Me too, Linus. Me too.

@skutfarcus :

Ivanka Trump has been ordered to testify in her father's civil fraud trial, a judge ruled on Friday. She was once a party in the lawsuit, but a NY appeals court dismissed her, ruling the claims against her were barred by state statute of limitations. Of course, her lawyers can appeal so she doesn't have to testify. But she won't turn on dearest Daddy, will she?

Keeping it classy.It Appears a Scandal Involving Melania Trump Dipping Into Her Husband's PAC Is About to Blow Up
www.politicalflare.c om/2023/10/it-appear s-scandal-involving- melania-trump-d
With Donald Trump running for president for a third time, more and more people are focusing on his Save America Political Action Committee. Their biggest concern? How the committee's funds are being spent. Folks have already noticed one pricey line item that doesn't really have to do with Trump. This time it involves former first lady, Melania Trump.

 

According to SheKnows, the PAC's 2022 financial filing showed eight payments ranging from $6,000 to $18,000 to hairstylist Hervé Pierre Braillard for "strategy consulting." All that "consulting" totaled $132,000, Fox News Digital reported.

 

Friends, that's one heck of a lot of money for shampoo. And it looks to be a violation of Federal Election Commission regulations. The FEC "does not allow candidate committees, which are formed to raise money for a specific candidate, to spend money on personal items, including clothing," USAToday reports. And no matter how special Donald and Melania Trump think they are, they aren't exempt from these rules. And frankly, that so-called "strategy consulting" sounds like the couple is trying to avoid paying Pierre out of their pockets. A bit grifty, don't you think?

 

This isn't the first time Pierre has been in hot water for receiving huge sums of money from Trump's PAC. In August 2020, he defended his work for Melania (which came with a hefty $60,000 payment) to WWD. "As with every other first lady, there is an after-the-White House life, which involves many other aspects than fashion. I am lucky to have worked in prestigious houses, to have designed [costumed] for ballets, and more recently to work in home decor. There are many upcoming projects in this after-the-White House [stage].

Trump so orange in latest photo we need someone to hold up a color calibration board by his face so we can get to the bottom of this
boingboing.net/2023/ 10/28/trump-so-orang e-in-latest-photo-we -need-someone-h

After another unpleasant day at one of his myriad of trials, former president Donald Trump emerged looking tired and orangey-so much so that it has led to a new appreciation of just how much makeup he seems to be wearing: he looks like "a Tupperware container after you microwave spaghetti and meat sauce in it," writes a commenter at Reddit. The photo going viral is by Jeenah Moon and went out on the Reuters wire. Above, I've clipped an extremely small portion of the photograph and blurred it to illustrate the hue that Trump now attains.

 

I sample the orangiest parts of this image to match 7579-C, but the general value of it all is a little paler, close to Dark Cheddar in the Pantone Matching System.

 

But here's the thing: the lighting and environment of the shot mean we don't really have an accurate sampling.

 

While he's certainly made up to an unsightly degree, his is a narcissism found in and bound by mirrors. Like the hair, the makeup is designed to look right to him under specific conditions when he sees himself, and he likely has no ability to appreciate or understand that it looks different under others. You could explain color rendering indexes to him, say, and he might have an idea of what you're getting at, but the knowledge dissolves under the sight of himself in the mirror, looking Right.

 

In other words, we don't really know what color his coating is, because the "popular" photos tend to be taken under lighting that makes it particularly horrid. And we must admit that photographers may be crafting their shots cleverly. You can't photoshop it, ethically, but you can dial-in the white balance with an outcome in mind.

 

The only solution is for someone to hold up a color calibration card by Trump's face next time he runs into a huddle of photogs. It's the only way to be sure.

Don Jr. and Eric Trump Were Nicknamed 'Choad' and 'Stank' in High School and the Names Still Fit
www.politicalflare.c om/2023/10/don-jr-an d-eric-trump-were-ni cknamed-choad-a
We are sort of grappling with this here.

 

To be sure, high school nicknames need not make any sense at all. Indeed some of us had nicknames that were simply variations of our last name, and some were a bit more colorful, but we all had them. Some of the worst come from notorious incidents that burned into people's brains so intensely that is akin to branding a steer.

 

And then there are some with a root that is fairly easy to discern. Don Jr. was "Stank" according to Tim McKay. Well, we don't need a course in linguistics to get what happened here. Obviously, we weren't "there," and it sounds like we all out to be thankful for that. McKay provides no explanation but there are rumors - just rumors, we cannot confirm, nor do we even want to - that Don Jr. used to have a severe drinking problem. It is almost understandable given his father's "parenting" style.

 

Things happen when you're so drunk you're passed out on a couch, or so we're told.

 

"Stank." Okay? But again, we're guessing here. We suspect it's a solid, final answer.

 

As for Eric, his nickname was perfect but takes a bit of an explanation. He was "Choad," which makes absolutely no sense to 98% of the population and can't be tied to anything of everyday usage, just like Eric. It would seem they had him pegged early. He got the name by … well, being a ****, according to a profile by Frank Runyeon:

 

During a school hockey game, Eric and other Hill boys were razzing their opponents, when all of a sudden the arena went silent and Eric shouted out, "No. 15 is a choad!" It stuck. Eric's friends would teasingly but lovingly call him "choad" for the rest of his time at Hill.

 

Yeah, being a ****. Speaking of which, on the off chance that "choad" meant anything (we didn't know), we looked it up and, well, it's not our fault:

 

A Choad is a derogatory term/insult, to mean having a penis that is wider than it is long. It is a birth defect and is extremely rare. Apparently, this was deleted, gunning the supportable senses and leaving it to someone to anonymously re-enter it with the dubious sense.

 

Ah, perfect for spoiled Eric. Why not malign something that is a birth defect that would pretty much scar the life of any boy and man who had it, certainly without ever choosing it or earning it, to make their lives full of suffering and self-doubt and likely self-hatred. Perhaps it is the perfect nickname for Eric for thinking that was a cool dis'.

 

Does any of this matter? It couldn't matter less. Does any of this make sense? Yeah, a little bit, which is more than we can say about either of these two:

 

 

Too bad. Had we met them back then and intervened with some love and given them a couple of years of real-life around good people in, just say for example a middle-income couple and a decent state school, perhaps living with a married couple of teachers in Helena Montana, and going to school at the University of Montana in Missoula (a fantastic place, and school, btw), maybe they'd have turned out alright. Some of this isn't their fault but a lot of recent stuff is.

 

C'est la vie.

2016 Flashback Moment:

Trump sure impressed the judge while he was on the stand yesterday.

Either a set-up for an appeal or an "I told you so" opportunity to include in the mantra to the cult.

"Despite Judge Engoron's critical role, Mr Trump was combative on the stand. He took direct aim at the judge, leading to some heated exchanges, and drew his rebukes for airing broad grievances when they were not directly relevant to the question.All of this appeared to irritate the judge who will, ultimately, decide on any penalties."It does seem completely counterintuitive. Especially when the judge is going to be the finder of fact and law," Kevin McMunigal, a former federal prosecutor and professor of criminal law at Case Western University, told the BBC."There are only two explanations," he said. "One is Trump just can't control himself. Or two: Maybe this is something he has thought out."So if Mr Trump's team has adopted this antagonistic approach as a deliberate strategy, what could the goal be?"I think he is trying to goad the judge into doing something he can argue on appeal shows prejudice on his part," Prof McMunigal said. "Maybe he makes a comment they can use to support a bias case later."
www.msn.com/en-us/ne ws/world/why-trump-m ay-have-deliberately -provoked-judge