no, i didn't say that. but this election is the most hilarious ever held.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Printable View
no, i didn't say that. but this election is the most hilarious ever held.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Quote:
no, America is pretty stupid to have this election. thanks for making the world laugh at you!
I'm required to write four words. I'd prefer to just include yours, but ya did say that:)Quote:
Originally Posted by holzz
Donald Trump's claim that the election has been 'rigged' is based on two arguments: that there were places in Chicago, Cleveland and Philadelphia where in 2012 Obama received 100% of the votes cast, and this is questionable to the point where it doesn't seem possible without external interference; and that 'millions of dead people' have been voting.
Below are some links which demolish this claim, and also show that in Lousiana and Utah Obama in 2012 also received 0 votes in some wards.
What I did not know until this issue came up, is how small some Wards or Precincts in Congressional Districts can be, particularly in inner cities, where there may be just a few hundred voters. In Philadelphia if these contain mostly Black Americans who even more than rural Black Americans tend to vote Democrat, it would have been strange had anyone voted for Romney, although the irony is there are registered Republicans in some of these Wards but on the day they didn't vote the way Trump wanted.
As for Millions being dead, if Trump means that electoral rolls are inaccurate, that is like saying sugar sweetens coffee, everyone knows it, because people die at inconvenient times, and also move so that at any one time a list of occupants in an apartment building in Manhattan or Minneapolis will list people who are no longer there. But did they vote? I don't see how Trump can confirm his claim unless he provides the names of the dead, and in one article I saw which I think I linked a few days ago, the man allegedly dead who rose from his grave was in fact his son with the same name, the appellation 'Jr' having not been noticed by the accusers.
The claim, however, goes right to the heart of the conspiracy theories that so many people -not just Americans- like to think explain why their favoured outcome never happens.
This one is on Obama in Philadelphia-
http://www.politifact.com/pennsylvan...ial-election-/
This is a more general review-
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/tru...ged-reasoning/
Here in Utah Obama also received 0 votes in some districts-
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward...179322261.html
And this gives a detailed breakdown of places in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Texas and Louisiana where either Romney or Obama received 0 votes-
http://hatthief.blogspot.co.uk/2012/...t-0-votes.html
As they say in Ireland - vote early, vote often
Donald Trump has denied the claims made by eleven women that he sexually assaulted them, calling them 'liars' in search of '10 minutes of fame' or put up to it by the Clinton campaign. On one level, Donald Trump deserves to be taken at his word, on another level the critical issue is corroboration, or it is just a matter of 'she said, he said' and the potential for mischief-making is strong if in a Presidential campaign the candidates choose to 'fight dirty'.
In the article linked below, which is primarily concerned with the litigation between Rolling Stone and the University of Virginia, the key to unlocking the controversy is precisely corroboration, or the lack of it as the journalist for the magazine is accused of not doing proper research to verify the facts of the story from the ('alleged') victim.
But on this basis, with the possible exception of the court case involving Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, the women who have come forward with their stories do have corroborating evidence in the form of friends and colleagues who were told at the time what had happened. So a degree of balance and verifiable facts ought to be the primary interest, whether or not it hurts or defends the reputation of Donald Trump.
The article is here-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-rolling-stone
Hillarys private e-mails are now being re-investigated with only 10 days till voting commences? Surely Trump is behind this?
It's too much of a coincidence!
There is no fire without smoke but there is often smoke without fire.
If Trump were more connected, maybe. If he were in a position to call in favors, yes. But he's neither. Investigating Hillary is simply a GOP-addiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
No investigation has ever produced a single offense, criminal, moral or otherwise. The goal is not to find her guilty of anything, but simply to smear her with so much stench, she'll never smell clean. To quote Martin, "There is no fire without smoke but there is often smoke without fire." It applies to all the smoke around Hillary's emails as well as to the accusation that Trump has enough pull to restart this investigation. James Comey (and those who have his ear) is the chief ass-hole here.
For those who like to imply the Democrats are rigging the system, I remind you that Comey was an Obama appointee.
Don't hear much about Whitewater these days. Statute of limitations run out?
Butbutbutbut.... EMAIL!!!
Guess Bengazi petered out too, huh?
Butbutbutbut.... EMAIL!!!
What a joke...
Well put. You're right to brush aside any suggestion of conspiracy or Trump pulling the strings (as well as to point out that Obama has not been partisan in making appointments or Comey would not be where he is).Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
But I wonder if it's possible that Comey broke because of all of the attacks on him by Trump supporters. Was this a devious act by him or capitulation? Maybe Comey is part-partisan hack and part coward.
Meanwhile an Iowa voter admits that she 'rigged' her vote by doing it twice -
A Des Moines woman charged with committing voter fraud has said she voted twice because she was afraid her vote for Donald Trump would be changed to a vote for Hillary Clinton.
Participating in early voting in Iowa, registered Republican Terri Rote allegedly cast two ballots for the Republican presidential nominee. Arrested and charged with election misconduct, she was released from jail on Friday on a $5,000 bond.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rump-supporter
WMDs in Iraq.
TREASON in Hillary's e-mail.
All we need now is a new film by that demented clown Peter Greenaway -The Groper, the Flasher his Wife and the President...
Nevertheless, this article by a senior fellow in the Brookings Institution defends Comey (worked for Bush, appointed by Obama) on the basis that he has been even-handed. It is the timing that has made it all look messy and politically inept, thus (and assuming external pressure was not applied to Comey):
But what you can't reasonably say is that Comey has been anyone's political lackey. Over the howling objections of many Republicans, he ended the Clinton email investigation, concluding that "no reasonable prosecutor" would go forward with a case. Over the snarls of the Clinton forces, at the same time, he commented quite disparagingly about the behavior of the woman who is likely to become his boss. And now, with the election only days away, he has amended his prior resolution of the case to deal with new information.
Say what you will about the FBI, but it's surely been independent.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/memo-pre...nd-doesnt-mean
-This also contains a photocopy of the letter Comey wrote to the Chairs of Senate Committees.
Unless Comey comes up with an email that 12 out of 12 Americans, ......BOTH democratic and republican, .....agree demands jail time for Clinton,
then this is a stunt to give Trump the only hope he had.
There is absolutely nothing Trump can do to make himself look good.
He has to have outside forces drop a House on Hillary.
If the polls shift 2 or 3 points next week, after the DOJ warned Comey it would,
there will be HELL to pay.
This is a big bunch of nothing. Again! Still!
But we're gonna have to listen to the republican whiners and snivelers till at least Inauguration Day in January. The FBI is just being cruel and spiteful towards the American people now.
I hear everything said and all the doubters, let's put it another way; Money talks and Trumps got lots of it.
Everyone as a price! Do I need to spell it out? :roll:
Head of the FBI was asked "why now?" It just seemed right....he replied!
The world is full of very gullible people.
Premise 1: Money talks.
Metaphorically. Yes, money talks, but so do duty, loyalty, ideologies and lot's of other things.
Premise 2: Trump's got lot's of it - money that is.
Relatively speaking. But who really knows? There are reports that he doesn't really have as much as he says he does. And he doesn't part with it easily.
Premise 3: Everyone has a price.
Probably false, especially if by price you mean, "Can be bought off with enough money."
Premise 4: Comey hasn't yet given a reasonable answer to "Why now?"
Conclusion: Undetermined. Probably Comey has an ideological (or other) hatred of Hillary that he just can't let go of. Look at the preamble to his more recent announcement that his investigation found nothing that is prosecutable; it too was unprecedented.
I'd also like to say that the supplementation of the record by Comey was completely unnecessary. I've never heard of someone being accused of perjury or dishonesty because subsequent events cast doubt on the conclusiveness of what they've said previously. Comey said the investigation was concluded, and it was at the time he testified. No rational person could think that means that no matter what new information comes to light it could not be reopened.
If there is substantial and incriminating evidence against Hillary that comes to light later on, that would justify opening the old investigation or beginning a new one. Certainly there was no onus on him to say he might have to do that depending upon the content of emails he has not viewed yet.
I'll post this in this thread too since it's very relevant to the discussion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/op...one-share&_r=0
I saw an interview with Nigel Farage on GPS with Fareed Zakaria earlier today where he was equating BREXIT with Trump's popularity. He said that people were fed up with globalism and getting involved in foreign wars. That last part is one of the reasons why I was wary about voting for Trump. I was for the war in Afghanistan. While I was against the war in Iraq, thought it should have been executed better. But if those who supported BREXIT and Trump think isolationism is the answer, they're are sadly mistaken.
Its funny how it starts out by people saying we should focus within our borders. But before you know it, that turns into "Well you know if we weren't involved in a certain part of the world, we wouldn't have all these problems."
This is a typical tactic of Farage, to start out with one issue and divert it into another. Farage worked in the City of London and benefited from the 'big bang' in the 1980s which released capital flows and created a new generation of 'financial products' that transformed the way business was being done globally and was thus part of the whole 'globalisation' phenomenon. What Farage resented in both the UK and the EU was state/government intervention in the economy, because he is a 'free market capitalist' who believes markets know better than governments. To campaign for this meant campaigning against the European Union, which is why he joined UKIP -but freely admits to having trousered over a million pounds from the salary and expenses he gets as an elected member of the European Parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
The problem is that 'globalisation' in one form or another has been part of the growth of a world economy since the 14th century shaped by the expansion of empire, the intrepid cross-border adventures of fur trappers in the Americas, the spice trade of south east Asia, the silk merchants of Shanghai and Lyon, the slave ships of the Atlantic and Africa, and so on and so on. When Farage and his new best buddy Trump rail against Globalism or Globalisation are they attacking capitalism? I don't think so.
What they want is economic nationalism, a capitalism that benefits the Americans and the British in their homeland. They can't accept that offshoring and outsourcing were part of the very advances they supported when Reagan and Thatcher were in charge, just as they can't handle the fact that capitalism is not a national project as it doesn't know what an international border is, indeed Trump's own business does not exclusively employ Americans, he is arguing for an economic programme he doesn't believe in or practive, while Farage has collapsed everything into a toxic debate on immigration in which the immigrant is viewed as a burden and a threat rather than a benefit. You begin with the problem of state intervention, and you end with the immigrant as the cause.
Just as UKIP scared the Tory party into the EU Referendum on the one issue that has divided the Tory party since 1973, so Trump has exposed the division in the Republican Party that has opened up since the emergence of the TEA Party but which I believe has its origins in the 1960s but did not become clearer until the Clinton Democrats stole half their policies leaving them with the option of either branching out to embrace the diversity of the American electorate, or retreat into a bunker of white Christian exceptionalism 'defending' the Constitution from its liberal and left-wing traitors.
The Republican Party is in a deep hole, how it deals with the next 10 days, win or lose, will be important, but will it mark the end of something or the beginning? And win or lose, what is it that will end, and what new beast will be born from the ashes of this election?
Brilliant piece that Stavros & very informative. It also happens to be very true.
Jonathan Chait has written an article for the New York magazine (I first came across it in today's Guardian) which argues that if elected, President Trump's domestic policy would look exactly like the policy agenda Paul Ryan and other Conservatives have been developing since 2008 and that is why Ryan has soaked up Trump's mockery, knowing that the President needs Congress and vice versa, and that Trump in reality lacks the ideological vigour that the Conservatives have, and can be bent to the will of the party in Congress. On issue such as tax and health care Trump and the GOP in Congress agree, just as they are hostile to same-sex marriage, abortion and environmental policy. I am not sure I agree with the 1950s as a turning point that saw an encroachment of Conservative thought in a party that was not always entirely comfortable with it, I see the 1960s as the pivotal decade not least because of Johnson's Great Society Programme and the War on Poverty which took the welfare state to levels not seen before, indeed Chait says this of a Trump Presidency -
It is the tantalizing prospect of crippling the welfare state that has lured Republicans into endorsing a president who has threatened to jail his opponent, go after the business interests of news outlets critical of him, and praised dictators in North Korea, Russia, and China for crushing their opposition. They are willing to give Trump control of the military, the Department of Justice, and the domestic-security apparatus as long as Ryan controls the legislative agenda.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ust-begun.html
-The problem is Trump by nature is volatile and difficult if not impossible to manage, and is capable -we assume- of making reckless decisions, not least those which could lose the Republican Party votes in the mid-term elections in 2018. It also assumes a degree of consensus within the GOP in Congress that might not hold if revelations about the links between the party and Russian hackers or some other scandal involving Trump takes shape, or the authoritarian trend Chait sees in contemporary American politics going unchallenged even in the Republican Party.
As with Brexit, it is too early to say what will happen, but it is nevertheless a thought-provoking article.
Trying to predict what a Trump Presidency would look like is like a trip to fantasyland, if fantasyland was uncertain.
As I've mentioned before, if by some miracle Trump pulls this off, you would have a Republican Senate, House, Supreme Court......
EVERYTHING!!!!!
Trump may have fooled Republican voters, but he didn't fool the actual GOP, trust me, they spotted the wolf in their hen house on Day One. He's more dangerous than Rush Limbaugh to their cover story of legitimacy.
Even Trump knows that as President, his only real power would be at State Dinners and Ribbon Cuttings.
As a disgruntled WRONGED John Wayne, he can create his own TV Network, and keep the TRUMP brand on it.
At least Mitt Romney would have gone through the motions,
Briefing a President Trump on real World Affairs would take four years.
"Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others". Churchill
"When you keep telling people lies, they'll eventually believe". Goebbels
On Tuesday we'll find out which of these gentlemen of the last century called it right.
Both statements are wrong, though to be fair to Churchill this is what he actually said:Quote:
Originally Posted by flabbybody
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
-the source: Speech in the House of Commons, 11 November 1947
Donald J. Trump with his alleged links to/sympathy for the Russian leadership may have heard the quote attributed, at second-hand (a claim made in a book written by one of his secretaries), to Stalin-
"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes."
-A sentiment that fits nicely into the 'Democratic Centralism' of the Communist Party!
just trying to capture the essence of two historical figures with totally opposite approaches towards the role of government.
IMO Churchill would be gravely troubled by BREXIT referendum.
Goebbels would admire Trump's raw, emotional know-nothing campaign style.
Is it me or does anyone else think the US and here in the UK; we are hearing more and more hostilities towards Putin and Russia? Almost blaming them for everything (we)don't like? I know Putin is no saint but shit! STAY CLEAR, surely?
We hear on UK TV that Russia keeps "coming-up" in the US elections as Clinton seems intolerant towards them both yet Trump is accused of being a friend?
I'm sorry but reading between the lines...I can't help being concerned!
Russia is no longer a communist country and so antagonism towards them is no longer reflexively right wing (it wasn't always previously either). Much of the antagonism towards them is related to and proportional to how toxic their behavior is. It is a country that does not have free and fair elections. It murders journalists who are hostile towards the regime, sometimes using nuclear material in other western countries. It has been carpet bombing Syria in order to stabilize the Assad regime, which has used toxic nerve gas to murder civilians. I am beyond shocked that there is not more of an outcry against Russia. The defenses and apologetics I see of Putin and Assad on the British left are beyond terrifying; it is the worst case of identity politics gone bad. Is it that somehow defending a despot can be progressive if his country was formerly associated with collectivism?Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
I hear/read right-wing rhetoric like this everyday on the BBC or SKY news & in the UK's far right "dirty" press.
You seem to forget who/which countries provide them with ammunition to commit all their atrocities.
But you people don't mention that!
I know what happens in Russia, that wasn't my point. I was with a native of Russia for 7 years.
Personally; I think we could be heading for WW3 if all this rhetoric far-right nonsense doesn't stop.
I doubt we'll see world war III.
But maybe Cold War II is here now.
A few days ago the BBC broadcast a special episode in a series it produced some time ago called The Conspiracy Files which looks at the way in which Donald Trump has used conspiracy theories to boost his political campaign. (Link to programme below)
The programme looks in succession at the 'Birther' controversy which Trump in 2011 used to build support for what has become his tilt at the White House, including the claim that the Department of Health manager who signed the Hawaii birth certificate was subsequently murdered, both easily debunked. It moves on to the claim that Ted Cruz's father was an associate of Lee Harvey Oswald, looks at the claims around the suicide of Vince Foster, Bill Clinton's affairs, and Hillary Clinton's email server.
At the beginning of the programme, a former adviser to Donald Trump, Roger Stone, states, categorically that History is a set of lies, agreed upon. It is worth remembering as the kind of language that enables anything to be true, or false, so that ultimately there is no truth, only opinion, and whoever 'controls' that opinion in the public sphere controls everything else, just as Julian Assange being interviewed by John Pilger on Russia Today (where else?) claims the election is sewn up for Hillary because
“My analysis is that Trump will not be permitted to win......Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...-a7397211.html
Thus Trump can claim the entire election is a conspiracy, that it is being rigged, without the need for evidence because evidence may be true, and the truth is to be discarded. For if Stone is correct, the fact that incidents took place on the 9th of September 2001 cannot be true, ditto the 7th of December 1941 at Pearl Harbour, because whether you believe 9/11 was an inside job or that the British forewarned the Americans of the Japanese plan to bomb the US fleet, the dates on which the events happened really are not lies, we even have real people who are still alive to confirm it, such as you and me.
One is reminded of the Politician's Prayer: Lord, may my words be always sweet and reasonable, for one day I may need to eat them.
The Conspiracy Files is can be seen here-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgFPOdHOqgc
Farage is unofficially part of the transition team. He'll probably have his own guest bedroom at the White House, opposite Putin's.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...at-trump-tower
Some countries have a 'National Treasure', we appear to have a 'National Asshole'.
This is a man who led UKIP to win most of the UK seats in the European Parliament elections in 2014 sending shivers down the spine of the Tory Party, provoking two Tory MPs to defect to UKIP and Cameron to agree to an EU Referendum after the 2015 Election to steal UKIP's thunder. But in the 2015 election Farage could not get elected to the House of Commons, and claims to be delighted that he will not be standing as a UKIP MEP next time as the UK will not be in the EU -which means losing his annual €96, 240 [$104,482) salary, his €4,243 [$4641] travel allowance, his annual €51,588 [$56,005] office costs and when he leaves his €39,000 [$42,340] 'transition allowance' to help him back into the 'real world'.
Farage believes he is a very important man indeed, a claim undermined by the chronic shambles which is the party he has shaped since 1997 and is characterised by its resignations, its sackings and defections, the vitriolic abuse individuals in UKIP receive from other members, and most recently a punch-up in Brussels worthy of a bottle party rather than a political party. Above all this Farage sails supremely on, totally unwilling to accept that this shambles is anything to do with him, unable to explain how when he resigned the party elected a woman, Dianne James, who gave up after 18 days claiming she had no authority in the party, which I guess is how UKIP works. At a dinner after her election addressed by the Dear Leader, Ms James sat on her own, a forlorn figure.
UKIP was created by Prof. Alan Sked, an academic historian at the London School of Economics in 1993. He was opposed to the UK's membership of the EU but his party at the outset stated
"It is a non-sectarian, non-racist party with no prejudices against foreigners or lawful minorities of any kind. It does not recognise the legitimacy of the European parliament and will send representatives only to the British parliament in Westminster."
Sked goes on to tell how Farage took the party into a different direction, went to the European Parliament, allowed former members of the fascist National Front to become members and party officials, and quotes Farage himself using abusive language- you can read about it in the link below. And just today the leader of the French National Front, Marine le Pen claims you can't put a hair between the politics of her party and UKIP, though unlike the NF I don't think even UKIP has taken money from the Russians...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...steins-monster
Attachment 979034
Trump has tweeted he'd like his best buddy Farage in Washington as ambassador. That would be one way to get him out of London. And giving the new president what he wants would reap obvious dividends for U.K.
Needless to say Farage was 'flattered' by the proposal even though the last time a US President 'intervened' in the domestic politics of the UK by suggsting leaving the UK was not a good idea, Farage with much indignation told President Obama to 'butt out' or words to that effect. From one point of view Farage is set to lose a substantial sum of money when he ceases to be a member of the European Parliament and he must be thinking ahead in financial terms and the sort of job he needs to maintain his standard of living. On another more political level Farage is desperate to be taken seriously even though he has now failed to be elected to the House of Commons on seven attempts. It sounds like he has decided that to win he should mimic the 'Trump' approach, so that when Trump's proposal was quite rightly dismissed by Her Majesty's Government, Farage's response was to go on the attack and describe Parliament as a 'cesspit' which puts its own interests before those of the British people.Quote:
Originally Posted by flabbybody
It is actually not so different from those politicians desperate to bathe in the glow of Mandela, or who in 2008 wanted to be touched by the 'Obama magic' in the hope it would revive their own declining careers -a certain Gordon Brown was one who couldn't wait to feel the burn of Obama's fairy dust. And where he is he now?
Another remarkable week in politics which from this side of the pond makes one wonder what the word 'accountability' means. Some newspapers here -mostly The Guardian and The Independent -have attempted to unravel the timeline with regard to Trump and the Russians, and it does not look good, even if one allows for 'unverifiable' facts.
It is of some interest that it was Republican opponents of Trump -allegedly linked to the Jeb Bush campaign- who initiated the research into Trump and the Russians, in the summer of 2015. They asked Fusion US to look into it, and a year or so later they contacted Christopher Steel, an ex MI6 agent with 20 years of Russian experience. In June 2016 Steele produced a Memo which was sent to the FBI which claimed Trump had agreed with the Russians to change the tone on US-Russian relations, and shortly after that Trump did recognise their 'right' to annex the Crimea, and days later called on the Republican Party to withdraw its pledge to help the government of the Ukraine fight 'rebels' in the east of the country.
On the same day Trump supported Russia's annexation of the Crimea, he publicly invited them to hack Hillary Clinton's emails -indeed, Trump has since conceded that the Russians probably did hack the DNC, a separate issue but an admission of some sort the Russians had targeted the US election with or without his approval.
Throughout the summer the FBI was provided with the increasing volume of information on Trump's links to the Russian government, yet chose instead to focus on Hillary Clinton, climaxing with the declaration by FBI Director Comey that an investigation into her email server was being revived- two days after Rudolph Giuliani had predicted 'We've got a couple of things up our sleeve that should turn things around'.
Trump's reaction, as usual is to attack his critics, dismissing the MI6 agent much respected by people on both sides of the Atlantic working in intelligence as a 'failed spy', refusing to allow CNN to even ask one question at the Press Conference and, in effect, taking the view that he can disregard the press anyway as most of his supporters across the US consider the media to be part of a 'broken America' whom they can simply ignore, much as so far Trump supporters when asked either have not read about the Russian allegations or just don't care.
At some point Trump will be accountable, when and on what issue I don't know. But as was suggested on the BBC-2 Newsnight programme last night, we may be entering a phase in politics when the media is simply ignored by those in power and rendered useless as long as the voters do not react to whatever the press is reporting.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7526901.html
Anyone who saw the photos of Trump holding hands with Theresa May is allowed to wonder how 'special' the 'Special Relationship' could become, not least because Mrs May is the daughter of a Church of England vicar.
In fact, we are now told Trump does have a serious weakness -he can't handle slopes. It is called bathmophobia...
Following their close encounter of the second kind, they went for lunch. But wait, what is this? A starter of
'baby iceberg wedge’ salad with blue cheese...
a)-that sounds like 2/10ths of a Big Mac
b)- in what civilization does anyone eat blue cheese before the main course?
c)- potato puree we feed 2-5 year olds in the UK
d)- a business lunch should be poached salmon with asparagus, heritage carrots and sliced potato dressed with rosemary and lime.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...eld-hands-not/
Donald Trump, button your jacket! Why does Trump present himself, even when he is wearing a coat, with his jacket open? It looks slovenly, or is there a hidden message in the way the eye follows the line of his necktie down to a space a few inches above his crotch? Is that what this is about? Sort of like the cowboy entering the saloon led by his dick?
Here’s fashion designer Vivek Nagrani take Trump’s dress sense
As I observed the inauguration of President Trump and the subsequent news coverage of his new administration, I noticed I was no longer listening to the words coming out of his mouth. Instead I was fixated on his sense of fashion and the manner in which he wears clothing.
Society, driven by millennials, has become far more casual and laid back in terms of social graces and etiquette. This is acceptable in everyday life. But we are discussing the U.S. Presidency.
Decorum, a respect for the office and those who came before should be expected. The President sets the tone for the country and how the world views the United States and Americans. Sure, it is judgmental, but it is a fact of life that rules apply to dressing—and these rules create a dress “code.”
To many, this may appear to be superficial, but allow me to translate what President Trump’s style sense, or lack thereof, says to me.
First, the most obvious, the length of his necktie. According to traditional rules of dress, the tie should not extend past the middle of the belt buckle. For the modern man, the tie should sit slightly above the belt buckle. Like everything else, the rules do not apply to President Trump.
However, what this tells me is that he has no understanding of the basic rules of dress, which contradicts his commentary about “class” and “luxury.” Men who actually understand class, understand that a flapping tie dangling at the crotch is reserved for men who never learned how to tie a tie.
Could it be that President Trump wants to draw the eyes of the ladies to his crotch and away from his midsection? You know, so he can let them know he wants to grab some p****?
The most rational reason for the long tie is to create an optical illusion of a more balanced looking body. The 1980s power suits that President Trump dons are created to give his rather circular torso a more “V” shape.
His tailor is to be congratulated for attempting the impossible. The heavily padded and wide shoulders in the jacket and the free-flowing half waist are intentional so as to balance his small shoulders with his large mid-section.
The longer tie should make his torso look longer. If you don’t believe me, take a look at his golfing pictures and you can see for yourself.
Ironically, President Trump was reportedly offended by his Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s ill-fitting suit worn at his first press conference. This is comical because Trump himself wears distastefully ill-fitting suits. Unfortunately, most American men tend to wear suits that do not really fit properly.
For many it is the idea that comfort “trumps” style, but it doesn’t have to. It is not President Trump’s suit that speaks to me, but rather his lack of understanding of how to actually wear a suit. From what he has told us, he is the son of a rich man, highly educated and sets the bar when it comes to class and sophistication.
But from what I am seeing, it appears that he has a disdain for wearing a suit, almost as though he has to wear it solely to project a false image of power and class. He often claims his apartment is the pinnacle of elegance.
Again, we have a contradiction. Men who understand etiquette, know when you are standing, your jacket is always buttoned. (When wearing a three button jacket, the middle button is always buttoned while standing. With a two button jacket, the top button is always buttoned while standing. These basic rules of dress may not mean much at first, but they are in place for a reason.)
This long-standing rule of buttoning your jacket when standing is a telltale sign that a man pays attention to details. It is also a sign of respect when you meet someone or walk into a room.
A buttoned jacket reflects a more formal posture and signals that you understand the art of dressing. An open jacket tells me you are assuming our meeting is causal and unimportant. When a man buttons his jacket, it naturally makes his suit fit better which makes for a kinder impression when meeting others or entering a room. It exudes an elegant presence and implies an understanding of style.
When he walked into the White House, President Trump’s jacket was wide open and his tie was flapping away. This was a clear sign that either he has no respect for the people greeting him or for the House he was about to occupy.
Or, perhaps he has no sartorial clue, much like his understanding of the world at large.
So how exactly should Trump be dressing? To begin with, he needs to change his entire wardrobe. Then he needs to have a tailor work on the fit of his suit and shorten the front of his jackets to compensate for his slouching posture.
He could have his trousers re-fitted to give him a cleaner, balanced appearance and update his choice of ties by offering a slimmer, shorter and less shiny option. Next he could get a real hair cut.
And finally, Trump could be taught how to actually wear clothes.
Apparently, Trump doesn't like slopes! May be fake news - so sad
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros