Donald Trump 2020

[Brisketexan 107,033]

3 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

first response is usually the best response

 

He is functionally the guy touting his weight gain program ("I added 15% to my body mass in weeks!").....after ending a brutal chemo regimen that saw him lose 1/3 of his weight.  He's so, so, so, SO fucking stupid.  And his base is just as fucking stupid, so it works.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,478]

25 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/28/is-president-donald-trump-a-flight-risk-433313?cid=apn

 

 

 

 

  Hide contents

Personality and longstanding habits are key factors in assessing a subject’s likely future behavior and choices. Even the most casual observer knows that Donald Trump is heavily invested in his self-image as a successful businessman and wheeler-dealer. He takes pride in flouting norms, finding loopholes and playing fast and loose with laws and the truth. If his private financial house of cards is put on harsh public display in high-stakes government and state-level litigation, the aura of celebrity and success that Trump has cultivated for decades is not likely to survive intact. There is nothing in this president’s demeanor, past or present, to suggest that he has the fortitude or integrity to face auditors, prosecutors, or anyone else who challenges him, particularly if the outcome is likely to involve public humiliation and loss of assets, prestige and power. The option of salvaging what he can by relocating to a jurisdiction beyond the reach of U.S. laws would not be a stretch for someone who has long been openly disdainful of our tax and legal systems.

While it is rare among leaders of developed democracies, during the past 50 years we’ve seen a number of high-profile flights by national leaders facing major legal, political or societal problems at home, These include Bolivian president Evo Morales, who fled to Mexico just last year; Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych, who fled to Russia in 2014; and Ferdinand Marcos from the Philippines in 1986. All three fled in the wake of contentious elections, either after being ousted by voters or toppled by sustained protests. At the moment nothing suggests that Trump faces the unlikely prospect of being chased out of the country. But it’s no stretch to point out the parallel, either: They were all unorthodox strongman leaders who abused their offices, and simply didn’t see a way to stay comfortably in their countries once they’d lost power.

In the U.S., Trump might be familiar with some of the high-rolling financial fraudsters who decamped from the U.S. as the law was closing in. Among the most notorious was Robert Vesco, who successfully evaded justice by fleeing in a corporate jet in 1973 and remained out of reach until his death decades later. Less fortunate were Richard Allen Stanford, 2009, and Martin Frankel, 1999. Both tried to escape the U.S. by leasing private jets. Stanford was captured before he could finalize arrangements; Frankel made it as far as Germany but was later extradited to the U.S. for a long jail term.

If Trump were to lose the election and opt to slip away, where, when, and how might such a scenario play out? The “where” is straightforward: His most logical move would be to negotiate asylum somewhere from which extradition would be difficult. Doing so would allow him to temporarily escape U.S. jurisdiction and law, although he would also become in essence a hostage, a gilded trophy of sorts. After first fleeing to Costa Rica in 1973, Vesco made his home in Antigua, Nicaragua and Cuba, whose governments were not inclined to cooperate with U.S. authorities. And Edward Snowden, the disgruntled Booz Allen contractor turned whistleblower, has been living in Russia, under the protection (and eye) of the Putin regime, after fleeing the U.S. in 2013 with a treasure trove of classified information.

When and how Trump might exit the country are slightly more complex questions. If Trump is decisively trounced next week, one subset of possibilities emerges; if his defeat is a narrow one, another subset arises.

If Trump loses badly, it is conceivable he could plan a stealth departure sometime during the 11-week period before Inauguration Day, while he still has the protection of legal immunity as a sitting president. Leaving U.S. airspace before he resumes the status of private citizen at noon on January 20 would allow him to escape—or at least delay—dealing face-to-face with many creditors and lawsuits. Classic indicators of preparation for such a move would include fast sales of domestic properties and investments, and a quiet amassing of wealth offshore, out of reach of U.S. authorities. Trump’s family members and trusted corporate staff would likely be heavily involved in orchestrating the relocation.

A chilling alternative, however fanciful, could arise if Trump flees abroad after losing a close, viciously contested election. Hunkered down in a foreign country willing to provide sanctuary, he could conceivably style himself a “president in exile” and incite his die-hard American followers to resist the election results. A degree of domestic upheaval and dangerous division would linger for an extended period until the new administration is able to foster calm and unity.

How might this happen? What methods might a sitting U.S. president use to leave the country on a one-way journey? The choice could be as brazen as not reboarding Air Force One while out of the country at a conference or summit. Cases abound of athletes and artists escaping repressive regimes by refusing to reboard official aircraft and instead negotiating asylum. While on U.S. shores, Trump could find a creative way to slip his Secret Service detail and fly away in a friend’s private jet or foreign aircraft. Sailing away into international waters would also be a plausible option. In 2019, fugitive U.S. computer-security software magnate John McAfee used his yacht to elude the IRS and Securities and Exchange Commission for months until he was arrested in Spain on October 6, 2020. Steve Bannon made news last August when the Coast Guard arrested him while on a foreign yacht off Connecticut.

If all this sounds like a B-grade spy novel, it should. The flight of a U.S. president would be unprecedented, unsettling and profoundly disappointing. As a minimum, a presidential defection would temporarily absorb the resources and attention of a wide range of U.S. defense, intelligence and law enforcement agencies. In more than two centuries of peaceful transfers of presidential power, nothing remotely conceivable like it has ever happened.

I fervently hope we won’t face such a disturbing turn of events. But if there is anything to learn with this president, it is to expect the unexpected. As his unabashed admiration of authoritarian world leaders has shown us these past four chaotic years, Donald Trump values autocrats over democratic government, and places his self-interest well above the sacred trust he was elected to protect and uphold four years ago.

 

The biggest tell that dotard plans to pull a runner is if he starts paying attention and actively participating in the daily intelligence meetings.  "I want a list of every secret agent we have on the payroll by COB." should raise a few alarms.

Thankfully we have SEALs and CIA wet teams to handle this kind of thing.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,910]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

He is functionally the guy touting his weight gain program ("I added 15% to my body mass in weeks!").....after ending a brutal chemo regimen that saw him lose 1/3 of his weight.  He's so, so, so, SO fucking stupid.  And his base is just as fucking stupid, so it works.

I recommend a slow gorging process...

[Serak The Preparer 3,484]

51 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No. And this is a tangent but it’s important.

 

That 9 million dollars is called an externality. It’s the cost of a private transaction borne by those who aren’t a party to the exchange of value. Socialized, in other words. 
The reason why the greatest environmental disasters in history have occurred under either socialist regimes is that if the everyone has equity in everything there’s no such thing as externalities cost. but I digress. 
The point here is that owning the means of production includes incurring the full cost. If the legal regime permits large scale externalized cost or artificial price caps are imposed (as in med mal caps) that’s not capitalism, period. It’s either socialism or kleptocracy. 
 

 

Wait wut? I agree that this is important but I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I <think> you are saying that the greatest environmental disasters have occurred under socialist regimes? What disasters are you thinking of? I mean, there's a lot, but is Bhopal greater than Love Canal? Chernobyl? Easter Island?

And what socialist regime has ever existed that actually had everyone with equity in everything? How are you determine socialism vs capitalism given that no pure socialist or capitalist market has ever existed?

I totally agree that owning means of production should incur full cost, but has that literally ever occurred? 

[triplehorn 2,664]

25 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

There are going to be way too many people who are going to call for 'unity' and 'healing' and who will want to put this dark chapter behind us and 'help move the country forward'.

Fuck that.

They need to start hauling these assholes up in front of the Senate - and then they need to start bringing charges.  They need to make the Benghazi hearing look tame by comparison.  Every single one of these assholes need to be held accountable for the corruption and the human rights abuses.

They need to make an example of Barr so that no future AG gets the idea that he can act as the president's personal attorney.

If it’s true that Biden intends to serve only one term if he wins, might as well wield some high level justice.  Otherwise the same cockroaches absolutely will survive to unleash the same fuckery all over again.  

[4th&Five 42,026]

Lock Him Up!

 

[triplehorn 2,664]

23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If you push the costs of an activity of a few onto the society of a whole.....that's squarely within the definition of socialism.  You are literally socializing costs.

If you let a private enterprise impose those costs on society, and keep the profits they made/money they saved by imposing those costs on the public, that's kleptocracy.

When you then apply it to the Trump GOP model, and you realize that they have managed to create a perfect toxic stew of socialized costs, kleptocratic gains, and fascist systems of order to keep that train going, well, you oughta puke.

Take it a step further -Trump tariffs choked American farmers and shifted the market supply for China from US to...take a guess...then heaped taxpayer dollars on said farmers for emergency relief as certain foreign locales profited from American farmers’ loss.

It’s the kind of thing you might expect if a foreign power is propping up a third of a billion of your personal debt.

Edited October 29, 2020 by triplehorn

[Brisketexan 107,033]

5 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

Wait wut? I agree that this is important but I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I <think> you are saying that the greatest environmental disasters have occurred under socialist regimes? What disasters are you thinking of? I mean, there's a lot, but is Bhopal greater than Love Canal? Chernobyl? Easter Island?

And what socialist regime has ever existed that actually had everyone with equity in everything? How are you determine socialism vs capitalism given that no pure socialist or capitalist market has ever existed?

I totally agree that owning means of production should incur full cost, but has that literally ever occurred? 

Dude, maybe we're showing our age, but the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union revealed some jaw-dropping disasters -- the type that a klepto-communist and repressive regime commit.  Here's a summary article I grabbed with a few seconds of Google time:  

https://www.robedwards.com/2010/12/the-soviet-environmental-disasters-that-could-come-to-haunt-us.html

A system that is (purportedly) answerable to "everyone" is actually answerable to no one.  And when everything is socialized -- both profits and costs -- things go to their extreme.  Layer on a repressive state that crushes any dissent or complaint from the people (complaint about actions of the regime is disloyalty, and you are a traitor to the country -- some time in a gulag might do you some good), and that's exactly how it happens.  Treating dissenting press coverage as "the enemy of the people" is a hallmark of such regimes.

[Brisketexan 107,033]

8 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Lock Him Up!

 

It's really just good old fashioned crooked kleptocracy shit.  The kind of stuff we used to make fun of other countries for -- leaders surrounding themselves with family members as "government officials," the family treating the government as a "family business," deciding that family, friends, etc. who gave them personal benefit would be "winners" under governmental policies/spending, and those disloyal would be "losers."

We look at Afghanistan, burdened by a system weighed down with tribalism, family loyalties, and graft/retribution driven by same, and think "backwards-ass goat herders."  Look around.  Our crooked goat herders wear red MAGA hats instead of a Peshawari cap, but that's about where the difference ends.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

It's really just good old fashioned crooked kleptocracy shit.  The kind of stuff we used to make fun of other countries for -- leaders surrounding themselves with family members as "government officials," the family treating the government as a "family business," deciding that family, friends, etc. who gave them personal benefit would be "winners" under governmental policies/spending, and those disloyal would be "losers."

We look at Afghanistan, burdened by a system weighed down with tribalism, family loyalties, and graft/retribution driven by same, and think "backwards-ass goat herders."  Look around.  Our crooked goat herders wear red MAGA hats instead of a Peshawari cap, but that's about where the difference ends.

I've called out Pompeo a lot in his specific thread for exactly that reason--I noticed trends in his actions, his family, his behaviors towards others who questioned him (the NPR interview), and so on. Combining that with knowing his background, his career, and who funded his political endeavors and you could see a very dangerous, traitorous pattern. He truly believes that he is above the rule of law. And we don't know HALF THE SHIT HE'S PROFITED FROM OVERSEAS.

[TexasEd 8,269]

NSIAP

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/watch-sarah-cooper-and-helen-mirren-recreate-trumps-access-hollywood-tape?jwsource=cl

 

[Serak The Preparer 3,484]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Dude, maybe we're showing our age, but the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union revealed some jaw-dropping disasters -- the type that a klepto-communist and repressive regime commit.  Here's a summary article I grabbed with a few seconds of Google time:  

https://www.robedwards.com/2010/12/the-soviet-environmental-disasters-that-could-come-to-haunt-us.html

A system that is (purportedly) answerable to "everyone" is actually answerable to no one.  And when everything is socialized -- both profits and costs -- things go to their extreme.  Layer on a repressive state that crushes any dissent or complaint from the people (complaint about actions of the regime is disloyalty, and you are a traitor to the country -- some time in a gulag might do you some good), and that's exactly how it happens.  Treating dissenting press coverage as "the enemy of the people" is a hallmark of such regimes.

I agree, but I am not sure what the point is. I'm a Man (/Gundy) so I am well familiar with the collapse of the Soviet Union. I am also familiar with the environment disasters in the US from mining, manufacturing, etc. No country / economy has EVER been good at capturing external cost. Now with EPA and other regulations, the US is closer to some degree, but I don't think socialism vs capitalism has anything to do with environmental disasters. 

This is not intended as a defense of capitalism or socialism, but it seemed like @Bozo_Casanova was implying that one was better than the other (in terms of capturing cost / economic disasters, not necessarily overall). If that is the case, I would again just try to understand what is meant by capitalism vs socialism, when every economy in the world is essentially a mix of the two. 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

lol

 

[Brisketexan 107,033]

3 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

I agree, but I am not sure what the point is. I'm a Man (/Gundy) so I am well familiar with the collapse of the Soviet Union. I am also familiar with the environment disasters in the US from mining, manufacturing, etc. No country / economy has EVER been good at capturing external cost. Now with EPA and other regulations, the US is closer to some degree, but I don't think socialism vs capitalism has anything to do with environmental disasters. 

This is not intended as a defense of capitalism or socialism, but it seemed like @Bozo_Casanova was implying that one was better than the other (in terms of capturing cost / economic disasters, not necessarily overall). If that is the case, I would again just try to understand what is meant by capitalism vs socialism, when every economy in the world is essentially a mix of the two. 

The bolded is the important part.  And the key is to not look at checks on socializing costs -- things like regulations, and the ability to restrain such actions/obtain damages for harm caused in the courts -- as "socialism."  They are literally the OPPOSITE of socializing costs.  Regulations that prohibit you from adding to your bottom line by just dumping your waste right into the river are not socialist -- they are necessary for a functioning capitalist system, where profits and costs are focused on the individual earning/incurring them.  Yes, regulations -- just like any other tool of government -- can be abused to create socialist/kleptocratic outcomes (see regulations that primarily support rent-seeking, providing artificial advantages to one (favored) competitor over another).

A pure communist/socialist approach will always do a poor job of preventing localized/individual malfeasance causing social costs.  It's the nature of the system.  But a capitalist system of economics, under a system of government that acknowledges both individual rights/responsibilities and protects the interests of the community from individualism run amok (again, the old saw of "your right to swing your fist ends at my face"), can do much better.  It's far from perfect.  AND, that system can be co-opted by those in power and their cronies as easily as any other system can.  That's why functioning democratic institutions and checks on power are really, really, REALLY important.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,910]

1 minute ago, Serak The Preparer said:

Wait wut? I agree that this is important but I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I <think> you are saying that the greatest environmental disasters have occurred under socialist regimes? What disasters are you thinking of? I mean, there's a lot, but is Bhopal greater than Love Canal? Chernobyl? Easter Island?

And what socialist regime has ever existed that actually had everyone with equity in everything? How are you determine socialism vs capitalism given that no pure socialist or capitalist market has ever existed?

I totally agree that owning means of production should incur full cost, but has that literally ever occurred? 

Yeah, that's related to the point. There's no such thing as either. And capitalism isn't really a "system" in the same way as socialism is. I was responding to an earlier comment that described rent seeking through manipulation of the law and regulation as capitalism. It's not. It's just a hustle, and those are universal to any system. 

And as for the greatest disaster, there are many, and what most have in common are some kind of public public subsidy (not that public subsidy is inherently bad), either at the front end, or the back end, or both. Take the current trend of man made climate change, which is a kind of superdisaster that contains a multitude. The industries driving that change are directly and indirectly subsidized by the public in thousands of ways. We benefit in some ways from the subsidy, but the people who sit at the points of exchange are profiting from a heavy public subsidy in addition to the private profits gained through their own private risk

[jimmyjazz 47,332]

Totes norms:

 

[TwiceHorn 32,108]

8 hours ago, C-Man said:

Jim Schutze is a bad ass. Former longtime columnist at the Dallas Observer and has now slid over to D Magazine.

Well, that is one answer to what do we do with the morons.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Well, that is one answer to what do we do with the morons.

Do you have anyone you'd like to reserve a seat for on Mrs. Whiggins' Patriot Bus Trump Rally Site Tours of the Upper Midwest this winter? Seats are going fast! Don't delay!

[Michael Knight 13,239]

imagine being this stupid 

 

 

[Red Five 41,787]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Totes norms:

 

Holy shit. 

[High Plains Drifter 11,194]

1 hour ago, Mdhorn said:

Well, like many others, Benghazi was a Trumped up claim whereas these are real crimes.  

 

And that point needs to be made over and over and over and over

 

 

[Gatorubet 30,789]

 

[Pig Bellmont 8,888]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Totes norms:

 

Stick with me, he’s still on the dementia kick. He doesn’t mean literally shot, but after 3 weeks on the job that he can’t mentally handle it, so the cabinet invokes the 25th Amendment. 

[jimmyjazz 47,332]

10 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Stick with me, he’s still on the dementia kick. He doesn’t mean literally shot, but after 3 weeks on the job that he can’t mentally handle it, so the cabinet invokes the 25th Amendment. 

That's surely what he meant, but if you think his base doesn't include a bunch of whack jobs that thought "assassinated", you're be wrong.

[triplehorn 2,664]

13 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Holy shit. 

It’s not unreasonable to estimate the risk as ‘high’ right now.  In case you missed it, a potential OKC type bombing may have been foiled in Philly in the dead of night this morning.  Considering  PA is seen as THE pivotal state by Trump, throwing the state election into chaos could be used as an opportunity for god knows what to steal it.  It’s a target rich environment for the incited.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

18 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Stick with me, he’s still on the dementia kick. He doesn’t mean literally shot, but after 3 weeks on the job that he can’t mentally handle it, so the cabinet invokes the 25th Amendment. 

 

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That's surely what he meant, but if you think his base doesn't include a bunch of whack jobs that thought "assassinated", you're be wrong.

He doesn't care either way does he? It's all about getting what he wants, never mind the body counts.

[TexasEd 8,269]

10 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

By definition--conservative.  

Have a friend that was a corporate attorney, oftentimes defending these types of corporations.  If the fine was less less than the gain, that was the cost of doing business.  If I do something bad and make 12 million dollars but only have to pay a 3 million dollar fine, then it was worth the fine and is worth repeating.  That is pure capitalism. Now imagine that this involves your water, air, and food and 12 million is pocket change.  But hey, their investors made a lot of money so it justifies the damage, right?      

and the executives get bonuses for the large profits recognized in one accounting period but the shareholders and creditors take the hit when the fine is recognized.

 

[wildcat09 29,601]

16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That's surely what he meant, but if you think his base doesn't include a bunch of whack jobs that thought "assassinated", you're be wrong.

What exactly makes you believe this?

[Hiphopopotamos 21,192]

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

Lock Him Up!

 

Good lets charge that entire family of grifters.  We need to get back every damn dime these assholes stole from taxpayers.

[Degenerate Gardner 4,160]

52 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Totes norms:

 

And here I thought I was plum out of Holy Fucks

[Red Five 41,787]

After listening again, I don't think he meant shot as in assassinated. 

But it's Trump so who knows. 

[TexEx15 17,959]

Just now, Red Five said:

After listening again, I don't think he meant shot as in assassinated. 

But it's Trump so who knows. 

Definitely not Trump

[High Plains Drifter 11,194]

45 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

lol

 

 

Better explanation:

 

If I have a million apples, and someone eats 30 percent of them, I now have 700,000 apples. 1,000,000 - (.30 x 1,000,0000) = 700,000.

If I then pick 35% more apples, I now have 945,000 apples 700,000 + (.35 x 700,000) = 945,000

I am still 55,000 short of where I started. That is an overall 5.5% decline of where we started with 1,000,000 apples. (945,000-1,000,000)/1,000,000 = -.055 = 5.5% net loss.

 

edit: nevermind, people are lazy and stupid (present company excluded of course), math is hard. No way that fits on a tweet.

 

[DigDug 1,738]

13 minutes ago, Red Five said:

After listening again, I don't think he meant shot as in assassinated. 

But it's Trump so who knows. 

He meant as in ‘this engine is shot’

...but the thing is I would not doubt for a second that his handlers have been feeding him that line knowing that his dumb ass would say it, and that in turn would dog whistle his nut base.  
 

They did the same thing against Hillary saying the 2A crowd should stop her before she appointed anyone to the SC.

[WhatTheBuck 28,941]

3 hours ago, Bookman said:

I have a theory that Trump focused on dishwashers because it’s one of the few things he actually understands.

I doubt that Trump has ever operated a dishwasher or could operate one if he tried. 

[shakahorn 1,660]

2 hours ago, Your Mom said:

“and they kept singing YMCA.”

Of course they did. This right here validates my vote. Any group of people that sings YMCA public gatherings is not a group of people I need to be aligned with.

I know, right? The lead singer for YMCA is a gay Black man, and the rest of the band is largely, if not entirely, gay, not to mention a couple minorities sprinkled in here and there. People who champion that kind of diversity are not the folks I want to be aligned with.

[Born to Run 6,601]

I have a theory that Trump focused on dishwashers because it’s one of the few things he actually understands.

Except he fucked that up too. Some people, myself included, think low water use Washing machines are less effective. He's to stupid to know the difference and fucked up that too.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,637]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

lol

 

I can't read the name "Vanky" without hearing Mojo Nixon's voice adding "aaall ranky".

[lemonlime 5,503]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Stick with me, he’s still on the dementia kick. He doesn’t mean literally shot, but after 3 weeks on the job that he can’t mentally handle it, so the cabinet invokes the 25th Amendment. 

If someone cannot communicate clearly enough so that it makes it seem he's  calling on assassination of the next president, well then he shouldn't have that microphone.  I'm done trying to parse out what trump means.  He spews vile shit and word salad every time he opens his gob.  His intent in one particular sentence is meaningless.

[Your Mom 4,982]

5 minutes ago, shakahorn said:

I know, right? The lead singer for YMCA is a gay Black man, and the rest of the band is largely, if not entirely, gay, not to mention a couple minorities sprinkled in here and there. People who champion that kind of diversity are not the folks I want to be aligned with.

That’s a weird comment.  I got no beef with the village people or the actual song.  i’ve just been a part of and exposed to those hokey animated renditions of it by old white people at weddings too many times.  It stopped being fun in the the early 90s at the lastest. 

[Thatguy 9,452]

1 hour ago, Michael Knight said:

imagine being this stupid 

 

 

Or you know, your takes are simply unpopular because you are a fucking idiot.

[Thatguy 9,452]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Totes norms:

 

[jimmyjazz 47,332]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

What exactly makes you believe this?

Well, I won't go so far as to say he didn't intend the double meaning, but he said "Joe's shot" right after a comment about 25A.

[Born to Run 6,601]

That’s a weird comment.  I got no beef with the village people or the actual song.  i’ve just been a part of and exposed to those hokey animated renditions of it by old white people at weddings too many times.  It stopped being fun in the the early 90s at the lastest. 

This
I literally will dip outside until that shit is over at every wedding. I can tolerate plenty of other hokey honkey shit. But not that

[SameSame 1,752]

17 minutes ago, shakahorn said:

I know, right? The lead singer for YMCA is a gay Black man, and the rest of the band is largely, if not entirely, gay, not to mention a couple minorities sprinkled in here and there. People who champion that kind of diversity are not the folks I want to be aligned with.

Oh yeah, that’s why they were singing it because of the diversity angle.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Hmm...can’t understand why YMCA is popular with the Trumpers.  What does YMCA stand for anyway? 

[Eskimohorn 5,682]

Hmm...can’t understand why YMCA is popular with the Trumpers.  What does YMCA stand for anyway? 

Per wikipedia

Taken at face value, the song's lyrics extol the virtues of the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA). However, in gay culture from which the Village People stemmed, the song was implicitly understood as celebrating YMCA's reputation as a popular cruising and hookup spot, particularly for the younger men to whom it was addressed.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,108]

25 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

Per wikipedia
 

yeah, if you didn't know that's what the song was about, then you dumb

[Neonmoon 38,130]

YMCA became popular because gay guys used to meet up and fuck each in the locker rooms. 

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, Thatguy said:

Trump knows that Secret Service protection, while adequate and very professionally dedicated, is nowhere near as robust after you leave office...right?  You've already put their colleagues in harm's way with Covid-19 parades.  Now you're inviting people to come make an attempt on the life on the next President.  They're the utmost professionals on Planet Earth, but it's not a good idea to start your post-presidency detail on such an asshole-note. Don't matter none anyhow...you're dead from natural causes in the next couple years anyway.  Enjoy the ride Commander Dipshit.  

We've lost 8 Presidents in office.  8 out of 45.  And not once, no matter how fractured the nation was...did anyone every celebrate publicly the death of one of our Presidents.  It ranged from shock to full-on mourning.  I promise you, you will be the first and only President in American history to have his death celebrated by tens of millions of people nationwide, hundreds of millions worldwide.  That's an amazing feat.  None that could be accomplished by anyone but you.  The albatross you are tying around the neck of your children and grandchildren will haunt them like so many demons.  

There are no more Bohrmanns.  No more Stalins.  No more Pots.  Because their families did the honorable thing...changed their names, went into hiding, or took their own lives.  What an amazing legacy you left them.  You are truly a leader of the highest caliber.