rgmwa

The New York Times did a detailed analysis of Trump's speeches and concluded that the strategy he uses to convince his followers that he is their savior is pretty formulaic and predictable. It boils down to: · He grossly distorts his opponents’ records and proposals to make them sound unreasonable. · He exaggerates and twists the facts to make his record sound better than it is. · He relies on both well-worn and fresh claims of election rigging to suggest he can lose only if his opponents cheat. · He has turned his criminal cases into a rallying cry, baselessly asserting that he is being persecuted by his successor. · He makes unverifiable claims about what the world would have been like had he secured a second term. · He describes the United States as a nation in ruins. The article gave examples of each, but that's what it boils down to. It's astounding that his followers can't see how he cons them.

It's called an Unaffordamobile.

I have done that many times, even when intending to back it only a short distance.

Sounds totally credible for a Trump endorsed bible. He has no interest in reading the rules.

I don't suppose it tells the time by any chance?

I think you’ve hit the Goldilocks spot.

If the technique is that impressive we should all have a look.

If he did he'd be selling two covers for $59.95. Mind you, it comes with some patriotic additions at no extra cost. What is the USA Bible? Besides a King James Version translation, it includes copies of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Pledge of Allegiance, as well as a handwritten chorus of the famous Greenwood song.

A scam merchant for sale to the highest bidder.

I’m amazed the appeals court dropped the bond to $175m when he’s been bragging recently that he’s got about $500m in his back pocket. No wonder they call him Teflon Don. To make matters worse they won’t be hearing the case until September and then it could take between one and six months for them to announce their decision.

I'm sure I could do that if I was her size.

Try this one:

Maybe. The president can nominate someone to be the army chief of staff, but the appointment has to be ratified by the Senate, so it may not be that easy to get his Yes Man in depending on who controls the Senate. I would assume that any order to use troops on home soil would need to go through the C.O.S.

That would probably lead to the army commanders refusing to carry out his illegal orders.

Nothing new there. If they were serious, the war would have started decades ago. You also need to be organised and disciplined to fight a large scale war across the country, and the rabble isn’t.