” order is not a strong stance — it’s a simple refusal to willingly commit a war crime, the bare minimum we should expect from a high-ranking American officer. The rest of Hyten’s statement makes clear that he sees his role as a bargainer who would advise the president how to accomplish his desired ends by facilitating a legal alternative.

In other words, this is not a principled form of resistance. It is, in the end, “not that complicated”: The president, one way or another, will probably get what he wants.

Hyten’s remarks came just a few weeks after Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, held the first hearings since 1976 on presidential nuclear authority. The hearings in the 1970s featured the looming specter of Richard Nixon as the “mad man” to be feared. The recent hearings took place amid concerns about trusting Trump with the most awesome presidential decision: to release the ultimate “fire and fury.”

Kehler attempted to reassure senators that rash use — or abuse — of nuclear weapons was unlikely under the current system. An unexpected order from the president, he explained, would end up on his desk, and he wouldn’t just execute it unthinkingly like a robot. Rather, he and his legal staff would evaluate it as they would any other order. And if it was an “illegal” order, he wouldn’t follow it.

But what exactly would constitute an “illegal” order? No U.S. laws give guidance on nuclear attacks. Kehler referred instead to the Law of Armed Conflict, the directives created by the Pentagon to make sure American military actions are in line with the international law and treaties, like the Geneva Conventions, that the United States considers binding. The legality Kehler referred to related to issues such as military necessity, discrimination, and proportionality: “just war” concepts that codified into international treatises that, taken together, rule out wanton destruction for its own sake.

Compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict is in itself a good thing — if, again, a low bar. But how would that apply in anything but the most insane scenarios? And who would or could make that final determination? What if the White House legal staff came up with their own arguments in favor of a rash attack? The past 50 years of American warfare has shown that presidents and their advisers have been able to come up with “just war” arguments for every military engagement, no matter how stretched in retrospect. Using a nuclear weapon on Pyongyang, for example, could be theoretically justified by arguing that it would be a legitimate military target (much of North Korea’s command and control infrastructure and leadership is probably located there) and that not doing it would be more consequential (in the same way that the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was buttressed by arguments that ending World War II without a ground invasion of Japan saved lives). Would this reasoning stand up in a court of law? Would it ever come to a court of law? The lawyers making it would know it would never have to: The United States has a weak record on prosecuting its own service members for doing what they could argue they thought was right, whatever the consequences.

Under questioning, Kehler admitted that what and who would define and ascertain that legality was indeed obscure or unknown in situations that did not follow a preconceived “playbook” (such as a massive incoming nuclear attack from Russia). And he noted that the U.S. government does not view the use of nuclear weapons as inherently illegal or rule out first use; it depends on the situation.

So how would the vetting of legality that Kehler proposed be done? And what would happen if he did refuse a direct order as “illegal,” something that appears unprecedented in the history of American generals? Kehler responded uneasily when asked: “Other than to state their view about the legality of the move, uh, the president retains constitutionality authority to order some military action. The military … [uncomfortable smile] you would be in a very interesting constitutional situation, I believe.”

The hearings were marked by several of these uncomfortable moments and eliding euphemisms. A listener might be forgiven for forgetting that the hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of lives might hang on the resolution to the “very interesting constitutional situation.” When asked explicitly by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) how he would have responded to what he thought was an illegal order to use nuclear weapons by the president, Kehler replied with a nervous laugh: “I would have said, ‘I have a question about this,’ and I would have said, ‘I am not ready to proceed.’ ”

What would happen next, Johnson asked? “Well … as I say, I don’t know, exactly,” Kehler said. “Fortunately, we’ve never … these are all hypothetical scenarios … this is the human factor in our system. The human factor then kicks in … there’s a human element to this.”

***

An uncomfortable sense of profound uncertainty permeates these sorts of questions. It permeated the hearings of the 1970s, as well. The military side of the U.S. nuclear arsenal has been set up to enact the will of the civilian government in the face of massive external threats. But if the civilian government is itself unreliable or unwise, that unmoors the entire system, and goes entirely counter to the assumptions that were built into the system during the Cold War.

This new focus on “legality” as the key issue is a red herring. The legal scenario contemplated here is not a court of law (with adversarial lawyers and a judge, much less a jury), but a rushed, in-house assessment of whether a military action can be narrowly construed as justified under the often nebulous laws of war or interpretations of executive powers under the Constitution.

What most worries people who study this issue is not a “mad president” who impulsively decides to begin World War III. We are worried about real-world scenarios in which the first use of a few nuclear weapons might look appealing, or even militarily tempting. For instance, a president might be tempted to use nuclear weapons to destroy an underground bunker or hardened facility (hard to do with conventional weapons, easy to do with nuclear ones), or to attack areas where the precise target is not known (such as mobile missiles hidden in forests). These are the sorts of situations that U.S. security advisers and presidents contemplated in previous wars, even in previous crises.

As scholar Nina Tannenwald makes clear in “The Nuclear Taboo,” the idea that nuclear weapons must not be used in war was not obvious for most of the 20th century; again and again, presidents were presented with “opportunities” and “options” to use them, especially very small nuclear weapons that blurred the line between conventional and nuclear warfare. In all these situations, the president did indeed serve as the final civilian “check.” In retrospect, that the United States has not used nuclear weapons since 1945 has been a boon to our security and the world’s: It has helped maintain the idea that nuclear weapons are not appropriate for use. The United States, with its “easy targets” of highly centralized cities and military bases, benefits from this taboo as much, if not more, as any nation.

Near the end of last week’s hearing, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) asked the hard but necessary question: Should or could anything be done? Witnesses shied away from proposing anything. All warned that congressional remedies should not be rushed into, that trying to fix a complex, extremely sensitive and highly classified system would be most difficult. Which is fair — these are complex issues, and we should be wary of a quick fix that ultimately would embolden enemies or weaken U.S. nuclear deterrence.

Nevertheless, it is high time to reexamine these issues. This is not an abstract and “very interesting” hypothetical question; it is a strikingly real possibility. Backroom discussions by lawyers working for the military or the White House are not adequate “checks” on the actions of a rash president, especially if they see their primary aim as carrying out the will of the commander in chief. It is time to think the truly unthinkable: not that a hostile power might bring the United States reluctantly toward the use of nuclear weapons again, but that the president himself may do so.

With virtually every other aspect of the handling of our nuclear weapons, there is a “two-man rule,” requiring the cooperation of two people to do anything that could be potentially dangerous. One person can be unreliable, but pairs tend to reinforce one another. It is not so absurd to contemplate extending this principle to the top of the nuclear chain of command, nor to contemplate a system of checks and balances that ensured that “could this be construed as legal?” was not the only question being asked before nuclear weapons are launched. And Congress should take a role in defining what use of nuclear weapons is or isn’t against the law. Because if not Congress, who else can do it? Who will?

I know this isn't a pleasant article for Thanksgiving, but some of the questions need to be answered.

[Destiny]

8 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

 

 

Holy fucking shit. I saw the tweet in my texts, but didn’t see the context. How fucking racist can you get?

[47of74]

I see fuckface is whining about the NFL again;

Quote

President Donald Trump is continuing to rail against football players who kneel during the National Anthem to protest racism and police brutality.

Trump asks his followers in a Black Friday tweet: "Can you believe that the disrespect for our Country, our Flag, our Anthem continues without penalty to the players."

He's accusing NFL commissioner Roger Goodell of having "lost control" of what he called a "hemorrhaging league" where "Players are the boss!"

 

[GrumpyGran]

28 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

I see fuckface is whining about the NFL again;

 

So, I guess the NFL can be officially entered into the book as a Trump eternal obsession. Along with CNN, the NYT, Hillary and Obama. He can't let this one go. I guess that professional football failure still hurts.

And if Melania doesn't stop with the stupid baseball caps... Maybe she doesn't feel like washing her hair?

[Ali]

35 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

So, I guess the NFL can be officially entered into the book as a Trump eternal obsession. Along with CNN, the NYT, Hillary and Obama. He can't let this one go. I guess that professional football failure still hurts.

You forgot Rosie O'Donnell.

[GrumpyGran]

1 hour ago, Ali said:

You forgot Rosie O'Donnell.

He's gone for more than a week without mentioning her. To be an eternal obsession it has to be something he trashes at least once a week. Even Comey's fallen off the eternal list. I wonder if he has a finite amount of space on that list.

[GreyhoundFan]

34 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

I wonder if he has a finite amount of space on that list.

He has a finite amount of space amongst the rocks in his head.

[AmazonGrace]

This whole transcript is effing nuts. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-planes-invisible-full-transcript-thanksgiving-coastguard-jets-comments-read-a8072761.html

Spoiler

 

Donald Trump: It is an honour to be here. I have to tell you, you know. The Coast Guard always respected, but if you're looking at it as a brand, there's no brand that went up more than the Coast Guard with what happened in Texas, and I would say in particular, Texas has been incredible. You saved 16,000 lives. Nobody knows that. 16,000 lives. In fact when I first heard the number, I said, you mean like 600? 500? 16,000 lives in Texas.

So as bad as that hurricane was, and that was bad one. That was a big water job, right? It kept coming in and going back they couldn't get rid of it. They'd never seen it. I guess it was the biggest water dump they've ever seen. But when you've got 16,000

[inaudible] big groups of people

 

[inaudible, Trump turns back around] but when you've got 16,000, that's really something. And then Florida hit. And you know that went very well, you know that went pretty well, right? The job you did in Florida. And then Puerto Rico. I really mean that, I think that there's no brand of any kind, I don't just mean a military brand, that's gone up more than the Coast Guard. Incredible people. You've done an incredible job. I love coming in here and doing this with you today. I think it's — we have to keep you very well fed. This is good stuff. It's an honour. This is the first lady, you know.

Melania Trump: Happy Thanksgiving.

Trump: We went together to Texas. We saw what you were doing. You just followed that storm, right next to that storm. You saved so many people. I still haven't figured out how people take their boats out into a hurricane. Some day you'll explain it. Jean was just telling me they actually do it to to save their boat in many cases. They're not thinking about their life. They're thinking about their boats. They go out in a boat and think think they have a wonderful boat. They've had it for years. It can weather anything and then they have 25-foot waves crashing down. And that would be the end of that. You saved a lot of people. I want to thank you. On behalf of the whole country and on behalf of us, what a job you've done. Thank you very much.

 

I'll also take questions. Should we leave the media here? To do the questions or should we tell the media? It's Thanksgiving. Let's let the media stay. Anybody have any questions about the country, how we're doing or any of those things? Wow. I love it when you don't. That means you're doing great. I love that. That's the greatest. The press I know doesn't have any questions. If you do, we won't take them but that's already. The press has plenty of questions.

 

The country's doing really well. Stock market, all time high. This is all good stuff. I just spoke to a lot of your friends in Afghanistan and Iraq. We spoke to the USS Monterey. Great ship, great missile ship. We spoke to a lot of different folks, from the Air Force, to the Army, just now, a little while ago at Mar-a-Lago. The telecommunication systems [inaudible] we go live to Iraq, live to Afghanistan, and it's really incredible. I told them, our country is doing great. You folks are fighting so hard and working so hard. It's nice that you're working for something that's really starting to work. We've cut back so much on regulation and all the waste and the all of the abuse.

The stock market on Friday hit the all-time high. The highest it's ever been, ever. In your whole long life, the stock market is higher than it's ever been. And that means your 401(k)s and all the things you have. You know whether it's, even if you're in the military. You have a country that's starting to turn. We want to have a strong country.

 

We want have a country where I can buy new Coast Guard cutters and not have to worry about it, alright. And that's what we're doing, we're building up wealth so we can take care of our protection. And we're ordering tremendous amounts of new equipment, we're at $700 billion for the military. And you know they were cutting back for years, they jut kept cutting, cutting cutting the military. And you got lean, to put it nicely, depleted was the word, and now it's changing.

The Navy, I can tell you, we're ordering ships, with the Air Force i can tell you we're ordering a lot of planes, in particular the F-35 fighter jet, which is like almost like an invisible fighter. I was asking the Air Force guys, I said, how good is this plane? They said, well, sir, you can't see it. I said but in a fight. You know, in a fight, like I watch on the movies. The fight, they're fighting. How good is this? They say, well, it wins every time because the enemy cannot see it. Even if it's right next to them, it can't see it. I said that helps. That's a good thing.

 

But I mean we have equipment that — nobody has the equipment that we have. And it's sad when we're selling our equipment to other countries but we're not buying it ourselves. But now that's all changed. And I said, the stuff that we have is always a little bit better too. When we sell to other countries, even if they're allies you never know about an ally. An ally can turn. You're going to find that out. But I always say make lives a little bit better. Give it that extra speed, a little bit — keep a little bit — keep about 10% in the bag. We have -- nobody has what with we have. That's what we're doing. We're really proud of the Coast Guard and I'm very proud -- I walked in today and Jean said, the day I got elected, the following morning, they were putting up the statement that I made right on your front door and I came in and the first thing I noticed, of course, I said wow, look at that. I said, did you put that up just for me because I happen to be coming here today? And you did that the first day. That tells me something. That tells me something.

Let's go, fellas. Come on. Let's get up here. Let's get up here. Yeah. This is good stuff.

 

What do you want to bet someone pointed to empty air and asked if he liked the new invisible F-35?

[GrumpyGran]

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

This whole transcript is effing nuts. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-planes-invisible-full-transcript-thanksgiving-coastguard-jets-comments-read-a8072761.html

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Donald Trump: It is an honour to be here. I have to tell you, you know. The Coast Guard always respected, but if you're looking at it as a brand, there's no brand that went up more than the Coast Guard with what happened in Texas, and I would say in particular, Texas has been incredible. You saved 16,000 lives. Nobody knows that. 16,000 lives. In fact when I first heard the number, I said, you mean like 600? 500? 16,000 lives in Texas.

So as bad as that hurricane was, and that was bad one. That was a big water job, right? It kept coming in and going back they couldn't get rid of it. They'd never seen it. I guess it was the biggest water dump they've ever seen. But when you've got 16,000

[inaudible] big groups of people

 

[inaudible, Trump turns back around] but when you've got 16,000, that's really something. And then Florida hit. And you know that went very well, you know that went pretty well, right? The job you did in Florida. And then Puerto Rico. I really mean that, I think that there's no brand of any kind, I don't just mean a military brand, that's gone up more than the Coast Guard. Incredible people. You've done an incredible job. I love coming in here and doing this with you today. I think it's — we have to keep you very well fed. This is good stuff. It's an honour. This is the first lady, you know.

Melania Trump: Happy Thanksgiving.

Trump: We went together to Texas. We saw what you were doing. You just followed that storm, right next to that storm. You saved so many people. I still haven't figured out how people take their boats out into a hurricane. Some day you'll explain it. Jean was just telling me they actually do it to to save their boat in many cases. They're not thinking about their life. They're thinking about their boats. They go out in a boat and think think they have a wonderful boat. They've had it for years. It can weather anything and then they have 25-foot waves crashing down. And that would be the end of that. You saved a lot of people. I want to thank you. On behalf of the whole country and on behalf of us, what a job you've done. Thank you very much.

 

I'll also take questions. Should we leave the media here? To do the questions or should we tell the media? It's Thanksgiving. Let's let the media stay. Anybody have any questions about the country, how we're doing or any of those things? Wow. I love it when you don't. That means you're doing great. I love that. That's the greatest. The press I know doesn't have any questions. If you do, we won't take them but that's already. The press has plenty of questions.

 

The country's doing really well. Stock market, all time high. This is all good stuff. I just spoke to a lot of your friends in Afghanistan and Iraq. We spoke to the USS Monterey. Great ship, great missile ship. We spoke to a lot of different folks, from the Air Force, to the Army, just now, a little while ago at Mar-a-Lago. The telecommunication systems [inaudible] we go live to Iraq, live to Afghanistan, and it's really incredible. I told them, our country is doing great. You folks are fighting so hard and working so hard. It's nice that you're working for something that's really starting to work. We've cut back so much on regulation and all the waste and the all of the abuse.

The stock market on Friday hit the all-time high. The highest it's ever been, ever. In your whole long life, the stock market is higher than it's ever been. And that means your 401(k)s and all the things you have. You know whether it's, even if you're in the military. You have a country that's starting to turn. We want to have a strong country.

 

We want have a country where I can buy new Coast Guard cutters and not have to worry about it, alright. And that's what we're doing, we're building up wealth so we can take care of our protection. And we're ordering tremendous amounts of new equipment, we're at $700 billion for the military. And you know they were cutting back for years, they jut kept cutting, cutting cutting the military. And you got lean, to put it nicely, depleted was the word, and now it's changing.

The Navy, I can tell you, we're ordering ships, with the Air Force i can tell you we're ordering a lot of planes, in particular the F-35 fighter jet, which is like almost like an invisible fighter. I was asking the Air Force guys, I said, how good is this plane? They said, well, sir, you can't see it. I said but in a fight. You know, in a fight, like I watch on the movies. The fight, they're fighting. How good is this? They say, well, it wins every time because the enemy cannot see it. Even if it's right next to them, it can't see it. I said that helps. That's a good thing.

 

But I mean we have equipment that — nobody has the equipment that we have. And it's sad when we're selling our equipment to other countries but we're not buying it ourselves. But now that's all changed. And I said, the stuff that we have is always a little bit better too. When we sell to other countries, even if they're allies you never know about an ally. An ally can turn. You're going to find that out. But I always say make lives a little bit better. Give it that extra speed, a little bit — keep a little bit — keep about 10% in the bag. We have -- nobody has what with we have. That's what we're doing. We're really proud of the Coast Guard and I'm very proud -- I walked in today and Jean said, the day I got elected, the following morning, they were putting up the statement that I made right on your front door and I came in and the first thing I noticed, of course, I said wow, look at that. I said, did you put that up just for me because I happen to be coming here today? And you did that the first day. That tells me something. That tells me something.

Let's go, fellas. Come on. Let's get up here. Let's get up here. Yeah. This is good stuff.

 

What do you want to bet someone pointed to empty air and asked if he liked the new invisible F-35?

Oh, fuck. I was reading what he said to my husband and I had to stop several times because I was laughing so hard I was crying. 

So, if he has a teleprompter and he can read something written for him, he at least doesn't sound like an idiot. But in situations like this I guess this is what it will always be, him rambling through an incoherent hot mess of stupidity. Good God, a ten year old can do a better job.

I did mine from that that aside from not really being able to afford the huge yacht he had, he must have also had a bad experience on it. 25 foot waves and all.

Rufus save us.

[AmazonGrace]

 

Friends, I have sad news: Donald Trump can't come to the party that he totally was invited to because he must go see his hot Canadian girlfriend and he'll break up with her before she can break up with him. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

3 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

What do you want to bet someone pointed to empty air and asked if he liked the new invisible F-35?

Maybe he caught a Star Trek episode and thought the Klingon Birds of Prey were the model for the F-35, since they can cloak. If that's the case, someone should tell him that it's just a TV show.

[47of74]

I see fuckface is now using the attack in Egypt to press for his border wall and travel ban.

Quote

President Trump on Friday revived his calls for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and a travel ban targeting certain countries after an attack on a mosque in Egypt left at least 235 people dead. 

In a tweet announcing an upcoming phone call with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Trump lamented the terrorist attack on the al-Rawdah mosque in the northern Sinai Peninsula, and said that the U.S. would have to "get TOUGHER and SMARTER" in dealing with terrorism.

Shut the fuck up asshole.  People died and your only concern is your fuckface policies.

[smittykins]

Of course.  Brown people.

[Howl]

Well, 58 people were killed and 489 injured in the Las Vegas shooting by a white guy with automatic weapons, but Trump didn't........oh, never mind. 

[Audrey2]

1 hour ago, Howl said:

Well, 58 people were killed and 489 injured in the Las Vegas shooting by a white guy with automatic weapons, but Trump didn't........oh, never mind. 

But we offered our thoughts and prayers...

[onekidanddone]

4 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Maybe he caught a Star Trek episode and thought the Klingon Birds of Prey were the model for the F-35, since they can cloak. If that's the case, someone should tell him that it's just a TV show.

I have an F-35 in my kitchen right now, but nobody can see it.

[Rachel333]

TIME disagrees with Trump's version of events.

 

[fraurosena]

[fraurosena]

Stark contrast...

[formergothardite]

All those police officers guarding the president against nobody. 

[WiseGirl]

I'm at my parent's house for the holiday. Nothing is warming my heart more than hearing my 84 year old father yelling at the t.v. about what a dumb ass and embarrassment (among other choice words) TT is. Wonder where I get it from?

[church_of_dog]

2 hours ago, formergothardite said:

All those police officers guarding the president against nobody. 

He's a real nowhere man
Sitting in his nowhere land
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody