Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

President Trump’s best tweet to date

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • President Trump’s best tweet to date

    https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonal...62077842640898
    “President Obama is a personal friend of mine,” said Rickles. “He was over to the house yesterday, but the mop broke.”


    It's early!!!


    Be the kind of person that when your feet hit the floor each morning liberals say "Oh crap he's up"

  • #2
    Meh. I guess I’d appreciate these jabs much more if his own skin wasn’t as thin as a wet Kleenex.

    Comment


    • #3
      Responding to all attacks as a general rule to protect one's brand is not the same as having thin skin, although they can look the same.

      Trump is actually surprisingly resilient. There is not a single elected Republican that could have withstood the onslaught of the last three years without buckling under.

      Comment


      • #4
        In Trademark law, you have to actively police your brand or you lose your trademark. Companies that do this often get accused of having thin skin - like when Starbucks goes after some little tiny no-name company selling a "frappucino" beer - when in actuality it's required of them.

        Trump is his own brand, and he protects himself like a Trademark. His opponents call him thin-skinned because they want to turn his strength (policing his brand) into a weakness. They know it's not true, but also that others will believe it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by KingOlerud View Post
          In Trademark law, you have to actively police your brand or you lose your trademark. Companies that do this often get accused of having thin skin - like when Starbucks goes after some little tiny no-name company selling a "frappucino" beer - when in actuality it's required of them.

          Trump is his own brand, and he protects himself like a Trademark. His opponents call him thin-skinned because they want to turn his strength (policing his brand) into a weakness. They know it's not true, but also that others will believe it.
          For one I’m not sure poking fun at someone’s idiosyncrasies is the same as selling a product by wholly ripping off someone's else brand. A bit of a stretch as I see it.

          But regardless, perhaps it illustrates a conflict of interest in terms of having a business tycoon in the Oval Office. Sure, Starbucks has the obligation to protect its brand from imitators. So does Businessman Trump. But President Trump doesn't get to use the the FEC to investigate SNL because... brands. I seriously doubt and object to that. Something -- perhaps the spirit of Constitution -- tells me that reigning in abuse of executive power is a greater moral imperative than protecting brand integrity. Someone who even dares to put the former before the latter is, yes, thin skinned and ought not to be taken seriously.
          Last edited by defender; 04-05-2019, 10:49 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by defender View Post

            For one I’m not sure poking fun at someone’s idiosyncrasies is the same as selling a product by wholly ripping off someone's else brand. A bit of a stretch as I see it.

            But regardless, perhaps it illustrates a conflict of interest in terms of having a business tycoon in the Oval Office. Sure, Starbucks has the obligation to protect its brand from imitators. So does Businessman Trump. But President Trump doesn't get to use the the FEC to investigate SNL because... brands. I seriously doubt and object to that. Something -- perhaps the spirit of Constitution -- tells me that reigning in abuse of executive power is a greater moral imperative than protecting brand integrity. Someone who even dares to put the former before the latter is, yes, thin skinned and ought not to be taken seriously.
            THIS!!!!!
            COME BY THE SCHOOL a year from now you"ll wish you started today

            "they all think they’re geniuses who just happen to agree with each other. This creates a near total blindness to facts, data, and opinions that don’t line up with their worldview"


            (Originally posted by Attorney General Barr)
            "it also does not exonerate him"
            ​​​
            Semper Fortis......De Oppresso Liber

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by defender View Post

              For one I’m not sure poking fun at someone’s idiosyncrasies is the same as selling a product by wholly ripping off someone's else brand. A bit of a stretch as I see it.

              But regardless, perhaps it illustrates a conflict of interest in terms of having a business tycoon in the Oval Office. Sure, Starbucks has the obligation to protect its brand from imitators. So does Businessman Trump. But President Trump doesn't get to use the the FEC to investigate SNL because... brands. I seriously doubt and object to that. Something -- perhaps the spirit of Constitution -- tells me that reigning in abuse of executive power is a greater moral imperative than protecting brand integrity. Someone who even dares to put the former before the latter is, yes, thin skinned and ought not to be taken seriously.
              Eh. He'll be taken seriously enough to be reelected. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, the Democrats get the equivalent of billions in unaccountable free campaign contributions from the media and late night "comedy".

              Maybe it does need to be "looked at". Or at least people need to be made aware of it.

              Have you similarly complained about the Democrat Congress taking the single news organization that isn't the full 100% up their ass and calling them before a tribunal to make them justify their editorial decisions? Because that's apparently happening.

              Just wondering like.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by KingOlerud View Post

                Eh. He'll be taken seriously enough to be reelected. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, the Democrats get the equivalent of billions in unaccountable free campaign contributions from the media and late night "comedy".

                Maybe it does need to be "looked at". Or at least people need to be made aware of it.

                Have you similarly complained about the Democrat Congress taking the single news organization that isn't the full 100% up their ass and calling them before a tribunal to make them justify their editorial decisions? Because that's apparently happening.

                Just wondering like.
                When said "news" organization has so many of its people openly campaigning for a candidate, appearing at his rallies, and serving as unofficial advisors, then yeh, a question or two from congress might be in order.
                COME BY THE SCHOOL a year from now you"ll wish you started today

                "they all think they’re geniuses who just happen to agree with each other. This creates a near total blindness to facts, data, and opinions that don’t line up with their worldview"


                (Originally posted by Attorney General Barr)
                "it also does not exonerate him"
                ​​​
                Semper Fortis......De Oppresso Liber

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by KingOlerud View Post

                  Eh. He'll be taken seriously enough to be reelected. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, the Democrats get the equivalent of billions in unaccountable free campaign contributions from the media and late night "comedy".

                  Maybe it does need to be "looked at". Or at least people need to be made aware of it.

                  Have you similarly complained about the Democrat Congress taking the single news organization that isn't the full 100% up their ass and calling them before a tribunal to make them justify their editorial decisions? Because that's apparently happening.

                  Just wondering like.
                  Is this a real thing? I honestly have no idea.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ors/ar-BBV1RC5

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yeah. This is bad.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        a Fox executive said that the story was stopped because it was not journalistically sound,
                        ....that should (and must be?) the first and last word regarding this investigation. The presence of Hannity, et al at Trump campaign rallies should raise questions about THEIR bias, objectivity and agenda, but editorial decisions of FOX executives being questioned by Congress is NOT good.
                        Last edited by Jersey Shore; 04-05-2019, 07:39 PM.
                        COME BY THE SCHOOL a year from now you"ll wish you started today

                        "they all think they’re geniuses who just happen to agree with each other. This creates a near total blindness to facts, data, and opinions that don’t line up with their worldview"


                        (Originally posted by Attorney General Barr)
                        "it also does not exonerate him"
                        ​​​
                        Semper Fortis......De Oppresso Liber

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X