This is going to be hilarious. Another excerpt: The “mechanics” behind Donald Trump’s hairstyle are illuminated by his daughter Ivanka Trump in a new book. he President’s orange-yellow crown is perhaps his best-recognised physical feature. And according to a new book plumbing the inner workings of his presidency, it was also a target of mockery for his daughter and top aide. Ms Trump “treated her father with a degree of detachment, even irony, going so far as to make fun of his comb-over to others,” Michael Wolff writes in a new book that was excerpted in New York Magazine. As it turns out, its hue may be influenced by Mr Trump’s personality. Per Ms Trump, the colouring product the President uses darkens the longer it stays on. “Impatience resulted in Trump’s orange-blonde hair colour,” Mr Wolff writes in Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House. Establishing the President’s hairstyle is more than just a matter of colour, with Ms Trump reportedly described an elaborate process to friends. Mr Trump starts with “an absolutely clean pate — a contained island after scalp-reduction surgery — surrounded by a furry circle of hair around the sides and front, from which all ends are drawn up to meet in the centre and then swept back and secured by a stiffening spray,” Mr Wolff writes.
Trump trying to get injunction against the book. Cut and paste juicy excerpts wherever you can find them, for posterity. The infamous meeting between a Russian lawyer and Donald Trump’s eldest son and other senior members of his campaign team was “treasonous and unpatriotic”, ousted White House strategist Steve Bannon is reported to have said. Mr Bannon is said to have claimed that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s probe into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election was increasingly focused on possible money laundering. “They’re going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV,” he added, according to details of the book seen by The Guardian. “He had a longtime fear of being poisoned, one reason why he liked to eat at McDonald’s — nobody knew he was coming and the food was safely premade,” writes Mr Wolff. The author claims the President didn’t want White House staff touching anything in his room, “especially not his toothbrush”. “He reprimanded the housekeeping staff for picking up his shirt from the floor,” an excerpt from the book continues, quoting Mr Trump as saying: “If my shirt is on the floor, it’s because I want it on the floor.” Much has been made of the size of the crowd for Mr Trump’s inauguration, with the President’s former spokesman Sean Spicer famously having insisted that the President drew “the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period”. But Mr Wolff’s new book suggests there were other elements of the day that left Mr Trump unsettled. The 20 January ceremony, attended by almost every living former US president, did not have enough A-list stars to please the new commander in chief, the book claims. Mr Trump was also reportedly unsatisfied with his accommodation and argued repeatedly with his wife, Melania. Most polls in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election gave Hillary Clinton the edge. But Mr Wolff’s book claims the Trump team – including the President-to-be himself – were dubious he could win. “Even though the numbers in a few key states had appeared to be changing to Trump’s advantage, neither [Kellyanne] Conway nor Trump himself nor his son-in-law, Jared Kushner — the effective head of the campaign — wavered in their certainty: Their unexpected adventure would soon be over,” Mr Wolff writes. “Not only would Trump not be president, almost everyone in the campaign agreed, he should probably not be.” Michael Flynn was aware Russia speech money would be bad Michael Flynn was aware that accepting Russian money for a speech was “not...a good idea”, the book claims. Mr Trump’s former National Security Adviser allegedly took $45,000 from Moscow and “had been told by friends that it had not been a good idea”. “Well it would only be a problem if we won,’” he is quoted as telling them.
Love the fact he wants to ban the book. Basically he's turned it into an overnight bestseller while also undermining his base by trying to do down the free speech they constantly claim they have the right to use at will against opponents.
Are you trying to say the Alt Right are hypocritical? Surely not! Reminds me of the girl who was recently complaining about the way the male alt-righters treat the female ones, saying she thinks the community should be more inclusive. You're going to associate with a bunch of xenophobes/racists/nazi wannabes AND you expect them to be feminists? Delusional.
"That" book. I'm currently getting to the end of it and I'm looking forward to the final chapter(s) after watching this on Saturday: Although the world's 2nd greatest website posted this: Spoiler: from AGC Blind items Author Michael Wolff made several headline-making accusations about President Donald Trump in his bestselling bombshell book "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House." But now he’s claiming there’s one piece of gossip that wasn’t in his book — that Trump is currently having an affair. "There is something in the book that I was absolutely sure of but it was so incendiary that I just didn’t have the ultimate proof," Wolf explained on Friday’s "Real Time with Bill Maher" about Trump’s alleged indiscretion, later referencing the piece of evidence that exposed former President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky in the ’90s. "I didn’t have the blue dress." Maher, 62, pressed for details, asking, "It’s somebody [Trump is] f—— now?" "It is. And it’s… you just have to read between the lines," Wolff said, adding that the White House has "back doors" that allow visitors to enter without being noticed. "It’s toward the end of the book. You just have to… you’ll know it. Now that I’ve told you, when you hit that paragraph, you’re going to say, ‘Bingo.’ " Nikki Haley; Hope Hicks Now, the book is appallingly written - it was obviously put out in a hurry to either cash in and/or before Trump would throw as many legal obstacles as he possibly at it. Do not be put off though - the juicy bits that have been published are just the tip of the iceberg there's lot and lots still in there mainly the battles between the two teams "controlling" Trump: Bannon and Jared/Ivanka ("Jarvanka"). The main stars of the text though are Jarvanka and, going back to my earliest days of learning "how to read the (scientific) literature*" it does appear that this book is just Spoiler Jarvanka putting out their defence, prior to any investigations of Trump, that they not calculating individuals but really, really thick and were duped. There are quite a few really interesting "tin-foil hatty" throw-away comments that stick-out for example: Spoiler - why does Farage need a team of New York lawyers? - how does this organisation survive, where does the money come from? - he just pops up out of nowhere extremely rich. I do recommend this book - I saw it in Costco yesterday for £9.99 - well worth it. *What's actually been said/shown, who's written it and why have they actually written it.
Bannon was an investment banker at Goldman Sachs, he then founded his own investment bank which was eventually bought out by SocGen. After that he became a Hollywood executive producer, I think he even owns a stake in the show Seinfeld He hardly popped up rich out of nowhere
@IRB: Perhaps I should have added to quantifier “extremely” to the adjective “rich”. I’m not being a pedantic nit-picker but as I’m soon to be entering my 6th decade I’m worried about going “ga-ga” and part of my job is to remember much of the stuff (mostly cobblers) I have to read - I went back to Wolff’s book last night: He was a mid-level anonymous employee focussing, during his final two years, on the LA media industry. Jon Corzine the politico and former Goldman Sachs chief has always claimed he was unaware of Bannon until he “popped up” in team Trump. The “bank” was more a financial advisory form to the entertainment industry, or as Wolff pithily describes it as a “hustler’s shell company” which raised small amounts of money for a few independent film projects – none of which were a hit. Connie Bruck’s excellent New Yorker profile of Bannon’s Hollywood period says: He was such a “big shot” that no one in the Hollywood establishment had ever heard of him (seeing a theme here?) until he appeared in team Trump. The vast majority of his productions were ultra-conservative films such as a divine take on the life and work of Reagan (I **** you not) and Celsius 41.11 a, much-needed. “response” to Michael Moore’s film(s). This is a really odd and convoluted story. No-one in team Seinfeld (principles, creators or producers) claims to have ever heard of him till he was suddenly in team Trump (again). But the anti-Semitic pile of $hyte does appear to get a slice of the show’s residual profits (which the very Jewish team Seinfeld view with a mix of disgust and irony). Bruck wrote: Bannon also has a history of attaching himself to projects (Biosphere2, Breitbart) that are funded by extremely wealthy (of dubious provenance) right-wing loonies that have ended in extremely messy legal battles – sound familiar?
A bit too "Spitting Imagey*" to be truly great - but it's good to see Colbert getting back into political satire. *As in fantastic puppets/cartoons, really good impressions but a very "meh" script.
My dad was a teacher. I reckon he would have been more tempted to shoot the students than try to save them
It is a quite staggering proposal, given the levels of threat that the British Police deal with unarmed. How can Americans not see that when professionals, whose main concern should be teaching geography, need to be armed that the whole gun culture is wrong? And yet plenty of Americans will agree with Trump. Madness.
I just spoke with my dad. He was a physics teacher. He knows how to make explosives and had a stash of radioactive material for teaching purposes. He was never tempted (he claims!) despite teaching some absolute sh1ts. In all seriousness, there are a lot of pressures on teachers and arming them is not going to end well. They are people too and are as just as likely to crack as any other group.
It’s worth bringing out the classics. Bill Hicks here on UK vs US gun culture. Sadly this was more than 25 years ago and little has changed.
The, wonderful, Jordan Klepper has been looking at gun use in the US for quite a while (I really suggest tracking down his "Jordan Klepper Solves Guns"). I was expecting his show last night (for the UK) to be at its biting best, but he was a little subdued: Two of the kids who were representing the High School survivors (#NeverAgain) were very, very good: John Oliver was pretty indignant about it (sorry no 'fishal clip warning NSFW language):
Things feel a little different over here this time. These students aren't lying down, they're getting political about it. Considering how plugged into social media the younger generations are, expect to see today's American kids become very politically active voters in tomorrow's America. Something definitely kicked into life after this latest shooting and I don't see it going back to sleep again. Once the Boomers start to die off in droves, the US is going to evolve, and probably quite rapidly.
I'd arm all the kids You might lose a couple but any looney planning to shoot up a school is going to get f***** up and tea bagged by a mob of expert computer gamers
Scumbag Trump lays the blame on school officer without any enquiry and thus deflecting from the real problem - an absurd and selfish surfeit of weapons. It may well be concluded that the officer did not do the right thing, but there is due process. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43174069 But Trump is happy to call him a coward already. Of course what is well known is that Trump dodged the draft endlessly during Vietnam, not through objection to the war I hasten to add. I wouldn't blame him for dodging a pointless and cruel war, but then I'm not for calling other people cowards until I've at least walked in their shoes. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/donald-trump-dodged-the-draft-5-times
Did I actually see Rubio commiting the political equivalent of hari kari turning up at that Townhall.
The officer was almost certainly a coward - the quite damning testimony of the Sheriff who suspended him without pay should put that to rest (and bear in mind that same Sheriff has said he believes teachers shouldn't be armed in schools), but Trump is a hypocrite as you rightly noted.
It's one of those situations where none of us for sure can say how we would react. Of course he is a trained professional and should have responded. But even in the US, no policeman would expect to be in such a position in their career and it would not surprise me if he froze. He will have to live with the results of his inaction for the rest of his life. I think it will be despicable if Trump, the NRA etc blame him for the tragedy to deflect from the real reasons.
Yes, none of us know how we would react, but we're not trained police officers. Unlike random members of the public, he signed up for this and has received training for this kind of situation. If he froze that only proves he shied away from his duty. There's no point sugar coating it. There's realistically no defence for a trained police officer to have not attempted to help those kids. The Sheriff (who honestly seems like a pretty standup guy, unlike the tosser in my area) did not mince words about it at all. It is indeed nothing more than a distraction from the real and obvious root cause, but there's really no defence for his lack of intervention and none has been offered by the police. Considering the "Blue Wall" mentality in the US, that speaks volumes by itself. But it does serve to (further) prove how much gibberish the "good guy with a gun" line is, as if there was any doubt left. There was an armed, trained police officer on site and how much good did it do? There's too much than can go wrong. So what next....tanks on school grounds? Tactical nukes? Those'd put the b'stard(s) down once and for all...
Totally agree. I'm sure the officer in question would not offer up a defence of his action. Whether it was his instinct or insufficient training that let him and those kids down is yet to be determined. But I don't think it was a conscious decision and, as such, I don't think making him the scapegoat is helpful to anyone other than those trying to divert the debate from the real reasons. It does, as you say, comprehensively debunk the idea that more guns on campus in the hands the"good guys" is the answer.
Unfortunately it's also being used to feed the reverse narrative of 'we need guns because we can't trust the government to prevent it or intervene'.
Could it get any more bizarre? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...gun-stop-shooter-broward-deputy-a8229536.html
Yep, clearly the man who ran from serving in the military would run into a firefight unarmed. I believe that wholeheartedly.
Remember, everyone: guns don't kill people, but video games do! http://fortune.com/2018/03/08/trump-video-game-violence-panel-attendees-grossman-bozell/ All hail the latest scapegoat!
Putting the video game apologia aside, even the most ardent shoot ‘em upper would be hard pressed to kill without access to a firearm.
Interesting that the day after Rex Tillerson stepped out of sync with the White House, and named Russia as responsible for the nerve gas attack in this country where Trump wouldn't, he's been binned.
