kcar wrote: 
AND I BET YOU'RE NOT JUST TALKING HANDS!  

 R_P wrote: 



For those who must see the ad in all its glory, here 'tis. Apparently the wonderful late Phil Hartman of SNL fame does a cameo—I think about 4-5 seconds in: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz7GRRvwCso

This version has much worse quality video but it does have the "proceeds donated to charity" add-on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdY31mDsBmU

I chuckled at this bit from the Post article:

"From 1987 to 1991, Trump gave away $1.9 million of his money through the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

He gave $101,000 to veterans, according to a Post analysis of tax records from that time. 

He gave $26,000 to the homeless.

He gave $12, 450 to AIDS charities. 

He gave $4,250 to multiple-sclerosis research. 

The amount for those categories was $143,700 or nearly 8 percent of the total. 

Much of the rest went to charities tied to Trump's life: society galas, his high school, a foundation for indigent real estate brokers. The School of American Ballet, where Ivanka Trump studied from 1989 to 1991, got $16,750. 

A private school that educated Trump's son Eric got $40,000—more than the homeless and AIDS contributions combined."


The piece also reminds readers that at the beginning of Trump's campaign, Trump claimed that he'd donated $102 over the previous five years. Those donations large took the form of land-use agreements and free rounds of golf at Trump-owned courses. 

The more you learn about this man, the smaller he becomes.  

Trump promised millions to charity. We found less than $10,000 over 7 years. - The Washington Post

(...) These promises seemed designed to reassure potential customers and voters and to reconcile two sides of Trump’s public persona. On one hand, Trump said he had so much money that he didn’t need more. But on the other hand, he was always selling something.

The explanation was that the money Trump was making wasn’t for him to keep.

“I am acting as an agent for charities,” Trump said in 1989 at the unveiling of Trump: The Game. In news accounts, he estimated the board game alone would bring in $20 million for charity.

Milton Bradley, which made the game, saw the need for such a promise firsthand. After the company released the game — a Monopoly-like board game with Trump branding — it didn’t sell.

“The game was just nailed to the shelf,” said George DiTomassi, who was president of Milton Bradley at the time. One problem, he said, was that customers were not told about Trump’s pledge to give proceeds to charity. “They felt perhaps this was going to be something that a millionaire would make some money on,” DiTomassi said.

The TV commercial for the product was changed. “Mr. Trump’s proceeds from Trump: The Game will be donated to charity,” a new voice-over said at the end.

It still didn’t work. The game tanked.

Still, Trump said he made $880,000 from it, and even more from “The Art of the Deal.” In 1987, the mogul started the Donald J. Trump Foundation to donate his royalties.

But the proceeds didn’t go straight to charity. They went straight into Trump’s bank account.

“Are you asking me whether or not I took the check . . . and endorsed it over to a charity?” Trump said on the witness stand in a 1991 New York state court case, brought by a man who accused him of stealing the idea for Trump: The Game. “Who would ever do that?”

Trump said he did eventually pass money to his foundation, which gave it away to charities. He said he had given away even more than he had earned.

But when Trump ran into financial troubles in the middle of 1990, records show that his giving to the foundation slowed — then stopped. In 1991, he gave no money to the foundation. If book and game royalties came in that year, Trump apparently found another use for them. (...)

Trump’s Bid to Become Born-Again Fails as Jesus Turns Down Friend Request

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—The billionaire Donald J. Trump’s bid to become a born-again Christian failed over the weekend after Jesus Christ turned down his friend request, campaign officials have acknowledged.

Jesus, who has not generally been active on Facebook, made a rare appearance on the social network on Monday to announce His decision to ignore the presumptive Republican nominee’s request for a personal relationship with Him.

In a brief post, Jesus offered the following explanation: “Just everything.”

The turndown from Jesus Christ, the inspiration behind one of the world’s most prominent religions, caps what has been a tough month for the Trump campaign.

Privately, campaign staffers fretted that the candidate would pen a disparaging tweet about Jesus, which might alienate evangelical voters in key battleground states.

But, at a rally in Pennsylvania, Trump made no reference to Jesus, and instead touted endorsements he had received from Gary Busey, Jean-Claude Van Damme, and Joe (the Plumber) Wurzelbacher.

 ScottN wrote: 
There's also this well-known thread.

 ScottN wrote: 
Despite pointed attempts.

 DaveInVA wrote: 
CWP-never thread-jacked.  In fact, seldom even has words!

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
And counting with pictures.

 aflanigan wrote: 
Then there's that 260k posts in one thread thing.

 Beaker wrote: 
The Cryptic Posts topic, of course!

I sense a shift in topic subject matter

Mangled Apricot Hellbeast

Toupee'd F"(ktrumpet

Cheeto-faced Ferret Wearing $#itgibbon

Cheeto Jesus
Not even sure if Zissy the topic originator is around to rename it.

 kurtster wrote: 
I think that the people at the bottom will be hurt the worst when the full effects of Brexit take hold, but the impact won't be felt for years. 

I would like to see some evidence that the "the insanity of the uncontrolled migration" has had a net negative impact on the UK's economy. These two pages

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6399/economics/impact-of-immigration-on-uk-economy/

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/eu-immigration-hasnt-hurt-jobs-or-wages-heres-why/

seem to indicate that immigration to the UK has not hurt the economy or overall wages. Immigration tends to help grow economies because immigrants pay for goods and services and increase aggregate demand. 

This link 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2684410/Rogue-bosses-exploiting-cheap-foreign-workers-face-prosecution-MILLION-years-damning-Home-Office-report-finds.html

seems to indicate that migration to the UK has hurt the wages of low-paid workers in certain areas of the kingdom.

 

Back to Trump: I think we've been 'round and 'round on this point. If a person has been placed in a socio-economic box and feels ignored by the mainstream political parties, voting for someone like Trump isn't a very constructive or self-beneficial way of expressing anger or frustration. I think it's obvious now that Trump's unreadiness to be President extends even to his campaign. He clearly has not thought through the effects of building The Wall or putting into place similarly restrictive but more attempts to stop immigration into the US. 

 islander wrote: 
Who got hurt today ?  Those on the bottom didn't.  Those on the top did though.  Trillions of units of currency were lost.  Not really though, it just changed hands.  Can't have a seller without a buyer, right ?  On the other hand, I made a couple hundred on some coins sitting around based only upon their intrinsic worth.  

Those on the bottom had a day to celebrate in the UK.  It would appear that someone has finally put the brakes on in the face of the insanity of the uncontrolled migration.  The uncontrolled migrants quarm resources from those already there on the bottom dependent on these resources.  The pie is only so big.  The elites on the top have no reservations about extending their generosity at someone else's expense.  They don't chip in any more, they get away with just diluting the services that accompany their generosity.

Its more than just that of course, but I'm going to have to say that you are out of touch with life at the bottom and cannot comprehend what it is all about.  I am the bottom, one flavor of it anyway.  When one is within $1k over per year for qualifying for medicaid, you are at the bottom, you are legally impoverished.  We may see a lot of the same things, but what we are thinking about these things as we look at them are way different.  I'm in no way unhappy that you have done well in your life, just saying that the day to day concerns are very different depending on one's financial situation.  

Its about priorities.  Your priorities change as you situations improve.  When you are at the bottom, you can basically affect nothing in your life.  You are confined, perpetually, to live within those confines, resource restraints or upper income limits.  Here's your box, now deal with it and don't cause any trouble or we'll fuck with you.  I'll say fine, tell me what the rules are and I'll figure it out.  But don't change the rules or only apply them to some and not all.  To lose that is the ultimate loss.  Its when you have nothing left to lose.  And then have to deal with the reasons and causes of this societal infidelity without a way to object or someone to object to, is when you say enough.  But if you can buy a bigger box or move to another box somewhere else, you are less affected and less aware of what's happening in the places you never see.  Oh you can see it and you can even visit it for a while.  But unless you're living it, its very hard to understand.

Ah, but we all had our salad days, right ?  If that's one's only connection, its so far in the rear view mirror as to be meaningless in the scope of understanding the feelings and emotions involved today.  The markets can go to hell and those invested in them get screwed, but as long as my keys open my own door, the lights go on when I hit the switch, there's food in the grocery store and gas at the pumps, then I have lost nothing.  We see the same things, but they affect us much differently here on the bottom.  If my vote pisses off someone, then they can just shoot me.  I'm voting with thought not anger, and to the best of my ability to get what I want within the rules of the game.

peace, out ... 

 kcar wrote: 
BlueHeronDruid's friend: "Cheeto-faced ferret-wearing shitgibbon." 

 Beaker wrote: 
I move that we allow all the people whose tweets were in the article to immigrate here as voting American citizens. 

“Toupéd fucktrumpet” is pretty damn good, but this one takes the gold: 
 

 R_P wrote: 
That New York Times piece by Mike McIntire (the last link in your post) is well worth reading. That Trump SoHo condo/hotel project was a collision of bad (BAD) economic timing, fraudulent claims about pre-opening sales, a serious lack of research into the past of his new partners and this head-slapper: 

"The economics of the investment were largely untested in New York real estate. To get around residential zoning restrictions, owners of Trump SoHo units were allowed to live in them only 120 days a year. The rest of the time, the units would be rented as hotel rooms, with the owners sharing in the revenue."


That's right: pay top dollar to live in a Trump building for less than 1/3 of the year, and then let strangers stay in your place for 240+ days. Oh, and you have to share that rent money with Trump.
 

But hey, it appears that stupidity isn't limited to psychopathic blowhard narcissists: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/24/the-british-are-frantically-googling-what-the-eu-is-hours-after-voting-to-leave-it/?tid=pm_pop_b

"That confusion over what Brexit might mean for the country's economy appears to have been reflected across the United Kingdom on Thursday. Google reported sharp upticks in searches not only related to the ballot measure but also about basic questions concerning the implications of the vote. At about 1 a.m. Eastern time, about eight hours after the polls closed, Google reported that searches for "what happens if we leave the EU" had more than tripled. "
 

Prankster Lee Nelson hijacks Trump's Turnberry opening with swastika golf balls

"These are the new balls available from the clubhouse as part of the new Trump Turnberry range. I forgot to hand them out before"