💼 Careercow Donald J Trump - 45th/47th President of the USA, convicted felon, Epstein bro, Putin/Netanyahu simp, serial liar, sore loser, cheat and the Chris-Chan of Presidents. Lost a war to Iran and algae. THIS IS NOT USPG2.

Destacado
Mayhem dijo:
Can anyone who knows anything about suiting and tailoring comment on Trump's suits? I've only ever read that they are ill-tailored for someone with his amount of money - jackets too large, baggy pants, tie left too long to dangle over the waist of his pants. He also only ever wears those plain red satin/silk ties that look cheap. It's obviously a distinctive look but he always looks the same and, for someone who is so vain in lots of other ways, he seems to take no pride in how he dresses. In that close-up pic, his suit looks...not great. Not particularly sharp for someone who is supposedly a billionaire.
Presiona para expandir...

I don't clearly remember the details but it's pretty much a series of choices dealing with his insecurities. Making him seem taller, thinner, etc.

Some articles:

 
ForTheHoard dijo:
They wanted it codified because of how flimsy the court ruling was. They didn't want it overturned, but they knew it eventually would. And by "liberals," I'm talking about RBG.
Presiona para expandir...
That's because they knew eventually the court would be stacked by the Heritage Foundation, so it'd be fully of bible thumpers. Hence why birth control is happening next
 
Norwegian Trailer Trash dijo:
I don't clearly remember the details but it's pretty much a series of choices dealing with his insecurities. Making him seem taller, thinner, etc.

Some articles:

Presiona para expandir...

Also those baggy suits were popular in the 80s-early 2000s which were the best years of his life so it's not surprising he never adopted modern fit suits, he doesn't really have the body for them either. Giorgio Armani still makes a line of suits in that cut for people who refuse to give them up.
 
Mayhem dijo:
Can anyone who knows anything about suiting and tailoring comment on Trump's suits? I've only ever read that they are ill-tailored for someone with his amount of money - jackets too large, baggy pants, tie left too long to dangle over the waist of his pants. He also only ever wears those plain red satin/silk ties that look cheap. It's obviously a distinctive look but he always looks the same and, for someone who is so vain in lots of other ways, he seems to take no pride in how he dresses. In that close-up pic, his suit looks...not great. Not particularly sharp for someone who is supposedly a billionaire.

From my understanding, George W. Bush always wore a suit in the Oval and it was an unofficial rule that any staffer who came into the Oval had to be dressed in formal business wear. Obama was much less fussy and often came in on the weekends in a sweater and jeans or slacks; I remember he caught some slack from the GOP about that, something about him not taking the office seriously or whatever. This was when they would throw conniptions over whether or not a Democrat wore a flag pin. Halcyon days those were.
Presiona para expandir...
There's a menswear guy (dieworkwear) on Twitter that's done a few threads on Trump's tailoring.

I'm too lazy to go through the entire search of his mentions because Twitter has such an awful search, but I did find these threads.

Basically, he's trying to hide his obesity.
IMG_7229.jpeg

IMG_7230.jpeg
IMG_7231.jpeg

IMG_7232.jpeg
IMG_7233.jpeg
IMG_7234.jpeg
IMG_7235.jpeg
IMG_7236.jpeg
IMG_7237.jpeg
IMG_7238.jpeg
IMG_7239.jpeg
IMG_7240.jpeg
IMG_7241.jpeg
 
Hollywood Hulk Hogan dijo:
That's because they knew eventually the court would be stacked by the Heritage Foundation, so it'd be fully of bible thumpers. Hence why birth control is happening next
Presiona para expandir...
That's true, but it's also true that RBG was extremely critical of the legal reasoning behind RvW. Enumerating abortion into the Bill of Rights was risky because a congressional congress can swing both way, so the best method of protecting abortion long term was to codify it into federal law through the legislature. The reason this wasn't done in the first place was because abortion wasn't popular enough to make it through the legislature until at least the 1990s.

For the last 20ish years, it has been popular enough, and Democrats have had at least a few opportunities in that time to push it through without Republicans being able to stop it. That never happened. RvW being overturned is due to Donald Trump's actions as much as it was due to Nancy Pelosi's inaction. People can speculate all they want as to why she didn't do it (fundraising and re-election promises) but here we are with what most pro-abortion groups would consider the 3rd worst outcome. The 1st being a total federal ban, and the 2nd being a partial federal ban.

Now, it's going to be significantly harder to change the current position on the issue because it's rooted in an enumerated right, the 10th amendment. They only way out of that is increasing the number of justices (the pre-Trump definition of "court packing") and filling all the seats with sympathetic judges, or wait until the court naturally shifts back to the left over the coming 30-40 years.

I'm pro abortion, which is a huge reason why i think democrats that run on abortion are either retarded or incompetent at championing their causes. They can fundraise like nobody's business, though.
 
There's a guy on Twitter who claims to be a behavioral therapist who worked at Barron Trump's school as a kid. He claims little Barron was killing small animals, molesting classmates, tried stabbing a classmate and was a psycho piece of crap. He has photos from his time working with the class (including of him and Barron) but obviously those are some pretty huge claims that we should take with a grain of salt without more evidence. Although Barron was a spoiled little brat according to sources, so it's possible.

ForTheHoard dijo:
That's true, but it's also true that RBG was extremely critical of the legal reasoning behind RvW. Enumerating abortion into the Bill of Rights was risky because a congressional congress can swing both way, so the best method of protecting abortion long term was to codify it into federal law through the legislature. The reason this wasn't done in the first place was because abortion wasn't popular enough to make it through the legislature until at least the 1990s.

For the last 20ish years, it has been popular enough, and Democrats have had at least a few opportunities in that time to push it through without Republicans being able to stop it. That never happened. RvW being overturned is due to Donald Trump's actions as much as it was due to Nancy Pelosi's inaction. People can speculate all they want as to why she didn't do it (fundraising and re-election promises) but here we are with what most pro-abortion groups would consider the 3rd worst outcome. The 1st being a total federal ban, and the 2nd being a partial federal ban.

Now, it's going to be significantly harder to change the current position on the issue because it's rooted in an enumerated right, the 10th amendment. They only way out of that is increasing the number of justices (the pre-Trump definition of "court packing") and filling all the seats with sympathetic judges, or wait until the court naturally shifts back to the left over the coming 30-40 years.

I'm pro abortion, which is a huge reason why i think democrats that run on abortion are either retarded or incompetent at championing their causes. They can fundraise like nobody's business, though.
Presiona para expandir...
It doesn't really matter, they were going to overturn it no matter what. Heritage Foundation stacked the court so that it would get overturned. It could've been as sound as possible and the bible thumping retards would've overturned it.

Democrats running on abortion are pretty smart considering how popular being pro-choice is.
 
ForTheHoard dijo:
I'm pro abortion, which is a huge reason why i think democrats that run on abortion are either retarded or incompetent at championing their causes. They can fundraise like nobody's business, though.
Presiona para expandir...
once RvW was over turned, abortion was such a big deal that even deep red states voted to add it to their constitutions. it's a good to tack it to the democrats' campaign. Trump gloating on how he "killed" RvW is fuckin' stupid, and it only going to do more harm to him.
 
Hollywood Hulk Hogan dijo:
There's a guy on Twitter who claims to be a behavioral therapist who worked at Barron Trump's school as a kid. He claims little Barron was killing small animals, molesting classmates, tried stabbing a classmate and was a psycho piece of crap. He has photos from his time working with the class (including of him and Barron) but obviously those are some pretty huge claims that we should take with a grain of salt without more evidence. Although Barron was a spoiled little brat according to sources, so it's possible.
Presiona para expandir...
Barron is generally believed to be autistic. Trump has only admitted it a handful of times; I think he blames vaccines for it rather than his old ass swimmers. One of the reasons why Melania was reluctant to move into the White House supposedly had to do with Barron’s specialized education (the other being the rumor that she was openly fucking the head of security at the Tiffany’s on Fifth Avenue next to Trump Tower).
 
Derka Derka dijo:
Ver archivo adjunto 6340624
Presiona para expandir...
If anything, this is going to go the same road as how Hillary fared in 2016 when bernie endorsed her.

Everyone's being all "OMG!!!! HILLARY IS GOING TO GET 95 PERCENT OF BERNIE'S VOTERS!!!"...
only for it to turn out the polling was complete shit because it only counts the "head to head" match up poll where people were forced to vote between hillary or bernie.
Turns out, in the election, there were many factors in play, such as Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Write in candidate or just NOT VOTING.

When you factor all of those together, Hillary only got less than 50 percent of bernie's voters.

I think it's going to be the same here. Trump would barely get 50 to 60 percent of Kennedy's voters, and the rest would just not vote alltogether.

Which means the bump will be negligible.
 
The Shalamaladingdong twist regarding abortion is that there is an assumption that people who are pro-life are in favor of abortion being banned. People can be personally pro-life but don’t think an abortion ban is something that should be prioritized. It’s how it fails to get a majority of votes when put out for the public to vote on in even deep red states.
 
Duke-Diggler dijo:
If anything, this is going to go the same road as how Hillary fared in 2016 when bernie endorsed her.

Everyone's being all "OMG!!!! HILLARY IS GOING TO GET 95 PERCENT OF BERNIE'S VOTERS!!!"...
only for it to turn out the polling was complete shit because it only counts the "head to head" match up poll where people were forced to vote between hillary or bernie.
Turns out, in the election, there were many factors in play, such as Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Write in candidate or just NOT VOTING.

When you factor all of those together, Hillary only got less than 50 percent of bernie's voters.

I think it's going to be the same here. Trump would barely get 50 to 60 percent of Kennedy's voters, and the rest would just not vote alltogether.

Which means the bump will be negligible.
Presiona para expandir...
RFK is only pulling out of the battleground states, and that small advantage may be enough to get Trump over the line.
I hope he becomes the HHS secretary
(In his speech ... “120 years ago, when somebody was obese, they were sent to the circus.”)

1724462523597.png
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo