Who does?

Did he draw on it?Tero wrote:Trump takes about 2 minutes out of his busy schedule to look at a map:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/g ... d-n1069901
It was not a fake map because it came from Fox.
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowit ... hing-trumpOver the past five years, millions of Americans have ascended to a higher plane of fulfillment by tidying up their homes. By talking to our possessions, one by one, and asking if they spark joy, we have achieved a kind of contentment we never dreamed possible.
Now it’s time to tidy up a residence that belongs to all of us: the White House.
At first, this seems like a daunting task. After all, the White House has a hundred and thirty-two rooms. There is much culling to be done.
But there’s no reason to despair. Many useless things have already been hauled away. Reince Priebus, John Kelly, Steve Bannon, Kirstjen Nielsen, Michael Flynn, John Bolton, Sean Spicer, Hope Hicks, Sarah Huckabee Sanders—none of them sparked joy. And now they are all gone. And Anthony Scaramucci, who sparked joy as briefly as those paisley pants you immediately regretted buying at H&M—he is gone, too.
Clearly, though, more culling remains to be done.
We must look at Donald Trump and ask ourselves, “Does this spark joy?” And, although the answer to that question might be somewhat different in Russia, North Korea, and Turkey, the answer here is a resounding no.
Remember how, once you tidied up your dwelling, you discovered hidden treasures buried under all of those needless possessions? Well, once that garish orange thing that sparks no joy has been removed from the Oval Office, you’ll be amazed what you’ll find underneath. Things you forgot you even had, like democracy.
In the video above, from last weekend’s New Yorker Festival,, I speak about the happiness we can attain by decluttering the country of Trump. Much like Marie Kondo, the authors of the United States Constitution gave us a unique tool for improving our surroundings: impeachment. And the Twenty-fifth Amendment is pretty good, too.
Russia!
This expertise helped Jamieson notice something odd about the three debates between Trump and Clinton. As she told me, “The conventional wisdom was that Hillary Clinton had done pretty well.” According to CNN polls conducted immediately after the debates, she won all three, by a margin of thirteen per cent or greater. But, during the period of the debates, Jamieson and others at the Annenberg Center had overseen three telephone surveys, each sampling about a thousand adults. In an election that turned more than most on judgments of character, Americans who saw or heard the second and third debates, in particular, were more likely than those who hadn’t to agree that Clinton “says one thing in public and something else in private.” Jamieson found this statistic curious, because, by the time of the first debate, on September 26th, Clinton’s reputation for candor had already been tarnished by her failed attempt to hide the fact that she’d developed pneumonia, and by the revelation that, at a recent fund-raising event, she’d described some Trump supporters as “deplorables”—a slur that contradicted her slogan “Stronger Together.” Other Annenberg Center polling data indicated to Jamieson that concerns about Clinton being two-faced had been “baked in” voters’ minds since before the first debate. Clinton “had already been attacked for a very long time over that,” Jamieson recalls thinking. “Why would the debates have had an additional effect?”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018 ... -for-trump
Trump knows he has been caught by the short and curlys.Group chanting ‘Let us in’ enter closed-door meeting where top Pentagon official who oversees Ukraine policy was to testify
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 23 guests