Topic: Typhoid Trump: the not-smart, corrupt, coward, loser, thread

[Nazi Dickhead]

He called her 'Miss Piggy' and 'Miss Housekeeping'. Those two names encapsulate his racism, his misogyny, his pettiness, his nastiness and his sexualisation of women.

Justifying those comments by debating how fat or thin a contestant in a sexualised gloat fest should be doesn't make it any better. Shouldn't 'owning' miss Universe make him a dubious choice for President in the first place?

If Trump making a few juvenile comments to this lady (someone he's supported and complimented in the past) makes him a misogynist of the most extreme degree, that it deserves a platform on a presidential debate. If this is such a pressing concern of morality, how does Hillary justify her support for doing business in the Middle East where women are truly oppressed?

Trump has put many women in positions of money and power, but has made some stupid and silly remarks towards them. The United States Government upholds the female right to vote, yet does business with people in Country's where their not allowed to drive. Why does Hillary Clinton and co all of a sudden get this moral high ground? In these terms he in fact seems very Presidential, just far less seasoned.

[B0151?]

Maybe, despite his invective, his courting of the truly awful segments of our electorate, and his long list of genuinely fascistic statements, Trump is in fact a harmless moderate who'll putter around doing nothing for four years. Or even quit halfway through. But take a look at who he's surrounded himself with. His VP is a fundamentalist Christian. His campaign manager is as well (you may remember her defending Todd Akin for his "women's bodies can magically repel rape sperm" comments). He's also got a self-avowed Alt-Right leader in Stephen Bannon. If he wins, 'real far-right politics' will be right there in the freaking White House.

Do you think he's suddenly going to eject all of these people if he wins? Do you think he's somehow not going to nominate pro-life judges for the Supreme Court? Are you willing to put Roe v. Wade at risk just because you hate Clinton (I strongly dislike her too, for what it's worth)? That's not to mention straight-up white nationalist Bannon, who will use Trump's banner to expand his cause even if he doesn't end up literally working for the administration. There's a big difference between giving ammunition to the far right with Hillary and letting them actually win a presidential election.

Think this should be bumped every page to be honest.

[B0151?]

Trump supporters don't tend to be big environmentalists. Just mentalists.

Do the people who claim they aren't Trump supporters, have pretensions of rationality, and paint Trump and Clinton as bad as each-other, if not Clinton worse, not care about something as massive as that either though?

I just think it's absolutely understated how necessary it is for the President of the United States to believe and have plans of working towards tackling the biggest issue that faces the planet today... Not denying it exists, and working actively against efforts, like Dubya's administration.

[jamie_c]

You're on dodgy ground there. A footballer obviously can't be overweight due to fitness issues, a beauty queen can definitely be overweight or else you're saying overweight people can't be beautiful?

What a load of rubbish.  She entered a contest where you are judged entirely on your physical appearance.  Her physical appearance then changed when she had to do the PR events as Miss Universe.

Whether overweight people can be beautiful is completely irelevent.

[Camarero25]

If Trump making a few juvenile comments to this lady (someone he's supported and complimented in the past) makes him a misogynist of the most extreme degree, that it deserves a platform on a presidential debate. If this is such a pressing concern of morality, how does Hillary justify her support for doing business in the Middle East where women are truly oppressed?

Trump has put many women in positions of money and power, but has made some stupid and silly remarks towards them. The United States Government upholds the female right to vote, yet does business with people in Country's where their not allowed to drive. Why does Hillary Clinton and co all of a sudden get this moral high ground? In these terms he in fact seems very Presidential, just far less seasoned.

No wonder you're defending this fuckwit.

[jamie_c]

He called her 'Miss Piggy' and 'Miss Housekeeping'. Those two names encapsulate his racism, his misogyny, his pettiness, his nastiness and his sexualisation of women.

Justifying those comments by debating how fat or thin a contestant in a sexualised gloat fest should be doesn't make it any better. Shouldn't 'owning' miss Universe make him a dubious choice for President in the first place?

I'm not trying to stick up for Trump, I'm looking at this purely in PR terms.

She entered the sexualised gloat fest (nice title by the way!!) where she knew her entire job was to look in a certain way.  She put weight on and he had an issue with it.

He's right to have an issue with, it was her job to look like Miss Universe for the period after she won the contest ( there would have effectively been a salary for her at that time )

Now obviously the names he called her are wrong but why try and make an example of what he said when I lot of people will agree with his point (if not the words)

He says a million dumb things everyday where he is 100% wrong, use those don't go down avenues like this.

[Antics]

Because it's not about the technicalities, it's about the glee with which he made her do a public workout and then called her fat and an "eating machine" on television.

It's as Alan says, about the fact that he called her slurs that encapsulate the issues with his character, namely his misogyny and his racism.

The fact that he's now also gone completely off the rails attacking her for 4 days and asked people to look for her nonexistent sex tape is just a bonus for Clinton as it exposes his other character flaw, his childish instability.

In as you say "PR Terms" this has been an absolute gold plated home run masterclass for Clinton.

[SP]

I'm not trying to stick up for Trump, I'm looking at this purely in PR terms.

She entered the sexualised gloat fest (nice title by the way!!) where she knew her entire job was to look in a certain way.  She put weight on and he had an issue with it.

He's right to have an issue with, it was her job to look like Miss Universe for the period after she won the contest ( there would have effectively been a salary for her at that time )

Now obviously the names he called her are wrong but why try and make an example of what he said when I lot of people will agree with his point (if not the words)

He says a million dumb things everyday where he is 100% wrong, use those don't go down avenues like this.

Raising the issue of her weight could have been done tactfully in private. Using it to publicly humiliate her just makes him a c*nt. Someone who is that much of a sociopath, lacking in empathy has no business being anywhere near high public office.

[Antics]

If Trump making a few juvenile comments to this lady (someone he's supported and complimented in the past) makes him a misogynist of the most extreme degree, that it deserves a platform on a presidential debate. If this is such a pressing concern of morality, how does Hillary justify her support for doing business in the Middle East where women are truly oppressed?

Trump has put many women in positions of money and power, but has made some stupid and silly remarks towards them. The United States Government upholds the female right to vote, yet does business with people in Country's where their not allowed to drive. Why does Hillary Clinton and co all of a sudden get this moral high ground? In these terms he in fact seems very Presidential, just far less seasoned.

This is a really fucking dumb and irrelevant argument. But it says a lot that Trump was too thick to even come up with this himself on Monday night and decided to go on an unprompted tangent about Rosie fucking O'Donnell.

[mallin9]

This is a really fucking dumb and irrelevant argument. But it says a lot that Trump was too thick to even come up with this himself on Monday night and decided to go on an unprompted tangent about Rosie fucking O'Donnell.

Hahahaha excellent point

[Alan_X]

I'm not trying to stick up for Trump, I'm looking at this purely in PR terms.

She entered the sexualised gloat fest (nice title by the way!!) where she knew her entire job was to look in a certain way.  She put weight on and he had an issue with it.

He's right to have an issue with, it was her job to look like Miss Universe for the period after she won the contest ( there would have effectively been a salary for her at that time )

Now obviously the names he called her are wrong but why try and make an example of what he said when I lot of people will agree with his point (if not the words)

He says a million dumb things everyday where he is 100% wrong, use those don't go down avenues like this.

In PR terms it's perfect. As you say he says a million dumb things every day. What Clinton's team needed was something that could be encapsulated in four words - 'Miss Piggy' and 'Miss Housekeeping'.

Of course some people may try and contextualise the issue by arguing about how 'fat' a beauty queen is allowed to be before she's seen as disgusting but that means your subscribing to a discussion about a contest that is out-dated and sexist.

Hilary doesn't need to persuade everyone to vote for her. She needs to shore up her natural vote and persuade enough floating voters to vote in the swing states. People who justify Trump's name-calling of a beauty queen aren't going to vote for her anyway.

This is exactly the sort of thing that has traction. Like 'The War of Jennifer's Ear' in the 1992 General Election. A non story but a story that encapsulated a whole range of issues and had a name that resonated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jennifer%27s_Ear

And while it's the Miss Piggy comment that you've picked up on, don't underestimate how 'Miss Housekeeping' will play with a large sector of the electorate where he's already way behind.

[Thush]

Part of his problem with this (and as seen with his battles with the Khan family) is that he comes off very, very badly when sneering at regular people (not politicians or celebrities). This is exactly the thing that lowers his poll numbers with following voters.

[Garrus]

Frottage to coach Trump for upcoming debates

I guess we're going to hear more outlandish crap.

[Not that Gareth]

Frottage to coach Trump for upcoming debates

I guess we're going to hear more outlandish crap.

Hey we might get lucky they will keep Frottage

[Djozer]

Hey we might get lucky they will keep Frottage

Or we might get even luckier and they both suffer irreparable damage to their vocal chords from too much self-aggrandising pontification and we never have to listen to either of the pricks again.

[Gnurglan]

Part of his problem with this (and as seen with his battles with the Khan family) is that he comes off very, very badly when sneering at regular people (not politicians or celebrities). This is exactly the thing that lowers his poll numbers with following voters.

I can only hope that people take notice. A Presidential candidate attacking regular people?

I can also just hope that Trump doesn't pick up on Clinton's mistake. She called Putin a dictator. Trump could easily say that Putin has been elected and it's not America's business to question their elections or the will of the Russian people.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Frottage to coach Trump for upcoming debates

I guess we're going to hear more outlandish crap.

That link does not work - the word auto-changer messed it up. For anyone clicking the link: correct the URL on the error page to lower case with the correct spelling of Nigel's surname.

I hadn't realised until now that the auto-changer also affects links. I understand that it is just the swear filter being used here, but I assumed that its behaviour had been modified so as to not affect links. Is there any change of removing these auto-change (swear filter) entries? They are irritating when the change content; the breaking of links is an unacceptable price for such fluff.

[Caligula?]

Frottage to coach Trump for upcoming debates

I guess we're going to hear more outlandish crap.

The article says that Ukip have denied reports that he's going to be coaching Trump for the next debate?

Either way, you can't coach into him the uncoachable. He absolutely loses any and all control when he's left to think on his feet, like was the case with the first debate and will be the for the last two. Anything you may try to drill into his head flies out the window because he has absolutely no self-restraint whatsoever when you get under his skin. All Hillary has to do is throw him the bait, and he'll take it every time and then endlessly bitch about it afterwards. I mean, how dare she?! She's a woman afterall!

[cptrios]

OK first of all, even if we were to accept that not gaining weight is a responsibility of Miss Universe (sadly there's legal precedent for enforcing appearance rules on employees, as morally shit as that is), how does that justify Trump's name-calling?

And...

If Trump making a few juvenile comments to this lady (someone he's supported and complimented in the past) makes him a misogynist of the most extreme degree, that it deserves a platform on a presidential debate. If this is such a pressing concern of morality, how does Hillary justify her support for doing business in the Middle East where women are truly oppressed?

Trump has put many women in positions of money and power, but has made some stupid and silly remarks towards them. The United States Government upholds the female right to vote, yet does business with people in Country's where their not allowed to drive. Why does Hillary Clinton and co all of a sudden get this moral high ground? In these terms he in fact seems very Presidential, just far less seasoned.

Not that I want to argue with a Trump supporter, but do we need to list all of his business with those same Middle Eastern countries? I really wish we lived in a world in which that was a disqualifying factor, but we don't. Hopefully some day reasonably soon, nobody will need their oil or their money. Until that day, there's virtually nobody involved in politics or business who has any right to use it as a weapon to attack anyone else.

Trump is, at absolute best, an old-school misogynist in the vein of Bert Cooper. If you believe any differently, you're actively fooling yourself.

[coolbyrne]

The New York Times apparently has obtained a portion of his tax returns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

[Caligula?]

The New York Times apparently has obtained a portion of his tax returns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

I always thought that one way or another they'd come out before November 8, I'm sure there will be more to come.

[TravisBickle]

Part of his problem with this (and as seen with his battles with the Khan family) is that he comes off very, very badly when sneering at regular people (not politicians or celebrities). This is exactly the thing that lowers his poll numbers with following voters.

 He's a truly horrible, narcissistic rage monkey who seems to particularly hate it when the little people have the cheek to disagree with him. He appeared to be coked up during that first debate and the idea that you'd want Donald Trump to respond to some sort of Cuban Missile Crisis type event at 3am whilst he's in the middle of some Twitter tirade against a former Miss Universe contestant is... Well. I don't know what it is, in all honesty. Unhinged? Deranged?

[Something Worse]

I always thought that one way or another they'd come out before November 8, I'm sure there will be more to come.

What a coincidence eh?

[Caligula?]

What a coincidence eh?

Quite.

In all seriousness though, this is massive.

[cptrios]

Does anyone here know much about how these things work? Is it easy to fudge a high loss like that? I've got zero clue about taxes, but losing $900million in one year seems like an incredibly difficult thing to do.

By the way, Alec Baldwin absolutely killed it as Trump on SNL tonight. Darrell Hammond's Trump was great, but it was a calmer, Apprentice-era Trump. Baldwin's take on the current rage-gibbon demagogue version was brilliant.

[Something Worse]

Does anyone here know much about how these things work? Is it easy to fudge a high loss like that? I've got zero clue about taxes, but losing $900million in one year seems like an incredibly difficult thing to do.

By the way, Alec Baldwin absolutely killed it as Trump on SNL tonight. Darrell Hammond's Trump was great, but it was a calmer, Apprentice-era Trump. Baldwin's take on the current rage-gibbon demagogue version was brilliant.

Warren Buffett once claimed to pay less in taxes than his secretary. I'm pretty sure every billionaire does what Trump does. It's awful, but tax codes are made by the rich, for the rich. Until someone decides to burn it down and start over, nothing will change. People still buy from Amazon. People still line up to get gouged by Apple. People don't care.

[Caligula?]

Warren Buffett once claimed to pay less in taxes than his secretary. I'm pretty sure every billionaire does what Trump does. It's awful, but tax codes are made by the rich, for the rich. Until someone decides to burn it down and start over, nothing will change. People still buy from Amazon. People still line up to get gouged by Apple. People don't care.

Except there's the small matter that Warren Buffett isn't running for President.

Oh that and the fact that Buffett has given away billions in philanthropy, which I'm sure far exceeds what he would have payed in taxes anyway.

[Zeb]

Does anyone here know much about how these things work? Is it easy to fudge a high loss like that? I've got zero clue about taxes, but losing $900million in one year seems like an incredibly difficult thing to do.

In 1995 Trump was dumping all his personal debt onto his companies and then using his companies to take on even more debt. I'd guess that's his total losses for a few years of things going tits up for him, with his own money on the line, before he caught onto the idea of shafting his companies and those who invested into them.

[Something Worse]

Except there's the small matter that Warren Buffett isn't running for President.

Oh that and the fact that Buffett has given away billions in philanthropy, which I'm sure far exceeds what he would have payed in taxes anyway.

Not sure what that has to do with anything, but thanks?

[Caligula?]

Not sure what that has to do with anything, but thanks?

Apologies, could have sworn you mentioned Warren Buffett in your previous post. My mistake.

If you're going to call into question the moral character of Buffet in regards to taxes and compare him to someone like Trump, then at least get your facts straight. Buffett doesn't pay fewer taxes than his secretary. His tax rate is lower in proportion to his net worth. He does pay taxes, in fact millions per year. Whilst that may be a small amount if you take his massive fortune and relative income into account, it's still millions more than Trump who, as the New York times has now reported, pays absolutely nothing at all. You're welcome.

[Alan_X]

I can only hope that people take notice. A Presidential candidate attacking regular people?

I can also just hope that Trump doesn't pick up on Clinton's mistake. She called Putin a dictator. Trump could easily say that Putin has been elected and it's not America's business to question their elections or the will of the Russian people.

I don't think it was a mistake by Clinton. And being elected doesn't have anything to do with being a dictator. Hitler was elected.

[Nazi Dickhead]

Not that I want to argue with a Trump supporter, but do we need to list all of his business with those same Middle Eastern countries? I really wish we lived in a world in which that was a disqualifying factor, but we don't. Hopefully some day reasonably soon, nobody will need their oil or their money. Until that day, there's virtually nobody involved in politics or business who has any right to use it as a weapon to attack anyone else.

Trump is, at absolute best, an old-school misogynist in the vein of Bert Cooper. If you believe any differently, you're actively fooling yourself.

Sums the problem up quite nicely.

I'm not claiming Trump has any high ground or is some angel of reason. The pantomime villain narrative spouted is breathtakingly naive. Insults, non-stories, personal attacks, labelling as a misogynist or racist until those words loose their meaning. All this just distracts from legitimate concerns people have that are not being addressed by Government. Like with Brexit, the left and mainstreams foaming at the mouth, spewing hatred and complete shut down of an argument only creates more frustration, pushing people further towards someone who is sticking two fingers up.  And thanks to the internet, that is not just a fringe group any more.

Both of these candidates are horrible IMO, but Trump has come about through necessity. It just so happened to be Trump in the position pushing back against some of the above mentioned but If it wasn't him it would have been someone else.

OK first of all, even if we were to accept that not gaining weight is a responsibility of Miss Universe (sadly there's legal precedent for enforcing appearance rules on employees, as morally shit as that is), how does that justify Trump's name-calling?

And...

I'm sorry what?  'sadly there's legal precedent for enforcing appearance rules on employees, as morally shit as that is'

If you want to work in an office building you wear a shirt, if your working in Burger King you wear a uniform, if you want to be 'Miss Universe' then you know damn well your physical appearance will be called into question.

And name calling?  The media for the past year has taken any oppurunity to call out Trump on his appearance (In particular that terrible mound of straw on his head). But of course when he does it back all of a sudden everyone is a delicate snowflake again?

[Alan_X]

What a coincidence eh?

Coincidence with what exactly?  A newspaper carrying out investigative journalism about a major news item that is relevant to the election in November?

[Alan_X]

Sums the problem up quite nicely.

I'm not claiming Trump has any high ground or is some angel of reason. The pantomime villain narrative spouted is breathtakingly naive. Insults, non-stories, personal attacks, labelling as a misogynist or racist until those words loose there meaning. All this just distracts from legitimate concerns people have that are not being addressed by Government. Like with Brexit, the left and mainstreams foaming at the mouth, spewing hatred and complete shut down of an argument only creates more frustration, pushing people further towards someone who is sticking two fingers up.  And thanks to the internet, that is not just a fringe group any more.

Both of these candidates are horrible IMO, but Trump has come about through necessity. It just so happened to be Trump in the position pushing back against some of the above mentioned but If it wasn't him it would have been someone else.


I'm sorry what?  'sadly there's legal precedent for enforcing appearance rules on employees, as morally shit as that is'

If you work in an office building you wear a shirt, if your working in Burger King you wear a uniform, if you want to be 'Miss Universe' then you know damn well your physical appearance will be called into question.

And name calling? I'm sorry but the media for the past year has taken any oppurunity to call out Trump on his hair, or his wife and kids. But of course when he does it back all of a sudden everyone is a delicate snowflake again?

No offence mate but that's horseshit. Trump isn't a necessity and making excuses for him because there are political and social problems around the world (like there have been for the last few thousand years - read a bit of history) is whataboutery if the highest order.

Brexit has fuck all to do with whether Trump is a racist, misogynist, unstable, a liar, stupid and eminently unfit for the role of president. The name calling is appropriate because the name's fit.

[Ray K]

Trump's tax 'loss'  was so large the software at the time couldn't deal with a 9 figure loss,  so his accountant had to manually type in - 91 in front of the 5,125,512 or whatever that figure was.

What a scam artist and fraud.  Shame on the voters who fall for such an obviously bad businessman. 

The rest of the GOP candidates were completely negligent on not getting this during the primaries. It can't have been that difficult to find one person who could supply this info at the time.

[Nazi Dickhead]

No offence mate but that's horseshit. Trump isn't a necessity and making excuses for him because there are political and social problems around the world (like there have been for the last few thousand years - read a bit of history) is whataboutery if the highest order.

Trump is the symptom of decades long neo-liberal regressive ideologies. I'm not sure why the cause and effect doesn't apply here as it has always done.

Brexit has fuck all to do with whether Trump is a racist, misogynist, unstable, a liar, stupid and eminently unfit for the role of president. The name calling is appropriate because the name's fit.

Just saying something over and over again doesn't make it true.

[Romeo Sensini]

Someone from inside Trump Tower leaked the document. Beautiful.

[Garrus]

Can't imagine that loss was fudged. A figure like that would ring bells at the IRS and they'd have conducted an audit. Of course if it was indeed fudged and the IRS managed to deduce that, he'd have had to file a corrected or a revised return, which could have been the case. Or, Trump and the IRS would have slugged it out in court.

More worryingly, why is Donald Trump allowed to carry forward that loss and not his company? The concept of corporate losses being utilised by an individual is bizarre and worrying.

[Zeb]

More worryingly, why is Donald Drumpf allowed to carry forward that loss and not his company? The concept of corporate losses being utilised by an individual is bizarre and worrying.

$900m losses which he claimed personally as he shifted stuff onto his companies, and then he followed that by something in the order of $1.5 billion losses on the companies after 1995 while taking money out of them and stiffing his creditors. It's fucking bonkers that it's considered 'success' to do that. He's lost $60m each and every year for the past 40 years with the only person benefiting from that being himself once he figured out how to screw other people without being personally in hock for it.

[It's Jimmy Corkhill]

That link does not work - the word auto-changer messed it up. For anyone clicking the link: correct the URL on the error page to lower case with the correct spelling of Nigel's surname.

I hadn't realised until now that the auto-changer also affects links. I understand that it is just the swear filter being used here, but I assumed that its behaviour had been modified so as to not affect links. Is there any change of removing these auto-change (swear filter) entries? They are irritating when the change content; the breaking of links is an unacceptable price for such fluff.

It's not that serious mate and it's put in for a good reason as well as showing the RAWK line - it prevents helmets linking the Mail and the Rag.