A big difference for me is that the previous bad presidents in their warped imaginations thought they were doing good in some bigger scheme. I don’t think Trump is under any such illusions.
Historical ranking of US Presidents is silly, but until Trump 2, people could legitimately say Presidents like Jackson, Pierce, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Nixon, etc. were worse in terms of harm caused. In adding psychopathic war criminal to his attributes, it’s now difficult to argue against Trump.
If I were an Arsenal fan right now, I think I’d go buy some lottery tickets.
I got it in the title but didn’t reference any Chinese meals, succulent or otherwise…: www.europeanpapers.eu/en/system/fi...
There is something rather apocalyptic about Trump 2. But that should hardly be surprising given he’s a narcissist, quickly approaching a reckoning with his own mortality and probably can’t stand the idea of the show going on without him, if he can even conceive of it.
But that argument works on any Ayatollah, Tim.
I think Trump is such a narcissist that he resents weekends for diverting even a little attention away from him, so we’re not allowed those either.
Poster for Usyk v Verhoeven, portraying both as Pharohs and advertising their upcoming boxing match at the Pyramids of Giza
I wonder whether this battle will take place in closer proximity to the pyramids than Napoleon’s did (Napoleon’s Battle of the Pyramids was something of a Ryanair-style geographical exaggeration).
From Martin Van Buren: America’s First Politician by James M. Bradley.
You cannot speak three minutes without violating the rules of grammar, and all your writings are at war with the cannons of criticism. Your literary acquisitions are so few that you can hardly be said to be in a pupillary state. You are ignorant of the first elements of any science. Your range of reading is confined to your law library. You are master of no language—not even the English; and there is nothing creative in your genius—fertile in your invention—profound in your researches sublime in your eloquence—or conclusive in your logic. You can never be a truly wise or great man, until your faculties undergo a decomposition, and your moral sensibilities are remoulded.
DeWitt Clinton’s anonymous 1820 newspaper attack on Martin Van Buren gives off some serious reviewer #2 vibes:
I hope you enjoy your win, Jane meme from Come Dine with me
Matt Goodwin taking bye-election loss well.
Countdown to the Farage argument that the only way to remove the risk of “family voting” from elections is to impose a ban on women voting.
You’d have to have a heart of stone not to feel for Matt Goodwin, a populist who forgot about the popularity bit, and who now will return south without as much as a REF impact case study to show for his efforts.
Or if you would like a meta one:
Been messing around with the Allister Heath headline generator:
I think I agree with this one…
I think I agree with this one…
Evidently, some people can’t stand the heat in the “hottest” country in the world right now.
Together with over 60 law professors we asked @vonderleyen.ec.europa.eu to open an investigation on Peter Mandelson’s exchanges with Jeffrey Epstein at the time the former was EU Trade Commissioner.
As reported by @politico.eu #playbook Full text of the letter: thegoodlobby.eu/wp-content/u...
Sounds more Kerry to me.
The State of the Union, but in a Cork accent: the staaaate of the Union, like.
I agree. I wonder though whether Lowe will provide a certain type of conservative, middle England voter with some cover for voting Reform though, i.e., it allows Farage to paint himself as a traditional conservative keeping the far right (Lowe et al) at bay. Complete nonsense of course.
I’m wondering whether Rupert Lowe will end up being Nigel Farage’s Nigel Farage, dragging Reform ever further right, or whether Lowe’s main role will be making middle England feel comfortable voting for Reform as a relatively sensible and moderate position. Not mutual exclusives, I suppose.
Lyle Lanley from the monorail episode of The Simpsons responding to Barney’s question, “what about us brain-dead slobs?” with “you’ll be given Kushner jobs.”
Trump dispensing patronage to his daughter’s in-laws.
If I’m to be pedantic, I’m not sure he made that argument (he merely pointed out the turkey would be more suitable, which I don’t think is a ridiculous argument, though I also think he was being humorous his letter to his daughter). He was also writing about the Cincinnati of course, not the US.
PPS - having read about the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention again recently, it is a real pity they did not listen to Franklin’s objections to the placing of the executive power in one person. He was undoubtedly correct. /End
PS - Franklin here is writing of the Order of the Cincinnati’s adoption of the bald eagle as a symbol, rather than the United States.
His description of the bald eagle’s character is a pretty apt description of Donald Trump’s. /6
- Benjamin Franklin to Sarah Bache, 26 January 1784
founders.archives.gov/documents/Fr... /5
“Besides he is a rank coward: the little king bird not bigger than a sparrow attacks him boldly and drives him out of the district. He is therefore by no means a proper emblem for the brave and honest Cincinnati of America, who have driven all the king birds from our country, …” /4
“… and takes it from him. With all this injustice, he is never in good case, but like those among men who live by sharping and robbing he is generally poor and often very lousy…” /3
