Odds Fox/Trump spin on boos contain the word “swamp”?
It wont be just a spin. He will in his mind convince himslef this proves he is on the right track and the elitist leftist swamps booing proves it. But in that moment he knew the truth.
I can’t imagine the hell that will rain on whoever he blames.
And half of all marriages end in divorce. I think Trolly gets the checkmate there
His fate would have to be Qaddafi-esque, and since that sort of fate looks to be far, far less likely than numerous other fates I ascribe ~zero probability to, I’m not worried about ever having to be distraught about what happens to Trump.
Watch this Lis’, you can actually pinpoint when his heart rips in half…annnnd now.
2 Likes
Boooo, wrong episode.
There was a moment before the election that I could have felt a bit of sympathy for Trump. The guy who ghost-wrote Art of the Deal (Schwartz?) wrote an article about shadowing Trump, including his attempts to fit into upper crust NY society, then running down to Palm Beach trying to fit in there. After a dinner party where Trump spent the entire time lie-bragging about his wealth, etc… he went back to his office the next day and asked the writer “Why don’t they like me?” [My recollection; I hope I haven’t mangled the facts too much.]
If he had lost the election I could have felt sorry for him as the product of his environment–a monster created by his monster of a father. How can he be expected to show empathy when it was never shown to him? But that possibility flew when he decided to embrace his inhumanity, to multiply it, to stoke the latent inhumanity in so many of his followers, and to make it public policy.
3 Likes
Sweet, Kay Granger used to buy drinks for underage friends of her children.
*source:me
Hans Moleman getting cut from the clip is a shame.
Still relevant tho
1 Like
I went down that rabbithole for a bit. The problem was, one of two things had to be true; either Knox was guilty, or the entire Italian justice system was unfathomably corrupt and incompetent. There were several pieces of forensic evidence, including DNA evidence, where the answer has to be that the state fabricated them. To be clear, I don’t think she’s guilty (it’s that the Italian justice system is unfathomably corrupt and incompetent) but I did for a while.
According to CBS affiliate WUSA, the Lerner family, who are the principal owners of the Nationals, requested to Major League Baseball to not be put in a position to where they would have to respond to any requests for Trump to sit with them during the game.
My (limited) recollection is that the DNA evidence was largely DNA evidence from someone who lived in a place, as would be expected. However, we don’t need to go down that rabbit hole. Like the majority of observers not in the thrall of british tabloids, it seemed to me that for every piece of evidence against her, there appeared to be more plausible explanation that rendered the evidence neutral or favorable.
Oh I know that my quote is from the valentine’s days episode where Lisa gave Ralph a pity card causing him to gain a crush while Boo-Urns is from the one where they try and boost tourism with a film festival featuring a crossover from The Critic. But I felt my reference is perfectly cromulent.
4 Likes
As an example of the sort of thing I’m talking about, there was a kitchen knife taken from Sollecito’s apartment and tested for DNA. The prosecution claimed that Knox’s DNA was found on the handle and Kercher’s DNA on the blade; the prosecution’s expert witness perjured herself to this effect on the stand. Later the judge ordered the Polizia Scientifica to turn over the report on this testing and they turned over a falsified report. Years later, at the second trial, independent experts released a damning report on the procedures used by the Polizia Scientifica and independent testing revealed no DNA of any kind on the blade.
If you’re wondering how they knew which knife to take from Sollecito’s apartment, here’s Sollecito’s account of how this went down:
“When Finzi came across a drawer full of kitchen knives, he called Chiacchiera over immediately. He pulled out the first knife that came to hand, a large chopping knife with an eight inch blade.
“Will this knife do?” Finzi asked Chiacchiera.
"Yes, yes, it’s great,” came the answer
Finzi testified that he selected the knife based on thinking it matched the wounds. At the time the knife was taken, he hadn’t seen the wounds. In other words, it seems pretty clear the prosecution intended all along to make up forensic evidence.
It’s easy to dismiss one thing like that, but when there’s a whole aggregate of evidence, you’re left with the choice between a guilty defendant or a completely corrupt system in which people fabricate forensics on the reg.